If someone (in the world or near you) has the same last name as you do does that make them related to you? - Printable Version +- Twitist Forums (http://twitist.com) +-- Forum: Facebook forums (/forum-14.html) +--- Forum: General facebook and life forums (/forum-25.html) +--- Thread: If someone (in the world or near you) has the same last name as you do does that make them related to you? (/thread-32299.html)

If someone (in the world or near you) has the same last name as you do does that make them related to you? - Roman - 11-09-2012 05:57 PM I was wondering because on Facebook, Myspace people have the same first ad last name as I do but some have just the last. In anyway does this make them related to you or you to them?? I am not looking for stupid answers either, I was wondering if every (for example) Smith is related to each other or maybe just a few of them. Please answer, thanks. - baxterville - 11-09-2012 06:05 PM Possibly, but not necessarily. Some names originated in clans who eventually traveled and spread the family name all over the world. But since there were different clans whose only connection was a common name, name alone doesn't indicate a genetic connection. Lots of names have been altered or changed completely over time, as well. At Ellis Island, for instance, immigration workers often misspelled names and the tweaked version became someone's legal name. And other names were so difficult to spell or pronounce that they were simplified or changed altogether. In my family, for example, there are two branches whose surname has no connection whatsoever with our heritage. One name was changed from Graf to LaGraf during the immigration process. And in the other case, a distant relative simply chose a different last name because he was wanted for horse thievery and knew having a different name would help him evade the lawmen. The name he chose, which is of a completely different national origin than his true name, is now my family surname. - ashley - 11-09-2012 06:05 PM Not necessarily... especially if you have a fairly common last name. If your name is pretty unusual, then the chances are better. It helps to understand how and why last names came about in the first place. Last names (surnames) began in the middle ages. Before that, most people just went by one name. That worked out okay for a while, when communities were small and each person in a village had their own unique name. But then the population started growing... and at the same time, people began using the same handful of names over and over. Names of saints, kings & queens, and dear old grandpa were popular choices. Every family had a John, a William or a Thomas... and that made things confusing! Which John were you talking about? In order to distinguish one John from another, it became necessary to tack on a description: ”I saw John the other day.” ”Oh really? Which John?” ”John the baker.” And so John the baker eventually came to be called John Baker. Occupations were just one way to describe someone. You could also describe a person by where they lived (John Woods, Tom Rivers); by who their parents were (John Johnson, Tom Williamson); or by a trait they had (John Armstrong, Tom Smart). Obviously, there were lots of different men who worked as bakers, lived by the woods, or had fathers named John... but they weren’t all related to each other. So neither are their descendants who are living today. However, if two people share a very unique or uncommon last name, there’s a good chance it started with the same ancestor, way back when. - Shirley T - 11-09-2012 06:05 PM We are all related if we go back far enough but the root person of your surname will not necessarily be the root person of someone else with your surname.. When surnames were assigned or taken in Europe during the last millennium it wasn't impossible for legitimate sons of the same man to wind up with a different surname and still each could have shared his surname with others with no known relationship. In England most had one by the end of the 14th century. Still in many cases it was a couple of more centuries before the same surname was passed down to subsequent generations. The purpose for them was not to identify a person as a member of a family but for taxation purposes. Too many Homers, Freds, Johns and Henrys in the same town or village and they had to have a way of telling them apart. A lot of people get taken in by surname product peddlers. They will sell you framed surname histories, books that purport to give you your surname background, coats of arms(they usually use the misnomer family crest) like they belong to everyone with the same surname. The surname product business is a scam. - * Xanthippe - 11-09-2012 06:05 PM You have such great answers already (particularly Ashley's - I doubt I could have explained it half as clearly), there is little left to say. I would just add that the reason Smith is the most common surname in the British Isles is that pretty much every village had one - a blacksmith that is. So you are no more likely to be related to another Smith as you are to someone with a completely different surname. - no - 11-09-2012 06:05 PM The quickest way to explain my NO anwer would be... General Robert E. Lee wasn't related to Bruce Lee, as you can probably see without much trouble. - Ted Pack - 11-09-2012 06:05 PM The rarer the surname, the more likely they are related. Most of the Packs in the USA are related. Most of the Cadys in the USA descend from one man, too. Robert E Lee the general and Bruce Lee the actor were not related. Most Smiths and Johnsons are not. - A Journey - 11-09-2012 06:05 PM It can be possible but you are most likely not related to everyone with your same last name. There is people with the same name as me and I am not related to them.