I don't know if we have had this debate before or not but I could not find it via the search.
Is there a definitive ruling in genealogy on how to define the brother/sister of a grandparent?
One would expect a GRANDparent's brother to be a GRAND Uncle but we seem to use GREAT Uncle but I have also seen GRAND Uncle
Also for the sibling of a Great Grandparent should these be called GREAT uncle/aunt or GREAT GRAND uncle/aunt?
ID:6216
* Grand or Great Uncle (aunt)
-
tatewise
- Megastar
- Posts: 27078
- Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
- Contact:
Grand or Great Uncle (aunt)
FH in its Relationships it uses the terms great-uncle/aunt and great great-uncle/aunt.
Grand or Great Uncle (aunt)
I'm a Great Great Great Uncle who's not very Grand [smile]
-
AdrianBruce
- Megastar
- Posts: 1961
- Joined: 09 Aug 2003 21:02
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: South Cheshire
- Contact:
Grand or Great Uncle (aunt)
'Is there a definitive ruling in genealogy...'
Ain't no such thing! Ever!
Seriously, it's custom and practice. If you've never heard of grand-aunts and uncles before - why use them now? One good reason would be - because that's what the contemporary documents say. But if not, why use them?
I think we can be pretty certain that the 'sibling of a Great Grandparent' is one great more than sibling of a grandparent. Whatever role-name you've used for that. (I remind myself that the siblings have the same number of Gs as the n-greats grandparent, counting both great and grand as a G each).
Beware of claims of definitive rulings in general. Most of them turn out to be American. Dick Eastman (for whom I have the greatest respect) campaigns against the term 'half-cousin' saying that the definition in book X doesn't count the number of common grandparents and therefore cousin covers what most of us refer to as half-cousin. Two things are wrong with that view - firstly book X was an American Law book; secondly 'half-cousin' is in the OED (definitively [wink]) Mind you, the definition in the OED isn't what we use the term for today - it's more like second cousin.
Ain't no such thing! Ever!
Seriously, it's custom and practice. If you've never heard of grand-aunts and uncles before - why use them now? One good reason would be - because that's what the contemporary documents say. But if not, why use them?
I think we can be pretty certain that the 'sibling of a Great Grandparent' is one great more than sibling of a grandparent. Whatever role-name you've used for that. (I remind myself that the siblings have the same number of Gs as the n-greats grandparent, counting both great and grand as a G each).
Beware of claims of definitive rulings in general. Most of them turn out to be American. Dick Eastman (for whom I have the greatest respect) campaigns against the term 'half-cousin' saying that the definition in book X doesn't count the number of common grandparents and therefore cousin covers what most of us refer to as half-cousin. Two things are wrong with that view - firstly book X was an American Law book; secondly 'half-cousin' is in the OED (definitively [wink]) Mind you, the definition in the OED isn't what we use the term for today - it's more like second cousin.