I missed this post:
Quote:
That said, do you consider the name or the genetic code to be more important? I think my sister is more likely to have kids than I. She's gay though, so there's a chance the kid won't be related but could still have the last name.
|
Carrying on the name itself is the only thing that weighs on me. Both of my sisters already have kids, so the family genes are already beyond me - but the last name (at this branch) would end with me.
Like I said before though there are obviously other people with my last name in the places the name stemmed from - but in North America, there are maybe 6 families.
And that's it. They apparently have an incredible knack for having more girls than boys.
I find it an incredibly depressing prospect to be the last line in carrying on the family name. Heritage is important in my family, knowing where you came from, that sort of thing. We actually
have our family tree. It's a massive amount of papers that dates back 500+ years. One of my relatives wrote the first History of England (In French), Some were humble Italian cabbage farmers - others, Jesuits, who escaped from Italy -> France - > Montreal, over the course of 500 years.
I just really,
really don't want my last name on my branch of the tree to die off and morph into something else. In some families "Jones" may turn into "Smith", and suddenly the family name is 'different' just due to the fact that their might be a generation of all-females, or the males don't have males. But to be the one to stop a 500+ year branch on a family tree would be horrible.
I need to start looking for some suitable mates.