One step removed, one step closer

I acquired a step-son-in-law recently; it sounds a little awkward, but that's the way it is in the family tree made broader by divorces and remarriages.

It's hard enough for me to remember relatives by birth and exactly who is connected to whom. With the broader definition of family these days it may become downright impossible for me to remember who's who as I climb through the family tree.

For immediate family, I'm not too worried getting tangled up in the various branches. I'm one of eight children of Marge Briand and the late Paul Briand Jr. I have two children, Elizabeth and David. I have seven brothers and sisters  -- Kate, Annemarie, Margaret, Bruce, Ella, David and Joe -- and I know their husbands/wives and their children/stepchildren. I know my mother's siblings -- two sisters and a late brother, and I know their spouses and children. Same on my father's side -- two brothers and a sister, their spouses, their children.

So, by blood, I've got brothers and sisters, brothers- and sisters-in-law, daughter and son, nieces and nephews, and cousins that I can readily identify. Where it gets terribly complicated for me are the branches beyond that.

My cousin's children -- I think I've got this right -- are my first cousins once removed. (I was never sure by whom they were removed, but there's a lot about the intricacies of genealogy that I don't comprehend.) I've got a vague notion there, often requiring prompting from my mom who's very, very good at knowing how all the branches fit into the tree. But I have no clue as to the identities of the children of my first cousins once removed, the second cousins.

Complicating all this are the in-laws from my first marriage -- the people to whom I was a son-in-law and brother-in-law. I think the fact that I'm no longer married to their daughter/sister makes me an ex-son-in-law and ex-brother-in-law, but I am I an ex-uncle to the children on that side of the family? I really don't know and I don't think Miss Manners has written a lengthy protocol on that one.

So when I married my second wife, Jane, we introduced a step into the family tree. I became a step-father to Patrick, Kelsey, Eileen and Reilly. I acquired a new mother-in-law and new relatives by marriage. Elizabeth and David have a step-brother and step-sisters. By the same token, Jane's children have a step-brother and step-sister in David and Elizabeth (and have two other step-sisters, by the way, by virtue of their father's second marriage).

We have, in a sense, stepped into each others fabric of life -- the marriages, the births, the baptisms, the birthdays, etc., etc.

Which circles us back to my step-son-in-law, Jeremy who married my stepdaughter Kelsey.

I did look up the proper terminology and indeed the husband of my step-daughter is my step-son-in-law. Which further begs the question: Their children will be what to me? Their step-grand-dad? You begin to believe that at some point the branches of the tree bend too far for comprehension.

But let's not hurry things here on the grandchildren part of the tree. No rush, Jeremy and Kelsey, no rush at all. I'm in no hurry right now to be a grand-dad of any kind, step or not. I'm still getting my head around the fact that Elizabeth and David, both in their 20s, are old enough to drive a car.