LONDON-L Archives

Archiver > LONDON > 2003-12 > 1072737432


From: "Geoff & Tracey Bradfield" <>
Subject: Re: [Lon] Relationship
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 08:37:12 +1000
References: <00fd01c3cd6b$84dc2300$80d78351@Mojflo> <001101c3cd86$76b08ee0$1b5632d2@i0l4o7> <00bb01c3cda8$50c82680$1a5b36d2@javeris> <003801c3ce02$8d00c440$1e5732d2@i0l4o7> <011601c3ce11$5ce3ba60$38077ad5@twleckuj> <02b301c3ce14$6a6cf860$1e5732d2@i0l4o7> <02b601c3ce20$ecba1800$38077ad5@twleckuj> <000701c3ce4c$76e596a0$675032d2@i0l4o7> <004501c3ce4e$2128d180$57e8adcb@charles> <00ea01c3ce50$f7a38460$675032d2@i0l4o7>


Hi all
I do not put my bit in very often with discussions, but wanted to just say that I find it all tooooo confusing when referring to Great Aunt/Uncles ( I am ok for maybe 3 gens back - after that forget it). I need to use fingers to count backwards, so to throw the word "Grand" would be just way to much for my little head and when it comes to 'Removed', I try not to go there very often :-)
Tracey
Brisbane Aust.
----- Original Message -----
From: bcunning
To:
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 7:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Lon] Relationship



Hello Keith. I do not find the use of Great, Grand or Great Grand
confusing, but I do agree that the"removed cousins " terms are a total
mystery to me. Cheers, Bob

----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith" <>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 7:55 AM
Subject: Re: [Lon] Relationship

> Using great, great, indicates to most the degree of separation, but adding
> grand into the equation when it comes to nieces and nephews tends to
> confuse.
>
> It is difficult enough to get many to understand X times removed cousins
> without confusing the issue with greats and grands.
>
> Keith Wellington, NZ
>


==== LONDON Mailing List ====
Genealogy & Local History in London, England:
http://www.londonancestor.com/



This thread: