<<Also bear in mind that if the 1998 figures are based on the Electoral Roll not every household registers to vote. I don't know what the current proportion is - it was high during the Poll Tax period in the 1980's. Best Wishes John Lovelock>> This is true .. However , I have found that, on the CDs available to the public , the underenumeration of those who don't bother to register is more or less counterbalanced by overenumeration of those who are counted twice, in two places as they moved during the year. There was also (even before 2003 when the option to check the box excluding your name from the published list took effect) an exclusion of people in sensitive occupations like the police. Steve

Update - Ive just accessed the page in question The figure for "1855 LOVELOCKS in 1998" is obviously inaccurate - it clearly excludes under 18s whereas the data for 1881 and 1901 include them . What they appear to have done is just taken the 1998 electoral roll , and overlooked the fact that children dont have the vote ! Please be reassured - the LOVELOCKS have in fact bred quite well over the last century , and are in no danger of extinction . Nor are they quitting Blighty in larger numbers than Smiths or Joneses Steve Tanner

I have still not found the relevant webpage for supposed 1998 LOVELOCK numbers in UK- perhaps someone could remind me , I missed the first posting ) But I note from 1837online that there have been 756 LOVELOCK births in the period , an average of 37.8 per year . (41 in 2003) and 723 deaths During this two decade period the average birth rate for the UK indigenous population as a whole ( excluding ethnic minorities , which have had a much higher rate ) has been about 12.5 per thousand population , and the death rate similar. Assuming LOVELOCK families conform to this pattern , then , multiplying by 80, we get a notional total all-age LOVELOCK UK population of about 3024. In my admittedly smaller HEMPSALL One name Study , the figures were : UK electoral roll (adults ) 2001 : 406 Births 1984-2003 : 131 Total all age groups 2003 about 540. If this is representative , we might apply the same ration ( roughly X 3 ) , giving a total all-age LOVELOCK population in 2003 as about 3100. This is broadly comparable with my HEMPSALL figures. As regards net migration , I cant see LOVELOCKs as more likely to emigrate than other surnames . I found my HEMPSALLs emigrants were partially offset by returnees , especially Australians. BUT: There were 1994 LOVELOCKs on the 2001 roll (the most recent reasonably complete one , before the "ex-roll" option was freely available ) Adding births, and disregarding the small numbers of deaths among under 18's to that gives roughly 2750 . I'm not sure why this figure is lower than the previous one Steve Tanner

I have not yet studied the 1998 figures , but arent they in fact from the electoral roll, in which case they only list over 18's ? Hence they need multiplying by about 4/3 to be comparable with 1901 Steve Tanner

But whereas there was almost a 38% increase in numbers between 1881 and 1901, there was less than an 8% increase between 1901 and 1998. So what slowed things down I wonder? Also, according to the data at: http://www.ancestry.com/learn/facts/Fact.aspx?fid=6&ln=lovelock there were 1452 Lovelocks in the UK in 1891, making a 13.3% increase over 1881, with 1901 representing a 21.4% increase over 1891. I suppose the most obvious reasons for the slow-down would be World War 1 and, a very topical matter, the 1918 influenza epidemic. Part of the increases between 1881 and 1901 would undoubtedly have been older Lovelocks living longer on average, and of course they were the ones not adding further to the numbers. The men who died in the war were by definition the younger ones who might have created the families to keep the numbers swelling, and I believe the Influenza also took significantly more younger people than old. Emigration might also have been a significant factor - there are certainly plenty of Lovelocks in AUS and NZ, although not so many from what I've seen in Canada. Any other thoughts, anyone? Graham ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Loveluck" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 1:50 PM > Hello all, > > Some time ago I added to the Web site a page concerning the distribution > of Lovelocks, which includes charts and maps showing how Lovelocks were > distributed throughout the UK in 1881 and 1901, based on the census data > for those years. You'll find the page at: > http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/documents/love lock-distribution.htm > > I just found out that there is a new Web site which displays results > from a project at UCL on surname distributions, and which provides data > for 1881 and 1901. The analysis of the data also includes ethnicity > indications based on forenames (? 0.1 % of Lovelocks have Indian > forenames!) and more information about geographical distribution, > including countries other than the UK In particular AUS & NZ). > > You'll find the Web site at: > http://www.spatial-literacy.org/UCLnames/Surnames.aspx > > The good news is that there were more Lovelocks in 1998 (1899) than in > 1881 (1281), which confirms the figures I had comparing 1901 (1763) and > 1881 (1391, slightly different than above). Also, the spread of > Lovelocks away from the core Lovelock country (Wilts, Berks, Hants, > Oxon, ...) is confirmed, and very easy to see by alternately clicking on > the 1881 map and 1998 map. > > The database also provides some interesting statistics, for example: > Reading was the GB top area in 1881, Swindon in 1998; Thatcham is the > top postal town; the name is relatively more common in Aus & NZ than in > GB; etc. > > I'll probably include some of this information (or pointers to it) on > the above mentioned Web page when I get around to it. > > James > > > ==== LOVELOCK Mailing List ==== > Lovelock family history Web pages: > http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/ > > ============================== > Find your ancestors in the Birth, Marriage and Death Records. > New content added every business day. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13964/rd.ashx > >

Hello all, Some time ago I added to the Web site a page concerning the distribution of Lovelocks, which includes charts and maps showing how Lovelocks were distributed throughout the UK in 1881 and 1901, based on the census data for those years. You'll find the page at: http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/documents/lovelock-distribution.htm I just found out that there is a new Web site which displays results from a project at UCL on surname distributions, and which provides data for 1881 and 1901. The analysis of the data also includes ethnicity indications based on forenames (? 0.1 % of Lovelocks have Indian forenames!) and more information about geographical distribution, including countries other than the UK In particular AUS & NZ). You'll find the Web site at: http://www.spatial-literacy.org/UCLnames/Surnames.aspx The good news is that there were more Lovelocks in 1998 (1899) than in 1881 (1281), which confirms the figures I had comparing 1901 (1763) and 1881 (1391, slightly different than above). Also, the spread of Lovelocks away from the core Lovelock country (Wilts, Berks, Hants, Oxon, ...) is confirmed, and very easy to see by alternately clicking on the 1881 map and 1998 map. The database also provides some interesting statistics, for example: Reading was the GB top area in 1881, Swindon in 1998; Thatcham is the top postal town; the name is relatively more common in Aus & NZ than in GB; etc. I'll probably include some of this information (or pointers to it) on the above mentioned Web page when I get around to it. James

My g grandfather James Loveluck also appears near the end of the list at Aberavon, Glamorgan. I'm not sure where the land came from since his father, William, was a customs officer, and in the 1881 census James (Ship Broker Commission Agent) was living in the "Custom House, Margam", where his father William had also lived. 3 acres seems like a lot of land to be associated with a custom house. Maybe it was inherited from his grandfather (also William) who was a farmer. It's interesting that there were already large differences in the value of land in different parts of the country - e.g. 3 acres in Glamorgan had a rental value of £31 whereas 1 acre in Henley-on-Thames was worth £75; and depending where one lived in Berks an acre could be worth anything from £3 to £23. Maybe Mike, with his historian's hat, could comment on this. James John Lovelock wrote: >Thank you Mike for this new resource. > >I was pleased to see that it includes my GGG Grandfather George Lovelock >in Henley on Thames Oxfordshire. George lived in a Georgian Town House >in Northfield End (where he appears in the 1871-1891 Censuses). I assume >the entry refers to this property. > >Best Wishes > >John Lovelock >Buckinghamshire UK > >-----Original Message----- >From: James Loveluck [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: 05 January 2006 18:16 >To: [email protected] >Subject: Web site addition: Lovelock land owners 1872-73 > >Hello all, > >I have added to the Web site a document listing Lovelock records from an > >1872/73 return of land owners. The document is linked to the Sources - >General page: >http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/gen-record >s.htm >in the section "Other Records". > >Many thanks to Mike Turner, who transcribed these records. > >James > > >==== LOVELOCK Mailing List ==== > >

Nice point James. I am tempted to say have a look at: http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521450535 Even more tempted to say buy it so that I can enjoy some royalties. The rentals quoted in the New Domesday may be historic rents and on some of the smaller properties may be manorial rents that had yet to to be revised through the flurry of manorial reforms that took place from about 1840 to more or less the Second World War, with a high point in the 1860s. With this in mind, the Domesday is dated 1872 but it is based on historical Poor Law data of the early 1860s some of which will predate this because the Poor Law contributions were only revised intermittently. So that's one problem. A second problem is that regardless of issues like land quality, and location (and they can be big issues), there is a sort of inverse square rule at play here. That is, small pieces of land were usually intensively used relative to large farms and properties. To that extent the smaller lands on the whole attracted a higher unit or per acre rent. In this context see the book in the website, especially pp. 55-60 or thereabouts and 116-22 where unit size of holding relative to average rent is demonstrated. A third problem is that these may look like land rents, but what about the buildings? In other words these were rents for properties where a property is a composite of land, houses, farms and other buildings. As for whether 3 ares is large or small? Perhaps it looks large for the occupation you mentioned, but depending where you lived in Britain, and also depending on soil quality and personal ambition of the individual, a rough and ready rule of thumb is that a 'peasant holding', where peasant means a holding that a farmer could maintain with family labour alone and perhaps guarantee a sort of independence (though in some places that farmer would also have to work for others as a wage labourer) is reckoned at between 35-50 acres. The old socialist exhortation, 'Four acres and a cow' was simply that, a socialist exhortation to give the semblance of independence, not really a suggestion that a person, let alone a family, could survive on 4 acres. It was a political statement about trying to give everyone a margin of independence. Things changed a wee bit when intensive market gardening developed, but in turn that involved having a lot of capital to start with, so also a non-starter for the lowly 'peasant'. By the way, we use the term peasant to indicate a measure of independence rather than the modern derogatory term it has become. You did ask - but finally, this is far from a precise science. Mike ---------------------------------------- Michael E Turner Professor of Economic History Department of History University of Hull Cottingham Road Hull HU6 7RX Tel: (44)(0) 1482 465913 Fax: (44)(0) 1482 466126 Web: http://www.hull.ac.uk/history/homepage.html Email: [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: James Loveluck [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 09 January 2006 10:15 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Lovelock land owners 1872-73 My g grandfather James Loveluck also appears near the end of the list at Aberavon, Glamorgan. I'm not sure where the land came from since his father, William, was a customs officer, and in the 1881 census James (Ship Broker Commission Agent) was living in the "Custom House, Margam", where his father William had also lived. 3 acres seems like a lot of land to be associated with a custom house. Maybe it was inherited from his grandfather (also William) who was a farmer. It's interesting that there were already large differences in the value of land in different parts of the country - e.g. 3 acres in Glamorgan had a rental value of £31 whereas 1 acre in Henley-on-Thames was worth £75; and depending where one lived in Berks an acre could be worth anything from £3 to £23. Maybe Mike, with his historian's hat, could comment on this. James John Lovelock wrote: >Thank you Mike for this new resource. > >I was pleased to see that it includes my GGG Grandfather George >Lovelock in Henley on Thames Oxfordshire. George lived in a Georgian >Town House in Northfield End (where he appears in the 1871-1891 >Censuses). I assume the entry refers to this property. > >Best Wishes > >John Lovelock >Buckinghamshire UK > >-----Original Message----- >From: James Loveluck [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: 05 January 2006 18:16 >To: [email protected] >Subject: Web site addition: Lovelock land owners 1872-73 > >Hello all, > >I have added to the Web site a document listing Lovelock records from >an > >1872/73 return of land owners. The document is linked to the Sources - >General page: >http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/gen-recor >d >s.htm >in the section "Other Records". > >Many thanks to Mike Turner, who transcribed these records. > >James > > >==== LOVELOCK Mailing List ==== > > ==== LOVELOCK Mailing List ==== Lovelock family history Web pages: http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/ ============================== Search Family and Local Histories for stories about your family and the areas they lived. Over 85 million names added in the last 12 months. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13966/rd.ashx

Thank you Mike for this new resource. I was pleased to see that it includes my GGG Grandfather George Lovelock in Henley on Thames Oxfordshire. George lived in a Georgian Town House in Northfield End (where he appears in the 1871-1891 Censuses). I assume the entry refers to this property. Best Wishes John Lovelock Buckinghamshire UK -----Original Message----- From: James Loveluck [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 05 January 2006 18:16 To: [email protected] Subject: Web site addition: Lovelock land owners 1872-73 Hello all, I have added to the Web site a document listing Lovelock records from an 1872/73 return of land owners. The document is linked to the Sources - General page: http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/gen-record s.htm in the section "Other Records". Many thanks to Mike Turner, who transcribed these records. James ==== LOVELOCK Mailing List ==== Lovelock family history Web pages: http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/ ============================== Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 have added to the Web site a document listing Lovelock records from an 1872/73 return of land owners. The document is linked to the Sources - General page: http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/gen-records.htm in the section "Other Records". Many thanks to Mike Turner, who transcribed these records. James

Hello all, A number of files concerning the Shipton Moyne (Glos) and Derbyshire Lovelock Line have been updated on the Web site, to include corrections and additional material from Alan and Paul Whitaker. Full details are available on the "What's New" page: http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/new.html James

A Happy New Year to all Lovelock listers! I'm trying to start off the New Year well by catching up on my backlog of material to be added to the Web site! As a first installment, I've updated the Lambourn/Sparsholt Tree http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/fragments/lambourn-sparsholt-tree.html as follows: * Entered details of marriage of Esther Lovelock (b 2Q 1852 at Sparsholt) and Joseph Richardson, together with children of this marriage. Also marriage details for parents of Esther, John Lovelock & Harriet Davis. Information provided by Bernadette Lawrence via Graham Lovelock * Entered details of family of James Lovelock bap 14 Nov 1822 at Sparsholt & Ann Unknown, as provided by Graham Lovelock James

Hello all, I hope everyone had an enjoyable Christmas! I have updated the file Lovelocks in Wiltshire on the Web site: http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/lovelocks-in-wilts.html The update includes the following changes, which were compiled by Robert Sterry: * Material from Daphne Tighe - additional information or alternative dates for records that we already had; MIs for Providence Baptist Chapel, Clack (Lyneham Line); additional baptism for Patney; 2 additional marriages for Tidcombe * Two burials for Chute, provided by Graham Lovelock * Marriage of John Postill & Edith Lovelock 19 Nov 1899 at Marlborough St Mary flagged as (L)ieflock Line. * Material from Bob Blakey: additional information or alternative dates for records that we already had * Additional information and/or alternative dates for Tidcombe and Wroughton records, provided by John Dixon * A correction to a M.I. for Gt Bedwyn (E.C. Lovelock instead of F.C. Lovelock) noted by Robin Lovelock Many thanks to all who contributed! James

Season's Greetings Lovelock Listers! It's time to hand out the trophies for service to Lovelock research in 2005. Our heartfelt thanks to James Loveluck, for continually updating, and improving the Web Site, to Yann Lovelock for researching, compiling and editing Lovelock Lines and to everyone who has contributed to the knowledge of our forebears in 2005. A special mention to Robert Sterry, who continues to give me encouragement, and assistance in searching for my elusive John Lovelock of Wallingford. Let's hope we manage to link up more Lines in 2006 and learn more about our family history. With Best Wishes, to you all, for Christmas and the New Year. John Lovelock Hedgerley Buckinghamshire UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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, As many of you are no doubt aware, there are several Lovelock trees for which the progenitor is a John Lovelock born about 1740. Robert Sterry, with help from John Lovelock, has gathered together the details of the various John Lovelocks who fit this description <http://perso.numericable.fr/%7Elovjames/family-history/lovelock/wip/john-lovelocks-b-abt1740.html> which I have added to the Web site. The note is linked to the "Work in Progress" page. Robert was mainly interested in the Wallingford (Berks) Lovelock Line when he gathered this information together, but much of it should be pertinent to the other elusive John Lovelocks. James

Good evening all, from a cool and soggy Yate. You may recall that on 7 September last James posted to the website a 'London (mainly St Pancras) Tree and Fragments' that I had assembled. I haven't seen very many messages as a result of that posting, so it may be that we have nobody on the Mailing List with a Pancras connection. Which will be a shame if true, because a Lovelock with a quite definite Pancras connection has surfaced, and he has a considerable number of scanned photographs and documents, many from pre-First World War days, which he is willing to share with anyone who is interested. He has been able to put names to several of the people in photographs, which is a real bonus, of course. There are architectural elements to some of the photos which may still be identifiable to anyone who knows the area. Exotically, he operates out of Beijing, so if anyone would like to make direct contact with him please let me know and I will do the necessary. Regards Graham PS for James: My message of 24 November refers.

On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 10:01:31 +0100 James Loveluck <[email protected]> wrote: > I've updated the Swallowfield - Heckfield (Berks) Tree > <http://perso.numericable.fr/%7Elovjames/family-history/lovelock/fragments/swallowfield-heckfield-tree.html> > on the Web site. > > This update was provided by John Lewis and the additions concern > mainly the descendants of Elizabeth Lovelock (b abt Nov 1696) and > Jonathon Lewington, married Swallowfield 18 Oct 1716 (John has a > connection to this branch). Thanks James. This tree now covers my family line from Martin Lovelock down to my parents Gwendoline Cooper & Idwal Lewis. Martin Lovelock is a bit of a mystery as he appears in Swallowfield just for the baptism of two children, then disappears into the sunset just as quickly (with a possible burial on 4 Nov 1748 at Newnham, Oxf.) I would dearly love to know more about Martin and his wife Anne, who baptised Elizabeth in 1696 and Martin in 1699 at Swallowfield. There is a series of Martin Lovelocks in the north-east Hants area who I suspect are all descendants but can't actually prove so some of this tree is speculative. The name Martin is almost unique to this branch of the Lovelocks with only one other instance so far as I can see. This other Martin is the son of Edward Robert King Lovelock & Violet May Occomore who was a niece of Agnes Jane Occomore, the first wife of John (Jack) Hart, who was my grandmother's third husband and father of my only Uncle, Len Hart. -- John Lewis, Debian GNU/Linux and GeneWeb genealogy software

Hello all, I've updated the Swallowfield - Heckfield (Berks) Tree <http://perso.numericable.fr/%7Elovjames/family-history/lovelock/fragments/swallowfield-heckfield-tree.html> on the Web site. This update was provided by John Lewis and the additions concern mainly the descendants of Elizabeth Lovelock (b abt Nov 1696) and Jonathon Lewington, married Swallowfield 18 Oct 1716 (John has a connection to this branch). John also provided a gedcom file, which is linked to the gedcoms page <http://perso.numericable.fr/%7Elovjames/family-history/lovelock/gedcom.htm>. Many thanks to John Lewis for providing the additional material. James

The only explanation I can think of is that of over zealous spam filters! I'll contact you off-list Graham to try to resolve the problem. James Graham Lovelock wrote: >James > >I've sent you several messages that persist in bouncing from the 'laposte' address. > >What's up? > >Graham > > >==== LOVELOCK Mailing List ==== >Lovelock family history Web pages: >http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/ > >============================== >Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the >last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx > > > >

James I've sent you several messages that persist in bouncing from the 'laposte' address. What's up? Graham