NameCensus.

UK surname

Lodger

In the 1881 census there were 70 people recorded with the Lodger surname, ranking it #23,670 among surnames in the records. By 2016, the modern count was 5, ranked #38,264, down from #23,670 in 1881.

The strongest historical links point to Lanchester (Collierley, Kyo, Billingside, Medomsley, Ebchchester, Benfieldside, Heelyfield, Conside, London parishes and Silkstone. In the modern distribution records, the strongest local clusters include No data.

Across the surname records, the highest recorded count for Lodger is 660 in 1861. Compared with 1881, the name has fallen by 92.9%.

1881 census count

70

Ranked #23,670

Modern count

5

2016, ranked #38,264

Peak year

1861

660 bearers

Map years

4

1851 to 1911

Key insights

  • Lodger had 70 recorded bearers in 1881, making it the #23,670 surname in that year.
  • The latest modern count shown here is 5 in 2016, ranked #38,264.
  • Within the historical census years, the highest count was 660 in 1861.
  • The contemporary neighbourhood profile most associated with the surname is No data.

Lodger surname distribution map

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

Distribution map

Lodger surname density by area, 1911 census.

Loading map
Lower densityMedium densityHigh density

Timeline

Back to top

Lodger 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 208 #10,107
1861 historical 660 #4,061
1881 historical 70 #23,670
1891 historical 134 #19,777
1901 historical 98 #23,119
1911 historical 311 #11,150
1997 modern 2 #38,557
1998 modern 2 #38,550
1999 modern 2 #38,551
2000 modern 6 #37,624
2001 modern 5 #37,652
2002 modern 3 #38,152
2003 modern 1 #38,735
2004 modern 2 #38,464
2005 modern 2 #38,532
2006 modern 2 #38,590
2007 modern 4 #38,169
2008 modern 5 #38,027
2009 modern 2 #38,725
2010 modern 2 #38,775
2011 modern 2 #38,745
2012 modern 1 #38,986
2013 modern 2 #38,761
2014 modern 3 #38,552
2015 modern 4 #38,392
2016 modern 5 #38,264

Geography

Back to top

Where Lodgers are most common

Historical parish links are strongest around Lanchester (Collierley, Kyo, Billingside, Medomsley, Ebchchester, Benfieldside, Heelyfield, Conside, London parishes, Silkstone and St James Westminster. These are the places where the surname stands out most clearly in the older records.

The modern local-area list points to No data. Treat these as concentration signals, not proof that every family line began there.

Top historical parishes

Rank Parish Area
1 Lanchester (Collierley, Kyo, Billingside, Medomsley, Ebchchester, Benfieldside, Heelyfield, Conside Durham
2 London parishes London 1
3 Silkstone Yorkshire, West Riding
4 St James Westminster London (West Districts)
5 London parishes London 3

Top modern areas

Rank Area District
1 No data No data

Forenames

Back to top

First names often paired with Lodger

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

Recent female names

No Forenames Found

Recent male names

No Forenames Found

Modern profile

Back to top

Neighbourhood profile for Lodger

Modern surname records can be compared with neighbourhood classifications. For Lodger, 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

No data

Group

No data

Nationally, the Lodger surname is most associated with neighbourhoods classed as No data, within No data. This does not mean every Lodger household fits that profile, but it gives a useful signal about where the modern surname distribution is strongest.

London neighbourhood type

London Output Area Classification

Supergroup

No data

Group

No data

Within London, Lodger is most associated with areas classed as No data, part of No data. This gives the surname a London-specific profile rather than forcing the capital into the same pattern as the rest of the country.

Broadband speed

Fixed broadband download speed

The modern neighbourhood pattern for Lodger is most associated with a typical fixed broadband download band of No data.

Area snapshot

Ethnic group estimate

Most common ethnic group estimate
Unknown

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

1881 census detail

Back to top

Lodger families in the 1881 census

These tables use 1881 census entries for people recorded with the Lodger 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. Middlesex leads with 20 Lodgers recorded in 1881 and an index of 3.20x.

County Total Index
Middlesex 20 3.20x
Durham 7 3.77x
Yorkshire 7 1.13x
Kent 5 2.35x
Lancashire 5 0.67x
Surrey 5 1.64x
Flintshire 4 23.84x
Somerset 2 1.99x
Derbyshire 1 1.02x
Essex 1 0.81x
Gloucestershire 1 0.82x
Lanarkshire 1 0.50x
Nottinghamshire 1 1.19x
Renfrewshire 1 2.07x
Shropshire 1 1.85x
Stirlingshire 1 4.34x
Warwickshire 1 0.64x

Top districts and towns

Districts give a more local view than counties. Total shows raw records, while frequency and index show local concentration. Clerkenwell London in Middlesex leads with 6 Lodgers recorded in 1881 and an index of 40.71x.

Place Total Index
Clerkenwell London 6 40.71x
Southwick 6 340.91x
St George Hanover Square 5 45.45x
Bilton Cum Harrogate 4 188.68x
Mold 4 263.16x
Bedminster 2 21.19x
Croydon 2 11.84x
High Halden 2 1428.57x
Kensington London 2 5.76x
Paddington London 2 8.71x
Bermondsey 1 5.38x
Birmingham 1 1.91x
Burnham 1 217.39x
Cambuslang 1 49.02x
Chelsea London 1 5.32x
Chorley 1 24.04x
Denby 1 333.33x
Deptford St Paul 1 6.09x
Edmonton 1 19.88x
Everton 1 4.24x
Falkirk 1 18.55x
Folkestone 1 24.21x
Godstone 1 185.19x
Ludlow St Lawrence 1 93.46x
Northfleet 1 53.19x
Nottingham St Mary 1 4.60x
Port Glasgow 1 42.74x
Rodborough 1 169.49x
Rotherhithe 1 12.97x
St George Bloomsbury 1 27.93x
St Marylebone London 1 3.00x
Thornton Le Street 1 3333.33x
Thorpe Salvin 1 1250.00x
Todmorden Walsden 1 50.51x
Tonge 1 64.52x
Towerof London London 1 500.00x
Toxteth Park 1 3.99x
Westoe 1 9.50x
Wombwell 1 55.56x

Top female names

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

Name Count
Alfred 3
Charles 2
George 2
James 2
Thomas 2
William 2
B. 1
Chas. 1
Donald 1
Edward 1
Frederick 1
Fredrick 1
John 1
Jones 1
Joseph 1
Lodger 1
Marietta 1
Percy 1
Richard 1
Ruben 1
Sidney 1
Walter 1
Wm. 1

FAQ

Lodger surname: questions and answers

How common was the Lodger surname in 1881?

In 1881, 70 people were recorded with the Lodger surname. That placed it at #23,670 in the surname rankings for that year.

How common is the Lodger surname today?

The latest modern count shown here is 5 in 2016. That gives Lodger a modern rank of #38,264.

What does the Lodger map show?

The map shows local surname concentration for the selected year. Darker areas have a stronger concentration of Lodger 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.