Dear John, "CT" is the U.S. Postal Service abbreviation for Connecticut, the tiny New England state midway between New York City and Boston. Please be advised that we'll shortly be relocating to "NC" (North Carolina). At 12:40 PM 9/13/2004 +0100, John Lovelock wrote: >Hello Yann > >Now that Edition 1 has hit the streets I thought it would be interesting >to see where our readers are living. > >The majority are in Wiltshire with Berkshire, Hampshire and Oxfordshire >next in line. > >The results from addresses on the Mailing List are as follows : > > >USA > >Arizona >CT ( not sure which state this is - can someone advise ) >Illinois >Indiana >Pennsylvania > > >Best Wishes > >John > > Bob & Mary W. Robert Chapman & Mary R. Lovelock 432 Maple Hill Avenue Newington, CT 06111-3419 USA 860-667-3429 (Home) 860-983-2228 (Bob's Cell) "Ecce quam bonum et quam iocundum habitare fratres in unum." Psalm 133:1

Thanks Graham Daphne KING & myself have our family from Hartley Wintney, Hampshire. Thomas LOVELOCK m 1841 Mary Anne COOPER at Hartley Wintney. They had 8 children from 1850 to 1870 all at Hartley Wintney. Mary, Thomas, Olive, Edward, William, John, George & James. I hope we have a connection :-) Cheers Col ----- Original Message ----- From: "Graham Lovelock" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 7:22 AM Subject: Lovelocks of Hartley Row > Hello All > > If you have an interest in the Lovelocks of Hartley Row, Hampshire, please let me know - I can put you in touch with a descendant and supply you with a partial tree that you might not have assembled yet. > > Graham > > > ==== LOVELOCK Mailing List ==== > Lovelock family history Web pages: > http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/ > > ============================== > Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration > Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 > > > __________ NOD32 1.864 (20040907) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.nod32.com > >

Hello All If you have an interest in the Lovelocks of Hartley Row, Hampshire, please let me know - I can put you in touch with a descendant and supply you with a partial tree that you might not have assembled yet. Graham

Hello all, With Graham's approval, attached is a reformatted copy of his Wroughton/Tidcombe fragment, with a couple of additions: - Five children of Sophia Lovelock and James Hunt, from LDS IGI records - Details of the family of George Lovelock )bap 16 Feb 1845 at Tidcombe) and Sarah, derived from the census and other information described in Graham's message of 7 Sep 04 Regards, James -------------- THE PROPOSED WROUGHTON/TIDCOMBE CONNECTION John Lovelock m (1) Elizabeth Cheeker or Checker (bur 10 Feb 1759 at Wroughton) 3 Jul 1739 at Wroughton John Lovelock bap 24 Apr 1740 at Wroughton Mary Lovelock bap 2 Aug 1742 at Wroughton John Lovelock bap 4 Apr 1744 at Wroughton Thomas Lovelock bap 24 May 1747 at Wroughton m Mary Carpenter (bur 12 Jan 1807 at Wroughton aged 62) 25 May 1778 at Wroughton John Lovelock bap 11 Dec 1778 at Wroughton Thomas Lovelock bap 1 Oct 1780 at Wroughton Elizabeth Lovelock bap 8 Sep 1782 at Wroughton m William Collier 15 May 1812 at Wroughton John Lovelock bap 2 Jan 1785 at Wroughton Sophia Lovelock bap 14 Jan 1787 at Wroughton m James Hunt 14 Aug 1814 at Broad Hinton * Job Hunt bap. 12 Mar 1815, Broad Hinton Frances Hunt bap. 4 Mar 1817, Broad Hinton Edward Hunt bap. 30 Jun 1819, Broad Hinton Mary Hunt bap. 25 Mar 1821, Broad Hinton Sarah Hunt bap. 17 Dec 1825, Broad Hinton William Lovelock bap 30 Nov 1788 at Wroughton George Lovelock bap 13 Mar 1791 at Wroughton James Lovelock bap 14 Apr 1793 at Wroughton m Lucy Ball 20 Oct 1814 at Wroughton Hester Lovelock bap 16 Jul 1815 at Wroughton m James Harding 13 Jun 1835 at Wroughton Mary Lovelock bap 2 Feb 1817 at Wroughton Ann Lovelock bap 10 Sep 1819 at Wroughton John Lovelock bap 25 Dec 1821 at Wroughton m Mariam ? (born 1822/23 at Fairford Glos) ** (Male) Lovelock m Unknown Female Frederick Lovelock (born 1876/77 at Birmingham, Warwickshire) James Lovelock bap 1 Jan 1824 at Wroughton Leonard Lovelock bap 19 Jul 1795 at Wroughton Edward Lovelock bap 11 Jun 1796 at Wroughton m Jemima Besant 26 Oct 1817 at Wroughton Elizabeth Lovelock bap 18 Jan 1818 at Wroughton Thomas Lovelock bap 24 Dec 1820 at Wroughton m Rebecca Smith 17 Feb 1844 at Tidcombe George Lovelock bap 16 Feb 1845 at Tidcombe*** m Sarah ? (born 1842/43 at Fordingbridge, Hants) Kate Lovelock born 1865 in Chertsey RD Arthur Lovelock born 1871 in Chertsey RD Charles Lovelock born 1872 at Chertsey m Ellen ? born 1872/73 at Bramley, Hants May Lovelock born 1893/94 at Pamber, Hants Elsie Lovelock born 1895/96 at Woking, Surrey Annie Selina Lovelock born 1876 at Chertsey, Surrey Beatrice Lovelock born 1879/80 at Woking, Surrey Joseph Lovelock bap 13 Dec 1846 at Tidcombe James Lovelock bap 22 May 1848 at Tidcombe Hester Lovelock bap 5 Aug 1855 at Tidcombe Sarah Ann bap 19 Jun 1858 (born 16 Apr 1858) at Tidcombe Ann Lovelock bap 17 Aug 1823 at Wroughton Sophia Lovelock bap 4 Jun 1826 at Tidcombe m Ezra Annets 25 Nov 1847 at Great Bedwyn Esther Lovelock bap 19 Apr 1829 at Tidcombe Edward Lovelock bap 8 Apr 1832 at Tidcombe **** m Jane ? (born 1840/41 at Eastcote, Middlesex) Edward Lovelock (born 1867 at Eastcote, Middlesex) m Emily ? (born 1874 at Harrow, Middlesex) Constance Lovelock (born 1897 at Greenford Green, Middlesex) Edward Lovelock (born 1900 at Greenford Green, Middlesex) James Lovelock (born 1869/70 at Eastcote, Middlesex) Anne Lovelock (born 1876/77 at Eastcote, Middlesex) Francis Lovelock (born 1880 at Eastcote, Middlesex) Mary Lovelock bap 24 Feb 1835 at Tidcombe Mary Lovelock bap 14 Jul 1799 at Wroughton m Jacob Oxford 20 Jan 1822 at Wroughton m (2) Martha Garlick (bur 7 Jun 1800 at Wroughton aged 75) 31 Aug 1767 at Wroughton * Based on information from Robyn Kinney to the List, 30 May 04. ** Family details extracted from the Swindon 1881 Census Return (Wiltshire). *** Family details extracted from the Woking 1881 aand 1901 Census Returns (Surrey). **** Family details extracted from the Ruislip 1881 Census Return and Greenford 1901 Census Return (Middlesex) [Note 1901 Census gives Edward's place of birth as "Ficton" in Wiltshire.]

Good evening all. The 1881 Census has the following: RG11 0772 F28 P20 Laurel Villas Woking, Surrey George Lovelock Sarah Lovelock Kate Lovelock Arthur Lovelock Charles Lovelock Annie S Lovelock Beatrice Lovelock Head Wife Daur Son Son Daur Daur 36 38 15 10 8 5 1 Railway Signalman Laundress Housemaid Dom Servant Sidcombe (sic) Wilts Frogham, Hants Andover, Hants Chertsey, Surrey Chertsey, Surrey Chertsey, Surrey Chertsey, Surrey I suggest Sidcombe should be Tidcombe, which makes George the son of Thomas and Rebecca, baptised 16 Feb 1845. Frogham, Hants is a figment of somebody's imagination. The 1901 Census tells us that Sarah was in fact born in Fordingbridge, Hants. From our GRO birth records: Kate : Sep quarter 1865 Arthur : Mar quarter 1871 Charles : Dec quarter 1872 Annie Selina : Mar quarter 1876 Beatrice : No record There was also a Thomas birth in the Chertsey RD in the Dec quarter 1874, but we have no record of a death which could explain why he was not with the family above, so he must be discounted for the present. A George married in the Andover RD in the Dec quarter 1864, but FreeBMD has apparently not transcribed this yet so there is no hint of Sarah's surname. George does not appear in the 1901 Census for Woking, although Annie and Beatrice were still with their mother. By 1901 Charles had married an Ellen (born 1873 at Bramley, Hants) and they had two daughters, May 7 and Elsie 5. May was born at Pamber, Hants and Elsie at Woking. Charles was a Railway Yard Foreman in 1901, and had possibly met Ellen whilst working at the station at Bramley. Pamber is very close to Bramley. Any comments? Graham

Just found this one - Source : MLB (Bishops' Marriage Bonds) Man's Surname : LOVELOCK Man's Forename : JOHN Man's Age : - Man's Occupation : YEO Man's Place of Abode : SWINDON, WILTS Man's Status : - Man's Notes : - Woman's Surname : CHECKER Woman's Forename : ELIZABETH Woman's Age : 25 Woman's Place of Abode : WROUGHTON, WILTS Woman's Status : SP Woman's Notes : - Bondsman 1 : SUTTON SAMUEL,YEO,WROUGHTON Bondsman 2 : - Marriage Details : WROUGHTON, JUL 3 1739 Likely that John was at least the same age, if not older than his bride? Helen

Good evening everyone You will have seen one or two e-Mails regarding the above and may be wondering exactly what's going on. As a result of a chance remark from an off-list correspondent, which included a fortuitous typographical error, I have examined the Wroughton and Tidcombe data on the Website and believe that there is a link between the two in the family of Edward Lovelock and Jemima Besant. I have put the following data together, which Robert and James have kindly cast an eye over, looking for gross errors (the sort I most often make!), and checking at least some of the logic. If anyone has anything to add it will be most welcome, as will the identification of any errors. Thanks in anticipation, Graham THE PROPOSED WROUGHTON/TIDCOMBE CONNECTION John Lovelock m (1) Elizabeth Cheeker or Checker (bur 10 Feb 1759 at Wroughton) 3 Jul 1739 at Wroughton John Lovelock bap 24 Apr 1740 at Wroughton, bur 18 Mar 1742 at Wroughton Mary Lovelock bap 2 Aug 1742 at Wroughton John Lovelock bap 4 Apr 1744 at Wroughton Thomas Lovelock bap 24 May 1747 at Wroughton m Mary Carpenter (bur 21 Jun 1834 at Wroughton aged 76) 25 May 1778 at Wroughton John Lovelock bap 11 Dec 1778 at Wroughton, bur 14 Aug 1780 at Wroughton Thomas Lovelock bap 1 Oct 1780 at Wroughton Elizabeth Lovelock bap 8 Sep 1782 at Wroughton m William Collier 15 May 1812 at Wroughton John Lovelock bap 2 Jan 1785 at Wroughton, bur 22 May 1785 at Wroughton Sophia Lovelock bap 14 Jan 1787 at Wroughton m James Hunt 14 Aug 1814 at Broad Hinton* William Lovelock bap 30 Nov 1788 at Wroughton George Lovelock bap 13 Mar 1791 at Wroughton James Lovelock bap 14 Apr 1793 at Wroughton m Lucy Ball 20 Oct 1814 at Wroughton Hester Lovelock bap 16 Jul 1815 at Wroughton m James Harding 13 Jun 1835 at Wroughton Mary Lovelock bap 2 Feb 1817 at Wroughton Ann Lovelock bap 10 Sep 1819 at Wroughton, bur 7 Jul 1827 at Wroughton John Lovelock bap 25 Dec 1821 at Wroughton m Mariam ? (born 1822/23 at Fairford Glos)** (Male) Lovelock m Unknown Female Frederick Lovelock (born 1876/77 at Birmingham, Warwickshire) James Lovelock bap 1 Jan 1824 at Wroughton Leonard Lovelock bap 19 Jul 1795 at Wroughton, bur 3 Sep 1795 at Wroughton Edward Lovelock bap 11 Jun 1796 at Wroughton m Jemima Besant 26 Oct 1817 at Wroughton Elizabeth Lovelock bap 18 Jan 1818 at Wroughton Thomas Lovelock bap 24 Dec 1820 at Wroughton m Rebecca Smith 17 Feb 1844 at Tidcombe George Lovelock bap 16 Feb 1845 at Tidcombe Joseph Lovelock bap 13 Dec 1846 at Tidcombe James Lovelock bap 22 May 1848 at Tidcombe Hester Lovelock bap 5 Aug 1855 at Tidcombe Sarah Ann bap 19 Jun 1858 (born 16 Apr 1858) at Tidcombe Ann Lovelock bap 17 Aug 1823 at Wroughton Sophia Lovelock bap 4 Jun 1826 at Tidcombe m Ezra Annets 25 Nov 1847 at Great Bedwyn Esther Lovelock bap 19 Apr 1829 at Tidcombe Edward Lovelock bap 8 Apr 1832 at Tidcombe*** m Jane ? (born 1840/41 at Eastcote, Middlesex) Edward Lovelock (born 1867 at Eastcote, Middlesex) m Emily ? (born 1874 at Harrow, Middlesex) Constance Lovelock (born 1897 at Greenford Green, Middlesex) Edward Lovelock (born 1900 at Greenford Green, Middlesex) James Lovelock (born 1869/70 at Eastcote, Middlesex) Anne Lovelock (born 1876/77 at Eastcote, Middlesex) Francis Lovelock (born 1880 at Eastcote, Middlesex) Mary Lovelock bap 24 Feb 1835 at Tidcombe Mary Lovelock bap 14 Jul 1799 at Wroughton m Jacob Oxford 20 Jan 1822 at Wroughton m (2) Martha Garlick (bur 7 Jun 1800 at Wroughton aged 75) 31 Aug 1767 at Wroughton * Based on information from Robyn Kinney to the List, 30 May 04. ** Family details extracted from the Swindon 1881 Census Return (Wiltshire). *** Family details extracted from the Ruislip 1881 Census Return and Greenford 1901 Census Return (Middlesex) [Note 1901 Census gives Edward's place of birth as "Ficton" in Wiltshire.]

Not directly related to the discussion, but do you have this? Settlement examination, LOVELOCK, Thomas, carpenter 13 April 1780 Born Titcombe in Fosbury and lived with his friends until about 14 years of age when he was apprenticed to Thomas CARPENTER of Wroughton, Carpenter, who was then a certificate man at Wroughton (mark) and William LOVELOCK is named as the reputed father in two Bastardy orders for Wroughton Parish Elizabeth Smith, sp. Male child b 23 Oct 1808 (Date of order 23 March 1809) Sarah Thrush, sp. Male child b 1 september 1808 (Date of order, 29 September 1808) I have a few resources for the area, as have (non) Lovelock ancestors back to the 1600's in the district. Have you checked for any connections in Berkshire? My own research has shown that there was a reasonable amount of movement between this area of Wilts and parts of Berkshire, esp around Faringdon, Lambourne, etc, even back in the 1600/1700's. Helen

Helen Well done for digging out the Settlement reference. I had actually referred to this in an earlier e-Mail (off list) to Robert and James, but was relying on memory. It rather looks as though Thomas married the daughter of the man he was apprenticed to. Not the first time that will have happened, I'm sure. William was probably Thomas' son, baptised in 1788, I would guess. Graham ----- Original Message ----- From: "Helen Norton" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 12:35 PM Subject: Re: Wroughton/Tidcombe Fragment > Not directly related to the discussion, but do you have this? > > Settlement examination, LOVELOCK, Thomas, carpenter 13 April 1780 > > Born Titcombe in Fosbury and lived with his friends until > about 14 years of age when he was apprenticed to Thomas > CARPENTER of Wroughton, Carpenter, who was then > a certificate man at Wroughton (mark) > > and William LOVELOCK is named as the reputed father in two > Bastardy orders for Wroughton Parish > > Elizabeth Smith, sp. Male child b 23 Oct 1808 > (Date of order 23 March 1809) > Sarah Thrush, sp. Male child b 1 september 1808 > (Date of order, 29 September 1808) > > I have a few resources for the area, as have (non) Lovelock > ancestors back to the 1600's in the district. Have you checked for > any connections in Berkshire? My own research has shown > that there was a reasonable amount of movement between this area > of Wilts and parts of Berkshire, esp around Faringdon, Lambourne, etc, > even back in the 1600/1700's. > > Helen > > > > ==== LOVELOCK Mailing List ==== > Lovelock family history Web pages: > http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/ > > ============================== > Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration > Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 > >

Greetings Graham Who's the quick one??? I was actually hoping you'd take a little longer to reply. I'm feeling a little snowed under! This discussion also has implications of course for the origins of the Lyneham line so am broadcasting to the list. Let's see if we get any other ideas on this one. Cheers Robert > -----Original Message----- > From: Graham Lovelock [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, 6 September 2004 6:26 AM > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: RE: Wroughton/Tidcombe Fragment > > > My response to Robert's comments (there's a familiar tune!) > is in capitals. Thank you for getting back so quickly, > Robert. > > Graham > > > > Couldn't the John who was buried in 1767 aged 51 (and > therefore born abt > 1716) have been either the John who married Elizabeth Cheeker > or the John > who married Grace Crook? > YES, IT COULD, ROBERT. JUST ME JUMPING TO A CONCLUSION. > STRIKE IT FROM THE > RECORD. > What was your reason for attributing this burial to either > one of the Johns > please Graham? > > I assume one of these of these was the son of Abraham snr. > who married > Priscilla Greenoway in 1689 and had four children - Abraham, > Edward, Thomas > and John between 1690 and 1698. The family appear in the census for > Wroughton in 1700 and 1701. But which John was which? Abraham > snr seems to > have expired quite young in 1703 as his son Abraham jnr did > not die until > 1767. Priscilla lived on to 1737! > > I had a good look at the burials - as these are obviously > pretty important > here - especially the John buried in 1741. Since there are > two John births > to John and Elizabeth in 1770 and 1744, I assume this is > likely to be the > John buried here. > AGREED. > > The John who married Grace Crook in 1734 had several children > at Wroughton > between 1738 and 1741. Grace looks like she died in 1783 but > where is the > death of her husband John? We have two Johns and only the one > death in 1767! > Damn. > AND WITH THE BAPTISM GAP BETWEEN 1698 AND 1738 WE'RE BOUND TO > BE STRUGGLING. > > The burial of John L in 1785 is probably John L bp 1785 to > Thomas L and Mary > Carpenter. > AGREED - AND THE ONE BURIED 14 AUG 1780 MUST BE THE ONE BAP > 11 DEC 1778. The burial of Ann L in 1827 age 7 is probably > Ann L bp 1819 to James and > Lucy Ball. > AGREED. > The burial of Leonard in 1795 is probably Leonard bp 1795 to > Thomas and Mary > Carpenter. > AGREED. > > But who is the Leonard aged 91 in 1806 (bn abt 1715)? > Possibly a brother to > whichever John was buried in 1767? > THE GAP IN THE BAPTISM RECORDS AGAIN. > And who is Mary buried in 1834 aged 76 (born abt 1758)? > ON REFLECTION I THINK THIS ONE IS THE WIFE OF THOMAS - SHE > WOULD HAVE BEEN > 20 AT MARRIAGE, WHEREAS THE MARY WHO WAS BURIED ON 12 JAN > 1807 AGED 62 WOULD > HAVE BEEN 33. ALSO THOMAS AND MARY'S LAST CHILD, MARY, WAS > BAP 14 JUL 1799 > WHEN THE MARY BURIED IN 1807 WOULD HAVE BEEN 54. TOO OLD, I > FEAR. SO WHO WAS THE MARY BURIED IN 1807? NO IDEA. SHE MIGHT > BE THE ONE BAP 2 AUG > 1742 WITH A WRONG AGE, BUT THAT'S PURE CONJECTURE AND NOT ACCEPTABLE. > > I'm not sure about which John, Martha Garlick married. If she > married the > John bn abt 1744 and she was buried in 1800 age 75, she was > born abt 1725 > and married when she was aged 42! > A VERY GOOD POINT. > I think it's more likely that she was the second wife of > whichever John was > buried in 1767. I note they had no apparent children. > SEEMS A GOOD PROPOSITION, ESPECIALLY AS ELIZABETH (nee > CHEEKER) WAS BURIED > IN 1759, OPENING UP THE POSSIBILITY OF A SECOND MARRIAGE FOR > HER HUSBAND. > THIS WOULD OF COURSE DETERMINE WHICH JOHN WAS BURIED IN 1767, > SINCE GRACE > WAS NOT BURIED UNTIL 1783. > > I also checked the Tidcombe PR for likely connections. > > I see a Leonard and Mary were baptising children there > between 1746 and 1754 > and that they married at Cliffe Pappard in 1743. Could this > be the same > Leonard who was buried at Wroughton? > WOULDN'T IT BE NICE IF IT WAS? THERE WAS A MARY BURIED AT > TIDCOMBE ON 15 JUL > 1806 WHICH COULD WELL BE LEONARD'S WIFE. I SUPPOSE AFTER HER > DEATH HE COULD > HAVE GONE TO LIVE WITH RELATIVES AT WROUGHTON, HENCE THE > BURIAL THERE RATHER > THAN AT TIDCOMBE. INTERESTING THAT MARY WAS ANOTHER MARY > CARPENTER. ALSO > INTERESTING IS THAT CLYFFE PYPARD IS ONLY 5 MILES OR SO FROM > ELCOMBE/WROUGHTON. > > Hear from you soon > > Robert

I am delighted to advise Listers that Issue 1 has just been printed and is awaiting distribution. Highlights include: * A report on Lovelocks Alive by Graham Lovelock * A guide to Famous Lovelocks ( including George of Nevada ) by Yann Lovelock * The Legend of Lovelocks House by yours truly * The Lovelock Collaborative One-Name Study by James Loveluck * The Lovelock Dynasty - a Poem by Joy Lovelock and Frances Vasey All attendees of Lovelocks Alive will receive a copy in the post shortly. Copies will also be sent to Listers who responded to my Mailing List request last month. If you would like a copy and havn't responded yet please contact me as soon as possible. Best Wishes John Lovelock Hedgerley Buckinghamshire UK

Dear Graham Thanks for the fascinating info. Likewise Robert in another posting - also earlier today. Best wishes from sunny Southampton Robin

Hi Robert Thanks for your brilliant response - and for your kind words. The issue recurred because my 2nd cousin David (in Tucson) and I are tying up a version of 'our bit' of the Wootton Rivers line (now part of the Lieflock tree!) which adds more detail from our own and our respective fathers' generations and immediate families. (He'll send it to James to draw on for the website in due course.) Harriett is/was a shared great great aunt. I spotted that David had changed Merriett to Merritt in his latest version and in response to a query on my part he told me he'd done so as a result of checking Free BMD. I repeated that and pursued the matter a bit further as reported. What fun! Re. using a maiden names, I'd just thought that the practice was predominantly a more recent one - doubtless an unfounded assumption! Either way, the first marriage explains the surname at the second. We'll probably never know about the gravestone. I don't know whether there was any particular reason for you not posting reply to the list - too specific/detailed maybe? I hope you don't mind me sending this wider; it seems potentially an interesting little vignette. Best wishes from a gloriously sunny Southampton Robin PS If your reference to 'seeking volunteers' was a hint Robert ........???!! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Sterry" <[email protected]> To: "'ROBIN LOVELOCK'" <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2004 5:40 AM Subject: RE: Harriett M? (Lovelock?) Greetings Robin Delighted to see you're back in action again! On the gravestone we > find 'John William Lovelock ... and his wife Harriett > Merriett' (there's a photo on the website). I've always > wondered if the mason made a mistake, 'Merriett' not being a > first name I've come across elsewhere, and also being so > 'like' 'Harriett'. Given the other references to Harriett Merriett/Merrett/Merritt I think it's unlikely to have been just a mistake. >Free BMD, on the other hand, has 'Merritt', referencing Marriages, > March 1882 - March 1882, Reading, Volume 2c, page 499. Excellent. I hadn't checked for the marriage on Free BMD. And you're quite right. We haven't checked marriages for that year yet for the Lovelocks in the GRO. I believe Malcolm and I were hopefully waiting for some volunteers to help with this project. In the meantime, checking Free BMD is a very good idea. The entry in FreeBMD says that her SURNAME was MERRITT. I'm not sure why you reject the possibility of her retaining her maiden name after she was married? >It seems unlikely > (to me anyway) that Harriett simply retained her single name, > while that from any possible first marriage - like John > William she was 37 when they married - seems even less > likely, although the minimal 'Family' info. available via the > IGI gives Harriett's father as one Joseph Dicker. Now this additional information sent me scurrying. It IS of course very likely that this was indeed Harriett Dicker's second marriage, the first being of course to a Merrett/Merritt/Merriett. So I checked the IGI - and guess what? 1871 Sep 30 Reading St Giles Harriett Dicker, age 27, Father: Joseph Dicker married a George Merritt, age 26, Father: Thomas Merritt A perfect match!! QED. Well done Robin. What a great question! I guess the spelling of her previous married name that she chose to place on her headstone was a personal matter! Or perhaps the stone mason did get it wrong!!?? I have found such errors in my own family on headstones. I'm sure it's not uncommon. Hope this helps Robert

Morning Robin A very Happy Birthday! > Great work and great news: so my (Wootton Rivers) line has > been admitted to the Lieflock tree!! I must especially thank > Graham for his imagination and perseverance on this one. And > by an amazing (and timely) coincidence, which somehow I don't > think I'd spotted before, the John Lovelock whose bride is > now believed to have been Elizabeth Hillier (as per your > message below) was baptised on my birthday, 31 August. > 1) There was quite a bit of discussion around the identity > of the Mary L who was the mother of Lavinia Henrietta Alice > (aka Lily) born 20 July 1876 (Gt Bedwyn PR) and of various > (other) illegitimate children born to herself, her mother (I > think), and/or another Mary L. The relevant (amended) entry > in the updated Lieflock tree (pages [3-]4 and 5 of the pdf > version) seems to me to have got a bit scrambled - (i) repeat > of Mary+Aldin Mitchell --> > Lavinia+unknown --> Ernest Charles (ii) appearance (p. 5) of another > '+unknown' (possibly out-of-(vertical)'line'). Given the > (new) reference back to 'Richard L on page 3', it's quite > likely I've just failed to grasp what was at issue and that > the layout is spot on, but just in case, you might like to > re-check it. By the way, I was comparing the latest version > with that of (I think) March 2003, not the June 2004 update. > What may or may not be a slip comes around references to > Charles and George Champion, which may itself be significant > (quarter-way down p. 5). Can't help with that one Robin. My version of the Lieflock tree does not appear to have those errors. Here's what I have: Descendants of Mary Lovelock (daughter of Richard Lovelock and Milicent Fribbence) 1 Mary Lovelock b: 19 June 1839 in Great Bedwyn, Wiltshire, England Baptism: 7 July 1839 Great Bedwyn, Wiltshire, England . + Aldin Mitchell b: Abt. 1834 m: 20 October 1883 in Great Bedwyn, Wiltshire, England ... 2 Lavinia Henrietta Alice Lovelock b: 20 July 1876 in Great Bedwyn, Wiltshire, England Baptism: 8 November 1876 Great Bedwyn, Wiltshire, England ...... + James Cope b: Abt. 1867 in Great Bedwyn, Wiltshire, England m: Bet. January - March 1901 in Hungerford RD, Berkshire, England ...... 3 Ernest Charles Lovelock b: 8 July 1897 Baptism: 17 September 1897 Great Bedwyn, Wiltshire, England > 2) Re. an off-list email from Robert to me (22 July) > involving a paste-in of an earlier one (off-list?; to you > and/or Graham?). The key point for me was that it included > some further thoughts on the Wootton Rivers fragment (as of > then) and the Lieflock line, to which Robert had referred at > the Hungerford event, but the broader context was his ongoing > cross-checking of various B, M and D entries. In particular, > a Shalbourne burial Apr 13 1871 of William L aged 81, > probably son of John L and Elizabeth Hancock. W's marriage > Jun 15 1847, also at Shalbourne, to Alice Hindley. Robert > refers to Alice as buried at Wootton Rivers. I can't find > any reference to this in any of the material on the website > and I note that she appears (p. 3 latest Lieflock > pdf) as buried at Shalbourne. No burial date in 3/03 > version. Just checking ...... You've missed quite a lot of recent on-line discussion on this Robin. When you manage to catch up, it will hopefully sort itself out. The burial of William in 1871 you refer to above is correct as is his marriage to Alice Hindley. Alice was buried at Shalbourne in 1887 NOT Wootton Rivers. > 3) Discussion (James/Graham I think) of burials of various > Mary Lovelocks at Easton Royal, 1745-90, which seemed to > 'conclude' (10 Aug) that although Mary (Elford) wife of > Stephen, was pretty certainly the Mary buried 7 Aug 1765, > burials on 9 Feb 1783, 10 Sept 1790 and 4 March 1751/2 can't > be 'allocated' as between Mary (Willmaut) wife of Thomas, > Mary (Wilks) wife of Robert, and Mary (Chivers) wife of > Richard with any certainty without further data. (4 March > 1751/2 being a 'new' burial date, not in our PR listings 'til > now - Graham 10 Aug 22:21.) {By the way, I still don't > understand these 'old'/'new' dates you've often referred to > Graham, e.g. ref. John, ER/WR bap. 2/12 Feb1748/9; could you > explain some time please.} I also spotted 2 Mary Ls bap. 1708 > and 1780 in the same area of the tree. (As many Marys in > Easton Royal as Johns in Wootton Rivers eh?!) Contrasting > the March 2003 and August 2004 versions, Mary Willmaut now > seems to have been 'given' 1783 and Mary Chivers 1790. Am I > missing part of the discussion? Mary bap. 1708 has 'always' > appeared as 'd. 1745'; also as 'buried 14 Jan 1746' in the > 3/03 version, but not in the latest, which generally seems to > have less detail and more 'Abt's (?). Marys are always difficult to place. However, for what it's worth, this is what I have: Mary (Elford) wife of Stephen, was pretty certainly the Mary buried 7 Aug 1765 Easton Royal - Agreed Mary buried 9 Feb 1783 Easton Royal - I have this assigned to Mary Willmaut Mary buried 10 Sept 1790 Easton Royal - I have this assigned to Mary Chivers Mary buried 4 March 1751/2 Easton Royal - I don't have any record of such a burial at Easton Royal or anywhere else in Wiltshire for that matter. I don't have any burial date for Mary Wilks. The old/new date I can help you with. Up until 1 Jan 1752 the old Julian calendar was still used in England. (They lagged well behind Scotland and Europe in changing - a conservative lot even then!) Each year officially began on Lady Day (March 25) rather than 1 Jan. If you look at parish registers before then you will see this very clearly. From 1752 (by Act of Parliament of course) the year now began on Jan 1 based on the new and improved Gregorian calendar. Dates (between Jan 1 and March 24 of course) written before 1752 are often written in old style/new style format to avoid any confusion eg Jan 25, 1746/47. Hope this deosn't confuse things even more! > I think I identified quite a sprinkling of > apparently unresolved 'mysteries'/inclarities/lines of > thought which might be worth exploring I'll look forward to hearing about them in the future. >is it worth my while listing (perhaps off-list) for > discussion/exploration the various points I'm referring to as > arising from that old/out-of-date material, 'just in case', > even if it has been justifiably deleted? (No doubt you've in > fact retained a copy, even if it's not 'on public view'.) Robin, it's always worth revisiting old theories that have been abandoned. A new eye might just find something that others have missed. >From a now dark Southampton - though it was sunny and warm when I >started on >this, and how sad is that!?! Beautiful sunny near here out of Sydney. Of course it is Spring! I appear to have missed a lot of our southern winter ... I wonder where it went??? ;-) Best wishes and keep up those postings Robert

No. (1) was a mistake on my part - sorry about that! It seems like my database got screwed up when I was fixing Mary and Lavina/Lily. The second appearance of Mary and her daughter (as well as another son Richard) on P5 of the PDF version of the Lieflock tree were spurious and I've now corrected this. However, I differ from Robert on two points: - Lavina was born "out of wedlock" in 1876, before Mary's marriage to Aldin Mitchell, so we can't be sure he was the father. I have father "Unknown" - The identification of the marriage of Lavina/Lily to James Cope is not conclusive, and in any case Ernest Charles L was born before this marriage, so I have again father "unknown" James Robert Sterry wrote: >Morning Robin > >A very Happy Birthday! > > > >>Great work and great news: so my (Wootton Rivers) line has >>been admitted to the Lieflock tree!! I must especially thank >>Graham for his imagination and perseverance on this one. And >>by an amazing (and timely) coincidence, which somehow I don't >>think I'd spotted before, the John Lovelock whose bride is >>now believed to have been Elizabeth Hillier (as per your >>message below) was baptised on my birthday, 31 August. >> >> > > > > >>1) There was quite a bit of discussion around the identity >>of the Mary L who was the mother of Lavinia Henrietta Alice >>(aka Lily) born 20 July 1876 (Gt Bedwyn PR) and of various >>(other) illegitimate children born to herself, her mother (I >>think), and/or another Mary L. The relevant (amended) entry >>in the updated Lieflock tree (pages [3-]4 and 5 of the pdf >>version) seems to me to have got a bit scrambled - (i) repeat >>of Mary+Aldin Mitchell --> >>Lavinia+unknown --> Ernest Charles (ii) appearance (p. 5) of another >>'+unknown' (possibly out-of-(vertical)'line'). Given the >>(new) reference back to 'Richard L on page 3', it's quite >>likely I've just failed to grasp what was at issue and that >>the layout is spot on, but just in case, you might like to >>re-check it. By the way, I was comparing the latest version >>with that of (I think) March 2003, not the June 2004 update. >>What may or may not be a slip comes around references to >>Charles and George Champion, which may itself be significant >>(quarter-way down p. 5). >> >> > >Can't help with that one Robin. My version of the Lieflock tree does not >appear to have those errors. Here's what I have: > >Descendants of Mary Lovelock (daughter of Richard Lovelock and Milicent >Fribbence) > >1 Mary Lovelock b: 19 June 1839 in Great Bedwyn, Wiltshire, England Baptism: >7 July 1839 Great Bedwyn, Wiltshire, England >. + Aldin Mitchell b: Abt. 1834 m: 20 October 1883 in Great Bedwyn, >Wiltshire, England >... 2 Lavinia Henrietta Alice Lovelock b: 20 July 1876 in Great Bedwyn, >Wiltshire, England Baptism: 8 November 1876 Great Bedwyn, Wiltshire, England > >...... + James Cope b: Abt. 1867 in Great Bedwyn, Wiltshire, England m: Bet. >January - March 1901 in Hungerford RD, Berkshire, England > >...... 3 Ernest Charles Lovelock b: 8 July 1897 Baptism: 17 September 1897 >Great Bedwyn, Wiltshire, England > > >

Hello, everyone. You may have noticed that in his e-Mail of last Thursday Robin referred to his puzzlement over our (that is, mostly my) occasional references both in Website material and in communications to ‘old/new’ dates. Others may wonder what this is all about, too, so a few words of explanation. In providing dates for Baptisms, Marriages and Burials I ought always to explain to the recipient that they are according to what is now known as the Gregorian calendar, which was constructed to give a close approximation to the tropical year - the actual time it takes for the Earth to complete one orbit around the Sun. I regret that I may often forget to do so. The Julian calendar, which had been used in Europe since Roman times, was switched over to the Gregorian starting in 1582, at which point the 10 day difference between the actual time of year and traditional time of year on which calendrical events occurred became intolerable. The switchover was bitterly opposed by much of the populace affected by it, who feared it was an attempt by landlords to cheat them out of a week and a half's rent. However, when Pope Gregory XIII decreed that the day after October 4, 1582 would be October 15, 1582, the Catholic countries of France, Spain, Portugal, and Italy complied. Various Catholic German countries (Germany was not then unified), Belgium, the Netherlands, and Switzerland followed suit within a year or two, and Hungary adopted the new arrangement in 1587. Because of the Pope's decree, the reform of the Julian calendar came to be known as the Gregorian calendar. However, the rest of Europe did not follow suit for more than a century. The Protestant German countries adopted the Gregorian reform in 1700. By this time, the calendar trailed the seasons by 11 days. England (and the American colonies) finally followed suit in 1752, and Wednesday, 2 September, 1752 was immediately followed by Thursday, 14 September, 1752. This traumatic change resulted, although one suspects the tales are apocryphal, in widespread riots and the populace demanding "Give us the eleven days back!" Rather more importantly, and rather more to the point that I said I was going to explain, until 1752 the new year in England began on 26 March, but with the calendar change the government of the day decided also to adopt the widespread practice of starting a new year on 1 January (except, of course, for financial purposes!). Thus any dates in parish records for years before 1752 that fell in January, February or March would have been allocated by the author of the record to the year before that into which they would fall by today’s standards. Thus 14 February 1748 as written in a register would be 14 February 1749 according to today’s reckoning. I hope that clears the matter up? Graham _________________________________________________________________ It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today! http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

Dear all What's in a name? I wonder if anyone can help solve the following mystery. Since some time before I got involved in 'all this' (via 'Lovelocks Alive' 2004) I've been puzzled by a gravestone at Wootton Rivers: that of the elder brother (John William L. b. 1844) of my great grandfather (George b. 1846). John William appears to have been buried with his second wife, Harriett; his first, Jane, having died young. On the gravestone we find 'John William Lovelock ... and his wife Harriett Merriett' (there's a photo on the website). I've always wondered if the mason made a mistake, 'Merriett' not being a first name I've come across elsewhere, and also being so 'like' 'Harriett'. This of course is to assume that 'Harriett Merriett' parallels 'Mary Jane', which is clearly what Malcolm L. and Richard Moore and/or the compilers of the Wiltshire MI did - for that's the source of the info. given on the website in 'Lovelocks in Wiltshire by Parish' - referring to 'Harriett Merriett Lovelock'. On another part of the site, John quotes the inscription direct. Harriett came from Swallowfield and the following appears in 'Lovelocks in Berkshire by Parish': Reading, St Giles supplied by Jill Fleming: 1882 Mar 12 John Willam Lovelock, bricklayer, Father: David Lovelock, bricklayer and Harriett Merrett With all due respect to Jill, a (presumed) mistake (if such it was) in transcribing Will[i]am could suggest a similar one with 'Merriett'. However, the IGI also has 'Merrett'. Free BMD, on the other hand, has 'Merritt', referencing Marriages, March 1882 - March 1882, Reading, Volume 2c, page 499. Returning to the gravestone, there's no hyphen, so we don't seem to be in a double-barrelled scenario. It seems unlikely (to me anyway) that Harriett simply retained her single name, while that from any possible first marriage - like John William she was 37 when they married - seems even less likely, although the minimal 'Family' info. available via the IGI gives Harriett's father as one Joseph Dicker. Other scraps from the Lovelock website are: (i) the 1891 census (Graham's extractions) has Lovelock, John William and Lovelock, Harriett M. living in Milton Lilbourne (Pewsey RD); (ii) Lovelock GRO deaths on our website has 1922 Lovelock Harriet (sic) Merritt (sic) - as well as (9 places above) 1922 Lovelock Harriet (her sister-in-law, my great grandmother), both Pewsey RD; (iii) the marriage does not appear in Lovelock GRO marriages. Does anyone - John maybe (as 'the Berkshire main man'), Robert, or Jill Fleming or Helen Norton - have any more direct sources or ready access to originals, whereby we might be able to get to the bottom of this? Or must I get a copy of the marriage certificate - and hope that's clear? Greetings Robin

Dear James, Great work and great news: so my (Wootton Rivers) line has been admitted to the Lieflock tree!! I must especially thank Graham for his imagination and perseverance on this one. And by an amazing (and timely) coincidence, which somehow I don't think I'd spotted before, the John Lovelock whose bride is now believed to have been Elizabeth Hillier (as per your message below) was baptised on my birthday, 31 August. I've already acknowledged (18 August, off-list) all the sterling work yourself, Graham and Robert have been doing over the summer, culminating in these significant updates. I found the Olympics pretty addictive, so it's taken me 'til now to catch up with the detail of your discussions - and I must confess I found it a bit mind-boggling trying to follow all the interweaving emails, some on-list and some off, with their multiple and overlapping topics. I've finally 'got there' - although no doubt I've missed some important points. It might be best to deal with the specifically Wootton Rivers issues in a separate post. Tomorrow or over the weekend maybe! Re. your discussions on the Lieflock line more generally, from cross-checking with 'Lovelocks in Wiltshire by Parish' etc.; I haven't followed all of this through very carefully, given my main interest is in WR, but a few points struck me: 1) There was quite a bit of discussion around the identity of the Mary L who was the mother of Lavinia Henrietta Alice (aka Lily) born 20 July 1876 (Gt Bedwyn PR) and of various (other) illegitimate children born to herself, her mother (I think), and/or another Mary L. The relevant (amended) entry in the updated Lieflock tree (pages [3-]4 and 5 of the pdf version) seems to me to have got a bit scrambled - (i) repeat of Mary+Aldin Mitchell --> Lavinia+unknown --> Ernest Charles (ii) appearance (p. 5) of another '+unknown' (possibly out-of-(vertical)'line'). Given the (new) reference back to 'Richard L on page 3', it's quite likely I've just failed to grasp what was at issue and that the layout is spot on, but just in case, you might like to re-check it. By the way, I was comparing the latest version with that of (I think) March 2003, not the June 2004 update. What may or may not be a slip comes around references to Charles and George Champion, which may itself be significant (quarter-way down p. 5). 2) Re. an off-list email from Robert to me (22 July) involving a paste-in of an earlier one (off-list?; to you and/or Graham?). The key point for me was that it included some further thoughts on the Wootton Rivers fragment (as of then) and the Lieflock line, to which Robert had referred at the Hungerford event, but the broader context was his ongoing cross-checking of various B, M and D entries. In particular, a Shalbourne burial Apr 13 1871 of William L aged 81, probably son of John L and Elizabeth Hancock. W's marriage Jun 15 1847, also at Shalbourne, to Alice Hindley. Robert refers to Alice as buried at Wootton Rivers. I can't find any reference to this in any of the material on the website and I note that she appears (p. 3 latest Lieflock pdf) as buried at Shalbourne. No burial date in 3/03 version. Just checking ...... 3) Discussion (James/Graham I think) of burials of various Mary Lovelocks at Easton Royal, 1745-90, which seemed to 'conclude' (10 Aug) that although Mary (Elford) wife of Stephen, was pretty certainly the Mary buried 7 Aug 1765, burials on 9 Feb 1783, 10 Sept 1790 and 4 March 1751/2 can't be 'allocated' as between Mary (Willmaut) wife of Thomas, Mary (Wilks) wife of Robert, and Mary (Chivers) wife of Richard with any certainty without further data. (4 March 1751/2 being a 'new' burial date, not in our PR listings 'til now - Graham 10 Aug 22:21.) {By the way, I still don't understand these 'old'/'new' dates you've often referred to Graham, e.g. ref. John, ER/WR bap. 2/12 Feb1748/9; could you explain some time please.} I also spotted 2 Mary Ls bap. 1708 and 1780 in the same area of the tree. (As many Marys in Easton Royal as Johns in Wootton Rivers eh?!) Contrasting the March 2003 and August 2004 versions, Mary Willmaut now seems to have been 'given' 1783 and Mary Chivers 1790. Am I missing part of the discussion? Mary bap. 1708 has 'always' appeared as 'd. 1745'; also as 'buried 14 Jan 1746' in the 3/03 version, but not in the latest, which generally seems to have less detail and more 'Abt's (?). One final comment of a different kind is relevant to the further 'tidying up' needed re. the Wootton Rivers fragments, to which Graham and Robert have alluded; and, as I said, I'll get to that in a separate email. Unless I've simply not found them in the combination of overall new layout and recent revisions to 'Wiltshire Trees' etc. James, you seem to have removed the 'Wiltshire Fragments by Parish' (not the listed 'Lovelock Fragments' nos 1-19). I know these were built up from PRs some years ago (by Robert and Gwen Eastment if memory serves) and that all of some and significant parts of others have been gradually combined and/or incorporated into the Lieflock or other larger trees, while the original fragments themselves have not been updated, all of which, as you said earlier, makes a good case for deleting them from the site. You've no doubt checked very carefully for redundancy over the past few weeks; a good example is the incorporation of a large part but not all of what was the Wootton Rivers fragment into the Lieflock line and the 'rediscovery' of another 'lost' Wootton Rivers fragment (the Spicer Lovelocks etc), which ongoing developments are reflected in the new listing of Wiltshire Trees and Fragments. (Interestingly, I did a search on the site for 'fragments by parish' and located the old material - or at least the page on which it was listed, with links; but I can't find same! Maybe the search picked up old stuff on my PC or it's 'hidden' in the version on your server?) My point/concern however - and this is what ties in with the 'loose ends' from incorporating some of the WR Lovelocks into the Lieflock line - is that in e.g. looking for possible births/baptisms of various John Lovelocks who might have featured later in WR I've made use of the older material from various, mostly neighbouring, parishes. I have printed copies - covered with 'notes'! - but have not yet got around to pulling my thoughts together and sharing them with you. From memory I think I identified quite a sprinkling of apparently unresolved 'mysteries'/inclarities/lines of thought which might be worth exploring - although I'm well aware that as a newcomer I've missed lots of relevant discussion and probably my 'leads' could be pretty quickly dismissed; but 'you never know'! To sum that up (!!): as well as asking for clarification of what has in fact now been removed from the site and what has been relocated and/or renamed, is it worth my while listing (perhaps off-list) for discussion/exploration the various points I'm referring to as arising from that old/out-of-date material, 'just in case', even if it has been justifiably deleted? (No doubt you've in fact retained a copy, even if it's not 'on public view'.) From a now dark Southampton - though it was sunny and warm when I started on this, and how sad is that!?! Best wishes to all Robin ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Loveluck" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 9:38 PM Subject: Family trees and gedcom file updated > Hello all, > > My previous messages resulting from my exercise of cross-checking my > Lovelock database against the "Lovelocks in Wiltshire" file led to a > number of email exchanges, some of them off-list, and I believe we have > now reached a consensus (at least temporarily!) One point on which we > agreed has a significant impact in that it links what was part of an > isolated Wootton Rivers tree into the Lieflock Line. This connection > depends on the identification of the John Lovelock who married Elizabeth > Hillier at Preschute 10 Aug 1813 as the son of John Lovelock and > Elizabeth Hancock, bap. 31 Aug 1788 at Wootton Rivers. > > I have now uploaded an updated gedcom file to the Web site which > incorpoates these changes, and I have regenerated descendant trees (in > particular the Lieflock Line) from this file. In addition I have > reorganised the Web pages containing the "trees and fragments" to > eliminate redundant and out of date material. There is now an overview > page with a table listing the most extensive trees we have produced. In > addition, the Wiltshire Trees page has been revamped to eliminate out of > date material and now also includes a table listing the main Wiltshire > trees. > > Full details are available on the "What's New" page. > > Any feedback is welcome! > > Regards, > > James > > > > > > ==== LOVELOCK Mailing List ==== > Lovelock family history Web pages: > http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/ > > ============================== > Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration > Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 >

Hello all, My previous messages resulting from my exercise of cross-checking my Lovelock database against the "Lovelocks in Wiltshire" file led to a number of email exchanges, some of them off-list, and I believe we have now reached a consensus (at least temporarily!) One point on which we agreed has a significant impact in that it links what was part of an isolated Wootton Rivers tree into the Lieflock Line. This connection depends on the identification of the John Lovelock who married Elizabeth Hillier at Preschute 10 Aug 1813 as the son of John Lovelock and Elizabeth Hancock, bap. 31 Aug 1788 at Wootton Rivers. I have now uploaded an updated gedcom file to the Web site which incorpoates these changes, and I have regenerated descendant trees (in particular the Lieflock Line) from this file. In addition I have reorganised the Web pages containing the "trees and fragments" to eliminate redundant and out of date material. There is now an overview page with a table listing the most extensive trees we have produced. In addition, the Wiltshire Trees page has been revamped to eliminate out of date material and now also includes a table listing the main Wiltshire trees. Full details are available on the "What's New" page. Any feedback is welcome! Regards, James

Further to my message last month I am pleased to report that we hope to be in a position to circulate the first edition by post next month. If you attended Lovelocks Alive you will have provided your postal address when booking and will automatically receive a copy. However we received a lot of enquiries from people, following our publicity on Rootsweb and in magazines and local newspapers, where we only have an e mail address. If you would like to receive a copy of the Lovelock Newsletter by post I would be grateful if you could send me your postal address. Many thanks John Lovelock Hedgerley Buckinghamshire UK -----Original Message----- From: John Lovelock Sent: 08 July 2004 17:09 To: [email protected] Subject: Lovelock Lines One of the suggestions made at the Lovelocks Alive Event was that a Newsletter provisionally titled Lovelock Lines should be prepared to record the event and to promote the Lovelock List and Web Site. A number of people who attended the event ( or made an enquiry ) do not have internet access so it was agreed that the small surplus be used to cover printing and postage for this initial edition. Yann Lovelock kindly volunteered to edit the newsletter with a view to publication in August 2004. Yann would appreciate stories from your Lovelock research. Material should be sent to Yann at ............. [email protected] A brief record of the event will appear in the September issue of Family History Monthly which will be published mid August. Best Wishes John Lovelock