When is a relative not a relative?

[LizzieL]

I was searching through the on-line news archive of a paper local to where one my main lines of interest came from for bdms and found a series of articles (accompanied by some unpleasant possibly bordering on the libellous comments by readers) concerning two of my distant relatives.
One relative (my fourth cousin once removed) is a town councillor, the other relative (my fifth cousin) was involved in a planning application, the councillor relative was on the committee making the approval decision.
The councillor at first said they weren't related, but later it was admitted that they were. So there were allegations of nepotism, cover up - the usual baying for blood etc. The newspaper said they were 2nd cousins to each other, but that is not true, they are actually third cousins once removed.
I can well understand that the councillor at first thought they were not related - it was just a co-incidence of surnames and when the press started to make a big thing of it, actually investigated and found they were distant relatives. Or she knew they were distantly related and did not think it was close enough to matter as she did not know the applicant personally and had nothing to gain or lose whatever way the planning decision went.

How distant would a relative have to be before you considered you weren't related?
If you were in a position of authority or influence and you had to make a decision that affected someone hitherto unknown to you but with the same surname, would you hire a genealogist to check for a possible relationship first?

[Guy Etchells]

I would suggest that nepotism like marriage is not simply covered by consanguinity but by affinity as well.
However in the case of nepotism affinity should include friends.

What really matters when councillors and those in a position of authority or influence make decisions the decisions should be on behalf of the entire community they represent and not influenced by a bias in favour of family or friends.

Cheers
Guy

[Jos, Whitehaven]

At a local or parish level it is possible councillors could be distantly related to a large number of residents if the extended family has lived there for several generations. Distant cousins, such as second or third cousins as in the example you give here, may not even know of the family connection.

If a distant family relationship is known in advance when an issue arises at a council planning meeting I would expect it to be referred to the council clerk who would be able to check if the kinship, such as it is, needs to be declared.

It's an interesting point, but I don't think you could expect every councillor on every council in the country to know all their distant relatives in a district.

[Andrew Tarr]

I guess it may come down to whether the parties knew of the connection (difficult to prove or disprove), especially if surnames were common, or actually different because of marriage.  The more important aspect is the suspicion that they did know, but attempted to deceive - again hard to prove either way.

My grandmother's elder sister also married a Tarr, who everyone believed was not related, but it clearly caused interest as the surname is not common in south Wales.  Since the arrival of the internet I have found that the common ancestor died in Devon in 1798.

[coombs]

Well even if the common ancestor is more than 10 generations back then you are still related, no matter how far removed the connection is. I think it is harder to name all your 3rd cousins backwards though, and many are unaware who they are.

I doubt 2 councillors who were, for example 10th cousins would know, unless they were genealogists.

I am a distant relative of a lifelong family friend who asked me for genealogy help. I found one of her great grans was from a village in Essex where my great, great grandad was born. I probed further back and found they shared ancestors.

[JAKnighton]

These sort of allegations come up even today. I remember that it was discovered that Obama was a "relative" of George Bush. They are related, if you go back hundreds of years. Still, people use that as evidence that it's all rigged.

[John915]

Good evening,

These sort of allegations come up even today. I remember that it was discovered that Obama was a "relative" of George Bush. They are related, if you go back hundreds of years. Still, people use that as evidence that it's all rigged.

A more recent example would be Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton. They are related having John of Gaunt as a common ancestor. So not only related to each other but to our Royal family as well. Just hope no one tells Trump.

John915