Yes, and in addition to Lowe, I have also found them shown as Lone, Lane, and Lore. That may be why they are all so darn hard to find - they have assumed fictious names! Judy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fredric Z. Saunders" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 10:05 PM Subject: [LOVE-L] Love vs. Lowe > Hi, > > With all the brickwalls, I just wanted to make a suggestion that some may not have considered, that I haven't seen anyone list. When looking at published records, do not overlook looking at the surname LOWE in your area of interest. For me, it was just the reverse. Published church records of two different authors gave the marriage of my ancestor George WEST to Sarah LOWE. Some researchers tried with no success to tie her into a LOWE line in the county and same church records. After looking at records of her husband and who they dealt with, I realized that her surname was actually LOVE, which is why they had been unable to tie her into the LOWE family there. > > Some records of your LOVE ancestors may have been misread as LOWE by the authors of published records. > > Rick Saunders > http://genealogypro.com/fsaunders.html > http://home.netcom.com/~fzsaund/love.html > > > ==== LOVE Mailing List ==== > We also have a LOVE-UK list To join send the word SUBSCRIBE > [email protected] > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 >

I copied an 1823 will in Morgan County, AL with testator Joseph LOVE. When I posted it on line, I got a bit of an argument from another researcher who had read it as LANE. I still believe it is LOVE but I wouldn't bet the farm. Anyhow, that's the cause of lots of transcription errors. The old handwriting is sometimes hard to read and "ov" can resemble "an" under the best of circumstances. Certainly, it could be mistaken for "ow" or the other variations as well. Mickey -----Original Message----- From: Genealogy Bug [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 11:25 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [LOVE-L] Love vs. Lowe Yes, and in addition to Lowe, I have also found them shown as Lone, Lane, and Lore. That may be why they are all so darn hard to find - they have assumed fictious names! Judy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fredric Z. Saunders" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 10:05 PM Subject: [LOVE-L] Love vs. Lowe > Hi, > > With all the brickwalls, I just wanted to make a suggestion that some may not have considered, that I haven't seen anyone list. When looking at published records, do not overlook looking at the surname LOWE in your area of interest. For me, it was just the reverse. Published church records of two different authors gave the marriage of my ancestor George WEST to Sarah LOWE. Some researchers tried with no success to tie her into a LOWE line in the county and same church records. After looking at records of her husband and who they dealt with, I realized that her surname was actually LOVE, which is why they had been unable to tie her into the LOWE family there. > > Some records of your LOVE ancestors may have been misread as LOWE by the authors of published records. > > Rick Saunders > http://genealogypro.com/fsaunders.html > http://home.netcom.com/~fzsaund/love.html > > > ==== LOVE Mailing List ==== > We also have a LOVE-UK list To join send the word SUBSCRIBE > [email protected] > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > ==== LOVE Mailing List ==== To research Love surname: http://resources.rootsweb.com/surnames/l/o/LOVE/ ============================== To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237