How do "halves" accumulate? (-:

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Reading through the responses to familysearch's "new" cousin charts
(actually just newly re-emailed - they emailed about the same ones about
a year ago [not that they aren't useful]), I got to idly wondering:

If there's a second marriage somewhere, so you are still related to the
person but only by one parent at some point in the chain, we say they're
your half whatever (uncle, nepling, xth cousin y removed)*. You still
share DNA, though only half as much as would otherwise be the case -
though I'm sure the "half" terminology well predates DNA.

If there's another second marriage somewhere - so that you still share
ancestry, but only half as much DNA again - what is the term - do we say
a "half half" whatever, or a "quarter"?

(Of course, if the second marriage was _of_ a second spouse, you might
have _no_ common ancestry; I wasn't thinking of that case!)

Just an idle wonder, of the sort that might suggest I have too much time
on my hands (which I don't!). I just don't _think_ I've ever heard
anyone refer to either a half half something or a quarter something!

(* The "half" terminology doesn't clarify _where_ the second marriage
took place - for a half third cousin, for example, you don't know if it
was a grandparent, GGP, or GGGP who married twice - or on which side.)

[Graeme Wall]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Reading through the responses to familysearch's "new" cousin charts
(actually just newly re-emailed - they emailed about the same ones about
If there's a second marriage somewhere, so you are still related to the
person but only by one parent at some point in the chain, we say they're
your half whatever (uncle, nepling, xth cousin y removed)*. You still
share DNA, though only half as much as would otherwise be the case -
though I'm sure the "half" terminology well predates DNA.
If there's another second marriage somewhere - so that you still share
ancestry, but only half as much DNA again - what is the term - do we say
a "half half" whatever, or a "quarter"?
(Of course, if the second marriage was _of_ a second spouse, you might
have _no_ common ancestry; I wasn't thinking of that case!)
Just an idle wonder, of the sort that might suggest I have too much time
on my hands (which I don't!). I just don't _think_ I've ever heard
anyone refer to either a half half something or a quarter something!
(* The "half" terminology doesn't clarify _where_ the second marriage
took place - for a half third cousin, for example, you don't know if it
was a grandparent, GGP, or GGGP who married twice - or on which side.)

The only example I can think of is where there has been a multi-racial
partnership at one point and you get a Quadroon, ie someone with one
coloured grandparent. Not an expression I have come across for a long
time and I suspect it would now be regarded, probably rightly, as insulting.

[Richard Damon]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Reading through the responses to familysearch's "new" cousin charts
(actually just newly re-emailed - they emailed about the same ones about
If there's a second marriage somewhere, so you are still related to the
person but only by one parent at some point in the chain, we say they're
your half whatever (uncle, nepling, xth cousin y removed)*. You still
share DNA, though only half as much as would otherwise be the case -
though I'm sure the "half" terminology well predates DNA.
If there's another second marriage somewhere - so that you still share
ancestry, but only half as much DNA again - what is the term - do we say
a "half half" whatever, or a "quarter"?
(Of course, if the second marriage was _of_ a second spouse, you might
have _no_ common ancestry; I wasn't thinking of that case!)
Just an idle wonder, of the sort that might suggest I have too much time
on my hands (which I don't!). I just don't _think_ I've ever heard
anyone refer to either a half half something or a quarter something!
(* The "half" terminology doesn't clarify _where_ the second marriage
took place - for a half third cousin, for example, you don't know if it
was a grandparent, GGP, or GGGP who married twice - or on which side.)

The 'Half' term, as I understand it, only applies at the common ancestor
point, because elsewhere on the chain, only one parent is part of the
chain anyway in the path of either you or them to the common parent(s).

The only way to get 2-halves, would be to start with a double
relationship, sharing two sets of 'common ancestors', where, for example
if two brothers marry two sisters, there children are double-1st-cousins
having all 4 grand parents in common. In that case you could have one or
two 'half' relationships for the two common sets of ancestors.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On Sun, 10 Oct 2021 at 21:35:57, Richard Damon

Post by Richard Damon

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Reading through the responses to familysearch's "new" cousin charts
(actually just newly re-emailed - they emailed about the same ones
If there's a second marriage somewhere, so you are still related to
the person but only by one parent at some point in the chain, we say
they're your half whatever (uncle, nepling, xth cousin y removed)*.
You still share DNA, though only half as much as would otherwise be
the case - though I'm sure the "half" terminology well predates DNA.
If there's another second marriage somewhere - so that you still
share ancestry, but only half as much DNA again - what is the term -
do we say a "half half" whatever, or a "quarter"?
(Of course, if the second marriage was _of_ a second spouse, you
might have _no_ common ancestry; I wasn't thinking of that case!)
Just an idle wonder, of the sort that might suggest I have too much
time on my hands (which I don't!). I just don't _think_ I've ever
heard anyone refer to either a half half something or a quarter
something!
(* The "half" terminology doesn't clarify _where_ the second
marriage took place - for a half third cousin, for example, you don't
know if it was a grandparent, GGP, or GGGP who married twice - or on
which side.)

The 'Half' term, as I understand it, only applies at the common
ancestor point, because elsewhere on the chain, only one parent is part
of the chain anyway in the path of either you or them to the common
parent(s).

Very good point! So the question doesn't arise. (I was typing out my
"no, ..." response when I found you were right!)

Post by Richard Damon
The only way to get 2-halves, would be to start with a double
relationship, sharing two sets of 'common ancestors', where, for
example if two brothers marry two sisters, there children are
double-1st-cousins having all 4 grand parents in common. In that case
you could have one or two 'half' relationships for the two common sets
of ancestors.

I guess the relationship would then be "double half" or "half double"!
Aren't these things complicated!

(I've often thought things are going to get more difficult for
genealogists in future, with the increase in divorce and/or multiple
partners these days - though in fact it's not as common as it looked
like it was going to be, in say the 1960s-'80s. A more recent phenomenon
that _would_ complicate things is changing surnames - double-barrelled,
wives not changing, husbands changing, and many others - but that's
probably countered by much better record-keeping nowadays.)

[MB]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
(I've often thought things are going to get more difficult for
genealogists in future, with the increase in divorce and/or multiple
partners these days - though in fact it's not as common as it looked
like it was going to be, in say the 1960s-'80s. A more recent phenomenon
that_would_ complicate things is changing surnames - double-barrelled,
wives not changing, husbands changing, and many others - but that's
probably countered by much better record-keeping nowadays.)

There has always been plenty of promiscuity so the 'father' not being
the actual father but I wonder if it is more likely that the mother will
be unmarried and so acknowledge the name of the father either on the
official record or with it being known in the family.

[Peter Johnson]

On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 14:21:57 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
(I've often thought things are going to get more difficult for
genealogists in future, with the increase in divorce and/or multiple
partners these days - though in fact it's not as common as it looked
like it was going to be, in say the 1960s-'80s. A more recent phenomenon
that _would_ complicate things is changing surnames - double-barrelled,
wives not changing, husbands changing, and many others - but that's
probably countered by much better record-keeping nowadays.)

The thing I've found most difficult with modern registrations is
middle names only being recorded by initials. People with very common
first names and no middle names are even worse (although I'm one of
those).

[MB]

Post by Peter Johnson
The thing I've found most difficult with modern registrations is
middle names only being recorded by initials. People with very common
first names and no middle names are even worse (although I'm one of
those).

I know others who like myself, have just given up on some lines because
everyone had the same forename.

Part of my POUNDER family is from Stokesley and are related to the
WRIGHTSONs in that area. But most of the WRIGHTSON seem to use the same
forenames, I am sure we must be distantly related but perhaps DNA might
show something if there were some examples from around there.

Second names can be useful, if you come across a Daly Briscoe then they
will be related me (named after my GGF's brother born in the late
1820s). It is still being used as a second name in one branch.