To think a 3rd cousin isn't really a relative?

[CallMeNutribullet]

Not really a Royal family thread but inspired by some of the conversations I've seen online since the Queen's death.

I've seen lots of people suggesting the fact that the Queen and Prince Philip were 3rd cousins is creepy and incestuous. To me it's such a distant relationship that I honestly wouldn't even consider myself related to a 3rd cousin. Google tells me you share less than 1% of your DNA with a 3rd cousin and I can't imagine the vast majority of people have any idea who their 3rd cousins are.

Would others see it as a deal breaker in a relationship if you found out a potential partner shared great, great grandparents with them?

@CallMeNutribullet I agree.

Of course it's not creepy and incestuous, and what a nasty thing to say. 3rd cousins are miles apart. And it's not uncommon for the Royals to marry 2nd and 3rd cousins. They are sometime selected for them. Even Andrew and Fergie were distantly related (3rd cousins I think, happy to be corrected...)

Other cultures have people paired up for marriage, and are sometimes FIRST cousins - and even uncle and niece, but funnily enough, the Royal hating wokies never say anything about THEM.

A friend of mine is married to her cousin. I only know because her grandad died and she was complaining her to be husband hadn't called to give condolences. I was like maybe he doesn't know, give him a break.

Then she said it's his grandad too. I was shocked but didn't comment. It's never come up since but their lovely happy healthy children have some behavioural issues which often make me wonder .....

Queen Victoria and Prince Albert were first cousins. They both carried the hemophilia gene and their 8th child was affected.

SO the first 7 weren't then?

SO the first 7 weren't then?

Well some of the first 7 were girls, but I see your point.

I'm going to guess that there are many people married to or in relationships with 3rd cousins without even realising it... Especially in places where entire families stay put for generations.

As a one off it's fine but in the case of the Royal Family it hasn't just been a one off and it really does show in several of them, in my opinion.

I know a few of my third cousins, and I have considered one or two of them as potential partners but decided it was too close.

It depends on how many of your ancestors you have in common. If marrying distant cousins has happened many times before, it might have implications.

I know first cousins who have married and their children and grandchildren seem fine.

Second cousins I think

That assumes all those other great grandparents are no relation at all though whereas my comment was that looking close to home becomes a problem if everyone starts doing it.

If you go back far enough, you would probably find a common ancestor with Charles.

Imagine your great great great grandparents and how many great great great grandchildren they have. Now go back in time and follow all the lines down.

So 3rd cousins - that is a distant relationship

I can name all my childrens third cousins through my mothers family (via legitimate siblings of my grandmother, there are reasons to believe there may be one or more illegitimate siblings who were adopted).

Through my father... not a chance. He thinks he had 15 aunts and uncles, probably more. But some maybe step relations... But there are likely dozens of third cousins through my fathers family.

As for PILs... well they didn't discover they were second cousins until after they were married!

I'm close with all my cousins and second cousins and know my third cousins. But this is Mumsnet and apparently unless it's your immediate family you're barely related at all according to a recent thread where it was questioned that the queen's great grandchildren would barely know her 🙄

Oh actually I don't know my third cousins, I'm googling now. I think I'm getting confused with once and twice removed cousins!

"Incest means having sex with a relative - and we all indulge in it, whether we realise or not. On average, two randomly chosen British people are sixth cousins, which means that they share an ancestor who lived in the year of publication of The Origin of Species (1859)," explained Professor Jones.

www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2010/oct/incest-and-folk-dancing-why-sex-survives

Most British people are in fact distantly related to their partner or spouse, at around the 6th cousin level, apparently.

Royalty are just more likely to have massive family trees that go way back; they are, these days, no more inbred than the average person.

It is true that royal families have a narrower social strata from which to choose partners; but then again, their wealth enables them to cast the net further afield in geographical terms (they are less likely to marry someone in their home town or county, and often marry internationally), so it pretty much evens out.

For me, "third cousin" is the point where having that person as a sexual partner ceases to be weird. I know who my second cousins are, don't have a clue about my third cousins.

I don't even know who my 1st cousins are, let alone my 3rd

Queen Victoria and Prince Albert were first cousins. They both carried the hemophilia gene and their 8th child was affected.

The hemophilia gene is nothing to do with inbreeding (it is not a lethal negative) and was not caused by cousin marriage. The gene appears to be a spontaneous mutation that took place in Victoria's father's sperm. The man himself was in his 50s when he fathered her, which significantly raises the risk of a de novo mutation in sperm.

If you want an example of real inbreeding causing issues, look at the Habsburgs!

I've not even met any of my second cousins, let alone third!

Thanks for this chart. I've never understood cousins removed etc.

So a third cousin is when you share a great great grandparent. I have no idea who these people might be, where they live or how many there are.

I’m sure it’s fine, generically speaking. Unlikely to share any genetic material, I’d have thought.

However, are they a relative in general terms would depend on how well you knew them. Just as adopted siblings are still your siblings, if you lived in the same street as your third cousins and spent time with them, I’d call them your close relatives. So just depends. But that’s not an issue if you talking about inbreeding obviously.

Mist European royals are related to some degree. As they're now allowing marriage to commoners, this becomes less likely in future.

First/second/third cousins depends on how many generations since you share grandparents. First/second/third remove depends on the generations between you - my first cousin's children are my first cousins once removed. My children would be their second cousins.

I've met plenty of third cousins on one side and nearly all the second cousins, even the overseas ones. Only know first cousins on the other side.

I refer to them all as cousins, though, unless it's a detailed family tree conversation where the degree of cousinship becomes relevant.

I don't know many people who are comfortable with first cousin marriage, outside the ones who have certain cultural/religious backgrounds, but it definitely is considered taboo in the UK.

Some MPs spoke out about this issue because it's prevalent in certain communities and leads to a lot of severe genetic diseases within those communities.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/feb/11/religion.medicalscience

I think most on here don't actually know what a third cousin is and think its their cousins grandchild etc or there mums cousins child