You would have thought that Lavinia Henrietta Alice would be enough to choose from, without adding Lily to it, wouldn't you? G ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Loveluck" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 4:31 PM > In the 1891 census, this family appears as: > > 296 Harding in GB > > Holden Mitchel 48 Head > Mary Mitchel 45 Wife > Lily Lovelocke 14 Daur > Milicent Lovelocke 80 Mother > All the above were noted as born in Bedwyn. > > It seems likely that Lily Lovelock and Lavinia Lovelock are one and the > same person. > > James > > Graham Lovelock wrote: > > >Re: Robert's proposals > > > >I'm late to this, so rather concerned I may stir things up that I oughtn't. > >However: > > > > Robert's first suggestion concerned the mother of Lavinia > >Henrietta Alice Lovelock. He thought it might be Mary the illegitimate > >daughter of Charlotte, who later married George Champion. I believe, because > >of the GB location, that the mother is Mary the daughter of Richard L and > >Millicent Fribbence, born 19 Jun 1839, who later married Oldin Mitchell at > >GB. > > > > Evidence? 1881 Census Return, Brook Street, GB: Richard and > >Millicent with daughter May (sic) aged 31 (what a fibber! Or did I read it > >wrong?), and grand-daughter Lavinia, aged 4.

James Thank you for this afternoon's message. I was clearly on another planet, or at least looking at another parish, to have suggested something as daft as that the burial of Stephen's wife Mary (Elford) could not be identified. However, something else now arises: I have no idea how many times I must have perused Easton Royal Baptism and Marriage data, but I can hardly, if ever, have looked at the Burials. Goodness only knows why not. I have looked back at some very old notes I made from a perusal of the PRs at Trowbridge and find I have these five burials that do not appear in the Website data: 24 Oct 1742 Thomas son of Thomas Lovelock (Luflok) 29 Sep 1744 Richard, son of Robert and Mary Lovelock 04 Mar 1751/2 Mary Lovelock buried 25 Oct 1759 Ann Lovelock buried 25 Oct 1762 Ann Lovelock buried Can anybody else confirm any of them, or have the appallingly difficult to read copies (remember the sheets I showed at Hungerford, those of you who were there?) made me read things that were not there? Regards Graham

In the 1891 census, this family appears as: 296 Harding in GB Holden Mitchel 48 Head Mary Mitchel 45 Wife Lily Lovelocke 14 Daur Milicent Lovelocke 80 Mother All the above were noted as born in Bedwyn. It seems likely that Lily Lovelock and Lavinia Lovelock are one and the same person. James PDGPM3-Risk, Graham Lovelock wrote: >Re: Robert's proposals > >I'm late to this, so rather concerned I may stir things up that I oughtn't. >However: > > Robert's first suggestion concerned the mother of Lavinia >Henrietta Alice Lovelock. He thought it might be Mary the illegitimate >daughter of Charlotte, who later married George Champion. I believe, because >of the GB location, that the mother is Mary the daughter of Richard L and >Millicent Fribbence, born 19 Jun 1839, who later married Oldin Mitchell at >GB. > > Evidence? 1881 Census Return, Brook Street, GB: Richard and >Millicent with daughter May (sic) aged 31 (what a fibber! Or did I read it >wrong?), and grand-daughter Lavinia, aged 4. > > Incidentally, Lavinia was the unmarried mother of Ernest >Charles, one of the unfortunates recorded on the War Memorial in the >churchyard at GB. > > I agree Robert's 2), 4) and 5) are possibles, I agree all >the rest are probables. > >Apologies for delay. > > >Graham > > > >

Thanks for your reply Graham. PDGPM3-Risk, Graham Lovelock wrote: >James > >Regarding your message of 12 July: > >Agree all your Burbage conclusions. > >ER: > >Have you got Sarah DOUST bap 4 May 1800 and Elias DOUST bap 8 Mar 1807, bur >29 Sep 1837, other children of Philip D and Jane L? > Yes, I did have the baptisms of the other two children of Philip Doust and Jane L. > >I wonder whether Mary Willmaut is the one buried on 4 Mar 1752? > I don't see a burial for Mary L 4 Mar 1752 at ER in the Lovelocks in Wiltshire file! > >The Marys bur 9 Feb 1783 and 10 Sep 1790 could also be Mary Elford or Mary >Chivers, and 9 Feb 1783 could also be Mary Wilks. (I think that means we get >nowhere with which is which unless there is some other material). > I had Mary Elford bur. 7 Aug 1765, since the record states "Mary ye wife of Stephen Lovelock ". However, you're quite right that we don't seem to have sufficient evidence to assign these two burials. Robert had flagged these entries (L) but I was only speculating as to the actual assignments. Robert? >Harriett Culley's age was recorded as 25 in 1841, 37 in 1851, 55 in 1871, 66 >in 1881, and 77 in 1891, none of which matches with a 73 year old being >buried in 1894. However, the only other Harriet I can think of is the widow >of David L of WR, who was 71 in the 1891 Census. But she was buried at WR, >as one would expect, on 11 Mar 1898 aged 78. So I suppose the ER burial must >be Harriett Culley, with an inaccurate age, unless we can find her in the ER >Baptism Register and prove that she always over-estimated her age (something >of a first!). We know from the 1841 Census that her father's name was John, >her mother was probably dead, and she had a younger brother Robert. > Hmm! Rather mysterious. I've kept this assignment for the moment, but added a note with your misgivings. Regards, James

Hello all, I've updated the "Lovelocks in Wiltshire" file on the Web site to correspond to the version provided by Robert Sterry on 18 July. Here's a brief description derived from Robert's comments: Update following Robert's visit to London. The update is mainly the rechecked Great Bedwyn PR (using films of original PRs and modern transcipts) for which there were previously some variances. However, there are also some new or modified entries for other parishes, including Alldbourne, Highworth and Pewsey. The file can be found at: http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/lovelocks-in-wilts.htm and is also linked to the page Sources-> Wiltshire and to the "What's New" page. Regards, James

I understand ( from a cousin in Cornwall ) that the article written by Graham Lovelock has been printed on Page 9 of the September issue of Family History Monthly published today. I tried to get a copy from a local branch of WH Smith but they have not been delivered yet but I understand that the entry is very impressive. Best Wishes John

Sorry did not make it to the grand party! Had to give the Historic Caravan Club rally a miss too - just had to defend my driving test trophy at the R-R enthusiasts' rally - shucks only came second! I had a quick search round the net re LovelUck (I'm not too bothered about the 'o' until a link is proved!). I am still amazed that with such an unusual name and some 30 years of effort by umpteen people we are no further than John & Ann!! There is a transcript of part of a fiche of the PR for Bridgewater Somerset. Google gave this with loveluck prudence - trying to find another ref to Prudence d 1850 1730 27-9 Lovelace Charles of Charles & Katherine 1732 19-4 Lovelock Elizabeth of C & Kathrin 1738 30-7 Elizabeth of C & Catherine 1736 20-2 Frances of C&C 1733 18-8 John of C & K 1740 11-3 Joseph of C&C 1728 5-7 Loveluck Betty of C &K 1734 31-1 James of C & Kathurin another file for 1720-30 give Betty as 'o' and 1726 3-2 Lovelock Sarah of C&Katherine I then hit (looking for Loveluck Melton!!!): Brian Charles Reeves of Horace Bickley Reeves & Yvonne Lucille Loveluck b 9 Oct 1948 at Tom Green Texas I then looked for Lucille Loveluck and got: Ian Loveluck Arblaster b 1-8-1925 from the Commonwealth Public Services List 1956 (Oz) see hotkey.net.au/njwilliams4/x56b.htm There is also a Frank Altman with a Loveluck connection at Ancestory.com Sydney Loveluck Thomas of Highdene, 11 Stanwell Rd Penarth Glam d 3-3-1907 W pr LLandaff 13-6-07 £2438 gross to Richard Beaumont-Thomas of Lydney Glos, Francis Treherne Thomas of Cwmfelin nr Swansea & Hubert Spence Thomas of C - from Turner-Thomas family Francis Loveluck Brand b 3-12-1909 of Elizabeth Mabel Thomas (b 25-4-79 Lydbrook & d 7-5-1916) & James Gordon Brand (b 11-6-1872 Edinburgh) EMT had bro Sydney Loveluck Thomas (& many earlier siblings) b 31-12-77 d 3-3-07 see above. Richard Thomas b 5-12-1837 at Bridgwater Som d 28-9-1916 at Bath bur Lydbrook ch, m Ann Loveluck, dau John & Mary 18-2-1859 at St Mary's Cardiff. She was b 6-2-1837 at Hafod Hallog (sic) Carmathens and d 14-4-1914 at penarth, bur Lydbrook, photo of her. "Jubilee Swansea vol 1" p30 ref to Mr & Mrs Loveluck Rosalind Loveluck is an alto opera singer in 2002. Brenda Gregory in Oz wants to know Middx surnames Loveluck at Lothbury <1838 [email protected] Somerset Pigot 1830 - Thomas Loveluck p 721 (only index on net) Jannet Blodwen Loveluck b 19-6-1890, d 8-12-1963 Royal Gwent H Newport Mon m 10-3-1924 at Bridgend Milsom Charles Wherrett Prob Reg of 9 Llwynden Rd Newport. He was a draper & d 1986. They had John W W see www.ritter.demon.co.uk/genealogy/wga57.html Google then tried to send me viri from daisyfair.com/nn28.html and zestyfind.com/app/DS4 so I shut down the internet and disconnected, but do not seem to have picked up the dreaded Mydoom. I see, James, you are still lacking info re your g-father. I'm sure I told you all I know - my mother said he was responsible for installing the electric street lights in Philadelphia - this must have been in the 1890's. What did the 1901 census say apart from his occupation was electrical engineer? I imagine he got trained in Glam and went to Liverpool/Preston to get a job soon after he was married in 1895. Did the deeds of Pentowan give any useful info? From my grandmother's address book it seems the family moved there about 1921. I have an address before that at 106 Fulketh (I think) Brow, Asthon (?) on Ribble nr Preston. You must have his address at Swinton/Pendleby in 1901. Perhaps the birth cert of Margaretta ~1897 would help. I dont know where it came from but she was c in 1901 presumably with your father in/nr Preston. Perhaps the c was delayed if JHCL was in USA. For some reason my g-father's c was delayed 8 years! I have a whole series of addresses for Edward John, mainly at Stoke Bishop, Bristol. I recently found my mother's baptism (at Stoke Bishop) cert. I expect he and his wife are buried there. I will try to find out. Also I will try and find his will as it seems it was he/they who left my mother £100 ~1923 and which was used to pay the deposit on our house in Nottm in 1937 once she was 21. She told me it was from Mary Courtis, but that cannot be right. She also said she was christened in Bristol Cathedral! Of course all this happened when she was very young! John Dixon

Thank you all Ladies & Gentlemen who have made the Lovelock site such a joy to see & use. Thanks for the wonderful work on the updates. I will certainly look forward to the newsletter re the gathering. Thanks again to these wonderful people who have made this site so great. Cheers Col ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Loveluck" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 11:01 PM Subject: Updated files on the Web site > Hello all, > > Following his visit to London, Robert Sterry provided updates of a > number of files, and the following are now available on the Web site: > > o Lovelock extracts from the 1851 census for Berkshire > o Lovelock extracts from the 1851 census for Middlesex and London > o Lovelock extracts from the 1851 census for Surrey > (this is a new file) > o Lovelocks in Surrey by Parish > > There is still one file that I haven't uploaded to the Web site - an > update to the Lovelocks in Wiltshire by Parish file. I had made some > changes to this file myself (flagging the Lyneham Line), and I need to > merge them with Robert's changes. This might have to wait for a while as > I'll be away on holiday for a couple of weeks from tomorrow. > > Here are some notes from Robert on his Lovelock research in London: > > "The 1851 census for London and Middlesex and also for Surrey required > visiting three archives in London to obtain and represents full census data > on all indexed 1851 registration districts for these counties. I believe the > data is very near complete for the 1851 overall for these counties. Of > particular interest is Lovelocks coming into London about this time from > Hampshire/Wiltshire/Berkshire - often difficult to find. There was obviously > a significant Lovelock presence in these counties well before 1851 - which > isn't surprising. Would be interesting to try and identify when they arrived > and where they came from. I also finished off the 'as enumerated' detail for > Berkshire so the 1851 for Berkshire is now complete with all detail. This > has now been published in full by the Wiltshire FHS. I had only previously > seen the index. > > The update to the Wiltshire (by parish) file is mainly the rechecked Great > Bedwyn PR (using films of original PRS and modern transcripts) where we had > some significant variances. The missing PRs for East Grafton - ie before > 1844 - were unfortunately not available at SOG. I discussed with Graham > possibly checking these if they were available. The update to the Surrey (by > parish) file represents a check of many of the PRs at SOG for Surrey that > allowed a quick lookup ie were transcribed and usually indexed. For the > record I completed shelf reference numbers SR/R 1-106. SOG has a lot of > unpublished modern transcripts, many of which are surname indexed. Very > useful and very time saving." > > 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 > > > __________ NOD32 1.820 (20040723) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.nod32.com > >

Hello all, Following his visit to London, Robert Sterry provided updates of a number of files, and the following are now available on the Web site: o Lovelock extracts from the 1851 census for Berkshire o Lovelock extracts from the 1851 census for Middlesex and London o Lovelock extracts from the 1851 census for Surrey (this is a new file) o Lovelocks in Surrey by Parish There is still one file that I haven't uploaded to the Web site - an update to the Lovelocks in Wiltshire by Parish file. I had made some changes to this file myself (flagging the Lyneham Line), and I need to merge them with Robert's changes. This might have to wait for a while as I'll be away on holiday for a couple of weeks from tomorrow. Here are some notes from Robert on his Lovelock research in London: "The 1851 census for London and Middlesex and also for Surrey required visiting three archives in London to obtain and represents full census data on all indexed 1851 registration districts for these counties. I believe the data is very near complete for the 1851 overall for these counties. Of particular interest is Lovelocks coming into London about this time from Hampshire/Wiltshire/Berkshire - often difficult to find. There was obviously a significant Lovelock presence in these counties well before 1851 - which isn't surprising. Would be interesting to try and identify when they arrived and where they came from. I also finished off the 'as enumerated' detail for Berkshire so the 1851 for Berkshire is now complete with all detail. This has now been published in full by the Wiltshire FHS. I had only previously seen the index. The update to the Wiltshire (by parish) file is mainly the rechecked Great Bedwyn PR (using films of original PRS and modern transcripts) where we had some significant variances. The missing PRs for East Grafton - ie before 1844 - were unfortunately not available at SOG. I discussed with Graham possibly checking these if they were available. The update to the Surrey (by parish) file represents a check of many of the PRs at SOG for Surrey that allowed a quick lookup ie were transcribed and usually indexed. For the record I completed shelf reference numbers SR/R 1-106. SOG has a lot of unpublished modern transcripts, many of which are surname indexed. Very useful and very time saving." Regards, James

James A few matters I’d like to take up regarding your latest on the above: “(L)1918 Sep 1 Charles Wilfred son of Leonard and Emma Lovelock I can't identify this birth, nor the parents.” If you check out the 1901 Census for Farm Lane or Jubilee Street in GB you will find a Leonard aged 9, the son of Charles and Sarah, Charles being the son of James and Honor (Gigg). I have assumed this to be the Leonard who later married Emma. There is no record of Leonard’s baptism, of course, but I have speculated on this in the past, I believe: James was a Wesleyan preacher (see the 1881 Census) so it may be that some of the family baptisms and marriages (were the appropriate licences in place? – don’t know) are in Methodist Chapel records, or perhaps the children were simply blessed, and the marriages were conducted in Register Offices? In my personal scanning of GRO records I noted the birth entry in the Apr-Jun quarter of 1891 of an Alfred Leonard in the Hungerford RD (only captured on our Website as Alfred), and the marriage of an Alfred L Lovelock, again in the Hungerford RD, in the Oct-Dec quarter of 1915, which certainly look like candidate entries to me. And of course the identity of “Leonard” as Alfred Leonard seems even more likely if you consider the baptism on 05 Nov 1916 of Amy Alberta daughter of Alfred Leonard and Emma Amy Lovelock of "The Jockey". That, I think, sews up Charles Wilfred et al unless somebody has information to demolish the whole edifice, but I can not see how. Just one worry – have we exposed data on living Lovelocks without consent? Second – the burial of Ann Lovelock (nee Stroud): I do not doubt that the burial in 1865 is hers. Husband Thomas was buried on 18 Feb 1869, which is why we find their daughter Elizabeth with her uncle and aunt James and Honor in the 1871 Census at 12 Farm Lane in GB. And next door at 11 Farm Lane, guess what? 16 year-old Sarah Lovelock is recorded as a Domestic Servant in the household of James Gigg, who was Honor Gigg’s brother. Of Martha I have found no trace in 1871 - has anybody else? Susannah Ann could be the Susannah at Polesdon’s Farm in Shalbourne, working as a Domestic Servant for William Aslett – she gave her place of birth as Grafton, which doesn’t fit, and her age as what I read as 16, but may well have been 18, which might increase the probability of making her the one, but I suspect that she is actually the 19 year-old Ann born in GB who was a servant for farmer David Meadham in Little Bedwyn. In 1881 Ann as she referred to herself was at Little Bedwyn with husband James (French) and sister Elizabeth, both sisters claiming birth in GB. Curiously I don’t think there is any baptism record of a Susannah from Grafton at any time, so doubts remain about who that young lady actually was. “1927 Mar 26 Sarah Annie Lovelock Gt Bedwyn Aged 76 Is this the wife of Charles L (bap. 14 Jan 1849)? “ I believe it must be. “1940 Jul 30 Jane Lovelock Aged 83 This could be Jane née Wyle, who mar. Richard L (bap. 16 Jul 1847) at Gt Bedwyn 15 Apr 1877. I have her born 1857 at Buttermere (source: Graham). Entered as such and flagged as Lieflock line.” I believe it is her. In fact her birthplace from the 1881 Census is Henley, Wilts, which was part of the parish of Buttermere. Her age in 1881 was 24, giving a birth year of 1856 or 1857. Regards Graham _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself with cool new emoticons http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo

Hello James I think the new layout is very attractive and easy to navigate. I notice that the link to Lovelocks Alive 2004 still refers to a forthcoming event which may confuse new subscribers. Please can you edit the link and attachment. It might be worth adding details of the proposed Lovelock Lines Newsletter which Yann Lovelock is hard at work preparing as I write. Best Wishes from a warm and humid London - thunderstorm approaching from South West England. John -----Original Message----- From: James Loveluck [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 22 July 2004 14:42 To: [email protected] Subject: Layout of Web pages changed Hello all, I wasn't overwhelmed with feedback on the proposed new layout for the Web pages, which I announced a couple of weeks ago. However, pretty well all the feedback I had was either favourable or neutral (apart from some reservations about the colour scheme!) so I've now switched the Lovelock Web site to the new layout. The URL of the home page remains unchanged: http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/ All files should now be linked to the pages, including Word, PDF and Excel files, but its quite possible that there are some broken links or other problems with the new pages - please let me know if you notice any anomalies. I may fine-tune the colour scheme at a later stage! Regards, James ==== LOVELOCK Mailing List ==== Lovelock family history Web pages: http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/ ============================== You can manage your RootsWeb-Review subscription from http://newsletters.rootsweb.com/

Hello all, I wasn't overwhelmed with feedback on the proposed new layout for the Web pages, which I announced a couple of weeks ago. However, pretty well all the feedback I had was either favourable or neutral (apart from some reservations about the colour scheme!) so I've now switched the Lovelock Web site to the new layout. The URL of the home page remains unchanged: http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/ All files should now be linked to the pages, including Word, PDF and Excel files, but its quite possible that there are some broken links or other problems with the new pages - please let me know if you notice any anomalies. I may fine-tune the colour scheme at a later stage! Regards, James

I think I can add something to a typically wry and perhaps forgotten musing on the part of Graham Lovelock, which I came across in an email to the list on 16 Nov 2000, the whole posted in response to Robert Sterry's challenge (6 Nov 2000) to 'Lovelock sleuths' to unravel the mystery of the great-grandparents of William Oliver Lovelock (bap. 18 April 1875 at Wootton Rivers). This may seem obscure (wait a moment for the wider context if it escapes you). I also appreciate that it's a rather belated comment on my part, but I've only recently been drawn in to all this via the 'Lovelocks Alive' event! And I'd best make clear that I don't seriously offer what follows as an example of sound family history research. Treat it, rather, as a mere thought, a minor part of the larger jigsaw. Graham (16/11/2000): "... this all started from Robert's record of the marriage of William Oliver on 2 August 1915 which included the information that he was a widower ... ... [D]o I gather from the fact that the Watchfield marriage entry records no place of residence for William Oliver's second wife Anna that she was "of this parish"? If so, isn't it interesting that William's brother Alfred John also married a Pocock, Florence Ethel, whose father was, like Anna's, named David, but that the marriage took place in Wootton Rivers where both Alfred and Florence resided?" The Alfred John mentioned above was my grandfather. Francis George, the grandfather of fellow-lister David Lovelock (see his posting of 28 Aug 2003) was another brother. All three were baptised in Wootton Rivers, as were the other four children of George (bap. 7 Jun 1846, Wootton Rivers) and Harriett, said George being descended from David (bap. 4 Sept 1814, Wootton Rivers). Further back matters concerning this line are less clear; Robert's challenge, as some of you will I know recall, was a way of framing the (as yet still unresolved) matter of which of at least three John Lovelocks married which of at least two Elizabeths and which pair had a certain eight children, all baptised in Wootton Rivers between 1778 and 1797 (inclusive). The answer to this is potentially a vital element in the larger matter of whether 'the Wootton Rivers Lovelocks' can be linked to 'the Lieflock line' of Wiltshire Lovelocks, which by now encompasses many Lovelocks from villages near to WR (se! e the Lovelock Family History website). Be that as it may, Graham's sidelong question has I think a quite straightforward answer, at least if 'anecdote' may at least point towards 'the facts'. My understanding from family lore is that both Florence Ethel and Anna Isabel grew up in Watchfield. When Anna visited her younger but already married sister in Wootton Rivers she met William Oliver, Ethel's widowed brother-in-law. QED. That, of course, is only the one part of it. Pending further conversations with my surviving aunts and uncles, I don't know how and why Ethel came to be living in Wootton Rivers before her marriage, as she appears to have been. Watch this space? My real aim here, of course, is to encourage renewed attention among interested fellow-listers in the larger topic: 'the Wootton Rivers Lovelocks and the Lieflock line'. Regards to all, in the wee small hours. Robin

Hello all, Here's another batch of comments and questions arising from cross-checking my Lovelock database against the "Lovelocks in Wiltshire" file. I'm now up to Marlborough! Regards, James Great Bedwyn baptisms 1734 Aug 24(?) Thomas son of Thomas and Mary Lovelock baptized (R) 1734 Aug 22 Thomas son of Thomas and Mary Lovelock baptized (M) This is Thomas son of Thomas L (bap 18 Mar 1711 Easton Royal) and Mary Willmaut, and should be flagged as (L) 1897 Jul 8 Ernest Charles son of Lavinia Lovelock (LDS Vital Records British Isles 2nd ed. has born 8 Jul 1897 and baptised 17 Sep 1897.) The mother is probably Lavinia Henrietta Alice Lovelock bap 8 Nov 1876 Gt Bedwyn, illegitimate dau of Mary Lovelock (bap 30 Sep 1855 East Grafton). In this case should be flagged (L) (L)++1848 Jun 8 Elizabeth dau of Daniel Lovelock & Ann Choules, Hungerford (Not in LDS Vital Record. Should be under parish of Hungerford in Berkshire) This entry should be removed, since it is really a PRO birth record for Hungerford. The baptism on 14 Jul 1848 is recorded at East Grafton. (L)1918 Sep 1 Charles Wilfred son of Leonard and Emma Lovelock I can't identify this birth, nor the parents. marriages 1871 Dec 25 James FRENCH, James Age: 19, Father: Thomas FRENCH & Ann LOVELOCK Age: 19 years, Father: Thomas LOVELOCK Bride is almost certainly Susannah Ann Lovelock bap 1 May 1853, dau of Thomas L & Ann Stroud. So this marraige should be flagged (L) burials This burial: 1928 Feb 27 Richard Lovelock Aged 80 is that of Richard L bap 16 Jul 1847, son of Richard L & Milicent Fribbence, so it should be flagged (L) 1865 Oct 19 Ann Lovelock wife of Thomas Lovelock, Aged 41 is probably Ann née Stroud, who mar. Thomas L (bap 8 Jul 1821) at Gt Bedwyn 14 Jan 1851 (I have Ann bap 1 Mar 1824) If so, should be flagged (L) 1927 Mar 26 Sarah Annie Lovelock Gt Bedwyn Aged 76 Is this the wife of Charles L (bap. 14 Jan 1849)? 1940 Jul 30 Jane Lovelock Aged 83 This could be Jane née Wyle, who mar. Richard L (bap. 16 Jul 1847) at Gt Bedwyn 15 Apr 1877. I have her born 1857 at Buttermere (source: Graham). Entered as such and flagged as Lieflock line. Lyneham baptisms *1842 Jun 12 Richard John son of Daniel and Anne Lovelock, Goatacre, labourer Should have been flagged (Ly) 1861 Jan 6 Anne Dr of George & Mary Lovelock, Littlecot in Lyneham, Labourer Could this be Anne L dau. of George L (bap. 1 Oct 1837) and Martha Goff? burials 1845 Jan 24 Stephen Lovelock, Lyneham, 2 years This is almost certainly Stephen L. bap. 12 Jan 1845 at Lyneham (b. 15 Jan 1843, source Catherine Lovelock?) Should be flagged (Ly) 1848 Jun 14 Charlotte Lovelock, Littlecot, 5 months Probably dau of Daniel L & Ann Brown, bap. 16 Apr 1846 (but age at death doesn't match date of bap.) 1951 Dec 18 Emily Lovelock Died aged 92 (wife of Tom) Should be flagged (Ly) 1916 Nov 4 Kenneth John Lovelock (son) Died aged 19 in France Should be flagged (Ly) (son of Tom L & Emily Humphries) 1918 Feb 7 Tom Lovelock (son) Died aged 30 (husband of Rose Lovelock) Should be flagged (Ly) (son of Tom L & Emily Humphries) 1957 Mar 20 Lilly Maud Lovelock Died aged 66 Should be flagged (Ly) (son of Tom L & Emily Humphries) Lyneham Apprenticeships These two are both on the Lyneham line and should be flagged (Ly) 1896 - - George Jacob Lovelock son of Tom Lovelock, labourer of Lyneham, county boy - Major Walker Heneage to Frederick Hillier, mason of Lyneham on 1896 Aug 31 1903 - - Harold Lovelock son of Gennbath Lovelock Labourer of Lyneham county boy- Capt. G.C.W.Heneage to James Bailey Lloyd, carpenter of Lyneham. Transferred to Edwin Hugh Edmonds of Wootton Bassett on 1904 Feb 13. ( date to Lloyd 1903 Aug 10) Marlborough St Mary Marriages I believe that all the following marriages are recorded in the LDS Vital Records under Marlborough St Peter and St Paul, and not Marlborough St Mary. LDS Vital Records British Isles 2nd ed. Film 97840 Dates: 1813 - 1906 has the entry: 1834 Apr 24 James Lovelock and Sukey Hunt (See Marlborough St Peter and Paul below.) 1849 Jun 5 George COOK Father: George COOK and Matilda LOVELOCK Father:Thomas LOVELOCK (should be George William COOK) 1852 Sep 23 John LOVELOCK Father: William LOVELOCK and Harriet GAYDON Father: Thomas GAYDON 1852 Jan 1 Henry WILLIAMS widower Father: William WILLIAMS and Ann LOVELOCK Father: William LOVELOCK 1875 Dec 23 John Tamblyn MARTIN, Age: 23 years, Father: Stephen MARTIN and Mary Jane LOVELOCK Age: 23 years, Father: George LOVELOCK 1878 Dec 25 Frederick James Spicer LOVELOCK, Age: 20 years, Father: Silas LOVELOCK & Mary Annie BLUNDY Age: 20 years Wife's Father: Major BLUNDY 1899 Nov 19 John Edward POSTILL, Age: 31 years, Father: William POSTILL & Edith LOVELOCK Age: 22 years Wife's Father: William LOVELOCK Marlborough St Peter & St Paul Baptisms 1852 Sep 2 Mary Jane LOVELOCK Father: George LOVELOCK Mother: Charlotte I believe the date in the IGI is 26 Sep (not 2 Sep) Marriages For this marriage: 1834 Apr 24 James Lovelock and Sukey Hunt (See Marlborough St Peter and Paul below.) I had previously assumed that the James L in question was the one bap. 7 Jul 1816 St Peter & St Paul, Marlborough, son of William L & Sarah King. However, under the burials for St Peter & St Paul, Marlborough one finds: 1816 Aug 11 James s. William & Sarah Lovelock aged 5w clearly the same James L. Therefore the James L who married Sukey Hunt must be a different one.

Thanks Graham. I did have the burial in my database, but didn't make the connection from Betty to Elizabeth. Penny Wolsinkel also pointed out this connection. One less mystery! Thanks to both of you! Regards, James Graham Lovelock wrote: > > Seconds to go before I'm hauled off - but I can't let this one go from > James' message below: > > "(L)1864 Feb 29 Betty Lovelock, widow, Abode: Eastcott, aged 99 years > I can't find her in the Lieflock line?" > > James - this is Elizabeth Newman, widow of William, the lady who > married at 16, was widowed at 56, and died at (actually) 96. And > Eastcott is these days, and has been for some time, Eastcourt. > > > > From: James Loveluck <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Comments & questions on Wilts Lovelocks > Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 11:34:38 +0200 > > Hello all, > > Following Robert's example, I have started cross-checking my > (Wiltshire and beyond) Lovelock database against the "Lovelocks in > Wiltshire by Parish" file. > > _________________________________________________________________ > Want to block unwanted pop-ups? Download the free MSN Toolbar now! > http://toolbar.msn.co.uk/ > > > ==== 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 > > >

Seconds to go before I'm hauled off - but I can't let this one go from James' message below: "(L)1864 Feb 29 Betty Lovelock, widow, Abode: Eastcott, aged 99 years I can't find her in the Lieflock line?" James - this is Elizabeth Newman, widow of William, the lady who married at 16, was widowed at 56, and died at (actually) 96. And Eastcott is these days, and has been for some time, Eastcourt. From: James Loveluck <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: Comments & questions on Wilts Lovelocks Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 11:34:38 +0200 Hello all, Following Robert's example, I have started cross-checking my (Wiltshire and beyond) Lovelock database against the "Lovelocks in Wiltshire by Parish" file. _________________________________________________________________ Want to block unwanted pop-ups? Download the free MSN Toolbar now! http://toolbar.msn.co.uk/

Dear James I broadly agree with David's comments on the proposed new format. I've never really liked the frames approach wherever I've come across it. As you say, it reduces the size of the page you really want to see; I find it also makes it all-too-easy to print off the 'wrong' bit of material if you're not careful! The drop-down menus work well and my impression is that the whole thing is faster, on my PC at least. The additional search/URL-emailing possibilities which David mentions are not things I'd have tried or thought of, but are obviously other pluses. Re. David's comment on the colour scheme, I actually find it rather pleasantly restful, especially the yellow/cream background as per the current site and the 'soft' text colour. One point though: the bright red links are maybe too prominent; more particularly, when you've used them they switch to a colour so close to that of the main text that they almost 'disappear', despite the underlining. Since this seems most likely to come into play with the links one most often uses it could prove irritating. Maybe the red could be less bright and a colour more easily differentiated from the main text selected for 'used links' (blue?). No doubt the background affects the on-screen appearance of the 'individual' colour selected. (I confess I don't have the know-how to understand David's comment on 'cascading styles', which in principle might help me overcome this on a personal basis.) It's clear from your note that certain material isn't yet accessible within the test pages - pdf files, photographs etc. But just in case it's purely a slip and persists to the next stage, could I mention that the (famous!) Wootton Rivers fragment and notes (plus the Ramsbury one) don't seem to be properly linked (within 'Wilts Trees' or whatever), although the other 'old' ones are. Best wishes - from a 'cloudy with sunny spells' Southampton Robin

Hello all, Following Robert's example, I have started cross-checking my (Wiltshire and beyond) Lovelock database against the "Lovelocks in Wiltshire by Parish" file. I've by no means finished this exercise (so far I've got as far as Fyfield), but here are a number of points which have arisen so far. Some of these are suggestedd identificaitons of individuals, some concern data that was missing from my database (and has been added). Finally, there are some questions (for Robert!) concerning individuals flagged as belonging to the Lieflock Line, which I have not been able to identify. Any feedback on these is welcome. Now on to Great Bedwyn! James --------------------- Bishops Cannings bap. 1814 Jul 3 John Lovelock, mother Jane Mother is probably Jane Lovelock bap. 1785 May 28 mar. 1834 Dec 29 Stephen L. & Sarah Hillier should be flagged as (Ly) Bromham mar. 1776 Oct 21 Charles King & Betty Lovelock of Bishops Canning Bride is probably Betty L. bap. Bishops Canning 1753 Oct 6 (Lyneham Line) Burbage baptisms 1858 Oct 17 Thomas Francis (of) Louisa Kimber & George Spicer Lovelock, Abode: Burbage, Born of Fornication Almost certainly George Lovelock, bap. Wootton Rivers 22 Apr 1838, son of James L and Hannah Hillier. Lousia and George Spicer L got marrired the very nex day! (see below) 1859 Feb 20 Frederick James (of) Silas & Ellen Lovelock, Abode: Burbage, Labourer Father is almost certainly Silas Spicer L, bap. 20 Sep 1840 Wootton Rivers, son of James L and Hannah Hiller. Silas mar. Ellen Colley 28 Aug 1858 at Wootton Rivers 1860 Aug 19 Rosanna (of) Silas & Ellen Lovelock, Abode: Ram Alley, Labourer Father is almost certainly Silas Spicer L, bap. 20 Sep 1840 Wootton Rivers, son of James L and Hannah Hiller. Silas mar. Ellen Colley 28 Aug 1858 at Wootton Rivers 1862 Oct 12 Mary Susannah (of) Silas & Ellen Lovelock, Abode: Ram Alley, Labourer Father is almost certainly Silas Spicer L, bap. 20 Sep 1840 Wootton Rivers, son of James L and Hannah Hiller. Silas mar. Ellen Colley 28 Aug 1858 at Wootton Rivers 1869 Aug 22 Thomas James (of) Francis & Eliza Lovelock, Abode: Ram Alley Gate, Labourer Father is probably Francis Thomas L, bap. 23 Dec 1849, Burbage,, son of James L and Hannah Hiller. marriages 1858 Oct 18 George Spicer Lovelock, full age, bachelor, labourer, Residence: Burbage, Father: James S. Lovelock, Wharfinger and Louise Kimber, full age, spinster, Residence: Burbage, Father: William Kimber, Grinder. Both signed. Witnesses: James Spicer, Maria Skittrall Bridegroom is almost certainly George Lovelock, bap. Wootton Rivers 22 Apr 1838, son of James L and Hannah Hillier. 1861 Oct 14 Thomas Boyels, of full age, Bachelor, Labourer, Residence: Burbage, Father: Richard Boyels, Labourer & Ellen Spicer Lovelock, 18 years, Spinster, Abode: Burbage Father: James Lovelock, Labourer. Witnesses: Silas Spicer Lovelock, Ellen Spicer Lovelock Bride is almost certainly Ellen (Spicer) Lovelock bap. 23 Mar 1845 Burbage, dau of James L & Hannah Hillier. 1867 Dec 24 All Saints Church. Francis Spicer Lovelock, 18, Bachelor, labourer, Residence: Burbage, Father: James Lovelock, Labourer and Eliza Whitbread, 18, spinster, Residence: Lye Hill, Father: Thomas Whitbread, Carter. He signed; she made her mark. Wit: Fany(?) Beckingham, Thomas Axam Kimpton Groom is almost certainly Francis Thomas Lovelock, bap. 23 Dec 1849, Burbage, son of James L & Hannah Hillier 1869 Feb 20 George Lovelock (alias Spicer), of full age, widower, labourer, Abode: Burbage, Father: James Lovelock (alias Spicer), Clerk & Hannah Rawlings, 18 years, spinster, Abode: Burbage, Father: George Rawlings, labourer. Both signed. Witnesses: Francis Lovelock & Mary Ann Rawlings Groom is almost certainly George Lovelock, bap. Wootton Rivers 22 Apr 1838, son of James L and Hannah Hillier, previoulsy mar. to Louisa Kimber 1869 May 18 George Eagle, of full age, Bachelor, labourer, Abode: Burbage, Father: James Eagle, Labourer & Sarah Lovelock, of full age, spinster, Abode: Burbage Father: James Lovelock, Labourer. Both signed. Witnesses: Silas Lovelock, Ellen Lovelock Bride is almost certainly Sarah Lovelock bap. 1 Aug 1847, Burbage, dau of James L & Hannah Hillier. burials 1866 Sep 15 James Lovelock, Abode: North Gate, aged 56 yrs Almost certainly James L. bap 16 Dec 1810, Overton, who mar. Hannah Hillier 13 May 1831 Wotton Rivers. 1867 Nov 26 Louisa Lovelock, Abode: North Gate, aged 30 Almost certainly Louisa nee Kimber who mar. George (Spicer) L. 18 Oct 1858, Burbage. (L)1864 Feb 29 Betty Lovelock, widow, Abode: Eastcott, aged 99 years I can't find her in the Lieflock line? Clyffe Pypard marriage 1863 Sep 26 John Richard Lovelock & Eliza Little This marriage is also in the LDS IGI, but appears as: Richard John Lovelock (age 22) & Eliza Little (age 21), father John Little Easton Royal baptisms Added the following baptisms which were not in my data (although I did have the mar. of Joane L to John Hawkins 3 Dec 1749, Burbage) (L)1750/51 Jan 15 Mary daughter of John hawkings Jone (Jane?) his wife Bapt Jany ye 15 (L)1753/4 Jan 27 Willm Son of John Hawkence & Jone (Jane?) his wife Bapt Jany 27, 1754 (L)1755 Dec 14 Ann Daughter of John Hawkings & Jone (Jane?) his wife Bapt Decr 14, 1755 (L)1757 Aug 7 Jeny (Jane?) daughter of John Hawkence & Jone (Jane?) his wife Bapt Aug 7, 1757 (L)1759 May 13 Sarah daughter of John hawkence & Jone (Jane?) his wife Bap May 13, 1759 Added the following baptisms which were not in my data (see mar. below) (Some doubt about these identificaitons since the mar. was over 10 yrs earlier) (L)1745 Sep 29 Charles son of Charles and Johann Sanford Bapt Sept ye 29 (L)1747 Nov 22 William son of Charles Sanford Joanna his wife Bapt novemr ye 22 (L)1750/51 Mar 21 Ann Daughter of Charles Sanford Joanna his wife Bap march ye 21 Added the following baptisms of children of Philip Doust & Jane (Lovelock) which were not in my data (L)1786 Jul 16 James son of Phillip and Jane Doust (L)1789 Dec 25 William son of William and Jane Dowst (L)1792 Dec 30 Philip son of Philip & Jane Doust marriages Added the following marriage which was not present in my data (L)1735 Apr 6 Charles Sanfurd and Joanah(?) Lovelock(?) burials Added the following burials which were not in my data (see mar. above) (L)1754 Nov 17 Charles Sanford buried Novemr ye 17 (L)1766 Jan 23 Joannah Sanford widow buried Jan ye 23 Is this Mary née Willmaut, wife of Thomas L (bap 18 Amr 1711 Easton Royal)? (L)1783 Feb 9 Buried Mary Lovlock Is this one Mary née Wilks, wife of Robert L (bap 12 Mar 1736 ER)? (L)1790 Sep 10 Mary Lovelock This could be John L bap. 22 Aug 1779, s. of Robert L & Mary Wilks: 1801 Nov 25 John Lovelock was bur. Is this Harriet née Culley who mar. James L (bap. 25 Oct 1812 ER) 221 Dec 1839 ER? (L)1894 Jan 6 Harriet Lovelock, Abode: Burbage, 73 years

Hello James, I think the new design is a massive improvement. I find it more intuitive. Also, 1. Under the old (frames) design, I was unable to search for an individual in a family tree using Google's ability to search the currently displayed webpage. The new design permits this. 2. The new design allows me to send the URL of any page to someone, whereas the old design required sending a list of instructions to get to a particular page. Personally I'm not crazy about the color combinations, but that is an individual choice! (My wife says I have no color sense.) I see you are using cascading style sheets, so it is easy to experiment with other combinations. So, one big thumbs up for the new design. Thanks. David Lovelock (Tucson, AZ) ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Loveluck" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 05, 2004 3:25 AM Subject: Proposed new format for Web pages > Hello all, > > I'm not sure how happy people are with the current navigation menu for > the Lovelock Web pages, and I've been playing around with other > techniques, which don't involve "frames", the use of which has some > disadvantages (e.g. that it reduces the size of the page content). > > The style I've been looking at uses javascript, as did the previous > design, so it should be fairly fast. However, it has just a single menu > bar at the top of the page for the main sections, with drop down menus > for the sub-sections. > > I'm not yet committed to switching over to this new layout, and before > making a decision I'd like to get your feedback as to whether you find > it an improvement or not. I've converted quite a lot of the Web pages to > this new format, and you can access them at: > > http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/test/ > > In order not to use up too much extra space, I've only included html > files, so links to images, Excel files, Word files, PDF files and gedcom > files will not work, and neither will the links to the Ahn Java applet. > Otherwise, most links should work correctly and there should be enough > material to give you an idea of the proposed new design. > > Please let me have your feedback on the proposed new layout as soon as > possible. > > 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 >

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