UK surname
In the 1881 census there were 82 people recorded with the Trash surname, ranking it #21,957 among surnames in the records. By 2016, the modern count was 25, ranked #36,324, down from #21,957 in 1881.
The strongest historical links point to Melcombe Horsey, Lewes St John-under-the-Castle and London parishes. In the modern distribution records, the strongest local clusters include No data.
Across the surname records, the highest recorded count for Trash is 133 in 1911. Compared with 1881, the name has fallen by 69.5%.
1881 census count
82
Ranked #21,957
Modern count
25
2016, ranked #36,324
Peak year
1911
133 bearers
Map years
1
1911 to 1911
Key insights
Map
Back to topThe map shows where the Trash surname is concentrated in each census or modern distribution year. Darker areas mean a stronger local concentration.
Distribution map
Trash surname density by area, 1911 census.
Timeline
Back to topThe 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 | 83 | #19,181 |
| 1861 | historical | 75 | #24,238 |
| 1881 | historical | 82 | #21,957 |
| 1891 | historical | 84 | #26,229 |
| 1901 | historical | 57 | #27,846 |
| 1911 | historical | 133 | #19,214 |
| 1997 | modern | 29 | #34,795 |
| 1998 | modern | 26 | #35,254 |
| 1999 | modern | 24 | #35,514 |
| 2000 | modern | 27 | #35,188 |
| 2001 | modern | 25 | #35,248 |
| 2002 | modern | 26 | #35,338 |
| 2003 | modern | 22 | #35,740 |
| 2004 | modern | 22 | #35,878 |
| 2005 | modern | 22 | #35,993 |
| 2006 | modern | 25 | #35,903 |
| 2007 | modern | 24 | #36,072 |
| 2008 | modern | 24 | #36,148 |
| 2009 | modern | 24 | #36,261 |
| 2010 | modern | 24 | #36,341 |
| 2011 | modern | 26 | #36,193 |
| 2012 | modern | 21 | #36,490 |
| 2013 | modern | 23 | #36,414 |
| 2014 | modern | 23 | #36,417 |
| 2015 | modern | 22 | #36,493 |
| 2016 | modern | 25 | #36,324 |
Geography
Back to topHistorical parish links are strongest around Melcombe Horsey, Lewes St John-under-the-Castle, London parishes, Woking and Brighton. 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.
| Rank | Parish | Area |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Melcombe Horsey | Dorset |
| 2 | Lewes St John-under-the-Castle | Sussex |
| 3 | London parishes | London 3 |
| 4 | Woking | Surrey |
| 5 | Brighton | Sussex |
| Rank | Area | District |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | No data | No data |
Forenames
Back to topThese lists show first names that appear often with the Trash surname in historical and recent records.
Recent female names
Recent male names
Modern profile
Back to topModern surname records can be compared with neighbourhood classifications. For Trash, 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
Supergroup
No data
Group
No data
Nationally, the Trash surname is most associated with neighbourhoods classed as No data, within No data. This does not mean every Trash household fits that profile, but it gives a useful signal about where the modern surname distribution is strongest.
London neighbourhood type
Supergroup
No data
Group
No data
Within London, Trash 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
The modern neighbourhood pattern for Trash is most associated with a typical fixed broadband download band of No data.
Area snapshot
This describes the area pattern most associated with Trash, not the ethnicity of every person with the surname.
1881 census detail
Back to topThese tables use 1881 census entries for people recorded with the Trash surname. Use the location tables for concentration, then the name and occupation tables for the people behind the surname.
Total is the county count. Frequency and index adjust for local population size, so they are better concentration signals. Sussex leads with 27 Trashs recorded in 1881 and an index of 19.78x.
| County | Total | Index |
|---|---|---|
| Sussex | 27 | 19.78x |
| Middlesex | 14 | 1.73x |
| Hampshire | 13 | 7.83x |
| Dorset | 12 | 22.59x |
| Surrey | 7 | 1.77x |
| Lincolnshire | 4 | 3.09x |
| Oxfordshire | 2 | 4.00x |
| Bedfordshire | 1 | 2.39x |
| Lancashire | 1 | 0.10x |
| Royal Navy | 1 | 10.36x |
| Somerset | 1 | 0.77x |
Districts give a more local view than counties. Total shows raw records, while frequency and index show local concentration. Lewes St John Southover in Sussex leads with 12 Trashs recorded in 1881 and an index of 1304.35x.
| Place | Total | Index |
|---|---|---|
| Lewes St John Southover | 12 | 1304.35x |
| Brighton | 11 | 39.94x |
| St Pancras London | 7 | 10.74x |
| Hawley | 6 | 1935.48x |
| Melcombe Horsey | 6 | 12000.00x |
| Appleshaw | 4 | 5714.29x |
| Chesilborne | 4 | 4000.00x |
| Great Grimsby | 4 | 48.66x |
| Mitcham | 4 | 160.64x |
| St Bartholomew Great | 3 | 405.41x |
| Camberwell | 2 | 3.87x |
| Christ Church Newgate | 2 | 526.32x |
| Cliffe | 2 | 434.78x |
| Paddington London | 2 | 6.72x |
| Woodstock | 2 | 645.16x |
| Aldershot | 1 | 17.99x |
| Ampthill | 1 | 158.73x |
| Cerne Abbas | 1 | 384.62x |
| Crondall | 1 | 112.36x |
| Frome | 1 | 32.05x |
| Hilton | 1 | 555.56x |
| Lewes St Ann | 1 | 217.39x |
| Portsea | 1 | 3.08x |
| Royal Navy | 1 | 12.12x |
| Seaford | 1 | 217.39x |
| Sutton | 1 | 35.09x |
| Toxteth Park | 1 | 3.07x |
These are the female first names most often recorded with the Trash surname in 1881. Names are not merged, so initials, variant spellings and transcription quirks can appear as separate rows.
These are the male first names most often recorded with the Trash surname in 1881. Names are not merged, so initials, variant spellings and transcription quirks can appear as separate rows.
Occupational titles are kept as recorded and later transcribed, so related jobs, spelling variants and mistakes stay separate. Scholar was the census term for a child in education. That means the other rows often tell you more about adult work in Trash households.
| Occupation | Count |
|---|---|
| Scholar | 11 |
| Ag Lab | 3 |
| Glover | 3 |
| None | 3 |
| Ag Labourer | 2 |
| Bargeman | 2 |
| Labourer | 2 |
| Almsman | 1 |
| Bricklayer Labourer | 1 |
| Bricklayers Laborer | 1 |
| Butcher | 1 |
| Card Colourer | 1 |
| Coachman Domestic Ser | 1 |
| Dressmaker | 1 |
| Fisherman | 1 |
| Furniture Packer | 1 |
| General Labourer | 1 |
| General Servant (Unemployed) | 1 |
| General Servant Domestic Unemployed | 1 |
| Gl Labourer | 1 |
| Glove Cutter | 1 |
| Gloveress | 1 |
| Housekeeper Domc Ser | 1 |
| Housemaid Domestic | 1 |
| Housemaid Domestic Servant | 1 |
| Iron Moulder Pauper | 1 |
| Laborer | 1 |
| Laborer Coal Yard | 1 |
| Laundress | 1 |
| Lead Seam | 1 |
| Lighterman | 1 |
| Machinist | 1 |
| Retired Shipmaster | 1 |
| Servant Domestic Serv | 1 |
| Servt | 1 |
| Shirt Maker | 1 |
| Wife | 1 |
FAQ
In 1881, 82 people were recorded with the Trash surname. That placed it at #21,957 in the surname rankings for that year.
The latest modern count shown here is 25 in 2016. That gives Trash a modern rank of #36,324.
The map shows local surname concentration for the selected year. Darker areas have a stronger concentration of Trash bearers relative to the surrounding population.
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.