I recently came across this Web Site hosted by the University of London that I am sure you will find useful. www.british-history.ac.uk It contains the entire first series of Ordnance Survey one inch to one mile (1:10,560) maps for England, Scotland and Wales. Also included are larger scale maps for London and other urban areas Click on "Maps" on the Home Page, then select which county you require. You are then presented with a grid of available sheets. Click on the area you require - it is possible to maximise and print the area you are interested in. The site also contains a large selection of other historical documents, for example the Victoria County Histories for many counties. Happy surfing! John Lovelock Buckinghamshire UK ______________________________________________________________________ Please note � my email address has changed to [email protected] This e-mail, including any attached files, may contain confidential and privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution, or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive information for the intended recipient), please contact the sender by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this message.

Hello all, I've added to the Web site another tree, contributed by Graham Lovelock, which presents a Surrey - Middlesex - Essex Lovelock connection. There is also an associated collection of census records. Links to the tree and census records can be found on the Work in Progress page: http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/wip/wip.html Many thanks to Graham for another interesting contribution! James

Sarah daughter of Thomas Lovelock & Sophia ?, bapt. 5 Jul 1829 at St. Mary Aldermaston married Thomas Tanner in Jun Qtr 1854 Bradfield RD. Does anyone have access to Aldermaston Marriage Register and can give me the exact date please. Also the maiden name of her mother would be nice to have as well. This too could be an Aldermaston marriage ca 1820 although it isn't listed in the Aldermaston Marriages on the website. Thomas & Sophia's children are. Thomas & Sarah Tanner had the following children; Alfred ca 1855 Eliza ca 1857 Charles ca 1860-1861 George ca 1862-1862 Thomas ca 1864-1865 Sarah ca 1864-1865 William ca 1866 Anne ca 1868-1868 Edward ca 1870 all born in Hawkhurst Hill, Kingsclere Woodlands and bapt/buried at St. Paul Woodlands. Thomas Tanner died in Tadley on 8 Feb 1918 and Sarah in Tadley on 25 Jan 1907. -- John Lewis

Well done Graham! Keep up the great work. Best wishes Robert --------------------------------------------- Robert Sterry 9 Baileys Lane, Kurrajong Hills NSW AUSTRALIA > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of James Loveluck > Sent: Tuesday, 10 October 2006 5:07 AM > To: Lovelock mailing list > Subject: [LOVELOCK] A tree for Worplesdon (Surrey) and beyond > > Hello all, > > Graham Lovelock has been busy again, and I've uploaded to the Web site a > new tree he provided for Worplesdon (Surrey) and beyond, together with > supporting census records. The document containing the tree also > inlcudes data for the Worplesdon area which is unaccounted for, some > speculations about the origins of John Lovelock (b abt 1765) at the head > of the tree, and a number of puzzles. The tree and census records are > linked to the Work in Progress page: > > http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/wip/wip.html > > Many thanks to Graham for this contribution. > > James > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Lovelock family history Web pages: > http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/ > Browse Lovelock trees on the PhpGedView portal: > http://james.loveluck.free.fr/PGV-3.3.8/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOVELOCK- > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the > subject and the body of the message

Hello all, Graham Lovelock has been busy again, and I've uploaded to the Web site a new tree he provided for Worplesdon (Surrey) and beyond, together with supporting census records. The document containing the tree also inlcudes data for the Worplesdon area which is unaccounted for, some speculations about the origins of John Lovelock (b abt 1765) at the head of the tree, and a number of puzzles. The tree and census records are linked to the Work in Progress page: http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/wip/wip.html Many thanks to Graham for this contribution. James

Greetings to all Thought I'd put in my penny's worth here as well. I have always argued for maintaining separate gedcom files for each family tree. There are several good reasons for doing this: - it is easier to maintain and update - it only contains linked data that is all related. A mixed bag like at present has heaps of unrelated events that may never link up and gives a false impression of linked events - it is easier to cross reference to source data in other places on the website - it allows people researching a particular tree to access data that is only related to their own family line and not get confused by lots of events that have no relevance to their own family interest - smaller trees tend to get lost in the sheer volume of information Thanks James for asking for comments on this. Appreciated. Cheers Robert --------------------------------------------- Robert Sterry 9 Baileys Lane, Kurrajong Hills NSW AUSTRALIA

Greetings Simone Great to see you posting to the list. As a matter of fact, I think you have indeed found an error in the Wootton Rivers Tree 2. I have checked my original extractions from the parish register for Wootton Rivers and you are quite correct - there is no burial at Wootton Rivers for a Mary Lovelock in 1738. Thank you very much for checking and letting us know. Best wishes with your research. Hopefully we'll see many more of your posts to the list. Best wishes Robert --------------------------------------------- Robert Sterry 9 Baileys Lane, Kurrajong Hills NSW AUSTRALIA > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of [email protected] > Sent: Tuesday, 19 September 2006 10:53 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [LOVELOCK] Mary Lovelock (Martin) - Wootton Rivers > > Hi all, > > I was recently looking at the Wootton Rivers Tree 2, and noticed that it > lists Mary LOVELOCK (MARTIN) baptised 31.12.1738 (daughter of John LOVLOCK > and > Ann MARTIN) as also being buried on the same day? > > I was under the impression that this Mary in fact went on to marry John > GODDARD on 07.08.1760 in Wootton Rivers. > > Records have been checked for me and there is no burial detail listed for > a > Mary LOVELOCK (MARTIN) on 31.12.1738, so I thought I would report this as > a > possible error on the database? > > Regards > Simone. > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Lovelock family history Web pages: > http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOVELOCK- > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the > subject and the body of the message

Hi James, Robert & All, Thank you for the welcome to the list. Thank you also Robert for confirming my thoughts re Mary Lovelock(Martin). This is particularly comforting as this Mary was my GrtX6 Grandmother! ;-) In answer to your question James, she married under the surname Martin in 1760. I do have a copy of the marriage record - let me know if you want it. I believe her husband John Goddard died in 1795 in WR, but I cannot trace a death/burial for Mary at this moment in time. The last child I have recorded for them was baptised in 1776 in WR (they had 8 children in total), so I can only confirm it was some time after that. A Goddard contact of mine is fairly convinced that John Goddard remarried in 1779 in WR to Ann Blackman, so obviously one would assume Mary had died prior to that date. But there does not appear to be a burial for her in WR and I have had this checked right up to 1840! (My Goddard contact does not have a burial for Mary either!) Does anyone know how complete the Wootton Rivers parish records are?, as in, is it known that some records are missing? or are they specifically known to be complete? Any thoughts welcomed. I am now trying to work out which Lovelock line her father, John, might have belonged to - and if anyone has any theories please let me know. Incidentally I am also descended from another Lovelock branch; Sarah Lovelock bpt.16.09.1849 (dau of Thomas and Martha Lovelock of Pewsey) was a GG Grandmother of mine. She married Thomas Lay on 22nd July 1879 in Pewsey and had 10 children with him. So you can see it was probably high time I joined in with your Lovelock listing. Regards Simone. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 1:42 AM Subject: Re: [LOVELOCK] Mary Lovelock (Martin) - Wootton Rivers Greetings Simone Great to see you posting to the list. As a matter of fact, I think you have indeed found an error in the Wootton Rivers Tree 2. I have checked my original extractions from the parish register for Wootton Rivers and you are quite correct - there is no burial at Wootton Rivers for a Mary Lovelock in 1738. Thank you very much for checking and letting us know. Best wishes with your research. Hopefully we'll see many more of your posts to the list. Best wishes Robert --------------------------------------------- Robert Sterry 9 Baileys Lane, Kurrajong Hills NSW AUSTRALIA > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of [email protected] > Sent: Tuesday, 19 September 2006 10:53 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [LOVELOCK] Mary Lovelock (Martin) - Wootton Rivers > > Hi all, > > I was recently looking at the Wootton Rivers Tree 2, and noticed that it > lists Mary LOVELOCK (MARTIN) baptised 31.12.1738 (daughter of John LOVLOCK > and > Ann MARTIN) as also being buried on the same day? > > I was under the impression that this Mary in fact went on to marry John > GODDARD on 07.08.1760 in Wootton Rivers. > > Records have been checked for me and there is no burial detail listed for > a > Mary LOVELOCK (MARTIN) on 31.12.1738, so I thought I would report this as > a > possible error on the database? > > Regards > Simone. > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Lovelock family history Web pages: > http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOVELOCK- > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the > subject and the body of the message ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/ Browse Lovelock trees on the PhpGedView portal: http://james.loveluck.free.fr/PGV-3.3.8/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ________________________________________________________________________ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.

My five pennyworth ...... I understand your postion, Jeremy, up to a point. But we do not have an all-encompassing 'Hampshire' gedcom, or anything similar for any other county, and there seems little sense now in trying to go down that route. The Wiltshire example is, I believe, almost an 'accident' of website history, and had we or James known how this particular 'Topsy' was going to grow we would probably have gone down the road that I know is preferred by some, where each gedcom contains just one tree. IF ..... the Lovelock community had a serious research effort in hand which had a reasonable expectation of joining up all the trees and finding a home for those hundreds of stray data facts that still exist, I might take a different view, but unfortunately, even if understandably, that clearly is not the case. James has done his best to muster more research resources, through regular exhortations to this List, through changing the whole basic framework of the website to make it more 'user-friendly', through introducing the 'Work in Progress' page as a deliberate attempt to highlight areas where there was some research going on and where help in any form would be very much appreciated. The fact remains that very few of the Lovelock community are able to help in the development of what we must all agree is a very impressive database. It will hardly have escaped anyone's notice that I have been pushing a modicum of information James' way in the last few months. I do my best (being less than IT-literate) to provide it to him in the most easily available format that I myself can understand, but the fact remains that James has to do a lot of work on it to turn it into a new web page, or an update to an existing one. I'm eternally grateful to James, as I am sure we all are, for the amount of time and effort he puts into maintaining the website, and I really do think that sometimes we might have to accept some limitations on what we can do with the data in order to ease the burden on James of getting it there in the first place. With respect to the current issue of whether or not to split up that Wiltshire gedcom, there is of course the prospect that if anyone can find those 'missing links' then the gedcoms would all be joined up again anyway! Of course, some of the 'links' are probably not out there to be found anyway. Your mention of the Civil War effects, Jeremy, being a case in point. Some registers went missing, lots of others were just not maintained, and the traditional fallback of the Bishops' Transcripts seemed to often fall into abeyance as well. So the prospects of taking back to earlier times what everyone will have deduced is my favourite - The Lieflock Line - are remote in the extreme (although James' heart probably sank again the other day when I told him that I have yet another addition to it that I am currently investigating). However, there are still significant gaps in our data at much later dates than the Civil War. Perhaps if we could persuade James, with help from Listers, to assemble a 'To Do' list individuals might volunteer to tackle specific topics on the list? Could we please have an indication of who on the Mailing List would be willing to volunteer to join in on this? Of course, inability to get to Record Offices, or to access some of the on-line sources, would prevent certain things being done, but we might be able to devise some work-arounds that would help. My concern is that future website updates will only occur at ever-increasing intervals due to the complications of James having to cross-check so much before launching the changes, and that would be a great shame. Everybody that I introduce to the website is invariably impressed by the wealth of information available and the useful way in which it is presented. I think James needs all our support to help him maintain those standards. And we must never forget that he can't actually prove his own link to a LovelOck line! I for one am willing to volunteer for further duties. I've been researching for over 18 years, but the thrill of finding some hitherto undiscovered gems has still not gone away. Please join in ! Regards to all, Graham --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeremy Lovelock" <[email protected]> Reply-To: [email protected] To: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [LOVELOCK] Proposed split of the "Wilts and beyond" database Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 08:54:49 +0100 Hello James I do not understand many of the complications of the Computers and the language. I download the Gedcom file for my own use for Wiltshire and for Berkshire. If I get enquiries from people, then I can view the file at any time. I have Family Tree maker software (Brondebund) and therefore an LDS connection. Your Gedcom file is displayed like my own information and I can search for names quickly. If you split the Gedcom files into three for Wiltshire it would slow me down in searches. I only tell you this so you can see how a user takes up your information. What file I am using and which viewer is beyond me!! Thanks for doing all the work, though. It is fascinating to see how far back the records go. The English Civil War (pre 1650) no doubt destroyed many records as well as church interiors! Best wishes Jeremy ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Loveluck" <[email protected]> To: "Lovelock mailing list" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 5:22 PM > Hello again! > > In a previous message I mentioned that I was planning to make some changes to my Lovelock database and the corresponding gedcom files. > > The "Wiltshire and beyond" database currently contains a number of Wiltshire trees (including the Lieflock Line, the Lyneham Line, the Wroughton/Tidcombe Tree, the Wootton Rivers Tree, the Shrewton Tree, and several more) together with one tree with its origins in Hampshire (the Tangley Tree) and a lot of odds and ends (small fragments and even isolated families). The disadvantage of this is that it makes Web site updates a bit complicated since the different trees all have to be updated at the same time. > > What I plan to do is to split up this database into separate ones for each of the trees concerned that are currently diplayed on the Web site. This would then mean that I could update the database for a particular tree and then update the corresponding tree and gedcom file on the Web site independently of any other trees. > > There is perhaps an issue concerning all the odds and ends (fragments, isolated families) currently in the "Wiltshire and beyond" database. Most of this material has not evolved for some time, and I would leave the current version of the "Wiltshire and beyond" database on the Web site in case anyone wants to consult this material, but no corrections or additions would be made to the gedcom file. If there were significant additions to any of the fragments concerned then I would probably produce a new database and corresponding tree and gedcom file. Obviously any of the bits that got connected to one of the existing trees would be incorporated into the appropriate database. > > One other issue I can see concerns the Ahn applet. Currently this allows one to browse the whole of the "Wiltshire and beyond" gedcom file, but if I carry out the split proposed above this wouldn't be possible, or only for the current version of the gedcom file, which would rapidly become out of date. I'm not sure what I'll do about this yet, but it would help me to know if people actually use the Ahn applet. It is now pretty well superseded by the PhpGedView software tool, which also allows one to browse the gedcom file and displays the information in a much more structured fashion which is also easier to navigate. I do intend to add the other gedcom files to the PhpGedView site, so you would be able to browse not only the Lieflock Line and the Wallingford (Berks) Line, as at present, but also the other trees for which gedcom files would be created (Lyneham Line, Wroughton/Tidcombe Tree, Wootton Rivers Tree, etc.). > > Please let me know if you see any significant problems in splitting up the database in this way. > > James

Hello Jeremy, Thanks for your feedback on my proposal to split up the "Wiltshire and beyond" database and gedcom file. I can appreciate that there are advantages in having only one gedcom file to download, rather than several. However, the "Wiltshire and beyond" gedcom file doesn't include all the Lovelock family trees, and there are already a number of other gedcom files (which do include only one tree) for other counties, and also some trees for which there is currently no corresponding gedcom file, because they were not submitted in this form. Regards, James Jeremy Lovelock wrote the following on 02/10/2006 09:54: >Hello James >I do not understand many of the complications of the Computers and the >language. I download the Gedcom file for my own use for Wiltshire and for >Berkshire. If I get enquiries from people, then I can view the file at any >time. I have Family Tree maker software (Brondebund) and therefore an LDS >connection. Your Gedcom file is displayed like my own information and I can >search for names quickly. >If you split the Gedcom files into three for Wiltshire it would slow me down >in searches. >I only tell you this so you can see how a user takes up your information. >What file I am using and which viewer is beyond me!! >Thanks for doing all the work, though. It is fascinating to see how far back >the records go. The English Civil War (pre 1650) no doubt destroyed many >records as well as church interiors! >Best wishes >Jeremy > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "James Loveluck" <[email protected]> >To: "Lovelock mailing list" <[email protected]> >Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 5:22 PM >Subject: [LOVELOCK] Proposed split of the "Wilts and beyond" database > > > > >>Hello again! >> >>In a previous message I mentioned that I was planning to make some >>changes to my Lovelock database and the corresponding gedcom files. >> >>The "Wiltshire and beyond" database currently contains a number of >>Wiltshire trees (including the Lieflock Line, the Lyneham Line, the >>Wroughton/Tidcombe Tree, the Wootton Rivers Tree, the Shrewton Tree, and >>several more) together with one tree with its origins in Hampshire (the >>Tangley Tree) and a lot of odds and ends (small fragments and even >>isolated families). The disadvantage of this is that it makes Web site >>updates a bit complicated since the different trees all have to be >>updated at the same time. >> >>What I plan to do is to split up this database into separate ones for >>each of the trees concerned that are currently diplayed on the Web site. >>This would then mean that I could update the database for a particular >>tree and then update the corresponding tree and gedcom file on the Web >>site independently of any other trees. >> >>There is perhaps an issue concerning all the odds and ends (fragments, >>isolated families) currently in the "Wiltshire and beyond" database. >>Most of this material has not evolved for some time, and I would leave >>the current version of the "Wiltshire and beyond" database on the Web >>site in case anyone wants to consult this material, but no corrections >>or additions would be made to the gedcom file. If there were significant >>additions to any of the fragments concerned then I would probably >>produce a new database and corresponding tree and gedcom file. Obviously >>any of the bits that got connected to one of the existing trees would be >>incorporated into the appropriate database. >> >>One other issue I can see concerns the Ahn applet. Currently this allows >>one to browse the whole of the "Wiltshire and beyond" gedcom file, but >>if I carry out the split proposed above this wouldn't be possible, or >>only for the current version of the gedcom file, which would rapidly >>become out of date. I'm not sure what I'll do about this yet, but it >>would help me to know if people actually use the Ahn applet. It is now >>pretty well superseded by the PhpGedView software tool, which also >>allows one to browse the gedcom file and displays the information in a >>much more structured fashion which is also easier to navigate. I do >>intend to add the other gedcom files to the PhpGedView site, so you >>would be able to browse not only the Lieflock Line and the Wallingford >>(Berks) Line, as at present, but also the other trees for which gedcom >>files would be created (Lyneham Line, Wroughton/Tidcombe Tree, Wootton >>Rivers Tree, etc.). >> >>Please let me know if you see any significant problems in splitting up >>the database in this way. >> >>James >> >> >>

Hello James I do not understand many of the complications of the Computers and the language. I download the Gedcom file for my own use for Wiltshire and for Berkshire. If I get enquiries from people, then I can view the file at any time. I have Family Tree maker software (Brondebund) and therefore an LDS connection. Your Gedcom file is displayed like my own information and I can search for names quickly. If you split the Gedcom files into three for Wiltshire it would slow me down in searches. I only tell you this so you can see how a user takes up your information. What file I am using and which viewer is beyond me!! Thanks for doing all the work, though. It is fascinating to see how far back the records go. The English Civil War (pre 1650) no doubt destroyed many records as well as church interiors! Best wishes Jeremy ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Loveluck" <[email protected]> To: "Lovelock mailing list" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 5:22 PM Subject: [LOVELOCK] Proposed split of the "Wilts and beyond" database > Hello again! > > In a previous message I mentioned that I was planning to make some > changes to my Lovelock database and the corresponding gedcom files. > > The "Wiltshire and beyond" database currently contains a number of > Wiltshire trees (including the Lieflock Line, the Lyneham Line, the > Wroughton/Tidcombe Tree, the Wootton Rivers Tree, the Shrewton Tree, and > several more) together with one tree with its origins in Hampshire (the > Tangley Tree) and a lot of odds and ends (small fragments and even > isolated families). The disadvantage of this is that it makes Web site > updates a bit complicated since the different trees all have to be > updated at the same time. > > What I plan to do is to split up this database into separate ones for > each of the trees concerned that are currently diplayed on the Web site. > This would then mean that I could update the database for a particular > tree and then update the corresponding tree and gedcom file on the Web > site independently of any other trees. > > There is perhaps an issue concerning all the odds and ends (fragments, > isolated families) currently in the "Wiltshire and beyond" database. > Most of this material has not evolved for some time, and I would leave > the current version of the "Wiltshire and beyond" database on the Web > site in case anyone wants to consult this material, but no corrections > or additions would be made to the gedcom file. If there were significant > additions to any of the fragments concerned then I would probably > produce a new database and corresponding tree and gedcom file. Obviously > any of the bits that got connected to one of the existing trees would be > incorporated into the appropriate database. > > One other issue I can see concerns the Ahn applet. Currently this allows > one to browse the whole of the "Wiltshire and beyond" gedcom file, but > if I carry out the split proposed above this wouldn't be possible, or > only for the current version of the gedcom file, which would rapidly > become out of date. I'm not sure what I'll do about this yet, but it > would help me to know if people actually use the Ahn applet. It is now > pretty well superseded by the PhpGedView software tool, which also > allows one to browse the gedcom file and displays the information in a > much more structured fashion which is also easier to navigate. I do > intend to add the other gedcom files to the PhpGedView site, so you > would be able to browse not only the Lieflock Line and the Wallingford > (Berks) Line, as at present, but also the other trees for which gedcom > files would be created (Lyneham Line, Wroughton/Tidcombe Tree, Wootton > Rivers Tree, etc.). > > Please let me know if you see any significant problems in splitting up > the database in this way. > > James > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Lovelock family history Web pages: > http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Derek: There is, however, a Charles McKenzie! Did he perhaps take the trade name of Cecil Lovelock? You said he was artsy--a photographer? Could someone have taken a shine to him and adopted him, giving him the name of Cecil Lovelock, but retaining his middle two names--his real name? Wild goose chase maybe. "My son" was/is one way of getting around legalities prior to civil unions, too. Elvira ----- Original Message ----- From: "Derek" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 2:31 PM Subject: Re: [LOVELOCK] American Lovelocks? > Hello Jeremy > Thanks for replying. > I have tried the 1880 census on the LDS site........... but no Cecil > Lovelock. > They must be somewhere ................i will find them !! > > Thanks again > Regards > Derek > > Jeremy Lovelock <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello Derek > Did you know that you can get the 1880 census on the LDS site. Just do not > insert a country and give dates up to 20 years each side of the date you > want and see what you get around the world. The site I use - it is free - > is > http://www.familysearch.org/eng/Search/frameset_search.asp > Best wishes > Jeremy Lovelock > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Derek" > To: > Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 9:48 AM > Subject: Re: [LOVELOCK] American Lovelocks? > > >> Hello Elvira >> I am in Kent, UK >> >> I meant that my Lovelocks, or at least Cecil, was born somewhere other > than the UK. >> I have trolled through all the GRO birth registrations and cannot find > him anywhere. Nor is he on the 81, 91 or 1901 census............. as far > as > i can tell. >> I have tried Australia.............. no Cecil. >> I have aslo tried South Africa............ again no Cecil. >> >> I was hoping that some one with access to Ancestry USA would look on the > 1880, 1890 and 1900 census for this family........ if this is possible > ............. im not sure whether the census for USA are indexed or not. >> >> Anyway ELvira, many thanks for taking the time to reply.............. it > is very much appreciated. >> >> Derek >> PS........... my sister lives in Melbourne !! >> >> eniles wrote: >> Hi Derek: >> >> I live in Florida--my grandmother was a Lovelock, all nicely tied > together thanks to Graham's research. >> >> I am not sure I understand what you are looking for or where you are. > Do you believe that your Lovelock connection emanated from America? In > other words, they were perhaps English Lovelocks who emigrated to the US > and > then came back? >> >> One of the newsletters had an article about the Nevada connection with > the Lovelocks. Have you checked that out on the website? >> >> Graham was doing some trolling on the internet and came up with a > Lovelock Road, so he thought. It turned out to be a young registered > dietician living in Gainesville, Florida! She was married to a Lovelock, > but her mother-in-law lived in Florida married to a Lovelock, naturally. I > sent them a copy of the article but never heard any more from them. I > spoke > with the mother-in-law and she said that her husband's family had come > from > three brothers (a story I somewhat discount, because it seems every > American > family stems from three brothers who came over from England--my husband's > family has three brothers, my ex-husband's family had three brothers! So I > take that with a grain of salt.). She said they had attempted one time to > do some research, but had run into a deadend. I suggested the Nevada > connection might be profitable. >> >> If any of this makes any sense to you, and this is what you're > interested in, drop me a line. I don't have access to the census records, > but I imagine I can do some delving via the Latter Day Saints records. >> >> Elvira Niles (born in Hackney within the sound of Bow Bells, in the US > since 1959) >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Lovelock family history Web pages: >> http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/ >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes > in the subject and the body of the message >> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Lovelock family history Web pages: > http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Lovelock family history Web pages: > http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hello Jeremy Thanks for replying. I have tried the 1880 census on the LDS site........... but no Cecil Lovelock. They must be somewhere ................i will find them !! Thanks again Regards Derek Jeremy Lovelock <[email protected]> wrote: Hello Derek Did you know that you can get the 1880 census on the LDS site. Just do not insert a country and give dates up to 20 years each side of the date you want and see what you get around the world. The site I use - it is free - is http://www.familysearch.org/eng/Search/frameset_search.asp Best wishes Jeremy Lovelock ----- Original Message ----- From: "Derek" To: Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 9:48 AM Subject: Re: [LOVELOCK] American Lovelocks? > Hello Elvira > I am in Kent, UK > > I meant that my Lovelocks, or at least Cecil, was born somewhere other than the UK. > I have trolled through all the GRO birth registrations and cannot find him anywhere. Nor is he on the 81, 91 or 1901 census............. as far as i can tell. > I have tried Australia.............. no Cecil. > I have aslo tried South Africa............ again no Cecil. > > I was hoping that some one with access to Ancestry USA would look on the 1880, 1890 and 1900 census for this family........ if this is possible ............. im not sure whether the census for USA are indexed or not. > > Anyway ELvira, many thanks for taking the time to reply.............. it is very much appreciated. > > Derek > PS........... my sister lives in Melbourne !! > > eniles wrote: > Hi Derek: > > I live in Florida--my grandmother was a Lovelock, all nicely tied together thanks to Graham's research. > > I am not sure I understand what you are looking for or where you are. Do you believe that your Lovelock connection emanated from America? In other words, they were perhaps English Lovelocks who emigrated to the US and then came back? > > One of the newsletters had an article about the Nevada connection with the Lovelocks. Have you checked that out on the website? > > Graham was doing some trolling on the internet and came up with a Lovelock Road, so he thought. It turned out to be a young registered dietician living in Gainesville, Florida! She was married to a Lovelock, but her mother-in-law lived in Florida married to a Lovelock, naturally. I sent them a copy of the article but never heard any more from them. I spoke with the mother-in-law and she said that her husband's family had come from three brothers (a story I somewhat discount, because it seems every American family stems from three brothers who came over from England--my husband's family has three brothers, my ex-husband's family had three brothers! So I take that with a grain of salt.). She said they had attempted one time to do some research, but had run into a deadend. I suggested the Nevada connection might be profitable. > > If any of this makes any sense to you, and this is what you're interested in, drop me a line. I don't have access to the census records, but I imagine I can do some delving via the Latter Day Saints records. > > Elvira Niles (born in Hackney within the sound of Bow Bells, in the US since 1959) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Lovelock family history Web pages: > http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hello again! In a previous message I mentioned that I was planning to make some changes to my Lovelock database and the corresponding gedcom files. The "Wiltshire and beyond" database currently contains a number of Wiltshire trees (including the Lieflock Line, the Lyneham Line, the Wroughton/Tidcombe Tree, the Wootton Rivers Tree, the Shrewton Tree, and several more) together with one tree with its origins in Hampshire (the Tangley Tree) and a lot of odds and ends (small fragments and even isolated families). The disadvantage of this is that it makes Web site updates a bit complicated since the different trees all have to be updated at the same time. What I plan to do is to split up this database into separate ones for each of the trees concerned that are currently diplayed on the Web site. This would then mean that I could update the database for a particular tree and then update the corresponding tree and gedcom file on the Web site independently of any other trees. There is perhaps an issue concerning all the odds and ends (fragments, isolated families) currently in the "Wiltshire and beyond" database. Most of this material has not evolved for some time, and I would leave the current version of the "Wiltshire and beyond" database on the Web site in case anyone wants to consult this material, but no corrections or additions would be made to the gedcom file. If there were significant additions to any of the fragments concerned then I would probably produce a new database and corresponding tree and gedcom file. Obviously any of the bits that got connected to one of the existing trees would be incorporated into the appropriate database. One other issue I can see concerns the Ahn applet. Currently this allows one to browse the whole of the "Wiltshire and beyond" gedcom file, but if I carry out the split proposed above this wouldn't be possible, or only for the current version of the gedcom file, which would rapidly become out of date. I'm not sure what I'll do about this yet, but it would help me to know if people actually use the Ahn applet. It is now pretty well superseded by the PhpGedView software tool, which also allows one to browse the gedcom file and displays the information in a much more structured fashion which is also easier to navigate. I do intend to add the other gedcom files to the PhpGedView site, so you would be able to browse not only the Lieflock Line and the Wallingford (Berks) Line, as at present, but also the other trees for which gedcom files would be created (Lyneham Line, Wroughton/Tidcombe Tree, Wootton Rivers Tree, etc.). Please let me know if you see any significant problems in splitting up the database in this way. James

Hello Derek Did you know that you can get the 1880 census on the LDS site. Just do not insert a country and give dates up to 20 years each side of the date you want and see what you get around the world. The site I use - it is free - is http://www.familysearch.org/eng/Search/frameset_search.asp Best wishes Jeremy Lovelock ----- Original Message ----- From: "Derek" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 9:48 AM Subject: Re: [LOVELOCK] American Lovelocks? > Hello Elvira > I am in Kent, UK > > I meant that my Lovelocks, or at least Cecil, was born somewhere other than the UK. > I have trolled through all the GRO birth registrations and cannot find him anywhere. Nor is he on the 81, 91 or 1901 census............. as far as i can tell. > I have tried Australia.............. no Cecil. > I have aslo tried South Africa............ again no Cecil. > > I was hoping that some one with access to Ancestry USA would look on the 1880, 1890 and 1900 census for this family........ if this is possible ............. im not sure whether the census for USA are indexed or not. > > Anyway ELvira, many thanks for taking the time to reply.............. it is very much appreciated. > > Derek > PS........... my sister lives in Melbourne !! > > eniles <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Derek: > > I live in Florida--my grandmother was a Lovelock, all nicely tied together thanks to Graham's research. > > I am not sure I understand what you are looking for or where you are. Do you believe that your Lovelock connection emanated from America? In other words, they were perhaps English Lovelocks who emigrated to the US and then came back? > > One of the newsletters had an article about the Nevada connection with the Lovelocks. Have you checked that out on the website? > > Graham was doing some trolling on the internet and came up with a Lovelock Road, so he thought. It turned out to be a young registered dietician living in Gainesville, Florida! She was married to a Lovelock, but her mother-in-law lived in Florida married to a Lovelock, naturally. I sent them a copy of the article but never heard any more from them. I spoke with the mother-in-law and she said that her husband's family had come from three brothers (a story I somewhat discount, because it seems every American family stems from three brothers who came over from England--my husband's family has three brothers, my ex-husband's family had three brothers! So I take that with a grain of salt.). She said they had attempted one time to do some research, but had run into a deadend. I suggested the Nevada connection might be profitable. > > If any of this makes any sense to you, and this is what you're interested in, drop me a line. I don't have access to the census records, but I imagine I can do some delving via the Latter Day Saints records. > > Elvira Niles (born in Hackney within the sound of Bow Bells, in the US since 1959) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Lovelock family history Web pages: > http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Hello all, I've now updated the Lieflock gedcom file on the PhpGedView site to correspond to the latest update. You'll find it at the usual place: http://james.loveluck.free.fr/PGV-3.3.8/index.php?command=gedcom&ged=lieflock.ged James

Hello Simone, and welcome to the Lovelock mailing list! This is very puzzling, since the birth and burial records for Mary Lovelock are quite explicit that she was the daughter of John Lovelock and Ann Martin. The only explanation I can think of is that the baptism of Mary Lovelock got transcribed twice, once accidentally under burials. I believe Robert Sterry extracted the events from the Wootton Rivers parish register, so perhaps he can check against his original notes. Was Mary recorded with the name Lovelock or Martin when she married John Goddard 7 Aug 1760? We don't have a marriage for Mary Lovelock and John Goddard at Wootton Rivers. Regards, James [email protected] wrote the following on 19/09/2006 02:52: >Hi all, > >I was recently looking at the Wootton Rivers Tree 2, and noticed that it >lists Mary LOVELOCK (MARTIN) baptised 31.12.1738 (daughter of John LOVLOCK and >Ann MARTIN) as also being buried on the same day? > >I was under the impression that this Mary in fact went on to marry John >GODDARD on 07.08.1760 in Wootton Rivers. > >Records have been checked for me and there is no burial detail listed for a >Mary LOVELOCK (MARTIN) on 31.12.1738, so I thought I would report this as a >possible error on the database? > >Regards >Simone. > >

Hi Derek Have you got the death cert for Cecil Charles McKenzie Lovelock born c1877, location unknown ? His family have obviously run into a scottish connection along the way too ? Cheers Col ----- Original Message ----- From: "Derek" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 5:16 AM Subject: Re: [LOVELOCK] Cecil Charles McKenzie LOVELOCK > Hi again > > Knowing how children can be named after relatives and places, maybe the > following may help find mine elusive Cecil !! > > Cecil and Lilly had 3 children: > > Robin Geoffrey Lovelock born 1904 > > Dorothea Kathleen Marion Vear Vale Lovelock born 1906 > > Victor George Leopold Lovelock born 1908 Hereford > > If nothing else i would love to know why some of those names were chosen > !!! > > Regards > Derek > Derek <[email protected]> wrote: > Good afternoon Lovelock researchers > > It's been some considerable time since i posted anything on here mainly > because i haven't got any further with my Lovelock tree. > I have searched all UK census, BMD's and all manner of other sites looking > for them. > > I have come to the conclusion they came from "abroad" ....... sometime > before 1904. > > Is there anyone on the list that has access to the USA census > returns......... maybe through Ancestry, that would be willing to have a > look for me. > > I am looking for: > > Cecil Charles McKenzie Lovelock born c1877, location unknown. He married a > Lilly Jane Croft, 17 August 1904 in Tupsley, Hereford > Cecil's father was Charles Lovelock........ no DOB or birth location. > Cecil may have been an architect. > > ANY help would be very much appreciated. > > Regards > Derek > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Lovelock family history Web pages: > http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Lovelock family history Web pages: > http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > __________ NOD32 1.1784 (20060929) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.eset.com > >

Hello Elvira I am in Kent, UK I meant that my Lovelocks, or at least Cecil, was born somewhere other than the UK. I have trolled through all the GRO birth registrations and cannot find him anywhere. Nor is he on the 81, 91 or 1901 census............. as far as i can tell. I have tried Australia.............. no Cecil. I have aslo tried South Africa............ again no Cecil. I was hoping that some one with access to Ancestry USA would look on the 1880, 1890 and 1900 census for this family........ if this is possible ............. im not sure whether the census for USA are indexed or not. Anyway ELvira, many thanks for taking the time to reply.............. it is very much appreciated. Derek PS........... my sister lives in Melbourne !! eniles <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Derek: I live in Florida--my grandmother was a Lovelock, all nicely tied together thanks to Graham's research. I am not sure I understand what you are looking for or where you are. Do you believe that your Lovelock connection emanated from America? In other words, they were perhaps English Lovelocks who emigrated to the US and then came back? One of the newsletters had an article about the Nevada connection with the Lovelocks. Have you checked that out on the website? Graham was doing some trolling on the internet and came up with a Lovelock Road, so he thought. It turned out to be a young registered dietician living in Gainesville, Florida! She was married to a Lovelock, but her mother-in-law lived in Florida married to a Lovelock, naturally. I sent them a copy of the article but never heard any more from them. I spoke with the mother-in-law and she said that her husband's family had come from three brothers (a story I somewhat discount, because it seems every American family stems from three brothers who came over from England--my husband's family has three brothers, my ex-husband's family had three brothers! So I take that with a grain of salt.). She said they had attempted one time to do some research, but had run into a deadend. I suggested the Nevada connection might be profitable. If any of this makes any sense to you, and this is what you're interested in, drop me a line. I don't have access to the census records, but I imagine I can do some delving via the Latter Day Saints records. Elvira Niles (born in Hackney within the sound of Bow Bells, in the US since 1959)

Hello Colin Thanks for replying. Colin, yes i do have a death cert for Cecil. At least I believe it to be the correct one as the age is correct and given there weren't toooo many Cecil's around! Unfortunately, the cert only tells me why he died and where............ which was the Workhouse in Oswestry, Salop. Oh, he was a Photographers Traveller. As for Scotland, i have thoroughly searched the 1881 census but no Cecil !! Thanks again Derek Hi Derek Have you got the death cert for Cecil Charles McKenzie Lovelock born c1877, location unknown ? His family have obviously run into a scottish connection along the way too ? Cheers Col