Did these surnames derive from a common ancestor?

Question:Did the surnames Snowden and Sneddon originate from the same place or family clan?

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: Did the surnames Snowden and Sneddon originate from the same place or family clan?

That would be very rare if they did.

Ancestry.Com shows Snowden is a habitational name, a place in West Yorkshire
from Old English snaw snow+dun hill, a hill where snow lies low

Surnames were a Norman invention. No doubt people living in and around the hill where the snow lies low took the name Snowden, not all were related.

They show Snedden a Scottish variant of Sneddon also it is a Dutch occupational name for a cloth cutter or tailor.

Sneddon, habitational name from a place near Dumfries, so called from the English
snaw "snow+ dun 'hill.

Names were taken to indicate someone was a son of man, like Johnson and Jones were people whose father was John.

They indicated their occupation.

Their habitation.

Or some characteristics.

Actually legitimate sons of the same man could have all taken different surnames and they all shared their surnames with people that they were not related to. Before they took surnames, John's son Henry signed his name Henry son of John. That is if he could write.

A lot of people fall prey to surname product peddlers, like coats of arms, thinking if it belonged to someone with their surname it belongs to them. It might not have been granted to anyone remotely related to them.

As Wendy said we get questions regarding the origin of a surname all the time. Another question is someone wants to find their "Family Crest" which is a misnomer for a coat of arms. They were granted to individuals who passed them on to their sons. These people who have bought one from those merchants of deceit selling them
have just bought one that was granted to someone with their surname and that someone might or might not be related.

It is possible, but not likely. Too many variants in the vowels and roots.

Surname origin is highly debatable, and less provable than "pure" genealogy. Yes, there is a critical difference.
Most surnames developed in a time frame where there were few, if any, records that we would normally use in research. You will find numerous "studies" on certain lines or families, but for many of those, you'll find clues, such as "it is believed", or other things that indicate this is oral tradition.
With some exceptions, you'll usually find that the idea of one common ancestor is inaccurate.
This is not meant as critical, but there is a high percentage of new researchers in this area, and finding an "origin" of a surname is probably one of the top three questions. We try to explain that solid genealogy CANNOT take a surname and 'jump' back to an origin. For many reasons, the only accurate way is to start with the present person (individual, not surname) and use documentation to work back, step by step. Sometimes people even find unknown old adoptions in the process, meaning the surname is completely different to begin with.