My wife ask me a question and since I don't know how to answer it, I am hoping whomever is researching their family trees, might know how to do this type of situation?
2006-09-29 14:40:39 · 12 answers · asked by Joseph G 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Genealogy
I use Family Tree Maker as the software program for my family tree, and I tested what you are talking about just now and it let me join two first-cousins by blood in marriage. Their fake child I entered was related to himself and was his own second-cousin (how confusing..).
If your first cousin marries your wife's second cousin, and they are not related, it shouldn't matter. If a first cousin marries one of their own second cousins, any child of theirs will be related to itself (in that instance, it's own third-cousin, I believe).
2006-09-29 17:18:01 · answer #1 · answered by Another Guy 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's not that uncommon. People 100 years ago married first cousins all the time. I would simply put the people in order of the family tree then note that person A is married to person B, then branch their children down from there.
2006-09-29 14:50:09 · answer #2 · answered by Goldylocks 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Most of us have computer programs. They are to family trees what Word is to writing letters. You just click on the person, then click on "Add Spouse". It asks you if you want to add a new person or link to an individual who you have already entered.
You do one or the other.
When you print a pedigree chart, it asks you if you want to repeat duplicates. if you say "No", then, when it gets to the wife's grandparents, it says "See John Doe and Mary Roe".
In many counties west of the Atlantic seaboard, before 1860, if you wanted to marry a white woman, it was a cousin or nothing. If you were a Mennonite or any of a hundred other small sects, you just expected to marry a cousin. It seems odd today. It was commonplace before the Civil War.
2006-09-29 17:14:00 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
O Elizabeth (24), Hedley (22), Rupert (20), Katharine (sixteen), Natalie and Charity (twins) (14), Iona (12) and would (9) --- those one's sound the "poshest", and likewise maximum fairly historic common. i admire Iona plenty, and would is quite candy :) I quite dislike Rupert and that i've got by no potential favored the call Elizabeth the two for some objective. O Hester (23), Aifric (20), Tait (18), Maude (17) and Selphie (12) --- those one's seem rather "accessible" to me, and likewise sound quite previous-unique. i'm now not prepared on any, even nonetheless evaluate Tait is okay :) Maude to me sounds rather grotesque, and Hester is additionally an unpleasant, harsh sounding call for my area. O Matilda (24), Emilia (18) and Samuel (Sam) (14) --- I dislike Matilda, it sounds unsightly to me, I additionally dislike Samuel. Emilia is gorgeous even nonetheless :) o Claire (sixteen), David (12) and Lottie (9) --- To me, it rather is in all likelihood the main boring set. Claire and David are boring, Lottie would not sound as boring yet I even nonetheless am not prepared on it. It sounds better like a cat's identify to me or a nickname for Charlotte. O Matthew (12), Amelia (10) and Joseph (8) --- one extra boring set for my area :) o Betty (9), Zach (6), Martha (5) and Finley (3) --- back, quite historic-person-friendly names. i do unlike numerous of the names, Finley is the hire grotesque to me. O Charles (10) and Alice (6) --- those sound quite "posh". now not too prepared on them. O Hugo (7) and Alice (5) --- back a fancy sounding set. i'm getting exhilaration from Hugo decrease than Charles. O Evie (5), Wilf (3) and Albie (2) --- Love Evie, very candy identify. rather dislike Wilf. Albie isn't too undesirable even nonetheless not too prepared the two. O Dexter (5) and Amélie (4) --- Amélie is passable :) o Natalie (5) and Arthur (paintings) (4) o Céline (5) and Mina (3) o Anna (5) and Jude (3) o Millie and Signe (7) (twins) o Phoebe and Freya (5) (twins) o Isla and Catherine (18 months) (twins) o Casper and George (11 months) (twins)
2016-10-15 08:54:21 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
u don't those are the things u call family secrets and that's were they need to stay and i hope they don't have any kids because I've seen kids born out of rape a first to a 2nd cousin and she kept the baby it was a disaster but she is grown w/ a heck of a lot of health problems. so if she plans to show this to any body other than family that knows i would just leave that out.
2006-09-29 15:14:54 · answer #5 · answered by djonecat@yahoo.com 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
good question really all you have to do is go under family tree .com it may reqire a fee but fill out the forms and you can even know who may or may not be family you dont even know its cool though i did it
2006-09-29 14:50:11 · answer #6 · answered by bill n 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Try in very small letters and use invisible ink. This probably isn't something you'd want known!
2006-10-01 10:35:24 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Disgusting!
2006-09-29 14:46:55 · answer #8 · answered by harsh_bkk 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Don't know, but I heard that family reunions are great places to meet women.
2006-09-29 14:45:00 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Put the branches together. Kind of weird...
2006-09-29 16:03:06 · answer #10 · answered by rumple_teazer001 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋