----- Original Message ----- From: "James Loveluck" <[email protected]> To: "Mary Pipe" <[email protected]> Cc: "James Loveluck" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 1:21 AM Subject: Re: Congratulations > Hello Mary, > > It seems that you sent this message to [email protected] (the > list administrator, i.e. me) instead of [email protected], assuming > that you wanted to send it to the list. Either you can re-send it to > [email protected] or I can forward it for you. However, before doing > this I wanted to check that this really was what you intended. > > Regards, > > James > > Mary Pipe wrote: > >> Hi All, >> I would like to also congratulate everyone involved with the newsletters >> etc. They are brilliant and certainly worth waiting for to arrive in my >> inbox. >> I am pleased Robert sent my Aunty's story in to you (Mary Walton). >> About 6 years ago another Aunty on my mother's side of the family gave me >> a story to read about a yachting disaster that happened in 1907 and I >> thought it was interesting and then she kept feeding little bits to me >> about the family history, so I decided to put all the info together in my >> word processor, and from then on it just snowballed in to what I have >> today. >> My daughter also talked me into buying a computer and I didn't even know >> how to turn it on but perserverance prevailed and I now transcribe >> Electoral rolls, War Censuses, matching brides and grooms etc for the >> NZSG and we are now transcribing a Burial Index for NZ which hopefully >> will be out on CD next year. >> So all of this keeps me very busy and I love doing it. >> Keep up the good work >> Cheers >> Mary Pipe (nee Lovelock) >> > > > > >

http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/10421/20041220/www.firstfamilies2001.net.au/fi rstfamilyf2e3.html?id=DICKMAN1500881237 This Lovelock I think we can identify as Ann Lovelock Eyles bn bef 1819 d. James Lovelock and Hannah Eyles on Lieflock line. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a current contact for the researcher on this line: Shirley Blake. Cheers Robert

http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/10421/20041220/www.firstfamilies2001.net.au/fi rstfamily3258.html?id=LOVELOCK1030936369 Interesting Australian Lovelock link. Wondered if this might be William Lovelock bn 2Q, 1878, Andover RD, Hampshire s. William Lovelock and Charlotte Witcher on Lieflock line. However, Odiham I believe was in Hatley Wintney RD not Andover. Is there a Bury Odiham? Cheers to all Robert

Dear Yann Robert and John. We have just received our latest edition and want to say how much we hope it will continue because we have thoroughly enjoyed ours. Congratulations Yann on what you have done I was particularly pleased that you printed again the excellent talk that (in my case) Graham gave us on the tour so that I have a copy to keep plus of course the photos. We would like to contribute but really dont have anything in our family that is worth a mention. Very ordinary and dull Im afraid. It was a lovely weekend and in my many trips up and down the M4 every time I pass Hungerford it reminds me. We will be sending our subscription to John shortly. Sincerely Sian and Freddie Davies _________________________________________________________________ Want to block unwanted pop-ups? Download the free MSN Toolbar now! http://toolbar.msn.co.uk/

Hello all, The third edition of your favourite Newsletter, Lovelock Lines, is now available on the Web site! Go to the What's New page for a link to the PDF file (960 KB). This edition includes articles by Graham Lovelock (a liberal transcript of the commentary on the coach trip during Lovelocks Alive '04), John Lovelock (notes on his Oxfordshire connection), Mary Walton (née Lovelock, notes on her recollections of Australia and New Zealand) and Yann Lovelock (how to cash in on the family name). Many thanks to all the contributors, to Yann Lovelock who once more did a fine job of editing this edition, and to Robert Sterry who produced the final PDF file. I'd like to second Yann's plea in the editorial of the Newsletter for people to provide contributions for future editions if you would like to see the Newsletter continue. The Newsletter treats the more informal aspects of family history which complements the more "serious" material on the Web site - BMDs, family trees, census records, etc. Regards, James

Yann Lovelock has despatched postal copies to UK and overseas subscribers and an On Line version will appear shortly - keep an eye on the Lovelock Web site over the next few days. Best Wishes John Lovelock Hedgerley Bucks 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, I've made a couple of updates to the Web site as follows: o Added to the page Sources - General (section GRO Records) links to the files on John Lewis' Web site containing Lovelock extracts from FreeBMD as of 4 Aug 2005. Many thanks to John Lewis for permission to add the links to his files. o Made a minor addition to the Lambourne/Sparsholt tree: The spouse of Edward Lovelock, bap 2 Jul 1758 at Sparsholt, has been tentatively identified as Martha BOSELEY, married at East Locking, Berkshire 20 Dec 1802 (details obtained from the IGI). This identification was proposed by Nigel Gerdes - thanks a lot for pointing this out. Links to the new material are available on the "What's New" page. Regards, James

Hello all, I've added to the Web site a new file containing Lovelock extracts from the National Probate Calendars. These are indexes to most Wills that were proven in the United Kingdom since 1858 and are updated annually by the Probate Registry. They give basic information about the testator (full name, address, occupation and date of death) and probate information (date probate granted, where the will was proved, names of the executors and value of estate). The file is linked to the page Sources -> General -> Wills and also to the "What's New" page. The extracts were transcribed by John Lovelock and compiled by Robert Sterry. Following is an explanatory note, and a request, from John Lovelock. "I transcribed these entries (over a couple of Saturdays in January) from the Microfilm at the Centre for Buckinghamshire Studies in Aylesbury and Robert has kindly typed up my transcription. There are several entries of people in the Wallingford Berks line and I believe that Robert has updated the records. Many other entries are fascinating and I hope are of use to other Listers. There was a gap in filming in 1881. Please can you ask Lovelock Listers to check whether or not film in their local record offices includes L in 1881." I understand that copies of any of the Wills listed here can be purchased from The Probate Registry by sending them a cheque for £5 sterling, payable to "HM Paymaster General", at the following address: The Probate Registry, Castle Chambers, Clifford Street, YORK. YO1 9RG. Tel : (01904) 666777 If you do send for copies, I'd be very grateful for you to let me publish the full Will on the web-site once you have it. Regards, James

Please ignore. A couple of messages seem to have been blocked by my mail server, so I'm trying a different one. James

The following url goes to the Castle Garden site. Castle Garden is the place immigrants were processed before Ellis Island started. 27 Lovelocks are listed http://castlegarden.org/ Chris

Can anyone on the List assist Mr Paine? Best Wishes John Lovelock Hedgerley Buckinghamshire -----Original Message----- From: Stephen C. Paine [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 04 August 2005 13:06 To: John Lovelock Subject: RE: James K. Lovelock Please thanks. -----Original Message----- From: John Lovelock [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thu Aug 04 04:19:25 2005 To: Stephen C. Paine Subject: James K. Lovelock Dear Stephen I did not know James K Lovelock. However I correspond with other Lovelock Family History researchers via a Mailing List hosted by Rootsweb and someone on this List may have been related to or known this person. Would you like me to forward this on to them? Please advise. Thanks John Lovelock -----Original Message----- From: Stephen C. Paine [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 04 August 2005 00:15 To: John Lovelock Subject: James K. Lovelock By any chance did you know a James K. Lovelock who is believed to have died in Houston in June 2002? Thanks for your time. Stephen C. Paine Board Certified - Estate Planning and Probate - Texas Board of Legal Specialization Schlanger, Silver, Barg & Paine, LLP 109 North Post Oak Lane, Suite 300 Houston, Tx 77024-7755 713-735-8525 Fax to Desktop 713-351-4525 To insure compliance with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations, be advised that any federal tax advice contained in this communication (including attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and may not be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. NOTE: IF THE RECIPIENT OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT A FIRM CLIENT, NO PART OF THIS MESSAGE CONSTITUTES LEGAL ADVICE. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS MESSAGE IN ERROR, PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT IT MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO DISCLOSE THE INFORMATION TO ANY PERSON.

Spotted in the latest Rootsweb Review. I wonder if any of the Ice Age Hunter gatherers were called Lovelock?! Best Wishes John Lovelock Hedgerley Buckinghamshire BRITONS' COOL ANCIENT ROOTS. Despite invasions by Saxons, Romans, Vikings, Normans, and others, the genetic makeup of today's white Britons is much the same as it was 12,000 ago, a new book claims. About 80 percent of Britons' genes come from hunter-gatherers who came in immediately after the Ice Age, according the author, David Miles. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0719_050719_britishgene. html

John I suppose they were thinking of the alternative etymology: louve -lock (louve French , female wolf , as it were a "hunter of wolves" A bit fanciful, I know ! Steve Tanner

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:42:57 +0200 James Loveluck <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd just like to add my thanks to Graham Lovelock, John Lewis and > Nigel Gerdes for their contributions to these Web site additions. > > - The Shaw (Berks) tree, initially provided by John Lewis, has > > been extended by Graham Lovelock, with further additions by Nigel > > Gerdes and John Lewis. Looking yet again at the Shaw/Thatcham/Kingsclere families I have come to the conclusion that the Thomas Lovelock + Sarah family of Crookham recorded under St. Peter, Brimpton should be included in this tree. A Thomas Lovelock married Sarah Lane at St. Mary, Kingsclere on 28 October 1805. The first child baptised at St. Peter was in 1811 so there is a bit of a gap but this was the period of the Napoleonic Wars so Thomas could have been serving in the militia. I think Thomas could be the one baptized on 24 July 1785 at Hannington to Francis & Ann (Webb). although the age given for the Thomas buried at Brimpton on 23 July 1839 makes him ten years older than would be suggested by the baptism date. (but see comment below about the Thomas from Aldermaston) I cannot find any link as yet to the other Brimpton family, that of Edward and Teresa (Elizabeth Teresa Webb) but feel sure it must fit in somewhere. All these North Hampshire/South Berks localities where Lovelocks are found, Newbury (Shaw), Chieveley, Bucklebury, Thatcham, Brimpton, Aldermaston, Kingsclere & Hannington, are only a few hours walk apart and it doesn't seem likely the name could have originated independantly in all of them. > > - Two trees have been added for Aldermaston, Berks, both provided > > by Graham Lovelock I can find no links at present to the Shaw/Thatcham/Kingsclere tree but if I am wrong about the Thomas/Teresa origins then the Thomas/Sophia family from Aldermaston fits the Hannington 1875 baptism date just as well. -- John Lewis, Debian GNU/Linux and GeneWeb genealogy software

Hello all, I've made the following additions and updates to the Lovelock Web site: - Additional Lovelock records from the 1861 census for Wiltshire, provided by Robert Sterry, were included in a new file, since the format is somewhat different than that of previous records - Updated the Lambeth (London), Australia and NZ Line to the latest version provided by Robert Sterry, which includes a number of additions including new material from Ken Medlycott. Both the tree and the corresponding gedcom file have been updated. Details can be found on the What's New <http://perso.numericable.fr/%7Elovjames/family-history/lovelock/new.html> page Many thanks to Robert Sterry and Ken Medlycott for the new material, and also to Graham Lovelock for comments and corrections to the 1861 census material. Regards, James

I'd just like to add my thanks to Graham Lovelock, John Lewis and Nigel Gerdes for their contributions to these Web site additions. James James Loveluck wrote: > Hello all, > > A number of files concerning Berkshire Lovelocks have been added to or > updated on the Web site, as follows: > > - The 1881 census extracts for Berkshire have been updated. The > updated file includes (to the best of my knowledge) all Lovelock > records for which the census place is in Berkshire. The file includes > essentially all the data for each household. There are a few caveats > to this in that for a workhouse, an asylum and a school I have not > entered all the inmates or pupils; also, for the asylum I omitted the > information about the inmates handicap, since I don't have a column > for this. However, the information in question is of dubious value, > since the labels used in 1881 were hardly scientific or politically > correct - they include epithets such as "imbecile", "idiot" and > "lunatic"! > > - The Shaw (Berks) tree, initially provided by John Lewis, has been > extended by Graham Lovelock, with further additions by Nigel Gerdes > and John Lewis. > > - Two trees have been added for Aldermaston, Berks, both provided by > Graham Lovelock > > The new or updated files are accessible from the "What's New" page. > The Berks 1881 census records are also linked to the Berkshire Records > page (Sources->Berks) and the three trees are linked to the Berks > Trees page. > > Concerning the 1881 census records, we now have a complete set of > extracts for Wilts, Berks and Glamorgan. My intention is to extend > this to other counties of interest, but this may take some time! > > Regards, > > James > >

Hello all, A number of files concerning Berkshire Lovelocks have been added to or updated on the Web site, as follows: - The 1881 census extracts for Berkshire have been updated. The updated file includes (to the best of my knowledge) all Lovelock records for which the census place is in Berkshire. The file includes essentially all the data for each household. There are a few caveats to this in that for a workhouse, an asylum and a school I have not entered all the inmates or pupils; also, for the asylum I omitted the information about the inmates handicap, since I don't have a column for this. However, the information in question is of dubious value, since the labels used in 1881 were hardly scientific or politically correct - they include epithets such as "imbecile", "idiot" and "lunatic"! - The Shaw (Berks) tree, initially provided by John Lewis, has been extended by Graham Lovelock, with further additions by Nigel Gerdes and John Lewis. - Two trees have been added for Aldermaston, Berks, both provided by Graham Lovelock The new or updated files are accessible from the "What's New" page. The Berks 1881 census records are also linked to the Berkshire Records page (Sources->Berks) and the three trees are linked to the Berks Trees page. Concerning the 1881 census records, we now have a complete set of extracts for Wilts, Berks and Glamorgan. My intention is to extend this to other counties of interest, but this may take some time! Regards, James

On the Channel 4 teletext family history pages at the moment there is an enquiry about a Charlotte Lovelock, details as follows: "Born about 1803 (where?). Became 2nd wife of Charles Penney c. 1827 (where?). On 1841 census living in Rotherhithe, children Charles, William, Ann, Thomas, Susan and Mary." Does anyone know any more about Charlotte? I have contact details for the enquirer (but no email address) - I'd be happy to receive any relevant information which I could forward. Regards Sue

A couple of other thoughts ..... Puttenham is halfway between Farnham and Guildford, and about 12 miles from Dogmersfield. There is a candidate for George, I suggest - the son of William and Anne, baptised 26 Feb 1797 at Dogmersfield. He is probably the one who married an Elizabeth and fathered Sarah Ann who was baptised on 22 Aug 1824. Wife Elizabeth seems likely to be the one buried 23 Jan 1825 at the age of 21. I note that the Puttenham entry reveals that the George who married Hannah Marshall was a widower. The Removal Order is interesting (and was one of the last issued in Puttenham one suspects, as they were discontinued in 1834 apparently) as it refers to 'their parish of Settlement' implying that Hannah was a Dogmersfield girl as well. Had she been from Puttenham there would have been no Removal Order as marriage with a native gave one Settlement rights. Presumably as Col suggests, the couple (and so soon after their marriage!) fell on hard times and turned to the Parish Relief system for assistance. It would also seem that they complied with the Order from the evidence of the Hannah burial in 1838. How annoying that the age for that burial is not available. One remaining question, of course - where did George 'escape' to, if his absence from the Dogmersfield burial records is not simply an indication that the record has not yet been found there? Regards to all Graham ----- Original Message ----- From: "Colin Borrott-Maloney" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 3:11 AM Subject: Re: Lovelock Removal Order - Surrey to Hants > Hi James & all > The "Removal Order" is given when they applied for parish releif or were > unemployed etc. > They were ususlly told to go back to their "Own" parish of birth. > Cheers > Col > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "James Loveluck" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 1:41 AM > Subject: Lovelock Removal Order - Surrey to Hants > > > > Hello all, > > > > Alison Vickery sent me a pointer to the following Web page: > > > > http://freespace.virgin.net/ar.indexes/PuttPLSRO.htm > > > > which includes the following text: > > > > 1833 Removal Order for George LOVELOCK and Hannah his wife from Puttenham > > to their parish of Settlement – Degmersfield. > > (Degmersfield should presumably be Dogmersfield) > > > > I don't believe there's a Puttenham in Hants, but in our "Lovelocks in > > Surrey" file I found a marriage record as follows: > > *Puttenham > > Marriages 1696-1812 *(Modern Transcript) > > 1833 Feb 17 George Lovelock, wid. & Hannah Marshall, widow > > > > There is a burial record at Dogmersfield for a Hannah Lovelock on 23 Sep > > 1838, which could very well be the Hannah in question. > > > > Does anyone have any connection with this family, which doesn't seem to > > fit in with our current Hants lines? > > > > Also, any background about "Removal Orders" would be interesting. What > > awful crime had been commited to warrant being removed from Surrey to > > darkest Hants? > > > > 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 > > > > > > __________ NOD32 1.1154 (20050625) Information __________ > > > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > > > > ==== 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 > >

Hi James & all The "Removal Order" is given when they applied for parish releif or were unemployed etc. They were ususlly told to go back to their "Own" parish of birth. Cheers Col ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Loveluck" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 1:41 AM Subject: Lovelock Removal Order - Surrey to Hants > Hello all, > > Alison Vickery sent me a pointer to the following Web page: > > http://freespace.virgin.net/ar.indexes/PuttPLSRO.htm > > which includes the following text: > > 1833 Removal Order for George LOVELOCK and Hannah his wife from Puttenham > to their parish of Settlement – Degmersfield. > (Degmersfield should presumably be Dogmersfield) > > I don't believe there's a Puttenham in Hants, but in our "Lovelocks in > Surrey" file I found a marriage record as follows: > *Puttenham > Marriages 1696-1812 *(Modern Transcript) > 1833 Feb 17 George Lovelock, wid. & Hannah Marshall, widow > > There is a burial record at Dogmersfield for a Hannah Lovelock on 23 Sep > 1838, which could very well be the Hannah in question. > > Does anyone have any connection with this family, which doesn't seem to > fit in with our current Hants lines? > > Also, any background about "Removal Orders" would be interesting. What > awful crime had been commited to warrant being removed from Surrey to > darkest Hants? > > 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 > > > __________ NOD32 1.1154 (20050625) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.eset.com > >