A little more to add to the pot: In the 1881 Census 8 year old Henry J Brewer was recorded as a Boarder with George and Eliza Lovelock at Great Bedwyn. Strange that he was not recorded as a grandson if Ann had married Henry Brewer in 1871. Henry J's place of birth was recorded as Great Bedwyn, but by 1901 he had joined the Wiltshire exodus to London and was a General Labourer, single, living in Battersea, and giving Grafton as his place of birth. With respect to the 1896 Lovelock-Winder marriage I can't think of anything to say, except well tracked down, Robert. And excellent news that we now know what became of Elizabeth as well. Lots of minor adjustments to the Lieflock Line in the offing! Regards Graham Robert wrote: Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 13:39:47 +1100 I decided to also check FreeBMD for that Lovelock-Winder marriage and came across this unexpected find: Surname First name(s) District Vol Page ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Marriages Jun 1896 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Curtis Alfred Kensington 1a 210 Lovelock Charlotte Kensington 1a 210 Treble Kate Kensington 1a 210 Winder Philip Kensington 1a 210 What do you make of that? I wondered if in fact they had married previously in perhaps some non-conformist church and then later married in the C of E for some reason. I checked Ancestral Trails for any such precedents at this time. But the requirement for Catholics and Protestant dissenters to be married in the Anglican church (as well as their own if they wished to be legal) ended in 1837. If they weren't legally married, this might of course effect inheritance rights. Perhaps they really didn't marry until 1896??? However, regarding the visitor Ann Brewer, I checked FreeBMD to see if an Ann Lovelock had in fact ever married a BREWER and found one match: Surname First name(s) District Vol Page ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Marriages Dec 1871 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Brewer Henry Reading 2c 814 Gould George Reading 2c 814 Lovelock Ann Reading 2c 814 Wright Martha Reading 2c 814 What do you think? Ann's age and place of birth is right in the 1881 census extract and the date is spot on for a 'shotgun' marriage as Ann has her illegitimate son William abt June of the same year! And Reading's far enough away from home to save any family embarrassment. I also checked for any likely marriages for their sister Elizabeth. The most likely was: Surname First name(s) District Vol Page ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Marriages Mar 1870 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Gerard Thomas Bowen Kensington 1a 60 Lovelock Elizabeth Kensington 1a 60 REVELL Charles Arthur Kensington 1a 60 YOUNG Clara Kensington 1a 60 Then searched 1881 for an Elizabeth REVELL or GERARD born abt 1849 West Grafton. Bingo!!! Dwelling: 352 Portobello Rd Census Place: Kensington, London, Middlesex, England Source: FHL Film 1341009 PRO Ref RG11 Piece 0038 Folio 127 Page 7 Marr Age Sex Birthplace Charles REVELL M 30 M Hammersmith, Middlesex, England Rel: Head Occ: Boot Maker Elizabeth REVELL M 32 F West Grafton, Wiltshire, England Rel: Wife Occ: Boot Maker Charles G. REVELL 10 M West Grafton, Wiltshire, England Rel: Son Occ: Scholar Arthur W REVELL 8 M Hammersmith, Middlesex, England Rel: Son Occ: Scholar Elizabeth A. REVELL 7 F Battersea, Surrey, England Rel: Daur Occ: Scholar Sydney A. REVELL 3 M Kensington, Middlesex, England Rel: Son Charles REVELL M 84 M London St Martin In Fields , Middlesex, England Rel: Father Occ: No Occupation Martha REVELL M 69 F Hammersmith, Middlesex, England Rel: Mother Occ: No Occupation But still no sign of that elusive illegitimate Sarah Ann Lovelock. _________________________________________________________________ It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today! http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

I've only just about caught up with the flurry of emails about Daniel. Chris, as soon as I saw your first note I just knew it was a missing brother of my husband's direct ancestor George Lovelock. I had been wondering for years what had happened to George's brothers, as I found data about only one of them (Thomas, born abt 1775, who stayed in the parish, married and was buried there - he too was a gardener, interestingly). So to have found Daniel was exciting enough, but to now have the link to Lovelock in Nevada is just amazing! I haven't done a serious look for John (born abt 1772-3) Stephen (1778) or Jacob (1786) recently, so with all the information which has been made available on-line, perhaps that will now be a challenge. Best regards Sue

Hello List, Having been following your facts on Daniel Lovelock at Oystermouth,. Now I want you to consider the other following family there. John Lovelock born about 1771 place unknown. married to a Mary, no marriage in Glam?. Had following children. Rachel christened Oystermouth 17th.Aug.1806 aged 3 weeks. Buried Oystermouth 23rd. Sept. 1827. aged 21 years. Blackpill. George christened Oystermouth 18th.April.1808. aged 3 weeks. Buried Oystermouth 21st.Feb.1809. John christened Oystermouth. 5th.Aug.1810 aged 2 weeks. Buried Oystermouth. 17th.March.1811. Mary christened Oystermouth. 14th.June.1812.aged 3 weeks. Buried Oystermouth.14th.Sept.1815. aged 3 years. Blackpill. MI. Oystermouth. In Memory of Harriet daughter of John and Mary Lovelock of Blackpill. who entered unto her rest after- - - - ? died March 1821. aged 16 years. MI. St. Thomas Neath. In Memory of John Lovelock who died June 28th. 1837. aged 66 years. He lived 26 years as Bailiff with Gnr. Warde of Woodland Castle in this county. In the same grave lies his widow Mary died Jan.17th.1840.aged 74 years. [ Woodlands Castle later named Clyne Castle, and very near Blackpill.] The marriage of Daniel Lovelock bach. of this parish and Jane Rees spin. of this parish. Oystermouth. 4th.Jan.1816. Daniel had to make his mark X. Jane signed the register in the presence of Philip Rogers and Augusta Lambourn. Best Regards Allen Allen in Aberavon __________________________________________________________________ Switch to Netscape Internet Service. As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register Netscape. Just the Net You Need. New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups. Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp

Greetings all I found the recent exchange on this illegitimate daughter of George Lovelock and Eliza Fisher most interesting. I had also wondered which of George's daughter's she belonged to? I was interested in Graham's comment that George's daughter Elizabeth married Philip Winder and finished up in London. I did not have this detail - just the name of her husband. I checked the 1881. I assume this is Elizabeth and Philip Winder: Dwelling: 1 Milson Place Census Place: Lambeth, Surrey, England Source: FHL Film 1341139 PRO Ref RG11 Piece 0606 Folio 141 Page 47 Marr Age Sex Birthplace Philip WINDER M 42 M Sussex, England Rel: Head Occ: Labourer Charlotte WINDER M 35 F West Grafton, Wiltshire, England Rel: Wife Alice WINDER 7 F St Georges In The East Rel: Dau Mark WINDER 4 M Canning Town W Ham Rel: Son Annie WINDER 2 m F Canning Town W Ham Rel: Dau Ann BREWER 30 F West Grafton, Wiltshire, England Rel: Visitor However, Graham says they had 5 children and that only accounts for three of them. Graham, could I possibly have the marriage detail of Elizabeth Lovelock and Philip Winder and the details on their other two children please? Many thanks. I also checked the 1881 for Sarah Ann Lovelock. But had no more success than Graham. Perhaps she gave a false place of birth? I found the marriage of Sarah Ann at Hungerford RD in 1886 that Graham refers to in the FreeBMD. This gave two possible husbands: James Peck or Joseph Powell. But a search of the 1901 census for either a Sarah Peck or Powell produced no result. Robert Robert ---------------------------------------------- Robert Sterry 9 Baileys Lane, Kurrajong Hills NSW 2758 AUSTRALIA Ph: (61)0245 731805 FAX: (61) 0245731022 Email: [email protected]

I found four children on 1891 maybe Alice was away from home. They were Mark Annie George and Frank.What I would like to know is what took them all to Battersea?Thomas,Charlotte , Jane and Charles were all living very close to each other.Jane and Charlotte were next door to each other.On the death of her husband Charlotte moved to Henley Street Battersea and her children were living there for sometime.Funnily enough I myself moved into Henley Street with my parents in 1939 Jean Gilmore

Robert, and all The 1881 family below is the correct one. I suspect that the visitor Ann Brewer is Elizabeth's sister. Some of the information I have is based on correspondence from over 2 years ago, and is not accessible from this machine. Remind me to check whether it is still on my other piano. I suspect that Charlotte and Philip married in the Lambeth RD in the March quarter of 1874. Certainly a Charlotte did, as you will find on FreeBMD, but for once there are only three names recorded for the Register page. The 1874 images are not available yet, so can't get any further with that. The first of the other two children of the couple that I know of is a Henry George, born in the June quarter of 1884 in the Wandsworth RD, who married at in the Holywell, Flintshire RD (Malcolm's neck of the woods) a Rosa Maud Mary Jessett on 21 Aug 1909. Curiously Rosa was born in Wandsworth as well, so I wonder what took them to Flintshire? Charlotte died in the Holywell RD in the June quarter of 1920, so had presumably gone to live with George and Rosa. The fifth child of Charlotte and Philip was Francis, aged 14 in 1901 and born in Battersea (but not in FreeBMD). With respect to Sarah Ann, Free BMD has no death of a Sarah Ann Peck that would explain her absence from the 1901, nor of a Sarah Ann Powell in the Hungerford RD. However (RED HERRING WARNING !!!) by coincidence I did note the death of a Sarah Ann Pwell in the Holywell RD in June quarter of 1886 aged 21.......... Your move ......... Regards Graham From: "Robert Sterry" <[email protected]> Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 16:03:46 +1100 Greetings all I found the recent exchange on this illegitimate daughter of George Lovelock and Eliza Fisher most interesting. I had also wondered which of George's daughter's she belonged to? I was interested in Graham's comment that George's daughter Elizabeth married Philip Winder and finished up in London. I did not have this detail - just the name of her husband. I checked the 1881. I assume this is Elizabeth and Philip Winder: Dwelling: 1 Milson Place Census Place: Lambeth, Surrey, England Source: FHL Film 1341139 PRO Ref RG11 Piece 0606 Folio 141 Page 47 Marr Age Sex Birthplace Philip WINDER M 42 M Sussex, England Rel: Head Occ: Labourer Charlotte WINDER M 35 F West Grafton, Wiltshire, England Rel: Wife Alice WINDER 7 F St Georges In The East Rel: Dau Mark WINDER 4 M Canning Town W Ham Rel: Son Annie WINDER 2 m F Canning Town W Ham Rel: Dau Ann BREWER 30 F West Grafton, Wiltshire, England Rel: Visitor However, Graham says they had 5 children and that only accounts for three of them. Graham, could I possibly have the marriage detail of Elizabeth Lovelock and Philip Winder and the details on their other two children please? Many thanks. I also checked the 1881 for Sarah Ann Lovelock. But had no more success than Graham. Perhaps she gave a false place of birth? I found the marriage of Sarah Ann at Hungerford RD in 1886 that Graham refers to in the FreeBMD. This gave two possible husbands: James Peck or Joseph Powell. But a search of the 1901 census for either a Sarah Peck or Powell produced no result. Robert Robert ---------------------------------------------- Robert Sterry 9 Baileys Lane, Kurrajong Hills NSW 2758 AUSTRALIA Ph: (61)0245 731805 FAX: (61) 0245731022 Email: [email protected] ==== LOVELOCK Mailing List ==== Lovelock family history Web pages: http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/ ============================== View and search Historical Newspapers. Read about your ancestors, find marriage announcements and more. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13969/rd.ashx _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself with cool new emoticons http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo

Robert, thanks. More good luck here! Can't think how I entitled the recent message as Daniel Estcourt, except that is a family name I am researching too. Anyway, fresh eyes this morning found Daniel Lovelock in the 1861 census as follows: RG9 - 1980 Folio 55 page2 Parish of Brewood Chillington Garden hse. Daniel Lovelock, Head, age (unreadable), Head Gardener, Wilts. Compton Basset Mary Lovelock, Wife, 54, Staffordshire Wolverhampton George Chorlton Boarder, age (unreadable), Under gardener, Lancashire Manchester Frederick Lovelock, Grandson, Scholar, 14, Born at Sea This last entry ties in beautifully with the fact that Daniel's son, George Lovelock had a son Frederick, born 1848 at sea on Board "Success" Chillington House was the first entry in the district of Chillington with many servants listed, all working for a Charlotte Gifford, Landed Proprietor. Daniel has evidently reached the top of his profession there. Regards, Chris

I have received the certifcates which read as follows:- 1847 Marriage solemnized at the Collegiate Church in the Parish of Wolverhampton in the county of Stafford Feb 21st Daniel Lovelock, full age, Widower, Gardener, Res:. Wolverhampton, Father: T Lovelock, deceased Mary Cooke, full age, Spinster, Res: Wolverhampton, Father: W. Cooke deceased Witnesses were T Holding and J Biddulph Junr. Registration District Penkridge 1868 Death in the Sub-District of Brewood in the county of Stafford Seventh July 1868 Chillington Brewood, Daniel Lovelock, Male, 75 years, Gardener, Heart Disease/Dropsy, Informant: Lucy Colley, present at death, Chillington, Brewood The Marriage certificate confirms in my mind that this Daniel is indeed the son of Thomas Lovelock and Jane Bratfield. Plainly Daniel's first wife died and I am still awaiting the death cert. for a Jane Lovelock who died in 1846. It may be that since she was not present at Daniel's death, she herself had died (possibly even in childbirth as their was a child Ann who died in the year she was born according to IGI) however, I have not found any record of this.

If this was Ann's daughter it would mean that Ann was 14 years old at the time of the birth I suppose it is not unlikely as they seem a wayward bunch Jean Gilmore

Regarding Sarah Ann: I've not been able to find any information to help place her. There does not seem to be a baptism anywhere, although she does appear in the GRO data (1Q of 1865). Presumably she was not another daughter of Ann's, as Ann would only have been 14 in 1865, so she must be the daughter of one of Ann's older sisters Elizabeth and Charlotte. I can't see any mention of her in 1881, but may have missed it. There is no death in our GRO data, but there is a marriage of a Sarah Ann in the Hungerford RD in 2Q of 1886. Charlotte eventually married Philip Winder and had 5 children in London starting in 1874. Of Elizabeth I know nothing apart from the 1851 Census entry that says she was born in GB c1849, but there is no baptism there for her, and the 1861 entry that says, probably more accurately, that she was born in West Grafton. I think we have had comments on this topic before, because the odd thing is that when Ann(ie) came along in 1851 George and Eliza had her baptised, so why not Elizabeth? Detectives one step forward, please. Regards to all Graham From: James Loveluck <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: census Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 17:31:25 +0100 Hi Jean, You're right, this could very well be Jane b. 1853 West Grafton - the dates/age certainly match. Concerning the illegitimate children living with George and Eliza, I believe that Ann(ie) is the mother of William - there is a baptism record for him at East Grafton as follows: 1871 Jun 25 William son of Ann Lovelock (single woman) However, Sarah Ann b. abt 1865 is new to me. James Jean Gilmore wrote: >I believe that the Jane Lovelock living with Tabulon Carter as > a servant in 1871 was my great grandmother the daughter >of george and Eliza Lovelock. I am also interested in >the illegitimate children mentioned in Georges household.Which > of her sisters had them? Jean Gilmore > ==== LOVELOCK Mailing List ==== Lovelock family history Web pages: http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/ ============================== Expand your family tree. Search more than 200 million names in Ancestry.com's United Kingdom & Ireland Collection. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13968/rd.ashx _________________________________________________________________ It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today! http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

Hi Jean, You're right, this could very well be Jane b. 1853 West Grafton - the dates/age certainly match. Concerning the illegitimate children living with George and Eliza, I believe that Ann(ie) is the mother of William - there is a baptism record for him at East Grafton as follows: 1871 Jun 25 William son of Ann Lovelock (single woman) However, Sarah Ann b. abt 1865 is new to me. James Jean Gilmore wrote: >I believe that the Jane Lovelock living with Tabulon Carter as a servant in 1871 was my great grandmother the daughter of george and Eliza Lovelock. I am also interested in the illegitimate children mentioned in Georges household.Which of her sisters had them? Jean Gilmore > >

I believe that the Jane Lovelock living with Tabulon Carter as a servant in 1871 was my great grandmother the daughter of george and Eliza Lovelock. I am also interested in the illegitimate children mentioned in Georges household.Which of her sisters had them? Jean Gilmore

Hello all, The file containing Lovelock extracts from the 1871 census for Wiltshire (originally provided by Graham Lovelock) has been updated with additional records by Robert Sterry. You'll find the new file in it's usual place at: http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/documents/1871-wilts.html Robert tells me that he has so far only checked about one fifth of the census, so there should be more to come when Robert finds the time. Many thanks to Robert for the update! James

Derek Welcome. I'm afraid I can throw no light on the origins of your Cecil or his father, but I am intrigued by your reference to Victor Ronald. There was no birth of a Victor Ronald registered in the Hereford Registration District in 1908 or 1909, but a Victor George L Lovelock WAS registered in the Jul-Sep quarter of 1908. Coincidence, or two Lovelock families, or ..... ? I notice a Dorothea K M V V Lovelock was registered in the Jul-Sep quarter of 1906. A sister perhaps? If you've found nothing in the Censuses perhaps he was born overseas. I suppose you have tried searching under variations of the name? Not that that helps with the 1901. Mind you, I couldn't find Lily Jane Croft then either, although her father is recorded. A little mysterious. Regards Graham ----- Original Message ----- From: "DEREK NELSON" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 10:15 PM Subject: LOVELOCKS in Hereford > Good evening Lovelock researchers > > I have just spent some considerable time perusing the wonderful LOVELOCK websites. > > I have a marriage certificate dated 17 August 1904 for one Cecil Charles McKenzie LOVELOCK aged 27 years whos father was Charles LOVELOCK (deseased) occupation Architect. > He married Lily Jane CROFT aged 28 father George CROFT gardener. > They were married in the parish of Tupsley, Hereford > > I have made extensive searches of the 1881, 1891 and 1901 censuses but can find no entries for Cecil Charles McKensie LOVELOCK or his father. > > I really would like to find Cecil in the 1901 census. I do know he was in Hereford when his son Victor Ronald was born in 1908. > > Any help would be greatly appreciated. > > > > ==== LOVELOCK Mailing List ==== > Lovelock family history Web pages: > http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/ > > ============================== > OneWorldTree - The World's largest family tree. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13971/rd.ashx > >

Good evening Lovelock researchers I have just spent some considerable time perusing the wonderful LOVELOCK websites. I have a marriage certificate dated 17 August 1904 for one Cecil Charles McKenzie LOVELOCK aged 27 years whos father was Charles LOVELOCK (deseased) occupation Architect. He married Lily Jane CROFT aged 28 father George CROFT gardener. They were married in the parish of Tupsley, Hereford I have made extensive searches of the 1881, 1891 and 1901 censuses but can find no entries for Cecil Charles McKensie LOVELOCK or his father. I really would like to find Cecil in the 1901 census. I do know he was in Hereford when his son Victor Ronald was born in 1908. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Greetings Jack How's Spring in New Zealand? Hope your getting some of this recent rain. We certainly need it here! Great to have your comments on recent Nevada-Lyneham connection. However, I wouldn't place too much weight on Ancestry.com. Best wishes Robert > -----Original Message----- > From: Jack Lovelock [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, 3 November 2004 2:31 AM > To: Robert Sterry > Subject: Re: Daniel Lovelock Wolverhampton > > > Hi Robert and the research team. > Of the "Nevada Line", Richard Dowd had pencilled in Jane > Roberts as the wife of Daniel (married 1816). This note is on > Richard's copy of the 1847 marriage cert of George L. to Mary > Forrest. However Ancestry.com has the wife's name as Jane > Rees b abt 1790 d 22/4/1846 in Wolverhampton, Staffordshire. > I will email Richard and see if he can shed any further light > on this. Again according to Ancestry .com, Daniel's parents > were John b ? d 1832 m Sarah Batt 4/11/1783. Thay had 4 > children Mary, Kezia, Wiliam and Daniel. To confuse matters, > John married a second Sarah (according to Ancestry.com) and > had one further child - another Daniel! But checking back on > these two Daniels, they appear to be the same person!! So > perhaps there was only one marriage? John's (d 1832) parents > were another John b 1724 m Anne Giles 28/4/1751 d 13/11/1799 > They had 5 children - William, Ann, Jony, John and Mary. > John's (b1724) parents were Richard b 1686 m to Mary Head > 7/7/1706 d 24/11/1760. They had 7 children Thomas, Ann, > Joane, Mary, Joanna, Richard and John. > > I have possibly erased recent emails on the Lyneham line > before appreciating the possible link to the Nevada Line was > under discussion - must take more care! Obviously there are > no Daniels listed on the web page as children to Thomas & > Jane Bratfield, so what have I missed? Just how much can one > rely on the Ancestry.com information? Also Ancestry.com have > Daniel's (b 1770) parents as John & Sarah Batt, not Thomas & > Jane Bratfield? Regards to all, Jack Lovelock

Thanks to both Richard and Jack for providing feedback on this possible connection - if it's correct then it will take your tree back to the marriage of Abraham Lovelock and Priscilla Geenaway at Wroughton in 1689! Thanks to Richard for clearing up the confusion about the death date of 22 Apr 1846 being that of Jane and not Daniel (in fact, looking at the fragment again this seems fairly clear - I was just being stupid). I have a CD of the Glamorgan 1841 census but I didn't find the family of Daniel and Jane. However, this is perhaps not surprising since, according to your fragment, Mary and Daniel were baptised at Newport, which is in Monmouthshire, for which I don't have access to the 1841 census data. Concerning Jack's point about the identification of the parents of Daniel, it's true that John Lovelock and Sarah Batt had a son Daniel bap. 11 Jul 1790 at Milton Lilbourne. However, there is a Milton Lilbourne burial for Daniel Lovelock age 78 on 2 Dec 1866, which fits pretty well, so I think the identification with Daniel, son of Thomas L and Jane Bratfield, bap 3 Mar 1793 at Compton Bassett, is more likely. Also Chris Knight informed us that the 1851 census data for Brewood, Wolverhampton, gave Daniel's place of birth as Compton Bassett. Regards to all, James Richard Dowd wrote: >Hi Chris, James, Robert and all, > >Have been watching the Daniel Lovelock developments over the last couple of days with great interest. > >The connection between the Daniel ( 58 y.o. - gardener born Compton Basset) in the 1851 census at Wolverhampton and the Daniel born to Thomas Lovelock and Jane Bratfield, baptised 3rd March 1793 seem indisputable. Great work. > >Now to clear up a few points. The death date of 22 Apr 1846 on the "Nevada Lovelock Line" fragment I supplied a few years ago (much of the information supplied to me by Gwen Eastment) was relating to Jane the wife of Daniel, not Daniel.I have a copy of her death certificate which states:- > >Registration District Wolverhampton, Sub-district of Tettenhall in the county of Stafford > >22nd April 1846 Tettenhall / Jane Lovelock / female / 56 years / wife of Daniel Lovelock Gardener / Diseased Lungs, Dropsy Ascites? / Daniel Lovelock present at the death. > >As to what was the maiden name of Daniels wife I am not sure. When I first compiled the tree I had it down as ROBERTS. this was based on a marriage certificate I have for Daniel's son Daniel (my great, great grandfather) who came to Australia in the 1840's. On his marriage certificate he stated his parents were Daniel Lovelock, Farmer and Jane Roberts. Later I came across the Glamorgan Index which gave the date, 4 Jan 1816 and place, Oystermouth of a Daniel Lovelock marriage to a Jane Rees. This seemed to be correct so I changed Daniels wife to Rees before I submitted it as the "Nevada Fragment." Not aware of my find I believe my cousin in New Zealand submitted corrections to the tree and altered it back to Roberts. (I hope that makes sense to you) > >I guess it is possible that Daniel (son of Daniel) did not know, or forgot his mothers maiden name, or the Glamorgan BDM Index is incorrect of maybe she was a widow and remarried under her last married name? Any thoughts? > >The only other problem is one of age. From the information I received from Gwen Eastment Daniels date of birth was circa 1770, I don't know why as he would have been 46 when he married. I would have thought age on the 1851 census would be more likely ( Circa 1793 ).. I guess there could have been two Daniel Lovelocks who married two different Janes. > >An index of the 1841 census of Swansea and Wolverhampton could come in handy now. Is there one? > > >regards > >Richard Dowd > >Melbourne, Australia > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Hi James > Returning to the Lovelocks in Glamorgan file, we don't have an > explanation of the 4 Lovelock burials at Oystermouth which Robert > recently provided from the NBI. Perhaps John (bur 17 Mar 1811) is the > brother of Daniel bap 2 Jan 1713 at Cherhill, and the others are his > children (Daniel did also have a brother George, but he was bur at > Lyneham 3 Jan 1874). Quite possibly. However, with luck, the full burial record may just name the parents, remembering that the NBI is only an index of course. I wonder if the Oystermouth PR is available on film through the Mormons? > It would be interesting to hear from Richard Dowd and/or Jack > Lovelock > (I think they're both on the mailing list) about the early > part of the > Nevada Lovelock tree! Indeed it would!! Hopefully this new link will stimulate some more discussion on the list. Best Robert PS My apologies James. You have indeed eliminated the Daniel duplication in the latest version of the Nevada Lovelock fragment. I'm not sure now where I grabbed it from off the site. But obviously the wrong place! :-(

It certainly would be gratifying if we could connect the Nevada Lovelocks to the Lyneham Line - so far everyting seems to fit together! You're quite right Robert that there would seem to be an error in the Nevada fragment on the Web site concerning the name of Daniel L's first wife (should be Rees, not Roberts). By the way, I think you're looking at the wrong version of the Nevada Lovelocks file - the latest version is under "Misc Trees" at: http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/fragments/misc-lovelock-trees.html#Nevada and I had eliminated the duplication of some of the detail about Daniel Lovelock. Returning to the Lovelocks in Glamorgan file, we don't have an explanation of the 4 Lovelock burials at Oystermouth which Robert recently provided from the NBI. Perhaps John (bur 17 Mar 1811) is the brother of Daniel bap 2 Jan 1713 at Cherhill, and the others are his children (Daniel did also have a brother George, but he was bur at Lyneham 3 Jan 1874). The additional data provided by Chris in his follow-up message nicely fills in the story after Daniel moved to Wolverhampton. It would be interesting to hear from Richard Dowd and/or Jack Lovelock (I think they're both on the mailing list) about the early part of the Nevada Lovelock tree! James Robert Sterry wrote: >Well done James! I believe you have indeed connected the Nevada Lovelock >line to the Lyneham line. This is pretty exciting stuff and doesn't happen >very often. > >The 1851 census data that Chris Knight supplied on Daniel Lovelock of >Wolverhampton exactly matches that of Daniel L bp 1793, the son of Thomas L >and Jane Bratfield on the Lyneham line. > >I'd love to have the full text of the 1851 census details from Chris on >Daniel and his family at Wolverhampton. I'd also like to have the detail on >his second marriage if Chris could supply. Does Chris have Daniel's burial >detail? > >I had a bit of a hunt on the IGI, FreeBMD and what we have from the GRO. I >did find a likely marriage (on Free BMD) of Daniel's daughter Mary (bp 1822) >to George Ridley at Wolverhampton (6b 541). I also noticed from our >Glamorgan BDM file that Daniel's first marriage was to a Jane REES not >ROBERTS. > >I did find what looks like his second marriage at Wolverhampton amongst our >extracts for the GRO (1847 Wolverhampton, XVII, 337, 1). > >Chris, can you help with some more detail please?? > >Great work! > >Robert > >PS I noticed that Daniel L's detail on the Lovelock site appears to be >entered twice. > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: James Loveluck [mailto:[email protected]] >>Sent: Saturday, 30 October 2004 8:16 PM >>To: [email protected] >>Subject: Re: Daniel Lovelock Wolverhampton >> >> >>Chris, >> >>I wonder if Daniel Lovelock could be the progenitor of the "Nevada >>Lovelock Line"? You will find this on the Web site as the >>first fragment >>of the "Misc Trees" at: >>http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/ >>fragments/misc-lovelock-trees.html >> >>According to this fragment Daniel (a gardner!) married Jane >>Roberts at >>Oystermouth, Glam, Wales 4 Jan 1816 and they had 5 children, >>including >>Mary bap. 20 Apr 1822 at Newport Wales (this doesn't quite >>fit your data >>but it's within the errors of census returns etc.) The fragment has >>Daniel died at Wolverhampton 22 Apr 1846 which must be wrong if he >>re-married in 1847. >> >>I assume that the link to the "Lyneham Line" (descendants of Abraham >>Lovelock and Priscilla Greenway) would be by the identification of >>Daniel as the son of Thomas Lovelock and Jane Bratfield, >>baptised 3 Mar >>1793 at Compton Bassett. It would be very interesting if we >>could link >>the Nevada Lovelocks to the Lyneham Line! >> >>Regards, >> >>James >> >>Chris Knight wrote: >> >> >> >>>Daniel was my 3rd great grandfather and at the time of the 1851 >>>census, aged 58 and a gardener, lived in Wolverhampton >>> >>> >>(Brewood) with >> >> >>>his second wife and daughter Mary (my 2nd great grandmother) by an >>>earlier marriage. He married his second wife in >>> >>> >>Wolverhampton in 1847. >> >> >>>Daniel's birthplace is given as Compton Basset and I believe him to >>>have been descended from the line of Abraham Lovelock and Priscilla >>>Greenaway. His daughter Mary was born abt 1824 in >>> >>> >>Gloucester according >> >> >>>to an 1861 census entry for her. >>> >>>I wonder if anyone might have a clue about Mary's mother Daniel's >>>first wife - and whether he may have had other children by her? >>> >>>Thanks, >>>Chris Knight >>> >>> >>> >>==== LOVELOCK Mailing List ==== >>Lovelock family history Web pages: >>http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/ >> >>============================== >>View and search Historical Newspapers. Read about your >>ancestors, find marriage announcements and more. Learn more: >>http://www.ancestry.com/s13969/rd.ashx >> >> >> > > > >==== LOVELOCK Mailing List ==== >Lovelock family history Web pages: >http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/ > >============================== >OneWorldTree - The World's largest family tree. Learn more: >http://www.ancestry.com/s13971/rd.ashx > > > > >

Well done James! I believe you have indeed connected the Nevada Lovelock line to the Lyneham line. This is pretty exciting stuff and doesn't happen very often. The 1851 census data that Chris Knight supplied on Daniel Lovelock of Wolverhampton exactly matches that of Daniel L bp 1793, the son of Thomas L and Jane Bratfield on the Lyneham line. I'd love to have the full text of the 1851 census details from Chris on Daniel and his family at Wolverhampton. I'd also like to have the detail on his second marriage if Chris could supply. Does Chris have Daniel's burial detail? I had a bit of a hunt on the IGI, FreeBMD and what we have from the GRO. I did find a likely marriage (on Free BMD) of Daniel's daughter Mary (bp 1822) to George Ridley at Wolverhampton (6b 541). I also noticed from our Glamorgan BDM file that Daniel's first marriage was to a Jane REES not ROBERTS. I did find what looks like his second marriage at Wolverhampton amongst our extracts for the GRO (1847 Wolverhampton, XVII, 337, 1). Chris, can you help with some more detail please?? Great work! Robert PS I noticed that Daniel L's detail on the Lovelock site appears to be entered twice. > -----Original Message----- > From: James Loveluck [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Saturday, 30 October 2004 8:16 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Daniel Lovelock Wolverhampton > > > Chris, > > I wonder if Daniel Lovelock could be the progenitor of the "Nevada > Lovelock Line"? You will find this on the Web site as the > first fragment > of the "Misc Trees" at: > http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/ > fragments/misc-lovelock-trees.html > > According to this fragment Daniel (a gardner!) married Jane > Roberts at > Oystermouth, Glam, Wales 4 Jan 1816 and they had 5 children, > including > Mary bap. 20 Apr 1822 at Newport Wales (this doesn't quite > fit your data > but it's within the errors of census returns etc.) The fragment has > Daniel died at Wolverhampton 22 Apr 1846 which must be wrong if he > re-married in 1847. > > I assume that the link to the "Lyneham Line" (descendants of Abraham > Lovelock and Priscilla Greenway) would be by the identification of > Daniel as the son of Thomas Lovelock and Jane Bratfield, > baptised 3 Mar > 1793 at Compton Bassett. It would be very interesting if we > could link > the Nevada Lovelocks to the Lyneham Line! > > Regards, > > James > > Chris Knight wrote: > > > Daniel was my 3rd great grandfather and at the time of the 1851 > > census, aged 58 and a gardener, lived in Wolverhampton > (Brewood) with > > his second wife and daughter Mary (my 2nd great grandmother) by an > > earlier marriage. He married his second wife in > Wolverhampton in 1847. > > > > Daniel's birthplace is given as Compton Basset and I believe him to > > have been descended from the line of Abraham Lovelock and Priscilla > > Greenaway. His daughter Mary was born abt 1824 in > Gloucester according > > to an 1861 census entry for her. > > > > I wonder if anyone might have a clue about Mary's mother Daniel's > > first wife - and whether he may have had other children by her? > > > > Thanks, > > Chris Knight > > > > > ==== LOVELOCK Mailing List ==== > Lovelock family history Web pages: > http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/ > > ============================== > View and search Historical Newspapers. Read about your > ancestors, find marriage announcements and more. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13969/rd.ashx >