I wouldn't read anything into it all personally.

In traditional English, the term cousin has a much broader application than it often does today, most notably in Shakespeare.

"The kinship term, cousin - often familiarly abbreviated as coz or cuz - is very much broader in its Shakespearean use in than we find today.

In modern English, it is primarily used for the relationship between the children of brothers and sisters ... But in Shakespeare we find it used for virtually any relative beyond the immediate family, both for blood relatives and relatives through marriage, and often as a term of affection between socially equal people who are not relatives at all, such as monarchs of different countries"

https://www.shakespeareswords.com/Public/LanguageCompanion/ThemesAndTopics.aspx?TopicId=10

So ironically enough, Shakespeare uses the term "Cuz" in much the same way that a modern speaker might use the term "Bro"

It reminds me of St Francis of Assisi, who referred to animals and birds as brothers and sisters! I guess that in Narnia the Talking Beasts were not equals (brothers) but were a level lower than the Sons of Adam.

Posted by: @coracle

It reminds me of St Francis of Assisi, who referred to animals and birds as brothers and sisters! I guess that in Narnia the Talking Beasts were not equals (brothers) but were a level lower than the Sons of Adam.

I don't think we need read that into it. Cousins doesn't imply an unequal relationship, just a slightly less distant one than between siblings

@hermit in our world humans are the top of creation. If you believe the creation accounts in Genesis, we are made in the image of the One who created us. None of the animals is described in this way. And none of the animals was suitable to be an equal companion and helper for the man. 

In DNA terms, we do not have much difference from animals, but there are lots of things about how we think, plan, design, remember and reason.

In Narnia the Talking Beasts are also a level above dumb ones. They can think, reason, talk, remember etc, but in varying degrees. Some are almost the same as humans. They qualify for the equal position you suggest.

But from the creation of Narnia, Aslan decreed that it was to have human rulers. MN is a well-written prequel to LWW, and shows how this happened. Good humans are wise rulers and also helpful advisors like the Hermit.

For this reason humans can call Talking Beasts cousin, similar but different, and in some cases at a different level. 

@coracle 

MN does show how this happened; in fact it shows that human rule of Narnia was not Alsan's original intention but a measure He brought in to deal with the intrusion into Narnia of evil from outside, 

On a metaphorical level of course human rule of  Narnia can be interpreted as a reference to the Biblical principle of human stewardship of the natural world, but Lewis also provides a literal in universe explanation that fits in with the suppositional fantasy he was building. Remember that Narnia is just that; a supposition. It's the story of an alternative universe that has a similar but not identical salvation history to ours. So just because humans have divinely instituted dominion over all other animals in our world need not imply the same is true in Narnia, and whenever we see non human Narnians and non royal humans interacting it seems to occur on a generally equal level. In fact I would suggest the equivalent moment in the creation story of Narnia is where Aslan gives the Talking Animals and other creatures dominion over the dumb beasts he had not chosen.

Sorry but I don't agree with the idea that Narnia's human Kings and Queens were an afterthought, or a fix. 

Even in our world you cannot read Genesis 1-3 on their own. The rest of the Bible shows that its Creator knew the whole of history from the beginning.

The explanation for the lamppost and the reason for humans as rulers, are not on the same level in Narnia. I believe that Aslan already had a link with Sons of Adam and Daughters of Eve, before he made Narnia. They were already special to him. The last pages of LB and of VDT show us that.

And now back to the topic!

@coracle 

Of course humans were already special to Aslan,. That doesn't mean other rational creatures can't be just as special to him in their own way. 

Lewis may originally have vaguely held some such notion as you suggest but it's obvious he quickly abandoned it when he  realised it was incompatible with the broader vision he was trying to create. It's unfortunate you're insisting on this idea of 'human exceptionalism' in Narnia because I think it diminishes the scope of what Lewis achieved in the Chronicles.

Huh. I have to admit I haven't given a lot of thought to the relative social rankings of Children of Adam and Eve versus other parts of Narnia's sentient Creation. My instinct is that being as they are both intelligent and ensouled in the same way Humans are, and being that Aslan chooses to appear in the form of a Beast Himself in that part of Creation, they probably count as our equals at least in general? Of course there is still the question of why Humans were chosen as rulers and stewards of the land...

As for the Cousins bit, I don't think it needs to be read into too heavily as an indicator of where one stands on the Great Chain of Being or whatever. As Icarus brought up, it's been around in British English as a term of affection from human to human since Shakespeare. (I am also reminded of a writer who I have seen use "cousin" as a term of endearment accross multiple friendly species, both sapient animal and space alien, and I suddenly wonder if she was following the Shakesperean tradition or directly inspired by Lewis.)