Miscellaneous desk
< June 6	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 8 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 7[edit]

Hunt and Hunt[edit]

I'm trying to find a reference to either confirm or deny that there is any relationship between the Hunt family that started the condiment company and the Hunt family that started the AFL and the Chiefs. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy links: Hunt's and Lamar Hunt. --Lambiam 17:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Hunt Bros. Fruit Packing Co. was founded in 1888, in Sebastopol, California. Lamar Hunt was born in 1889, in El Dorado, Arkansas. That was a considerable distance at a time when most people were not very mobile; the travel by coach and train might have taken one to two weeks. Combine this with the fact that Hunt is not a particularly uncommon surname and it is clear that a relationship is rather unlikely. It is then also unlikely that there is any authoritative source confirming the absence of a relationship. --Lambiam 17:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be hard to figure out, if we knew who the Hunt brothers' parents were. The Hunt's article is kind of sparse on details about the family. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This Forbes article about the Hunt family does not mention any connection to the tomato packers. Cullen328 (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If they are related, it's probably very distant. But until we can find out something about the fruit-packing Hunt Brothers' family tree, it's hard to say for sure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The patron returned to see if I had an answer. I asked her why she thought there was a relationship and she said it was because Patrick Mahomes (with the Chiefs) signed an advertising deal with Hunt's Ketchup. I told her that it is unlikely that indicates a relationship between the families and that others I've asked have found nothing indicating a relationship. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Hunt family still owns the Chiefs, but this deal (which was inked in 2018) sounds like a "happy coincidence". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article from a few years ago in which the Hunt who's the Chiefs CEO specifically states they are not related to the Hunt's ketchup people.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doing some genealogy checking, Lamar Hunt's England-born ancestor came to America a couple of generations earlier than the Hunt brothers' own English ancestors; so if they're related, it's way back. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, in 1901 there were nearly 50,000 people called Hunt in the UK, so the chances of any close relationship are slim. Note that in the middle-ages, the surname might have been adopted by anybody employed in connection with the sport of hunting, so not much hope of a link even if you go back some centuries. Alansplodge (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, it can be an anglicisation of an immigrant surname. A family from London known to me, according to family lore, immigrated from Denmark [or, I suspect, Germany] in the period 1800-50 with the surname 'Huntz', and dropped the 'z' at some point unknown. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.221.195.5 (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Until 1864 Schleswig-Holstein was effectively Danish, the king of Denmark being, in a perpetuated personal union, both the Duke of the Duchy of Schleswig and the Duke of the Duchy of Holstein. --Lambiam 08:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The mutability of the Danish-German border figures in my suspicion: today the name Huntz is mostly found in Germany rather than Denmark. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.221.195.5 (talk) 22:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's always a bit surprising but setting their offspring score at four males per generation it takes only eight generations looking back in order to reduce their number to three. The way out from an excessive feeling of inheritable predictability and redundancy would then very unfortunately lie in war, adventure, adoption, and deception - by choice of a newer trade and pretense patronym at the first viable occasion. --Askedonty (talk) 18:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only if all four sons of a single father reach adulthood and sire again four sons, which just a few generations ago was not likely. The effective branching factor is much less than 4, even lower than 2. --Lambiam 08:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]