Essays by Orville A. Kalbfleisch

by Orville A. Kalbfleisch 

Many have only a casual understanding of human family relationships. They understand perfectly the differences among natural sisters, half-sisters, step-sisters and sisters-in-law. They also are aware of the meaning of aunts and great aunts. But the degree of cousinship is not fully grasped. The first cousin concept is appreciated but a distant cousin relationship is not at all understood and is often referred to as a thirty-second cousin. And the term second cousin is a catch-all for all those cousins between these two extremes.

Estimating that a human generation, the average length of time between birth and the appearance of the first child, is thirty years, thirty-second cousins would have had a common ancestor about the time of the Norman Conquest. These, indeed, would be distant cousins but more about this later.

This essay is an attempt to explain away some of the misconceptions concerning cousin relationship.

Two friends had learned on good authority that they in some way enjoyed a family relationship. Armed with family Bibles and other sources of family information, they determined to uncover what the connection was.

Each of them wrote in a vertical column the name of her father, her grandfather, her great grandfather, etc. If they found no common ancestor, they were prepared to repeat the exercise, using the names of their maternal forebears. As few can recall the birth names of their four grandparents, family records were searched.

On comparing their lists of ancestors, they found a common great grandfather. Direct descendants of a common great grandparent are second cousins. The degree of cousinship is the same as the sum of the greats and grands in the appellation of the common ancestor.
 

In the case referred to above, the degree of cousinship is that of the elder, i.e. they are first cousins. But as one is one generation younger, their relationship will be first cousins once removed. Mistakenly, such cousins often are thought to be second cousins. This cannot be, as the common ancestor is not the great grandfather of both.

Living nearby I have a first cousin Lloyd George. His daughter Julie Ann is also my first cousin but being one generation younger is once removed and her daughter Sarah is my first cousin twice removed. All four of us are the descendants of my grandfather. If Sarah should have a son when she grows up, he will be my first cousin too, but thrice removed.

Examine the connection of two cousins whose common ancestor is the great grandmother of one and the great great grandmother of the other. The elder is the second cousin of the father of the younger. It follows that the two under discussion are second cousins once removed.

Thirty-second cousins would have in common a great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandfather (or grandmother). This progenitor was living and well sometime between 1000 AD and 1200 AD. Where he was living would be difficult to determine as then only the nobility was beginning to take surnames. The common people did not require them as they were illiterate and for the most part attached to a nobleman's estate. But gradually over the centuries they too assumed surnames.

As a summary and a final illustration consider the relationship between Christine Louise, the granddaughter of my brother, Robert Bruce, and my own great grandson, Curtis Kenn.
 

Written at Chesley, Ontario, Canada in 1987

Copyright © 1997, Joan Tuckey