How can people that have the same last name not be related? o.O?

Question

I've always wondered this...because I've seen people who have the same last name say they're not related...but how is that possible if a last name is shared by a family...isn't it? o.O I may be wrong, lol. =3 But I'm just wondering if all the people who say they're not related but have the same last name really are related. If not how can that be? :) Thanks and sorry if it doesn't make much sense... ;_; I tried, lol.

Answer 1

Last names have a variety of origins, many names that are the same began in different places and were taken by people with absolutely no relationship to each other :



In the early years of the Middle Ages, most people in Europe lived in small farming villages. Everyone knew his neighbors, and there was little need for last names. But as the population expanded and the towns grew, a need arose to find ways to differentiate between two people who shared the same first name.

http://edsitement.neh.gov/view_lesson_plan.asp?id=480





In Britain, hereditary surnames were adopted in the 13th and 14th centuries, initially by the aristocracy but eventually by everyone. By 1400, most English and Scottish people had acquired surnames, but many Scottish and Welsh people did not adopt surnames until the 17th century, or even later. Henry VIII (1509 - 1547) ordered that marital births be recorded under the surname of the father.

Most surnames of British origin fall into seven types:



Occupations. Personal characteristics. Geographical features. Place names. Those descended from land-owners. Patronymics, matronymics or ancestral, and Patronal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_name#English-speaking_countries

Answer 2

Most people did not have a surname until the last millennium. In England they generally had one by the end of the 14th century. They were not taken necessarily to identify a person as a member of a family. They were based on a)being the son of someone b) their occupation c) where they lived d)some characteristic about them.



When they got through it wasn't impossible for legitimate sons of the same man to have a different surname and still each could have shared their surname with others with whom they were not related.



For instance blacksmiths usually took the name Smith. Many men whose father's name was John took the name Johnson or Jones. You can imagine how many men named John that had sons.

Some people took the name of the town or castle they lived close to and a person can make a mistake in assuming since they had an ancestor living near a castle with their surname that somehow they were related to the lord of the manor. Sam that lived on a hill became Sam Hill along with others living on a hill. ,Characteristic names were Short, Stout. Black, Brown and White usually indicated the color of their hair.



Now some will argue the whole human race is related somewhere back down the line. However, the root person of our surname is not always the same as the root person of others with the same surname.

Answer 3

In the netherlands Surnames only became forced by law in 1811 (or 1812). Before that many people where know by their patronyms (father sname), e.g. Pete, son of John was called Pete Johns; when Pete got a son himself he would be called e.g. Jim Petes.



So in 1811/12 people were forced to come up with a surname. Some were quite creative, and called themselves with some funny names, comparable to Doodle or whatsoever, many on the other hand were

less creative, and just registered their patronym', or the place or state they came from. So in the netherlands we have many people called 'Jansen' (='Johns son') or 'de Vries'(=the Frisian) who are not related. the only thing they have in commen is either the first name of one of their ancestors (jan (or john), the most common surname in Holland), or the place they came from (e.g. Frisia: the northernmost part of the Netherlands).



Now, in some situations people did have a surname well before 1811. This was the case for instance for quite well of families or nobility, or families who thought quite highly of their ancestors. Undoubtedly they will have many descendants with the same surname, all related, however back in 1811/12 some people, when chosing their names, picked one of these names, even though they were not related...



So, having the same surname is not often a guarantee of being related, especially if you have a name which is quite common in some place.



Finaly, there is another thing you have to keep in mind, and that is how you define "I am related to..."



Some people say that, actually, we are all related to eachother. This is not only because there's Adam and Eve (remember?), but also scientific people (genticists) think we all have a common ancestor from somewhere in Africa. So bothe sides of those camps say that

we're all related (means looking at a surname makes no sense).



Other people, or in other situations you look at "being related to someone" in a different fashion, i.e. being a close relative or a distant relative. Looking at the paragraph above this one you and I are related,

however whether you would call that related as in a day to day sense, I doubt.....



Cheers, LD

Answer 4

Honestly i'm not 100% sure as it relates to all cultures. But as far as being an African American and relying on history, I know some of the instances are that during the time of the slave trade people were assigned the last name of their master regardless of whether or not they were related and they name traveled with them throughout life despite where they went. (Being sold, bought, and/or traded) Thus several ppl might have the same last name and actually not be related.



And on the other hand some of the people could be related but just not know it because it is too far back to recoup. For example western expansion, family members would separate to the other side of the country, thus having 2 different areas of lineage. And i have found this in my family, there are 100's of sumbler's in Louisiana, but about 20% I can only claim as family as far as history goes...but who knows because in my opinion the name is rare.

Answer 5

to try and put this in simple terms-

you are basing your ideas on WHAT YOU KNOW TODAY to be the normal way of things. What you are not fully aware of, is HOW last names came to be.

For us, names are connected to family. However, it was not always this way. In ancient times.. persons did not have last names. As population increased.. people found there were 5 guys in the village who were named John.. one was the blacksmith, another came from the village down the road, another had blond hair. NONE of them were related. So, the practice was names according to things like occupation, place of origin, so forth. If 5 guys came from the other village, they may have the same last name .."from London" or insert the village name.

Last names are not always shared by a family, because that is not how they started.

It comes down to simple reality today (that can be proved by genetics).. a last name is NOT ALWAYS shared by relatives/ family. thus, having the same last name is not proof that you are related.

Answer 6

I thought i had unique last name that was special to my family alone but when I started doing checks on family members I found out that there were people from all over the world that shared that name and I'm pretty sure I'm not related to any of them.I found out people from as far away as Russia came through Ellis Island with that name and I'm 100% german

Answer 7

Jay's answer is a correct answer and very thorough. there is only one thing I can add to that. in some parts of africa people are named after a family friend and they take on that persons last name. so if I had a baby girl named jenny and I wanted to name her after you and your name was susan wakefield. then i would name by daughter jenny wakefield. after you. so if you were to do jenny's genealogy you would be confused thinking jenny is a wakefield when she is not. also in other parts of africa and other countries as well the child was given the first name of the father as the last name so if Jenny's dad was named john pipper then Jenny's name would be jenny john. all of these good examples that these wonderful answers are giving you is exactly the reason why people can have the same last name and not be related.

Answer 8

1. When the kings of old demanded that people adopt a surname, people started adopting a name. If everyone in England who had a dad named Peter were to select the surname Peterson, they are not related, but have the same surname.

#2. When people immigrate, they often have their name changed when they sign papers in their new country. E.g., a person arriving from Germany with the name of Marten might have it changed to Martin. They would not be related to people who already had the name of Martin.

#3. At the time of the Civil War, many blacks had no surname. When Lincoln gave them their freedom, many adopted the names of their "master", or anyone whom they admired. Many adopted the name of Washington, but they are not related to George Washington.

#4. People still go to court to seek name changes. They often pick surnames of someone they admire, but they are not related.



There are many more reasons why people with the same surname are not related, but this should get you started.

Answer 9

Many people who immigrated to the U.S. years ago through Ellis Island, had their names misspelled on immigration papers and/or simply adopted various anglicized spellings. Knepper, became Nipper, or Neiper, etc. People with criminal histories simply gave a name that wasn't theirs at all. Then there were people who actually HAD that name. But they were not related.



Slaves in America had no last names and they often adopted either the name of the family who owned them, or various presidents. Hence the number of Johnsons and Washingtons, etc. They were not related.



In Scandinavian countries centuries ago, if John had a son, he was Johns son, or Johnson. So there are many names ending in son, yet those folks aren't related. There were simply many "Johns". They were not related.



In early times, when people didn't even have last names, in order to identify themselves, they adopted a last name that was regional, or otherwise descriptive. So many from a particular region would have the same last name yet not be related. The name simply described which township they lived in/near. For example, Henry from York. That would keep him from being confused with Henry from Surrey. So, Tom York and Henry York were not related.



So, many people got their last name for a different reason and are not related.

Answer 10

Because all surnames were made up. They're convenience and fiction. They were almost all made up to differentiate a person from other persons, and they generally became known by their location (Fred, from Raven's Field or Fred Van Yamsterdam) or their occupation (Smith), or a personal characteristic (Strong, Short), their father's name with a "-son" appended, or they just made it up when governments demanded it.



Lots of people lived by wells and hills, and most of them were not genetically related. And even more of them were the son of John.

Answer 11

Same thing I asked myself, I had a crush on this girl in 4th grade whose last name was Ponce



then I found out my mother's non-marriage name is Ponce



ever since then I've wondered

Answer 12

a million.decide on ultimate answer or, bypass away it to vote casting, why? decide on ultimate answer, it feels staggering to finalise a question. 2.Are you a "thumb top" or a "thumb downer"? the two 3.Do you do your Q&A for the day in one consultation or do you come back in periods by using out the day? periods 4.have you ever had a contravention? how many? nope, by no skill 5.have you ever been suspended. how many cases? by no skill 6. have you ever reported somebody, if so why? sure, as quickly as because of the fact they have been impolite. bypass this final one in case you hate Harry Potter 7. whilst asking a Hp appropriate question do you place it in Books & Authors or Polls& Surveys? by no skill ask Harry Potter questions.

Answer 13

After the Emancipation Proclamation black slaves who didn't have last names took their ex-master's last names or other authoritative figures' names like Washington, Lincoln etc. That would be one case.

Answer 14

you have to remember that a long time ago when people came to ellis island to enter this country sometimes there last names got changed, and other times people who had no last name where given one according to there profession, like smith would be for someone who was a blacksmith sheppard would be for someone who was a sheppard

Answer 15

Well, surnames a loooooooong time ago were based on jobs or your parents.



Such as Jameson or Jacobson or Maddison. It would actually be James' Son.



Or such as Smith. It would be blacksmith, a job.

Answer 16

Take the name Miller. People who milled back in the day were givin this name. There were many, many millers though. Many millers in different families.

Answer 17

Wow, Thanks! Exactly what I was searching for. I looked for the answers on the internet but I couldn't find them.

Answer 18

Maybe they came from a very large family, and that family spread out so much that they were so distant, they weren't even considered family?