[Ipg-smz] So bummed

[Esther Schindler]

The “once removed” stuff always made sense to me because it was so necessary in my family. My paternal grandfather was one of eight living children, most of whom worked together (Pop’s Uncle Joe owned Crawford Clothes, a chain of men’s stories in NYC; everyone wound up at the company). Everyone went to Grandma’s house every Sunday, so the cousins knew each other well. And after Grandma’s death, the siblings started a “cousin’s club” for get-togethers. Mainly it meant a huge Hanukah party and a few other regular gatherings. So I was raised with my second cousins nearby, and I’m still in touch with many of them… and their kids, to some degree.

My maternal grandfather was one of 14 children. His brother Nate was 14 years younger than him; Nate was Treva’s dad.

The result was that any family discussion regularly referred to cousins-once-removed and such. Bill was and is a bit foggy about such things because his family was smaller… or at least he thought it was, until we signed up for Ancestry. Whereupon we discovered that a few generations back, someone apparently said, “We’ll never talk to you again!” and didn’t.

My first cousin married a second cousin, back in the 60s. So I guess it all was relevant.

> On Feb 26, 2019, at 1:41 PM, Stephen Lawton <sl at afab.com> wrote:
> 
> Easy to do, Mac.  Think of a pyramid where your common relative is at the top. One level down are siblings. Next level down are first cousins. If you are on the first cousin level and someone else is the child of a first cousin, they are first cousins once removed. Your child and that child will be on the same level – second cousins.  And so it goes.
>  
> Here’s where it gets interesting. Your relationship to you wife’s cousin’s great-grandmother is:  Those damned in-laws.
>  
> Got it?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://netpress.org/pipermail/ipg-smz_netpress.org/attachments/20190302/46128fb1/attachment.html>