From: brahms@mindspring.com (Stan Brown) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Royalty Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 21:00:19 -0400 Organization: Oak Road Systems Lines: 22 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 3f.35.6f.a4 X-Server-Date: 1 Aug 2001 00:58:26 GMT X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.10 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!usenetserver.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:45651 Readers of this group may be intrigued or amused to know that one of the current threads over on alt.talk.royalty is the (later) Númenórean rule of succession, by which the eldest child of the monarch succeeds to the sceptre. (See LotR App. A) In the real world, that is indeed the rule for the Swedish crown. Princess Victoria's younger brother was born Crown Prince, but an act of the Rigsdag (Parliament) changed the succession law after his birth, so that his sister became Crown Princess. The thread on a.t.r is about who would be occupying various thrones if Númenórean succession were the rule in modern monarchies. Surprisingly, a great many thrones would now be held by the same person, Princess Marie Gabrielle of Bavaria (born 1931). -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA http://oakroadsystems.com Tolkien FAQs: http://home.uchicago.edu/~sbjensen/Tolkien/ Tolkien letters FAQ: http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm ###### From: jsavard@ecn.ab.SBLOK.ca.nowhere (John Savard) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Royalty Message-ID: <3b677874.1622160@news.powersurfr.com> References: X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Lines: 14 Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 03:33:49 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.108.184.50 X-Complaints-To: abuse@powersurfr.com X-Trace: news-rep.ab.videon.ca 996636643 24.108.184.50 (Tue, 31 Jul 2001 21:30:43 MDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 21:30:43 MDT Organization: Videon CableSystems Alberta Inc. Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!usenetserver.com!pd2nf1so.cg.shawcable.net!residential.shaw.ca!cy1!cy2!newsfeed.shawcable.com!news-rep.ab.videon.ca!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:45604 On Tue, 31 Jul 2001 21:00:19 -0400, brahms@mindspring.com (Stan Brown) wrote, in part: >In the real world, that is indeed the rule for the Swedish crown. >Princess Victoria's younger brother was born Crown Prince, but an >act of the Rigsdag (Parliament) changed the succession law after his >birth, so that his sister became Crown Princess. The law was changed before the birth of Prince William as well in Britain. But I'm surprised that Sweden made their change retroactive. John Savard http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html http://plaza.powersurfr.com/jsavard/other/ch02.htm ###### From: Finrod Felagund Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Royalty Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 23:56:21 -0400 Organization: Michigan State University Lines: 23 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: ac945da5.ipt.aol.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-AUTHid: pavlikad User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.1.3108 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!feed2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!solaris.cc.vt.edu!news.vt.edu!msunews!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:45585 On 7/31/01 9:00 PM, in article MPG.15d11eb2195c5dae98c6a6@news.mindspring.com, "Stan Brown" wrote: > Readers of this group may be intrigued or amused to know that one of > the current threads over on alt.talk.royalty is the (later) > Númenórean rule of succession, by which the eldest child of the > monarch succeeds to the sceptre. (See LotR App. A) > > In the real world, that is indeed the rule for the Swedish crown. > Princess Victoria's younger brother was born Crown Prince, but an > act of the Rigsdag (Parliament) changed the succession law after his > birth, so that his sister became Crown Princess. > > The thread on a.t.r is about who would be occupying various thrones > if Númenórean succession were the rule in modern monarchies. > Surprisingly, a great many thrones would now be held by the same > person, Princess Marie Gabrielle of Bavaria (born 1931). Another thought: what would have happened if the Numenorean law had been in place from the first? That is to say, Elendil's distant ancestor Silmarien was Tar-Silmarien? Do we see Numenor staying afloat? ###### From: brahms@mindspring.com (Stan Brown) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Royalty Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 08:31:26 -0400 Organization: Oak Road Systems Lines: 34 Message-ID: References: <3b677874.1622160@news.powersurfr.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 3f.35.6f.83 X-Server-Date: 1 Aug 2001 12:29:30 GMT X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.10 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:45649 It seems John Savard wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien: >On Tue, 31 Jul 2001 21:00:19 -0400, brahms@mindspring.com (Stan Brown) >wrote, in part: >>In the real world, that is indeed the rule for the Swedish crown. >>Princess Victoria's younger brother was born Crown Prince, but an >>act of the Rigsdag (Parliament) changed the succession law after his >>birth, so that his sister became Crown Princess. > >The law was changed before the birth of Prince William as well in >Britain. But I'm surprised that Sweden made their change retroactive. What? Could you supply a citation, please? As far as I know, such a change in the UK succession rules (the first since 1936) has been _very_ preliminarily discussed, but there was absolutely no legislation proposed, let alone passed. The a.t.r FAQ does not know of any such change. (In Númenor, the succession was a matter of "laws of the royal house". I seem to recall that Tolkien wrote somewhere about a consultative royal council, but I don't think there was any sort of legislature: laws were created by the king. In the UK, the succession is a matter of Acts of Parliament, to which all the dominions must assent. The royal house has no say in the matter: the Queen's assent to legislation is a rubber stamp under the British constitution.) -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA http://oakroadsystems.com Tolkien FAQs: http://home.uchicago.edu/~sbjensen/Tolkien/ Tolkien letters FAQ: http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm ###### From: brahms@mindspring.com (Stan Brown) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Royalty Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 08:35:48 -0400 Organization: Oak Road Systems Lines: 27 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 3f.35.6f.83 X-Server-Date: 1 Aug 2001 12:33:51 GMT X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.10 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!netnews.com!xfer02.netnews.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:45650 It seems Finrod Felagund wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien: >Another thought: what would have happened if the Numenorean law had been in >place from the first? That is to say, Elendil's distant ancestor Silmarien >was Tar-Silmarien? Do we see Numenor staying afloat? As things actually were, the Lords of Andunië were Elf-friends, or at least friends of the Elves. Would they have had the same temperament if they'd been Kings? Remember that Númenor's downfall was not just because of Ar- Pharazôn. The Kings had been turning away from the Valar for centuries, and Pharazôn was just the last and worst. I think the situation was "built in" in a sense, and any other branch of the family would have felt the same pressures, and probably yielded to them, if it had been wielding the scepter. Remember that Elendil and Ar-Pharazôn were cousins, albeit rather distant ones as we reckon relationships. -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA http://oakroadsystems.com Tolkien FAQs: http://home.uchicago.edu/~sbjensen/Tolkien/ Tolkien letters FAQ: http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm ###### From: jsavard@ecn.ab.SBLOK.ca.nowhere (John Savard) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Royalty Message-ID: <3b6bf086.167484@news.powersurfr.com> References: <3b677874.1622160@news.powersurfr.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Lines: 22 Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 12:57:07 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.108.184.50 X-Complaints-To: abuse@powersurfr.com X-Trace: news-rep.ab.videon.ca 996929637 24.108.184.50 (Sat, 04 Aug 2001 06:53:57 MDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 06:53:57 MDT Organization: Videon CableSystems Alberta Inc. Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!usenetserver.com!pd2nf1so.cg.shawcable.net!residential.shaw.ca!cy1!cy2!newsfeed.shawcable.com!news-rep.ab.videon.ca!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:45861 On Wed, 1 Aug 2001 08:31:26 -0400, brahms@mindspring.com (Stan Brown) wrote, in part: >It seems John Savard wrote in >rec.arts.books.tolkien: >>The law was changed before the birth of Prince William as well in >>Britain. But I'm surprised that Sweden made their change retroactive. >What? Could you supply a citation, please? Sorry: I remember hearing this on the 6 o'clock news one evening. I could be wrong, but I definitely remember hearing that legislation was brought in, and when William was born there was a sigh of relief, because the legislation would not have applied to him, had he been a girl, and hence there would be controversy. Someone else more familiar with this sort of thing than I will have to supply the definitive answer one way or the other. John Savard http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html http://plaza.powersurfr.com/jsavard/other/ch02.htm ###### From: brahms@mindspring.com (Stan Brown) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Royalty Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 23:25:02 -0400 Organization: Oak Road Systems Lines: 33 Message-ID: References: <3b677874.1622160@news.powersurfr.com> <3b6bf086.167484@news.powersurfr.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 3f.35.6f.ac X-Server-Date: 5 Aug 2001 03:23:51 GMT X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.10 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!netnews.com!xfer02.netnews.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:45970 John Savard wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien: >On Wed, 1 Aug 2001 08:31:26 -0400, brahms@mindspring.com (Stan Brown) >wrote, in part: >>It seems John Savard wrote in >>rec.arts.books.tolkien: > >>>The law was changed before the birth of Prince William as well in >>>Britain. But I'm surprised that Sweden made their change retroactive. > >>What? Could you supply a citation, please? > >Sorry: I remember hearing this on the 6 o'clock news one evening. I >could be wrong, but I definitely remember hearing that legislation was >brought in, and when William was born there was a sigh of relief, >because the legislation would not have applied to him, had he been a >girl, and hence there would be controversy. > >Someone else more familiar with this sort of thing than I will have to >supply the definitive answer one way or the other. The a.t.r FAQ (reference 1 in sig) certainly _seems_ exhaustive. Given the amount of detail, it looks unlikely that a twenty-year-old law such as you propose would have been omitted, when more recent legislation _is_ covered. -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA http://oakroadsystems.com Royalty FAQs: 1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html 2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm ###### From: "A Tsar Is Born" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: Subject: Re: Royalty Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 05:21:30 -0400 Lines: 14 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.24.44.67 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.24.44.67 Message-ID: <3b6e60d3$1_1@news.starnetinc.com> X-Trace: 6 Aug 2001 04:18:11 -0500, 64.24.44.67 X-Complaints-To: abuse@megapop.net X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!chcgil2-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!news.starnetinc.com Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:46209 "Stan Brown" wrote in message news:MPG.15d1c1ab2659f5f598c6a9@news.mindspring.com... >Remember that Elendil and > Ar-Pharazôn were cousins, albeit rather distant ones as we reckon > relationships. Not very distant at all. 2nd cousins once removed, I think. (I'm not looking it up.) Pharazon's grandmother was the sister of a Lord of Andunie. Parmathule atsarisborn@hotmail.com ###### From: colinr@toliman.uio.no (Colin Rosenthal) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Royalty Date: 8 Aug 2001 10:07:56 GMT Organization: University of Oslo, Norway Lines: 19 Message-ID: <9kr31s$694$2@readme.uio.no> References: Reply-To: colin.rosenthal@astro.uio.no NNTP-Posting-Host: toliman.uio.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: slrn/0.9.6.2 (OSF1) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!129.240.148.23!uio.no!nntp.uio.no!colinr Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:46069 On Tue, 31 Jul 2001 21:00:19 -0400, Stan Brown wrote: >Readers of this group may be intrigued or amused to know that one of >the current threads over on alt.talk.royalty is the (later) >Númenórean rule of succession, by which the eldest child of the >monarch succeeds to the sceptre. (See LotR App. A) > >In the real world, that is indeed the rule for the Swedish crown. >Princess Victoria's younger brother was born Crown Prince, but an >act of the Rigsdag (Parliament) changed the succession law after his >birth, so that his sister became Crown Princess. Also in Norway, however the law only applies to future cases. The present crown prince is actually younger than his sister. -- Colin Rosenthal Astrophysics Institute University of Oslo ###### From: "Silentio" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Royalty Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 09:56:10 -0500 Organization: Wiscnet Lines: 19 Message-ID: <9le2hv$g5u$1@wiscnews.wiscnet.net> References: <3b6e60d3$1_1@news.starnetinc.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 137.104.162.130 X-Trace: wiscnews.wiscnet.net 997887359 16574 137.104.162.130 (15 Aug 2001 14:55:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@wiscnews.wiscnet.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Aug 2001 14:55:59 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsspool.doit.wisc.edu!wiscnews.wiscnet.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:47792 "A Tsar Is Born" wrote: > Not very distant at all. > 2nd cousins once removed, I think. (I'm not looking it up.) > Pharazon's grandmother was the sister of a Lord of Andunie. > > Parmathule > atsarisborn@hotmail.com > My I ask a naïve question? What is the difference between a "second cousin" and a "first cousin once removed"? I have always wondered and never found a reliable answer. Your insight is appreciated. - Silentio ###### From: the softrat Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Royalty Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 08:33:22 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: References: <3b6e60d3$1_1@news.starnetinc.com> <9le2hv$g5u$1@wiscnews.wiscnet.net> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 27 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!fr.usenet-edu.net!usenet-edu.net!freenix!sn-xit-01!sn-post-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:47874 On Wed, 15 Aug 2001 09:56:10 -0500, "Silentio" wrote: > >My I ask a naïve question? What is the difference between a "second cousin" >and a "first cousin once removed"? I have always wondered and never found a >reliable answer. > Second cousins are both three generations removed from a common ancestor, so they are both children of first cousins. A first cousin once removed is the child three generations removed from the common ancestor while the respondent is only two generations removed from the common ancestor. In other words the child of your first cousin. (A first cousin twice removed is the grandchild of your first cousin and so forth.) To confuse the issue, some people (like the hobbits) refer to a 'cousin once removed either way'. This irregular usage is common. Standard genealogical usage counts from the person nearest the common ancestor. the softrat mailto:softrat@pobox.com -- Thousands of years ago, cats were worshipped as gods. Cats have never forgotten this. ###### From: Boris Badenov Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Royalty Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 16:47:26 -0500 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 20 Message-ID: References: <3b6e60d3$1_1@news.starnetinc.com> <9le2hv$g5u$1@wiscnews.wiscnet.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-391.newsdawg.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!128.230.129.106!news.maxwell.syr.edu!pln-e!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews3 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:48108 On Wed, 15 Aug 2001 09:56:10 -0500, "Silentio" wrote: |My I ask a naïve question? What is the difference between a "second cousin" |and a "first cousin once removed"? I have always wondered and never found a |reliable answer. | |Your insight is appreciated. Best way to do this is a family tree: Paul and Mary Their daughters: Waynette Bette Their children Ross Patricia Their children Todd Monica Their children Zack Alexandra Todd and Monica are second cousins. Both Todd-Patricia and Ross-Monica are first cousins once removed. ###### From: David Salo Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Royalty Message-ID: <150820011652531057%dsalo@usa.net> References: <3b6e60d3$1_1@news.starnetinc.com> <9le2hv$g5u$1@wiscnews.wiscnet.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/3.1.8 Lines: 19 Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 21:51:58 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.170.95.2 X-Complaints-To: abuse@tds.net (TDS.NET help Desk 1-888-815-5992) X-Trace: ratbert.tds.net 997912318 208.170.95.2 (Wed, 15 Aug 2001 16:51:58 CDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 16:51:58 CDT Organization: TDS.NET Internet Services www.tds.net Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed.online.be!newspeer2.tds.net!ratbert.tds.net!dsalo Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:47929 In article <9le2hv$g5u$1@wiscnews.wiscnet.net>, "Silentio" wrote: > My I ask a naïve question? What is the difference between a "second cousin" > and a "first cousin once removed"? I have always wondered and never found a > reliable answer. A first cousin is someone with whom you share (only) a common pair of grandparents. A first cousin once removed is one generation off from a first cousin. My first cousin just had a son: he is my first cousin once removed. I am also his first cousin once removed, as his father's first cousin. A second cousin is someone with whom you share (only) a common pair of *great-grandparents*. That is, one of your parents is the first cousin of one of your second cousin's parents. That's a totally different situation. DS ###### From: brahms@mindspring.com (Stan Brown) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Royalty Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 21:09:41 -0400 Organization: Oak Road Systems Lines: 29 Message-ID: References: <3b6e60d3$1_1@news.starnetinc.com> <9le2hv$g5u$1@wiscnews.wiscnet.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 3f.35.6f.98 X-Server-Date: 16 Aug 2001 01:06:51 GMT X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.10 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!newsrouter.chello.at!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!opentransit.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:48119 Silentio wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien: >"A Tsar Is Born" wrote: > >> Not very distant at all. >> 2nd cousins once removed, I think. (I'm not looking it up.) >> Pharazon's grandmother was the sister of a Lord of Andunie. >> >> Parmathule >> atsarisborn@hotmail.com >> > >My I ask a naïve question? What is the difference between a "second cousin" >and a "first cousin once removed"? I have always wondered and never found a >reliable answer. Let A and B be first cousins, and A2 and B2 be their respective children. A2 and B2 are second cousins; A and B2 are first cousins once removed; A2 and B are also first cousins once removed. See diagrams on my web page at . -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA http://oakroadsystems.com Tolkien FAQs: http://home.uchicago.edu/~sbjensen/Tolkien/ Tolkien letters FAQ: http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm ###### From: Boris Badenov Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Royalty Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 21:20:29 -0500 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 10 Message-ID: References: <3b6e60d3$1_1@news.starnetinc.com> <9le2hv$g5u$1@wiscnews.wiscnet.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-108.newsdawg.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-mue1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!pln-e!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews2 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:48110 On Wed, 15 Aug 2001 21:09:41 -0400, brahms@mindspring.com (Stan Brown) wrote: |Let A and B be first cousins, and A2 and B2 be their respective |children. A2 and B2 are second cousins; A and B2 are first cousins |once removed; A2 and B are also first cousins once removed. Hmmm, then does C2==A2+B2? Sorry, couldn't help myself. ###### From: "James Giles" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <3b6e60d3$1_1@news.starnetinc.com> <9le2hv$g5u$1@wiscnews.wiscnet.net> Subject: Re: Royalty Lines: 20 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.3018.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 03:01:06 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 32.102.148.2 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 997930866 32.102.148.2 (Thu, 16 Aug 2001 03:01:06 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 03:01:06 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!wn1feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.71!wnfilter1!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:47967 "Boris Badenov" wrote in message news:lc8mnto1haorj95p1aakr2834q6e5b8fjs@4ax.com... > On Wed, 15 Aug 2001 21:09:41 -0400, brahms@mindspring.com (Stan Brown) wrote: > > |Let A and B be first cousins, and A2 and B2 be their respective > |children. A2 and B2 are second cousins; A and B2 are first cousins > |once removed; A2 and B are also first cousins once removed. > > Hmmm, then does C2==A2+B2? > > Sorry, couldn't help myself. Only if A and B are orthogonal (at right angles to one another). -- J. Giles ###### From: "Laurie Forbes" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <3b6e60d3$1_1@news.starnetinc.com> <9le2hv$g5u$1@wiscnews.wiscnet.net> Subject: Re: Royalty Lines: 26 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 03:27:07 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.30.221.212 X-Complaints-To: abuse@maine.rr.com X-Trace: typhoon.nyroc.rr.com 997932427 66.30.221.212 (Wed, 15 Aug 2001 23:27:07 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 23:27:07 EDT Organization: Time Warner Road Runner - Portland ME Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!jfk3-feed1.news.digex.net!dca6-feed2.news.digex.net!intermedia!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!cyclone.nyroc.rr.com!cyclone-out.nyroc.rr.com!typhoon.nyroc.rr.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:48092 "James Giles" wrote in message news:SHGe7.17683$1p1.1414363@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > > "Boris Badenov" wrote in message > news:lc8mnto1haorj95p1aakr2834q6e5b8fjs@4ax.com... > > On Wed, 15 Aug 2001 21:09:41 -0400, brahms@mindspring.com (Stan Brown) wrote: > > > > |Let A and B be first cousins, and A2 and B2 be their respective > > |children. A2 and B2 are second cousins; A and B2 are first cousins > > |once removed; A2 and B are also first cousins once removed. > > > > Hmmm, then does C2==A2+B2? > > > > Sorry, couldn't help myself. > > Only if A and B are orthogonal (at right angles to one > another). > > -- > J. Giles R2D2 is very upset about this.