NameCensus.

UK surname

Cranswick

In the 1881 census there were 198 people recorded with the Cranswick surname, ranking it #12,922 among surnames in the records. By 2016, the modern count was 248, ranked #16,910, down from #12,922 in 1881.

The strongest historical links point to Hull Holy Trinity, Reighton and Featherstone. In the modern distribution records, the strongest local clusters include Wakefield, Blaenau Gwent and Rotherham.

Across the surname records, the highest recorded count for Cranswick is 272 in 2010. Compared with 1881, the name has grown by 25.3%.

1881 census count

198

Ranked #12,922

Modern count

248

2016, ranked #16,910

Peak year

2010

272 bearers

Map years

8

1851 to 2016

Key insights

  • Cranswick had 198 recorded bearers in 1881, making it the #12,922 surname in that year.
  • The latest modern count shown here is 248 in 2016, ranked #16,910.
  • Within the historical census years, the highest count was 247 in 1911.
  • The contemporary neighbourhood profile most associated with the surname is Small Town Suburbia.

Cranswick surname distribution map

The map shows where the Cranswick surname is concentrated in each census or modern distribution year. Darker areas mean a stronger local concentration.

Distribution map

Cranswick surname density by area, 1881 census.

Loading map
Lower densityMedium densityHigh density

Timeline

Back to top

Cranswick over time

The table below tracks recorded surname counts and rank from the 19th-century census years through the modern adult-register period.

Year Period Count Rank
1851 historical 132 #14,174
1861 historical 93 #22,009
1881 historical 198 #12,922
1891 historical 226 #13,668
1901 historical 231 #13,805
1911 historical 247 #13,016
1997 modern 269 #14,543
1998 modern 265 #15,087
1999 modern 259 #15,433
2000 modern 258 #15,427
2001 modern 248 #15,606
2002 modern 256 #15,565
2003 modern 264 #15,071
2004 modern 263 #15,189
2005 modern 264 #15,085
2006 modern 251 #15,696
2007 modern 259 #15,519
2008 modern 259 #15,688
2009 modern 267 #15,661
2010 modern 272 #15,811
2011 modern 261 #16,145
2012 modern 259 #16,126
2013 modern 256 #16,506
2014 modern 251 #16,865
2015 modern 254 #16,608
2016 modern 248 #16,910

Geography

Back to top

Where Cranswicks are most common

Historical parish links are strongest around Hull Holy Trinity, Reighton, Featherstone, Hunmanby and Selby, Hemingborough (Barlby). These are the places where the surname stands out most clearly in the older records.

The modern local-area list points to Wakefield, Blaenau Gwent, Rotherham, Calderdale and Eden. Treat these as concentration signals, not proof that every family line began there.

Some modern areas include a three-digit suffix, such as Leeds 110. The suffix is a small-area code, so it stays in the table while the prose uses the plain place name.

Top historical parishes

Rank Parish Area
1 Hull Holy Trinity Yorkshire, East Riding
2 Reighton Yorkshire, East Riding
3 Featherstone Yorkshire, West Riding
4 Hunmanby Yorkshire, East Riding
5 Selby, Hemingborough (Barlby) Yorkshire, West Riding

Top modern areas

Rank Area District
1 Wakefield 027 Wakefield
2 Blaenau Gwent 001 Blaenau Gwent
3 Rotherham 013 Rotherham
4 Calderdale 003 Calderdale
5 Eden 006 Eden

Forenames

Back to top

First names often paired with Cranswick

These lists show first names that appear often with the Cranswick surname in historical and recent records.

Modern profile

Back to top

Neighbourhood profile for Cranswick

Modern surname records can be compared with neighbourhood classifications. For Cranswick, this points to the kinds of places where the surname is most concentrated today.

These neighbourhood labels describe areas, not individual people. They are useful because surnames often cluster through family history, migration, housing patterns and local work. A surname can be strongest in one type of neighbourhood even when people with that name live across the country.

The UK classification gives the national picture. The London classification is more specific to the capital, where housing, age profile, tenure and population mix can look quite different from the rest of the UK.

UK neighbourhood type

UK Output Area Classification

Supergroup

Retired Professionals

Group

Small Town Suburbia

Nationally, the Cranswick surname is most associated with neighbourhoods classed as Small Town Suburbia, within Retired Professionals. This does not mean every Cranswick household fits that profile, but it gives a useful signal about where the modern surname distribution is strongest.

Read profile summary

Group profile

This Group is predominantly comprised of married couples with no resident dependent children, living in areas characterised neither by under-occupancy nor overcrowding throughout the UK in or adjacent to small towns. White ethnic groups and affiliation with Christianity predominates. Housing tends to be predominantly semi-detached or detached and workers are employed principally in managerial and professional occupations, with semi-skilled occupations also in evidence. These areas of the Supergroup are of higher population density.

Wider pattern

Typically married but no longer with resident dependent children, these well-educated households either remain working in their managerial, professional, administrative or other skilled occupations, or are retired from them – the modal individual age is beyond normal retirement age. Underoccupied detached and semi-detached properties predominate, and unpaid care is more prevalent than reported disability. The prevalence of this Supergroup outside most urban conurbations indicates that rural lifestyles prevail, typically sustained by using two or more cars per household.

London neighbourhood type

London Output Area Classification

Supergroup

The Greater London Mix

Group

Social Rented Sector Professional Support Workers

Within London, Cranswick is most associated with areas classed as Social Rented Sector Professional Support Workers, part of The Greater London Mix. This gives the surname a London-specific profile rather than forcing the capital into the same pattern as the rest of the country.

Read profile summary

Group profile

Mainly located in Inner London, these neighbourhoods retain a diverse employment structure, with some concentration in associated professional and technical occupations rather than skilled trades or construction. Social renting is more common and levels of homeownership are low. Many residents identify as Black. There is a lower than average rate of marriage or civil partnership, few that are very old (85 or over) and higher than average incidence of disability.

Wider London pattern

A Supergroup embodying London's diversity in many respects, apart from low numbers of residents identifying as of Bangladeshi, Indian, Pakistani or Other (non-Chinese) Asian ethnicity. There is lower than average prevalence of families with dependent children, while there are above average occurrences of never-married individuals and single-person households. The age distribution is skewed towards younger, single residents and couples without children, with many individuals identifying as of mixed or multiple ethnicity. Social rented or private rented housing is slightly more prevalent than average, and many residents live in flats. Individuals typically work in professional and associated roles in public administration, education or health rather than in elementary occupations in agriculture, energy, water, construction or manufacturing. Incidence of students is slightly below average. Individuals declaring no religion are more prevalent than average and non-use of English at home is below average.

Healthy neighbourhoods

Access to healthy assets and hazards

Cranswick is most concentrated in decile 9 for access to healthy assets and hazards. This places the surname towards the healthier end of the index.

Lower deciles point towards weaker access to healthy assets or stronger exposure to local hazards. Higher deciles point towards stronger access and fewer hazards.

9
Lower access Higher access

Neighbourhood deprivation

Index of Multiple Deprivation

Cranswick falls in decile 5 for neighbourhood deprivation. This puts the surname near the middle of the scale.

Decile 1 represents the more deprived end of the scale. Decile 10 represents the less deprived end.

5
More deprived Less deprived

Broadband speed

Fixed broadband download speed

The modern neighbourhood pattern for Cranswick is most associated with a typical fixed broadband download band of 30-40 mbit/s.

The scale below places that band in context, from slower local download bands through to faster ones.

6
Slower band Faster band

Area snapshot

Ethnic group estimate

Most common ethnic group estimate
White - British

This describes the area pattern most associated with Cranswick, not the ethnicity of every person with the surname.

1881 census detail

Back to top

Cranswick families in the 1881 census

These tables use 1881 census entries for people recorded with the Cranswick surname. Use the location tables for concentration, then the name and occupation tables for the people behind the surname.

Top counties

Total is the county count. Frequency and index adjust for local population size, so they are better concentration signals. Yorkshire leads with 158 Cranswicks recorded in 1881 and an index of 8.21x.

County Total Index
Yorkshire 158 8.21x
Lancashire 15 0.65x
Middlesex 11 0.57x
Durham 7 1.21x
Surrey 5 0.53x
Buckinghamshire 3 2.56x

Top districts and towns

Districts give a more local view than counties. Total shows raw records, while frequency and index show local concentration. Reighton in Yorkshire leads with 16 Cranswicks recorded in 1881 and an index of 9411.76x.

Place Total Index
Reighton 16 9411.76x
Grindall 11 9166.67x
Selby 11 273.63x
Whitwood 9 329.67x
Bridlington 8 181.82x
Castleford 8 114.29x
East Heslerton 8 4000.00x
St George Hanover Square 8 23.39x
York St Lawrence 8 398.01x
Doncaster 7 49.82x
South Milford 7 1000.00x
Bishopwearmouth 6 12.10x
Caytn Deepdal Kilrby 6 1463.41x
Drighlington 6 214.29x
Ecclesall Bierlow 6 15.34x
Rudston 6 1500.00x
Carnforth 5 393.70x
Chorlton On Medlock 5 13.66x
Dalton In Furness 5 56.24x
Knottingley 5 147.93x
Battersea 4 5.60x
Featherstone 4 185.19x
Holy Trinity 4 8.65x
Beverley St Martin 3 93.46x
Burton Agnes 3 1304.35x
Thornholm 3 4285.71x
Wistow 3 588.24x
Barnsley 2 10.08x
Chapel Allerton 2 69.44x
Horton 2 350.88x
Potter Newton 2 59.00x
Scarborough 2 11.44x
St George In East London 2 10.95x
Airyholm W Howthrp 1 3333.33x
Bradford 1 2.15x
Epsom 1 21.69x
Fridaythorpe 1 476.19x
Langley Marish 1 69.44x
Leeds 1 0.92x
Sculcoates 1 3.28x
Southcoates 1 9.36x
St Pancras London 1 0.64x
Stranton 1 5.14x
Tanshelf 1 64.94x
York St Margaret 1 84.03x

Top female names

These are the female first names most often recorded with the Cranswick surname in 1881. Names are not merged, so initials, variant spellings and transcription quirks can appear as separate rows.

Top male names

These are the male first names most often recorded with the Cranswick surname in 1881. Names are not merged, so initials, variant spellings and transcription quirks can appear as separate rows.

Name Count
William 18
John 11
Charles 7
George 7
Henry 6
Thomas 6
Matthew 5
James 4
Joseph 4
Albert 3
Arthur 3
Harry 3
Alfred 2
David 2
Fred 2
Gersham 2
Herbert 2
Robert 2
Chas. 1
Edmund 1
Edward 1
Ernest 1
Gershaw 1
Jim 1
Jos. 1
Matthias 1
Percival 1

FAQ

Cranswick surname: questions and answers

How common was the Cranswick surname in 1881?

In 1881, 198 people were recorded with the Cranswick surname. That placed it at #12,922 in the surname rankings for that year.

How common is the Cranswick surname today?

The latest modern count shown here is 248 in 2016. That gives Cranswick a modern rank of #16,910.

What does the Cranswick map show?

The map shows local surname concentration for the selected year. Darker areas have a stronger concentration of Cranswick bearers relative to the surrounding population.

What records is this surname page based on?

The historical counts come from census surname records. The modern counts and neighbourhood summaries come from later surname distribution records. Counts are recorded bearers in those records, not a live estimate of everyone with the name today.