by Pa Rock
Genealogist
There are basically two types of relationships, those formed through emotional ties such as friendship or coercion, and family relationships, or those that arise through marriage or by bloodlines.
A pair of co-workers who are new to an organization may form a friendship or a "casual" relationship over shared likes and dislikes around the office, but as they begin spending more time with each other and even the occasional night together, their level of involvement with one another is seen by many to have elevated to a "romantic" relationship. At about the time a third, or even a fourth office worker crawls into bed with them, the rest of the office is whispering about the "sordid" relationship, and when a member of the group suggests selling the entire story to Lifetime, the pile of sweaty, naked bodies may begin thinking of itself as a "business" relationship.
And when marriage licenses and contracts start appearing, those emotional relationships tend to become family relationships. Indeed, formal documents aren't even necessary for the law and society to recognize many physical unions as marriage, and many assortments of individuals as families.
Family relationships are generally delineated and defined through a system of titles, and that is the actual point of today's blog - a discussion of how family relationships are titled.
Every person on earth is the biological product of two other people, a man and a woman, commonly referred to individually as a father and mother, and collectively as "parents." Yes, many people grow up in situations which are different from a being in a home with their biological father and biological mother. Some have adoptive parents, some have step-parents, some are raised by other relatives, or friends, or agencies, or perhaps even wolves - but, at the moment of conception each person was brought about by a man and a woman. That's biology.
Each person's parents also had two biological parents, one of each gender, and those four individuals are the biological grandparents of the person at the center of this discussion. Any biological siblings of the parents are the aunts and uncles of the person being discussed.
All of that is simple and easy to understand, even when step-and-adoptive parents are entered into the mix.
But as we begin climbing the family tree and it starts to branch out as it gets ever higher, identifying relationships becomes trickier. Grandparents, the main branches, aren't too tough, however. The parents of a person's grandparents are their great-grandparents, and their parents are the identified person's great-great-gradparents, and so on. Eventually people begin adding gender and numbers to those titles, such as describing a particular set off grandparents on their father's side as my "paternal 10th great-grandparents." There are, of course, other sets of paternal 10th great-grandparents on that same tree.
Over the years genealogists have even adopted a unique numbering system for generations of grandparents which allows researchers to identify exactly how a grandparent multiple generations up the tree connects to someone lower on the tree. It is called the ahnentafel numbering system and is easier to calculate than it is to spell or pronounce.
The siblings of a person's parents are called "aunts" and "uncles," and their parents are, of course, the grandparents of the person being discussed. But what do we call our grandparents' siblings? They aren't simply "aunts" and "uncles" because they are a generation too far back for that appellation. Most tend to refer to these people as "great-aunts" and "great-uncles," but I would argue that most people are wrong. At one time this level of relationship was called "grand" - such as "grandaunt and 'granduncle'" on a par with their sibling who is also the "grandparent." Over the years people have gotten cute, or inventive, or lazy and changed the title to "great."
Under the old system a "grand" aunt or uncle was the sibling of a grandparent, and a "great-grand" aunt or uncle was the sibling of a great-grandparent. A system that is much easier to understand and keep straight. But today if you scour the dictionaries, most equate "great" with "grand" when it comes to labeling the aunts and uncles of generations gone by.
And then there is a whole other mess called "cousins."
A person is a "first-cousin" to the children of his or her parents' siblings. Many of us are on a first name basis with many or all of our first-cousins.
If a person has a child and his or her cousin has a child, those two children are "second-cousins," and if they, in turn have children, those kids are "third-cousins" to one another. Or, to look at it a different way, first-cousins share a set of grandparents, second-cousins share a set of great-grandparents, and third-cousins share a set of great-great-grandparents. And so it goes, as far back as your research takes you - as long as the generations remain even.
But what about the relationship between a person and the child of his or her first-cousin? They are referred to as "first-cousins, once-removed. And if that child grows up and has a child, the child and the original first-cousin are first-cousins, twice-removed.
Years ago, in the mid-1600's, the village bookkeeper in old Nantucket was a fellow named Peter Folger. Peter and his wife, a former indentured servant by the name of Mary Morrill, had a passel of children (ten, if memory serves), but this tale only involves two: Johanna, the eldest, and Abiah, the youngest. Johanna married a local boy, John Coleman, and went on to have several children of her own - and ten generations later after her descendants had fanned out across the United States and beyond, I came along. Abiah married a wool merchant named Josiah Franklin and moved to Philadelphia where she also had several children, the youngest of whom was a baby named Benjamin.
Benjamin Franklin was a first-cousin to Johanna's children, and Peter and Mary Folger were the grandparents to all of them. But when Johanna's children began having children, those youngsters were first-cousins, once-removed to Benjamin Franklin. Their children were first-cousins, twice-removed, and so on down to Pa Rock who checked in as a first-cousin, nine times removed to old Ben.
And if I wanted to identify my relationship to one of Ben Franklin's children, say William for instance, I would begin with William's relationship to our common ancestors - Peter and Johanna Folger. He was their great grandchild which would have made him a second-cousin to Johanna's grandchildren. And by the time that works it way down to this weary typist, William and I would be second cousins, eight-times removed.
Easy, peasy, Right?
All of that is in preparation for a relative that I plan to discuss in this space sometime in the next few days. William C. Smith was my great-great-granduncle who died in Seneca, Missouri, a century ago this month and left an estate that was fought over in court.
Just consider all of this as my way of ignoring Trump.
Genealogist
There are basically two types of relationships, those formed through emotional ties such as friendship or coercion, and family relationships, or those that arise through marriage or by bloodlines.
A pair of co-workers who are new to an organization may form a friendship or a "casual" relationship over shared likes and dislikes around the office, but as they begin spending more time with each other and even the occasional night together, their level of involvement with one another is seen by many to have elevated to a "romantic" relationship. At about the time a third, or even a fourth office worker crawls into bed with them, the rest of the office is whispering about the "sordid" relationship, and when a member of the group suggests selling the entire story to Lifetime, the pile of sweaty, naked bodies may begin thinking of itself as a "business" relationship.
And when marriage licenses and contracts start appearing, those emotional relationships tend to become family relationships. Indeed, formal documents aren't even necessary for the law and society to recognize many physical unions as marriage, and many assortments of individuals as families.
Family relationships are generally delineated and defined through a system of titles, and that is the actual point of today's blog - a discussion of how family relationships are titled.
Every person on earth is the biological product of two other people, a man and a woman, commonly referred to individually as a father and mother, and collectively as "parents." Yes, many people grow up in situations which are different from a being in a home with their biological father and biological mother. Some have adoptive parents, some have step-parents, some are raised by other relatives, or friends, or agencies, or perhaps even wolves - but, at the moment of conception each person was brought about by a man and a woman. That's biology.
Each person's parents also had two biological parents, one of each gender, and those four individuals are the biological grandparents of the person at the center of this discussion. Any biological siblings of the parents are the aunts and uncles of the person being discussed.
All of that is simple and easy to understand, even when step-and-adoptive parents are entered into the mix.
But as we begin climbing the family tree and it starts to branch out as it gets ever higher, identifying relationships becomes trickier. Grandparents, the main branches, aren't too tough, however. The parents of a person's grandparents are their great-grandparents, and their parents are the identified person's great-great-gradparents, and so on. Eventually people begin adding gender and numbers to those titles, such as describing a particular set off grandparents on their father's side as my "paternal 10th great-grandparents." There are, of course, other sets of paternal 10th great-grandparents on that same tree.
Over the years genealogists have even adopted a unique numbering system for generations of grandparents which allows researchers to identify exactly how a grandparent multiple generations up the tree connects to someone lower on the tree. It is called the ahnentafel numbering system and is easier to calculate than it is to spell or pronounce.
The siblings of a person's parents are called "aunts" and "uncles," and their parents are, of course, the grandparents of the person being discussed. But what do we call our grandparents' siblings? They aren't simply "aunts" and "uncles" because they are a generation too far back for that appellation. Most tend to refer to these people as "great-aunts" and "great-uncles," but I would argue that most people are wrong. At one time this level of relationship was called "grand" - such as "grandaunt and 'granduncle'" on a par with their sibling who is also the "grandparent." Over the years people have gotten cute, or inventive, or lazy and changed the title to "great."
Under the old system a "grand" aunt or uncle was the sibling of a grandparent, and a "great-grand" aunt or uncle was the sibling of a great-grandparent. A system that is much easier to understand and keep straight. But today if you scour the dictionaries, most equate "great" with "grand" when it comes to labeling the aunts and uncles of generations gone by.
And then there is a whole other mess called "cousins."
A person is a "first-cousin" to the children of his or her parents' siblings. Many of us are on a first name basis with many or all of our first-cousins.
If a person has a child and his or her cousin has a child, those two children are "second-cousins," and if they, in turn have children, those kids are "third-cousins" to one another. Or, to look at it a different way, first-cousins share a set of grandparents, second-cousins share a set of great-grandparents, and third-cousins share a set of great-great-grandparents. And so it goes, as far back as your research takes you - as long as the generations remain even.
But what about the relationship between a person and the child of his or her first-cousin? They are referred to as "first-cousins, once-removed. And if that child grows up and has a child, the child and the original first-cousin are first-cousins, twice-removed.
Years ago, in the mid-1600's, the village bookkeeper in old Nantucket was a fellow named Peter Folger. Peter and his wife, a former indentured servant by the name of Mary Morrill, had a passel of children (ten, if memory serves), but this tale only involves two: Johanna, the eldest, and Abiah, the youngest. Johanna married a local boy, John Coleman, and went on to have several children of her own - and ten generations later after her descendants had fanned out across the United States and beyond, I came along. Abiah married a wool merchant named Josiah Franklin and moved to Philadelphia where she also had several children, the youngest of whom was a baby named Benjamin.
Benjamin Franklin was a first-cousin to Johanna's children, and Peter and Mary Folger were the grandparents to all of them. But when Johanna's children began having children, those youngsters were first-cousins, once-removed to Benjamin Franklin. Their children were first-cousins, twice-removed, and so on down to Pa Rock who checked in as a first-cousin, nine times removed to old Ben.
And if I wanted to identify my relationship to one of Ben Franklin's children, say William for instance, I would begin with William's relationship to our common ancestors - Peter and Johanna Folger. He was their great grandchild which would have made him a second-cousin to Johanna's grandchildren. And by the time that works it way down to this weary typist, William and I would be second cousins, eight-times removed.
Easy, peasy, Right?
All of that is in preparation for a relative that I plan to discuss in this space sometime in the next few days. William C. Smith was my great-great-granduncle who died in Seneca, Missouri, a century ago this month and left an estate that was fought over in court.
Just consider all of this as my way of ignoring Trump.
No comments:
Post a Comment