Defining a genealogical relationship

I think the people at Geni have played one two many games of Degrees of Kevin Bacon and are confused about what it means to be related.

They say William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy are related.

This is not a genealogical relationship:

One might be able to call it a legal relationship. Though once you get beyond one set of in-laws I suspect that is questionable. And since there is one "ex" involved in the chain, the legal relationship that was created was also dissolved. Legally. Regardless, Geni isn't supposed to be a legal site. It's supposed to be a genealogy site.

If we accept legal relationships in genealogy, do we accept census definitions?

• Are POSSLQs relatives? The US Census Bureau created the term. A relationship created by the US Government has to be considered a legal relationship.
• Is a female who was in the same dormitory as me in college a POSSLQ? Were we related? Are we still related all these years later? Do I need to tell my wife?
• What if, instead of a dormitory, it was a group house?

Yes, my wife and I have adopted twin sons. I don't claim a genealogical relationship with them. A legal relationship. A loving relationship. Not a genealogical one. When they grow older they may well 'adopt' my ancestors as their own, as many adoptees do. But the relationship will be one of the heart, similar to when someone refers to a friend of the family as "Uncle Joe" or "Aunt Jane." One doesn't expect to see these relationships on a genealogy website either.

Genealogy Roadshow: Philadelphia - A Nitpick

My wife and I were watching Tuesday night’s episode of Genealogy Roadshow last night, and in general I enjoyed it. I’m especially pleased with how the series is presenting the viewer with tips on how to conduct genealogy research.

However, there was one instance where I shouted back at the television screen in complete frustration.

One of the individuals at the roadshow presented her question. She wanted to know if she was related to George Washington. One of the professional genealogist hosts told her that George Washington had no children, so she couldn’t be related to him. What?!

Just minutes earlier one of the hosts had told someone they were related to Emily Dickinson. Not descended from her, but sixth cousin five times removed, if I recall correctly. How can a professional genealogist confuse the phrases ‘related to’ and ‘descended from’ and still call themselves a professional genealogist?

Thinking about it, I realized that all individuals submit their queries months in advance, to give the show’s research team time to conduct the research. The individual probably asked if George Washington was her ancestor, and only changed it to ‘related to’ during the taping. The Genealogist Host was just presenting the 'research' done on the original question. (In scare quotes because they may have conducted none since they knew the answer without research.) However, the host, in my mind, should have taken the time to clarify the question for the viewer. “The question you submitted to us a few months ago was whether you were descended from Washington. Since Washington had no children of his own, this isn’t possible. You could be descended from one of Washington’s six siblings, or a cousin, and still be related to him.”

By not clarifying this for the viewer, the show encouraged the misuse of the terminology. It’s not uncommon to hear people mix up ‘relative’ and ‘descendant.’ Back in 2010 People Magazine reported that the actor, Robert Pattinson, was descended from Dracula, instead of a distant cousin. (They've corrected the main article, but you can still see the original error in the photo caption.) A professional genealogist should not encourage this confusion, though.

Of Grands and Greats: Ancestral Nomenclature

There are two ways to describe your grandfather’s brother in English: Great Uncle and Grand Uncle. (There are actually six ways if one includes Great-Uncle, Grand-Uncle, Greatuncle, and Granduncle.)

[Note: I am sticking with the masculine terms throughout this post; everything applies equally to the parallel feminine terms.]

Some will tell you there is a ‘correct’ way. They are wrong. Both ‘Great Uncle” and “Grand Uncle” date back at least to the 15th century. (see citations below)

• “his grete Uncle H. Cardinal of England” (Rolls of Parliament V.438, 1438)
• “his graunt oncle Henry cardinalle of Englande” (Book of Noblesse, 1475)

Grand derives from the Anglo-Norman ‘Graunt’
Great derives from the Germanic ’Great.’

In French, the construction is very logical for uncles, fathers, and sons

• Grand-oncle
• Grand-grand-oncle
• grand-Père
• Grand-Grand-Père
• Grand-Fils
• Grand-Grand-Fils

However, in English, for fathers and sons, we start with grand, and then switch to great.

• Grandfather
• Great Grandfather
• Grandson
• Great Grandson

Some feel we should do the same with uncles and nephews

• Grand Uncle
• Great Grand Uncle
• Grand Nephew
• Great Grand Nephew

Many genealogists seem to like this construction because they feel it looks the best on a family tree. The same terms are used for everybody on the same hierarchy. Your ancestors' siblings are equally grand or great. Your great great grandfather's brother would be your great great granduncle.

Some like a construction similar to the French, but using Great.

• Great Uncle
• Great Great Uncle

However, there isn't only one correct method in English. Don't listen to those who insist there is.
Personally, I like the French system.