NameCensus.

UK surname

Worster

From a place name derived from an Old English term meaning "town among the marshes".

In the 1881 census there were 224 people recorded with the Worster surname, ranking it #11,970 among surnames in the records. By 2016, the modern count was 214, ranked #18,740, down from #11,970 in 1881.

The strongest historical links point to St Margaret Westminster, London parishes and St Leonard Bromley. In the modern distribution records, the strongest local clusters include Hackney, Daventry and Hertsmere.

Across the surname records, the highest recorded count for Worster is 274 in 1901. Compared with 1881, the name has stayed broadly stable by 4.5%.

1881 census count

224

Ranked #11,970

Modern count

214

2016, ranked #18,740

Peak year

1901

274 bearers

Map years

9

1851 to 2016

Key insights

  • Worster had 224 recorded bearers in 1881, making it the #11,970 surname in that year.
  • The latest modern count shown here is 214 in 2016, ranked #18,740.
  • Within the historical census years, the highest count was 274 in 1901.
  • The contemporary neighbourhood profile most associated with the surname is Ageing Communities.

Worster surname distribution map

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

Distribution map

Worster surname density by area, 1881 census.

Loading map
Lower densityMedium densityHigh density

Timeline

Back to top

Worster 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 141 #13,507
1861 historical 189 #12,570
1881 historical 224 #11,970
1891 historical 247 #12,880
1901 historical 274 #12,370
1911 historical 269 #12,300
1997 modern 208 #17,219
1998 modern 215 #17,306
1999 modern 213 #17,550
2000 modern 214 #17,457
2001 modern 208 #17,513
2002 modern 216 #17,447
2003 modern 203 #17,967
2004 modern 204 #17,992
2005 modern 186 #18,985
2006 modern 200 #18,294
2007 modern 193 #18,923
2008 modern 195 #18,958
2009 modern 206 #18,657
2010 modern 218 #18,375
2011 modern 218 #18,206
2012 modern 212 #18,481
2013 modern 213 #18,743
2014 modern 216 #18,705
2015 modern 216 #18,600
2016 modern 214 #18,740

Geography

Back to top

Where Worsters are most common

Historical parish links are strongest around St Margaret Westminster, London parishes, St Leonard Bromley, All Saints Poplar and St Giles Camberwell. These are the places where the surname stands out most clearly in the older records.

The modern local-area list points to Hackney, Daventry, Hertsmere, Suffolk Coastal and East Lindsey. 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 St Margaret Westminster London (West Districts)
2 London parishes London 3
3 St Leonard Bromley London (East Districts)
4 All Saints Poplar London (East Districts)
5 St Giles Camberwell London (South Districts)

Top modern areas

Rank Area District
1 Hackney 025 Hackney
2 Daventry 003 Daventry
3 Hertsmere 004 Hertsmere
4 Suffolk Coastal 011 Suffolk Coastal
5 East Lindsey 017 East Lindsey

Forenames

Back to top

First names often paired with Worster

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

Modern profile

Back to top

Neighbourhood profile for Worster

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

Suburbanites and Peri-Urbanities

Group

Ageing Communities

Nationally, the Worster surname is most associated with neighbourhoods classed as Ageing Communities, within Suburbanites and Peri-Urbanities. This does not mean every Worster household fits that profile, but it gives a useful signal about where the modern surname distribution is strongest.

Read profile summary

Group profile

Many residents are of normal retirement age or above and live in communal establishments, and there are few dependent children. The dominant property type is a mix of retirement flats and detached houses. Those in work are likely to be employed in managerial and professional occupations, and many residents are educated to degree level. Levels of owner occupation are high, but the private rental sector is also present. Rural locations predominate.

Wider pattern

Pervasive throughout the UK, members of this Supergroup typically own (or are buying) their detached, semi-detached or terraced homes. They are also typically educated to A Level/Highers or degree level and work in skilled or professional occupations. Typically born in the UK, some families have children, although the median adult age is above 45 and some property has become under-occupied after children have left home. This Supergroup is pervasive not only in suburban locations, but also in neighbourhoods at or beyond the edge of cities that adjoin rural parts of the country.

London neighbourhood type

London Output Area Classification

Supergroup

Central Connected Professionals and Managers

Group

Central and City

Within London, Worster is most associated with areas classed as Central and City, part of Central Connected Professionals and Managers. 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

These high density central neighbourhoods are characterised by high levels of residential turnover. Few children are in evidence. Few individuals experience live with disability, with many in full-time employment or study. Levels of separation or divorce are low relative to the Supergroup average. The workforce is well-educated but not in the top flight of managerial occupations. Levels of affiliation to non-Christian religions are high.

Wider London pattern

Adult residents of these neighbourhoods are typically aged 25 to 44, working full-time in professional, managerial or associate professional occupations. There are few families with dependent children. The predominantly Inner London neighbourhoods have an international character, including many residents born elsewhere in Europe alongside high numbers of individuals identifying as of Chinese ethnicity. Many individuals are never married, childless and/or living alone. Above average numbers of individuals, likely to be full-time students, live in communal establishments. Elsewhere, privately rented flats are the dominant housing type. Residents of these areas are well-qualified, with a significant number holding Level 4 or above qualifications. There is a correspondingly high level of individuals employed full-time in professional, managerial and associated professional or technical occupations. Employing industries are financial, real estate, professional, administration, and, to a lesser degree, transport and communications. Unemployment is uncommon.

Healthy neighbourhoods

Access to healthy assets and hazards

Worster is most concentrated in decile 10 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.

10
Lower access Higher access

Neighbourhood deprivation

Index of Multiple Deprivation

Worster falls in decile 3 for neighbourhood deprivation. This puts the surname towards the more deprived end of the index.

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

3
More deprived Less deprived

Broadband speed

Fixed broadband download speed

The modern neighbourhood pattern for Worster is most associated with a typical fixed broadband download band of 25-30 mbit/s.

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

5
Slower band Faster band

Area snapshot

Ethnic group estimate

Most common ethnic group estimate
White - British

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

Meaning and origin of Worster

The surname Worster is believed to have originated in England during the medieval period. It is an anglicized form of the name Worcester, which itself is derived from the city of Worcester in Worcestershire. The city's name is rooted in the Old English elements "Weogoran" and "ceaster," meaning "the Roman town of the Weogoran tribe." This connection to a geographic location is typical of many English surnames that arose during the Middle Ages, often indicating the origin or residence of the family.

One of the earliest references to a name closely resembling Worster can be found in the Domesday Book of 1086, where the city of Worcester is extensively mentioned. Although not directly citing the surname Worster, the Domesday Book provides crucial evidence of the locale's significance, from which the surname likely derived. This makes the surname part of a broader category of locational surnames that emerged in the latter part of the 11th century.

An early recorded instance of the surname Worster appears in the 13th century. Hannibal Worster, a landowner in Worcestershire, is noted in the county records from 1236. His mention offers one of the earliest snapshots of the surname's existence as a family name, signaling the transition from a locational reference to a hereditary surname.

During the 15th century, the name appears in various English rolls and documents. John Worster, born circa 1425 in Worcestershire, held land in the county and appeared in several legal transactions. His position and landownership underscore the local standing of those bearing the surname.

By the 17th century, individuals bearing the surname Worster began to migrate to other parts of the English-speaking world, notably America. Samuel Worster, born around 1640, emigrated to the American colonies and established a family in Massachusetts. His descendants played a role in the early history of what would become the United States, revealing the surname's spread beyond its English roots.

Further evidence of the name's historical depth can be seen with Richard Worster, a notable figure from the 18th century. Born in 1702, Richard was an influential merchant in London, and his business dealings are well-documented in the city’s trade records. This highlights how the Worster name moved beyond its rural beginnings into the urban spheres and higher socio-economic classes.

Another notable figure is Thomas Worster, an architect born in 1765, who contributed significantly to the designs of several prominent buildings in Birmingham. His work and legacy offer a glimpse into the professional evolution of individuals carrying the surname during the Industrial Revolution.

The surname Worster, over the centuries, adapted through various spellings but retained its geographic and locational etymology. Each historical figure—Hannibal, John, Samuel, Richard, and Thomas—reflects a part of this enduring legacy, anchoring the surname firmly in history while illustrating its socio-economic and geographic journeys.

Sourced from namecensus.com.

1881 census detail

Back to top

Worster families in the 1881 census

These tables use 1881 census entries for people recorded with the Worster 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 87 Worsters recorded in 1881 and an index of 4.00x.

County Total Index
Middlesex 87 4.00x
Surrey 49 4.62x
Sussex 19 5.18x
Yorkshire 16 0.74x
Northamptonshire 12 5.87x
Buckinghamshire 11 8.36x
Hertfordshire 7 4.67x
Kent 7 0.94x
Bedfordshire 4 3.55x
Oxfordshire 3 2.23x
Berkshire 2 1.22x
Worcestershire 2 0.70x
Hampshire 1 0.22x
Norfolk 1 0.30x
Somerset 1 0.29x
Warwickshire 1 0.18x

Top districts and towns

Districts give a more local view than counties. Total shows raw records, while frequency and index show local concentration. Camberwell in Surrey leads with 22 Worsters recorded in 1881 and an index of 15.83x.

Place Total Index
Camberwell 22 15.83x
Bromley London 15 31.34x
Poplar London 10 24.35x
Beaconsfield 9 737.70x
Bethnal Green London 9 9.52x
Croydon 8 13.60x
Tottenham 8 23.09x
West Hoathly 8 695.65x
Barby Cum Onley 7 1666.67x
Bingley 7 50.98x
Hemel Hempstead 7 103.55x
Chiswick 6 50.46x
Preston 6 93.75x
St George Hanover 6 21.13x
Keighley 5 21.76x
Nuthurst 5 819.67x
Newington 4 4.98x
St Luke London 4 11.46x
St Pancras London 4 2.28x
Clerkenwell London 3 5.84x
Ecclesall Bierlow 3 6.84x
Gravesend 3 47.77x
Leighton Buzzard 3 61.86x
Oxford St Clement 3 88.50x
Rotherhithe 3 11.16x
Southwark St George Martyr 3 6.85x
St George In East 3 20.27x
West Haddon 3 454.55x
Bermondsey 2 3.09x
Blisworth 2 253.16x
Chessington 2 1111.11x
Deptford St Paul 2 3.49x
Fulham London 2 6.34x
Harlington 2 173.91x
Islington London 2 0.95x
Kings Norton 2 7.85x
Penge 2 14.40x
St Giles In Fields 2 26.67x
Stone 2 196.08x
Westminster St 2 24.94x
Westminster St James 2 8.94x
Aspley Guise 1 92.59x
Binsted 1 58.82x
Bunwell 1 156.25x
Cookham 1 19.65x
Hackney London 1 0.82x
Hampstead London 1 2.95x
Hendon 1 12.77x
Long Lawford 1 196.08x
Mile End Old Town 1 2.91x
Paddington London 1 1.25x
Ramsgate 1 8.26x
Remenham 1 217.39x
Rochester St Margaret 1 12.77x
Sheffield 1 1.46x
St John Baptist 1 3333.33x
St Marylebone London 1 0.86x
Streatham 1 6.20x
Twerton 1 27.70x
Wandsworth 1 4.78x
Woking 1 15.65x

Top female names

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

Name Count
Mary 11
Annie 9
Elizabeth 8
Ellen 6
Sarah 6
Alice 5
Ann 5
Emma 5
Jane 5
Charlotte 4
Florence 4
Eliza 3
Harriet 3
Kate 3
Maria 3
Susan 3
Ada 2
Caroline 2
Catherine 2
Clara 2
Marsella 2
(Mrs) 1
Amelia 1
Anne 1
Beatrice 1
Celia 1
E.J. 1
Elizabth. 1
Emily 1
Esther 1
Ethel 1
Fanny 1
Flo. 1
Frances 1
Hephzibah 1
Infant 1
Katie 1
Laura 1
Letitia 1
Louisa 1
Margaret 1
Marion 1
Nellie 1
Rosa 1
Winifred 1

Top male names

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

Name Count
William 17
John 13
Charles 9
Edward 8
George 8
Thomas 7
James 6
Henry 5
Walter 4
Alfred 2
Arthur 2
Frederick 2
Herbert 2
Hy. 2
Wm. 2
Aisa 1
Albert 1
Alexander 1
Edwin 1
Harry 1
Henery 1
Isaac 1
Josiah 1
Percy 1
Philip 1
Samuel 1
Sarah 1
Stephun 1
Thos. 1
W. 1
Willie 1
Willm. 1

FAQ

Worster surname: questions and answers

How common was the Worster surname in 1881?

In 1881, 224 people were recorded with the Worster surname. That placed it at #11,970 in the surname rankings for that year.

How common is the Worster surname today?

The latest modern count shown here is 214 in 2016. That gives Worster a modern rank of #18,740.

What does the Worster surname mean?

From a place name derived from an Old English term meaning "town among the marshes".

What does the Worster map show?

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