Jay, I don't wish to belabor the point, BUT for a person to be your first cousin it is by definition sufficient that the two of you share one grandparent. It is obviously not wrong to use the term half first cousin if you don't share two grandparents, but it is neither necessary nor customary. The term half first cousin is not conventionally used by genealogists and is immaterial when you are tracing lines of descendants from an ancestor. The terms half-brother and half-sister are often used, although those terms also are immaterial when tracing descendants of an ancestor. Charles On 10 Feb 2008, at 5:30 PM, John Sandy wrote: > Charles, > Thanks for your reply. After reading the various replies and > looking at several sites on the interner, I am convinced that it is > ok to speak of a half-cousin relationship. Jay > > Charles Whitsett <chaswhit@charter.net> wrote: > Jay, > > A cousin is someone who has approximately as many genes as you > inherited from a common ancestor. For a person to be a first cousin, > that common ancestor had to be only one generation before one of your > parents. For a second cousin, that common ancestor had to be only two > generations before one of your parents. For an Nth cousin, that > common ancestor was N generations before one of your parents. The > term "first cousin" implies "a common grandparent". Of course, having > three or four grandparents in common elevates a cousin into a sibling > (or "zeroth" cousin). > > First cousins share either a grandfather or a grandmother with you. > Even though second cousins most likely share only a fourth of your > great grandparents you never qualify them as quarter second cousins. > > If your father's surname was Jones, and if your mother was born a > Smith, you could qualify your first cousins as "first cousin on the > Jones side" or "first cousin on the Smith side". The same is the case > for more distant cousins, but when you are doing the family history > of your Jones or Smith sides, you rarely qualify the relatedness of > your more distant cousins. They are all cousins because you and they > share a common ancestor. > > If N is large enough (50? 100? 1000?) the list of the Nth-great > grandparents of your Nth cousin would be nearly identical with your > list of Nth-great grandparents, and so it wouldn't matter which line > of descendants you are talking about. > > Wandering a little more off topic, it is unlikely that you inherited > equal numbers of genes from all of your grandparents, and it is > practically certain that you inherited more genes from one distant > great grandparent than from any of the others. > > Charles Whitsett > On 9 Feb 2008, at 8:20 PM, John Sandy wrote: > >> Is there a relationship known as 1st half-cousin? The situation >> arises with the following relationship I'm trying to describe: >> Clara is the daughter of William who is the son of Jonathan and his >> first wife, Nancy. Nancy dies and Jonathan marries Julina and >> they have several children, one of which is Mary. Mary marries and >> has a son, Pete. Pete and Clara, therefore, have the SAME >> grandfather (Jonathan) but different grandmothers. Now since they >> have a common grandfather, there is a First cousin relationship BUT >> since Clara's father, William, is a half-brother to Pete's mother, >> Mary, are Pete and Clara just 1st cousins or 1st half-cousins? >> >> Would appreicate any suggestions. >> >> Thanks Jay >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to MOJASPER- >> request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >> in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to MOJASPER- > request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to MOJASPER- > request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message

I'm not a genealogist and I'm certainly not up to all the identifications, BUT it seems it would make a difference to know the person was a full, half, step, adopted, foster, courtesy or whatever description would help keep you from chasing their ancestors you had absolutely no interest in. Not only that it would keep you from trying to find how they fit into your family tree, when they didn't. In these circumstances, if available the exact relationship and how is always appreciated. Without those relationship notes, research can get very confusing and be very frustrating. For example: I was helping someone with her family tree. She had two cousins, surnames the same, different than hers, but shared with her grandmother. She spent years looking for the common ancestors. The one we could not connect to the other at all. My conclusion, they were both her cousins, but either not related to each other, or the relationship was through the maternal lines and the surnames were a coincidence. My mother-in-law had an Uncle Frank Canady and his wife was Aunt Mary. This gentleman I can not relate to her Canadys at all. We don't have any information on him or his wife Mary. She may have been related via Mary instead of Frank, or to his mother, not his father. This could have also been a courtesy title and they were no relation at all. I left a jar with contact information in it several years ago on their graves, finally I got an email just awhile back... Unfortunately she was asking if I knew who his parents were. She belonged to his line, but had no information about his family. My mother-in-law had no idea either, but she'd called them Uncle and Aunt. So, I'm for as much information as possible, just in case you or someone needs it later. Orlena ~~~~~ Charles Whitsett <chaswhit@charter.net> wrote: Jay, I don't wish to belabor the point, BUT for a person to be your first cousin it is by definition sufficient that the two of you share one grandparent. It is obviously not wrong to use the term half first cousin if you don't share two grandparents, but it is neither necessary nor customary. The term half first cousin is not conventionally used by genealogists and is immaterial when you are tracing lines of descendants from an ancestor. The terms half-brother and half-sister are often used, although those terms also are immaterial when tracing descendants of an ancestor. Charles On 10 Feb 2008, at 5:30 PM, John Sandy wrote: > Charles, > Thanks for your reply. After reading the various replies and > looking at several sites on the interner, I am convinced that it is > ok to speak of a half-cousin relationship. Jay > > Charles Whitsett wrote: > Jay, > > A cousin is someone who has approximately as many genes as you > inherited from a common ancestor. For a person to be a first cousin, > that common ancestor had to be only one generation before one of your > parents. For a second cousin, that common ancestor had to be only two > generations before one of your parents. For an Nth cousin, that > common ancestor was N generations before one of your parents. The > term "first cousin" implies "a common grandparent". Of course, having > three or four grandparents in common elevates a cousin into a sibling > (or "zeroth" cousin). > > First cousins share either a grandfather or a grandmother with you. > Even though second cousins most likely share only a fourth of your > great grandparents you never qualify them as quarter second cousins. > > If your father's surname was Jones, and if your mother was born a > Smith, you could qualify your first cousins as "first cousin on the > Jones side" or "first cousin on the Smith side". The same is the case > for more distant cousins, but when you are doing the family history > of your Jones or Smith sides, you rarely qualify the relatedness of > your more distant cousins. They are all cousins because you and they > share a common ancestor. > > If N is large enough (50? 100? 1000?) the list of the Nth-great > grandparents of your Nth cousin would be nearly identical with your > list of Nth-great grandparents, and so it wouldn't matter which line > of descendants you are talking about. > > Wandering a little more off topic, it is unlikely that you inherited > equal numbers of genes from all of your grandparents, and it is > practically certain that you inherited more genes from one distant > great grandparent than from any of the others. > > Charles Whitsett > On 9 Feb 2008, at 8:20 PM, John Sandy wrote: > >> Is there a relationship known as 1st half-cousin? The situation >> arises with the following relationship I'm trying to describe: >> Clara is the daughter of William who is the son of Jonathan and his >> first wife, Nancy. Nancy dies and Jonathan marries Julina and >> they have several children, one of which is Mary. Mary marries and >> has a son, Pete. Pete and Clara, therefore, have the SAME >> grandfather (Jonathan) but different grandmothers. Now since they >> have a common grandfather, there is a First cousin relationship BUT >> since Clara's father, William, is a half-brother to Pete's mother, >> Mary, are Pete and Clara just 1st cousins or 1st half-cousins? >> >> Would appreicate any suggestions. >> >> Thanks Jay >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to MOJASPER- >> request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >> in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to MOJASPER- > request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to MOJASPER- > request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to MOJASPER-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message