Steve Hayes:
>>> I refer to them as "double first cousins" and even to "double second
>>> cousins" where that is the relationship.
"Gill":
>> What would constitute "double second cousins"?
Steve Hayes:
> The children of double first cousins.
First cousins have one set of grandparents in common.
Double first cousins have two (both) sets in common.
Second cousins have one set of great-grandparents in common.
It could be argued that the term "double second cousins"
should logically be used for people who have *two* sets
of great-grandparents in common. "Double second cousins"
of the type that Steve describes, however, have all four sets
in common -- so by this logic they are better described as
*quadruple* second cousins. (And their children, in turn, as
octuple third cousins.)
If Peter and Laura have a child together, and Evan and Linz have
a child together, and Peter and Linz are brother and sister, and
Evan and Laura are also brother and sister, then the two children
are double first cousins, and their children in turn would be
double second cousins of the type Steve describes.
But if Mike and Donna have a child together, and Tony and Sara
have a child together, and Mike and Sara are first cousins, and
Tony and Donna are also first cousins, then the two children
would have only two sets of great-grandparents in common and
would be double second cousins of the type I'm talking about.
Having said that, I don't know if the term "double second cousin"
is actually in common use with either meaning, and I'm not going to
look it up.
--
Mark Brader | But I think we can do better next time. (Where the
Toronto | word "we" refers to [those] who do the hard work while
m...@vex.net | I sit back and complain...) -- Keith Thompson
My text in this article is in the public domain.