feather castle

This beeyootiful castle was made by the third or fourth (?) youngest of my first cousins twice removed. That is, he is the youngest child of the oldest of my first cousins once removed. Go figger all that out, y’all. He made this beeyootiful castle approximately 20 minutes after he had pushed on his mom’s shoulders and emphatically stated that he was hungry and bored. Well, I forget whether hungry was the first or tired or what. I know that bored was the second thing. And the most emphatic. Somebody much older than him told him to go look for snakes or toads or whatever. He didn’t but, after a trip up to the cabin for whatever, he sat in the sand and pounded together this little feather castle in short order. These kids, what will they think of next? I wish I could find my little USB card reader because then I could show you all the pics I took at the Dancing Crane and Iroquois Lighthouse and dump Spectacle Lake Overlook. But my card reader has gone missing and I do not even want to speculate on where it is. I’ll hit Staples tomorrow when I’m back in Megalopolis. Because, yes, I have to go home tomorrow. And back to work on Monday. Wrenching back and forth between my beloved Fin Family Moominbeach and my adopted but beloved Planet Ann Arbor. Slog on. Love, Kayak Woman.


2 Responses to “feather castle”

  1. Kathy Farnell Says:

    Why do you “remove” people? What does once removed or twice removed mean anyhoo? Never did understand all of that “removed” stuff! I’m glad that you had some kid(s) to brighten your day.

  2. Dog Mom Says:

    Yeah, really, this “removed” schtuff just makes it all that much more complexicated. A “cuzzint” is a “cuzzint” is a “cuzzint”, eh? Same with Aunts/Great-(or is it Grand-??) Aunts and Uncles/Great-(or is it Grand-??) Uncles, etc.

    Heck, once ya have kids, you are basically blood-related to both sides of the family, roight? I mean, to the “in-law” side via your kids’ blood… it’s just waaaaay too hard to say “my sister-in-law and her husband” or try to explain that when I say “my brother-in-law” it’s actually by way of my sister-in-law, but then again, because of our kids’ genetics, we are all related by *more* than just “law” now, so the “insert relationship here”-in-law is no longer just “in law”…. or is this adding to complexication???