Parts of the country with higher frequencies of the same surname.

[benny1982]

I know how Wales has many, many instances of the same surname such as Williams, Roberts, Jones and Llwellyn but I have found areas of England that seem to have higher frequencies of the same surname and it can lead to many difficulties. Co Durham is one county that has many, many instances of names like Wilson, Robson, Brown, Jobson, Hodgson etc. And I find Essex is another county with higher instances of the same surname. On top of Smith and Brown there are many instances of the surname Newman, Stock, Young, Reed, Webb, Hurrell, Moss - and it leads to several candidates for an ancestor, and can make you want to just admit defeat at times.

Whereas Norfolk, Suffolk and Sussex seem to be easier.

 

[Ladybird1300]

I've found the same in Wiltshire with Amor, Townsend, Newman, Reeves, Duck, and Smart, or may be it's the frequency appearing in my tree, it doesn't help when brother's and sisters or cousin's marry. For some reason the same six or seven families keep marrying each other, I'm surprised there are any other names in the county!!

 

[ptjw7]

I have found that in Essex most rellies are farm labourers and I don't suppose they had much time to travel for a wife etc plus the large number of offspring they tended to have.
The downside is finding the correct person as first names tend to be similar as well
The number of villages in Essex is testing as well - perhaps they moved with the work
Peter

 

[benny1982]

That is probably why Essex research can be very difficult unless they had a unusual surname or a lesser common first name. But mainly it is James, John, Thomas, Sarah, Mary, Ann, Elizabeth. And about 7 or 8 candidates for a possible ancestor. If the witnesses were regular ones which can sadly be the case a lot, it can be virtually impossible to know which one of them is your ancestor.

 

[Ladybird1300]

That is probably why Essex research can be very difficult unless they had a unusual surname or a lesser common first name. But mainly it is James, John, Thomas, Sarah, Mary, Ann, Elizabeth. And about 7 or 8 candidates for a possible ancestor. If the witnesses were regular ones which can sadly be the case a lot, it can be virtually impossible to know which one of them is your ancestor.

Apart from a few in West Ham I don't have any Essex ancestors, but all the first names you've used were all over the country and appear many times in everyone's tree. I've found the further back I go I have instances of different names like Joan, Roger, Matilda, Andrew or Phillip. I've also found if they had money, their daughters were often Priscilla, Dorothy or Thomasine, the son's didn't change much.

 

[ptjw7]

Essex research made all the more difficult when the Vicar changes the way he writes burials
Trawling through a parish this morning, all neatly written Surname then first name all of a sudden I noticed that the order had changed
had to back track several pages to find the change why the change!
Its bad enough trying to read the scrawl as it is.
Reading another parish for births you have to read the whole scrawl to even find the surname
Still the records are there if only you know where to look
Peter

 

[benny1982]

My sub to SEAX ran out the other day and I shall not get a new sub for a while now, it is not an easy site to navigate and I have pretty much exhausted what is on SEAX, perhaps because I have gone back as far as I can on most lines due to aforementioned reasons, too many people to chose from who could be an ancestor. Time to concentrate on other ancestors now.