I want to be clear here: I am not looking for names, or others to find connections.
The story is superfluous and contains too many elements for all but the very motivated (descendants interested in genealogy) to grasp. The relevant connections are not direct, since none exist. They are lateral and circumstantial, done looking heavily at the map and searching many, many names. Marriages between 3rd persons in different townlands with the same maiden names or surnames. Connecting relevant townlands. Some with few people living in them. Some distant from each other. Simply observations about who lived in x townland and who didn't. Where so-and-so moved? Where did Mr. Y's bride come from, or Mrs. Z's groom? Where were their kids born?
Obviously, I erred in giving any details at all. I was only trying to explain my motivations and the general nature of the type of relationships I was thinking of. What I wanted was only general impressions about blood relationships, and more specifically about #6 of the following.
Here are my vague impressions:
1.) kin was very important (particularly in the mountains)
2.) marriages were mostly arranged by kin
3.) sometimes people who married were related (2nd to 3rd cousins)
4.) You needed someone who could vouch for the groom or the bride. Know they weren't from crazy families, violent, lazy, dishonest, thieves or promiscuous. They were mostly your neighbor, your relative, or the neighbor of your relative.
5.) people with the same name, who interacted were almost certainly related.
6.) the limit of one's known relations was their 3rd cousins.
That last is really the important and relevant one. It comes from the Church. The reason (by theory) consanguineous marriages between 2nd and 3rd cousins required dispensations and 4th didn't was the average peasant couldn't possibly be expected to know their 4th cousins. There are dispensations for 2nd cousins-once-removed and for 3rd cousins. There are not any for 3rd cousins-once-removed. Because people certainly didn't know all of the last.
There was a limit to the amount of relationships a person could keep track of. Back then, each person knew all their GG grandparents, but probably not beyond that. That is exactly why I told the story. The question at hand really falls on the tail end of #6.
Theory #1: the little kids on the 1911 census, living in the same household, are 3rd cousins. This is the limit of functional kin relationships. The older kids are able to grasp how they are related to the little girl, and know who their common ancestors were. They consider the girl to be kin in the normal way, and when she grows up she will understand that they are kin too.
Vs.
Theory #2: the heads on the 1911 census are 3rd cousins. They know each other, but the older kids don't understand who the little girl is. They don't know their common ancestors, and can't possibly grasp something like 3rd cousin-once-removed, since that is not a normal, known relationship in Ireland. With big families how many 3rd cousins does one have? A heck of a lot. Do you know all their kids? Nope. Do you know the kids of the ones living within a 2 miles of you? Maybe.
That's what I wanted: impressions on theory #1 vs. theory #2.
I think #1 is a lot more likely, but that is my impression. I've never traced a blood relative who was called a relative or a cousin, so all I have is an impression. No test. Others may have experience - that's great. I'd like to know the most distant, successful trace.
Again, I know they are related. They are not random people. They are not neighbors. They are kin and know it. The head in one townland had some of his children's baptisms most likely sponsored by the others. These townlands are close, but not adjacent. Obviously, the two men understand who their common ancestors were and how they are related. They are either 2nd cousins or 3rd cousins. The real question, to my mind, is do the little kids have any bearing on this? Does it matter if they don't grasp who the little girl is or who their common ancestors are?