TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2004-06 > 1086140980


From: Evelyn Hendricks <>
Subject: RE: [TMG] Relationship
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 21:56:16 -0400
References: <6.0.0.22.2.20040601175813.039b4ca8@pop3.norton.antivirus>
In-Reply-To: <000a01c44829$34892a40$6402a8c0@Cheasa>


I like this one, Teresa. That is about the way it is in the south, or at
least it used to be that way. We are a friendly sort of people, aren't we.
Evelyn

At 05:38 PM 06/01/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>Where I come from these are your cousins and the description there of: (note
>they are NOT genealogically correct.
>
>Your mother's siblings children-cousins (unless they live with you, then
>they are "brothers" or "sisters")
>
>Your grandmother's sibling's children- cousins.
>
>Your grandmother's sibling's grandchildren- cousins.
>
>Your mom's best friend's children- Cousins. She is known as "Aunt Betty"
>
>The children of your aunt's new husband and his first wife (no blood
>relationship to you)- cousins.
>
>The children of your Aunts and Uncles-in-law that they have with their next
>spouse after they divorce your blood Aunt or Uncle-Cousins (most of the
>family like the in-laws better anyway.) Unless of course, he marries your
>mom, then they are brothers and sisters. <G> You can choose to call his
>children with your aunt your brothers and sisters, or cousins. Depends on
>how well you like him. <G>
>
>Anyone who comes to a family reunion and is friendly is of course a cousin.
><G>
>
>Second Cousins or kissing cousins are those that share a common ancestor
>that you never heard of yet you know you are kin somehow.
>
>
>Teresa Ghee Elliott
>Any information I give that you can't find in your version of TMG 5.1 is
>probably due to customization on my part.
>For Rutherford County TN Cemeteries www.Rutherfordcemeteries.home-page.org
>For TMG sentences
><http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~rutherfordcemetery/TMG.html>;
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Lee Hoffman [mailto:]
>Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 4:58 PM
>To:
>Subject: RE: [TMG] Relationship
>
>Darrell Martin wrote:
> >I agree with you about terminology, but I think your reasoning on the
> >genetic side is faulty.
>
>I didn't say anything about genes. I was talking about blood relationships
>as opposed to non-blood relationship and sharing of ancestors. True, the
>sharing of ancestors means that genetic sharing has a greater probability.
>SNIPPED
>
>Right. This and the usual "half-" and "double-" relationships are really
>social relationships more than anything else. My wife has 16 first cousins
>of which five are almost double first cousins. Almost is due to the fact
>that her mother and her aunt are half-sisters (same mother), and her father
>and uncle are full siblings. So would that be "one & a half cousins"
>again? Yeah, right! Yuch!! It's a lot easier to say "double" and most
>people understand -- even though it is not a recognized (by any authority)
>as a valid term. But in any case, it is more social than biological
>anyway. Her relationship to her double cousins is no closer than her
>other cousins although each recognizes the relationship as "special".
>
>
>Lee Hoffman/KY
>TMG Tips: <http://www.tmgtips.com>;
>My website: <http://www.tmgtips.com/lhoffman>;
>A user of the best genealogy program, The Master Genealogist (TMG)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>==== TMG Mailing List ====
>Visit the TMG Tips web site <http://www.tmgtips.com>; for items of interest
>to TMG users and links to other TMG related sites.

This thread: