• Do you love Genealogy? Why not write for us? we're looking for volunteers to write articles for Family history. Please contact us for further information.

What county/part of the UK is FH more difficult?

benny1982

Loyal Member
Staff member
Moderator
Posts
5,292
Likes
121
Location
Norwich
#1
I am talking about a county or country in the UK or Ireland that seems to be very difficult and challenging when it comes to ancestors, either due to the lack of records, or lack of online records or even where the surnames of that area are much more common (thus less of them in that county).

I find County Durham seems to be an area where tracing ancestors seems to be very tricky due to the commonness of surnames such as Richardson, Hodgson, Foster, Wilson etc. Those surnames are common but they seem even more common in Co Durham. There seems to be hundreds of Isabella Hodgson's daughter of William Hodgson's.
 

emeltee

Loyal Member
Posts
5,915
Likes
321
Location
Liverpool
#2
I've always found Durham OK for finding info, even with a common name like John Smith. I managed to get his branch back to the late 1600s.

I have problems finding data from Cumberland and Berkshire. You'd think that with a name like Branthwaite it would be easy but there's lot of them in Cumberland and not the ones I want, unfortunately.

Certain parts of Gloucestershire can be tricky too.

Certain counties are much better served than others.

Emeltee
 

benny1982

Loyal Member
Staff member
Moderator
Posts
5,292
Likes
121
Location
Norwich
#5
In my Durham lot I have Forster's and Richardson's and seem to struggle past the 1750s. Durham is quite covered online but it is hard trying to identify which Thomas Forster belongs to which branch if any.

Suffolk is poorly covered online now, the old IGI was good but the new IGI is useless.

Yes I find Berkshire coverage very thin on the ground online.
 

Similar threads

Top