Cutlock or Laddiman most exclusive in 1891?

I’m reminded that Cutlock isn’t the only rare name in the family tree, at least as judged by the Ancestry website surname look-up feature. This uses the 1891 census records (England and Wales), showing a distribution map at county level (of people, not families as it states).

Cutlock – 10 people, all in Norfolk. The one who was born in London has married in.

Laddiman – 9 people, all in Norfolk.*

I have the impression that there are now more Laddimans than Cutlocks, given the prevalence of female offspring in the latter.

Any bidders for greater exclusivity at 1891 (excluding transcription/spelling errors, please!)?

* Laddiman on the other hand is clearly connected to variations on the name Liddiman, and also Liddiment (need to find my notes on that last one).

Also see

Cutlock and Cullum, or for Laddiman, Neal family (under Eliza).

2 Responses to Cutlock or Laddiman most exclusive in 1891?

  1. neil liddiment

    I would love to discuss further with you the strong Liddiment/Laddiman connection, my 5 times great grandfather was George Laddiman born 1749

  2. Hi Neil
    Thanks for the message. I’ll send a further note to your email address tomorrow, but are you by any chance the person who has a Liddiment tree on Ancestry World Tree? I downloaded a Gedcom file from there a couple of years ago and I see that it contains the George Laddiman you mention.

Have something to add?