Further news on the above from the Hampshire List: We telephoned the Family Records Centre today in our capacity as List Owners of our 2 Hampshire Lists as we felt that an official and definitive reply was essential to clarify the situation and to protect all of us from a potential problem. We received a call back from a Senior Manager who had no knowledge of the site - and so this is certainly not an official arrangement. He was going to speak to GRO Southport and will get back to us. Having already seen a message on another list that GRO at Southport know nothing about 1837online either and were referring to their Management,it would seem to confirm the illegitimate nature of the site. FRC Management have a concern that IF the data is available as stated, it may have been copied without licence. So far,FRC/PRO have granted a licence to FreeBMD to put the GRO index online on the proviso that there was no charge for access and in addition a number of Family History Societies have uploaded much smaller, local segments of the index. Some listers have mentioned a 100 year rule - just to be clear, this does not apply to the GRO index which is already in the public domain to the current date. FreeBMD as we understand it made a voluntary commitment to limit the online data to 1900 so as to avoid problems with living people and also in view of the size of the job in hand.

Hello all, Graham and I believe that we have now extracted all Lovelocks and Lovelucks from the 1901 census. The results are available from the Lovelock Web site as both html files and Excel spreadsheets. For Wiltshire, Berkshire, Hampshire, Oxfordshire, Gloucestershire and Glamorgan, the files are linked to the corresponding county page under "Sources". For other counties, the files are linked to the page Sources -> General* *The records were obtained from the information freely available, using the census ExtractorGuessTimator which Graham pointed out to the list, rather than from the complete extracts or images (which would have been very costly!) Since the program deduces some of the information, it may not all be 100% accurate, and I have added a note to this effect. In particular, Graham and I have found that the Chapman codes in the "Cty" column are not always correct. You should also remember that the census was taken well before the county boundary changes of 1965/68, so you may not find some parishes/towns where you're expecting them! (E.g. West Ham comes under Essex and not London). I've tried to point out some of these surprises, but I'm sure that there are others. Please let me know of any errors or omissions. Regards, James

....... that James mentioned yesterday. Here's what the Hampshire List Owners had to say about it: This site has been doing the rounds of the lists at present - we advise listers to stay away and NOT to download the "free" viewer - which is an executable file and thus could contain either a virus or spyware. There have been reports of firewalls being attacked after downloading. We are not aware of anyone having a licence to scan the entire GRO Index or the time/resources - after all FreeBMD have been trying for about 3 years and are still only about 30% done. There is no evidence on the site of authorship, ownership or credit card security. We think it is a scam (but would be happy to be proved wrong) - anything that seems too good to be true, almost certainly is. A bit of a muddle between the FreeBMD Transcription exercise as opposed to the ability to scan original Index images, but perhaps a cause to be a little wary for a bit? Regards to all Graham

Sounds like another terrific asset. Of course, if they are exact replicas they exactly replicate the mistakes therein, but that's just me in nit-picking mode. Graham ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Loveluck" Subject: New site for PRO BMDs

Hello all, I found this site mentioned on the Glamorgan list: http://www.1837online.com/ Its not yet operational, but should be on 8 December 2002. Here's the short description they provide: "On this site you will find an exact replica of the original indexes of Births, Marriages and Deaths for England and Wales from 1837 to date. These images are available to search, view (including zooming in on those awkward-to-read names), save to disk and print for a modest charge. This site will be most useful to you if you are already familiar with these indexes and wish to have the opportunity to search them in your own time, without having to physically visit a library or a register office." It costs £5.00 for 50 records. Regards, James

philip winder and Charlotte Lovelock born 1846 west grafton are to be found at the following places. 1885 7 Victoria place Battersea 1895 -1899 10 Victoria Place Battersea 1901 -1903 42 Havelock terrace 1904-1906 25 Henley street Battersea 1905 Philip has gone from the electoral roll but 1906 Charlotte, Mark and GEORGE? are listed but are allgone the following year Jean Gilmore

Hello all, Graham Lovelock supplied me with Excel files for Lovelock extracts from the 1901 census for a number of counties, and I have now added these to the Web pages. The counties concerned are: Derby Essex Kent Middlesex London Surrey Sussex Since we don't (yet) have special sections for these counties, I've included them in the section Sources -> General for now. Many thanks to Graham! Regards, James PS Does anyone understand why the Chapman codes (in the "Cty" column) seem to be wrong sometimes. According to the Help file for the 1901 Census Extractor program, they're supposed to be the codes corresponding to the registration district. However, if one looks at the extracts for Essex, for example, the Chapman codes are all CAM (Cambridgeshire) instead of ESS (Essex).

This afternoon I have found Eli Partridge and Phillip Winder the husbands of Jane and Charlotte Lovelock West Grafton Wiltshire on the electoral roll of 1896. They were living next door to each other Eli at 9 Victoria Place Battersea London and Phillip was living at 10 Victoria Place Unfortunately no other names available Jean Gilmore

Thanks very much, James. Not much time for research at the moment but it's nice to know it's "there". Kind regards to all. Patsie Burrows ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Loveluck" <james.loveluck@numericable.fr> To: <LOVELOCK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 1:37 AM Subject: More Lovelock extracts from the 1901 census > Hello all, > > I've now added to the Web pages Lovelock extracts from the 1901 census > for a few more counties, so the complete list is: Wilts, Berks, Hants, > Oxfordshire, Gloucestershire and Glamorgan (all the counties for which > we have a section under the "Sources" heading). In each case there is an > HTML file and an Excel spreadsheet. The records are sorted by Page ID > and Person ID so that the grouping into families should be evident. For > the spreadsheets, there is some "grouped data" (e.g for the "Piece" and > "Folio" data) which you can expose by clicking on the "+" signs at the > top of the page. > > So far the records compilations have focussed on the counties around > Wilts (plus Glamorgan because of my personal interest) but maybe this is > the moment to add sections for a few other counties. From the figures on > the "Distribution of Lovelocks" page, the obvious candidates would be > London, Surrey, Kent, Lancs, Essex, Herts and Sussex. A section on > London would be of particular interest, in view of the migration of > Lovelocks towards the capital. > > Regards, > > James > > > > ==== LOVELOCK Mailing List ==== > Lovelock family history Web pages: > http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/ > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > >

Hello all, I've now added to the Web pages Lovelock extracts from the 1901 census for a few more counties, so the complete list is: Wilts, Berks, Hants, Oxfordshire, Gloucestershire and Glamorgan (all the counties for which we have a section under the "Sources" heading). In each case there is an HTML file and an Excel spreadsheet. The records are sorted by Page ID and Person ID so that the grouping into families should be evident. For the spreadsheets, there is some "grouped data" (e.g for the "Piece" and "Folio" data) which you can expose by clicking on the "+" signs at the top of the page. So far the records compilations have focussed on the counties around Wilts (plus Glamorgan because of my personal interest) but maybe this is the moment to add sections for a few other counties. From the figures on the "Distribution of Lovelocks" page, the obvious candidates would be London, Surrey, Kent, Lancs, Essex, Herts and Sussex. A section on London would be of particular interest, in view of the migration of Lovelocks towards the capital. Regards, James

Hello all, I have made some additions to the Web page called "Lovelock distribution" (in the section "Lovelock Genealogy). Previously this contained tables, graphs and a map showing the distribution of Lovelocks from the 1881 census. I've now updated the information to include data from the 1901 census as well, using the figures provided by Graham Lovelock, together with a comparison between the distrbutions for 1881 and 1901. I've also included a chart which Graham sent showing the distribution by age for the 1901 census. Regards, James

Hello all, Following Graham's message I have updated the Wilts Lovelock extracts from the 1901 census. You'll find the corresponding files (HTML and Excel) on the Web pages in the same place as the previous versions (Sources-> Wiltshire -> Census records). After eliminating all duplicates I ended up with 226 distinct records for Wilts. whereas Graham's figures indicate 231. I'm not sure whether Graham included some duplicates or whether I have still missed a few records - I did separate searches for Wiltshire, Of Wiltshire, Wilts and Swindon, and then eliminated duplicates. Regards, James

Hello all, I've added to the Web pages the following documents concerning the 1901 census, all of which were provided by Graham Lovelock: * Distribution of Lovelock females by county from the 1901 census, * Distribution of Lovelock males by county from the 1901 census, * Distribution by age of Lovelocks from the 1901 census. Thanks Graham for this useful information! Regards, James

Hello all, As some of you are aware, in addition to the LovelOck Web pages, I also maintained some Web pages concerning my LovelUck family. This is just to let you know that I have moved these Web pages to the following address: http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/loveluck/ Previoulsy, access to these Web pages was protected by a username/password. However, I wasn't able to implement the htaccess access control mechanism with my home ISP, so the Lovelucks have "come out of the closet" and the Web pages are no longer controlled by a username/password. I may not have copied everything successfully to the new site, so please let me know if there are any links which don't work properly. Regards, James

Hello all, Just as a change from the 1901 census, I've added the Loveluck extracts from the 1841 census to the Web pages. The files (HTML and Excel) are linked to the page Sources -> Glamorgan, and also to the "What's New" page. Regards, James

Good evening, all Hoping for more success with messages this evening - I am more switched on, thanks to James. Nothing like a cryptic opening. For those yet to do any or much searching of the 1901 Cenus, here are a few variations that give NO results: LAVELACK LAVELECK LAVELICK LAVELUCK LEVELACK LEVELOCK LOVELECK LOVLACK LOVLUCK LUVELUCK Adding an "E" to the end of any of the above makes no difference - still NO results. LAVELOCK gives 8 persons. They are mostly born in Ireland or Manchester, so are probably not mis-transcribed LOVELOCK entries, but we will need to bottom them out. LOVELACK gives 10 persons, mostly in London. This is probably not a mis-transcription, I feel, but another set to be determined. LOVELICK gives 3 persons. Two of them, a husband and wife, are definitely LOVELOCKs I believe, not sure about the third. LOVELOCKE gives 2 persons who are definitely "ours". LOVLOCK gives 2 persons, again husband and wife, but since no place of birth is given it is difficult to know who they are. James has already covered the LOVELUCK variation and there are no LOVELUCKE entries, as I am sure James has found. I have discounted obvious non-candidates like LOVELACE and LOVELAND. Hope this saves someone a bit of time. Have a pleasant evening (what's left of it) Graham

Graham, I think that the reason that your messages were bounced is that the Rootsweb mailing lists don't allow attachments. So either you should convert your Wrod documents to text and include them in-line in your message, or I could put them on the Web pages - which is perhaps a good idea anyway. This is a very useful piece of work, and it will be very helpful to have these "checksums". I clearly only got part of the Wilts Lovelocks so far, and I need to do some more digging! However, I believe I did get all the LovelUcks, because I didn't do this search by county. Regards, James Graham Lovelock wrote: >James > >Help! I seem to be unable to get messages to the Lovelock List all of a >sudden - they keep bouncing back at me from the LOVELOCK-L-request address >at rootsweb. Can you circulate this for me - it's a follow-up to my first >message tonight which went OK. > >Many thanks > >Graham > > >Not sure what is happening tonight - my machine seems to be scrambling > > >>addresses, and the two messages below that I thought I had sent everybody >> >> >went to the > > >>L-Request address instead, which has probably got somebody somewhere >>scratching their head. I hope this one works - I have typed each character >>in the address rather than picking from the address book. >> >>FIRST MESSAGE WAS: >> >>Dear All >> >>Having raised a bit of a scare, perhaps, with my last message, thought I >>ought to put together something like the attached file which lists all the >>so-called "County" names for LOVELOCK FEMALES as transcribed by (or for) >> >> >the > > >>PRO, and for each name the number of Females occurring. The total is 851, >>but only because one of the Croydon entries comes up twice, making the >> >> >real > > >>total 850 as I said earlier. >> >>Will follow up with similar for MALES asap. >> >>Graham >> >> >> >>SECOND MESSAGE WAS: >> >>...... and the "Counties" for the Males as promised. >> >>Graham >> >>Apologies wherever due for whatever confusion I have been causing. >> >>And goodnight! >> >> >>

Ah! A bit sooner off the mark than I expected. Problem: the dear old transcribers have unhelpfully not stuck to Wiltshire throughout. A check of all data will show that there are apparently 40 females in Wiltshire (of which, by my counting only 38 seem to have been captured, so I'm not sure what happened there), but there are another 67 in Wilts. Be warned, James, or anyone else that has a go that to capture all in Hampshire, for instance, that you will need to cover Hampshire, Hants and Southampton as the County. And Berkshire, Berks and Reading, and Hertford and Herts, and so on and so on. We just knew it was all looking too easy, didn't we? However, a great start. I have done a check of all LOVELOCK entries. According to me there are 818 males and 850 females (surprisingly equally spread male for female in each band of roughly ten years I note as an aside), so when we have everything assembled the numbers should all add up. Perhaps somebody might like to check my totals? There are also, of course, some variations on the name, not the least of which are the LOVELUCKs, which I am happy to tally up unless anyone else has also just completed the exercise? In something of a rush before I am left behind by everyone's enthusiasm .............. Graham ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Loveluck" <james.loveluck@numericable.fr> To: <LOVELOCK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 8:25 PM Subject: 1901 census extracts for Wilts > Hello all, > > I've now added files (html and Excel) with all the Lovelock extracts for > Wilstshire from the 1901 census. I obtained these results from the "no > charge" data using the program that Graham brought to our attention to > group the data into families. > > Since these files involve data for Wiltshire only, I've linked them to > the page Sources -> Wiltshire. There are also links on the "What's New" > page. > > I hope this will earn me a brownie point from Graham ;-) > > Now on to Berks, Hants, ... > > Regards, > > James > > > > ==== LOVELOCK Mailing List ==== > Lovelock family history Web pages: > http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/ > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 >

Hello all, I've now added files (html and Excel) with all the Lovelock extracts for Wilstshire from the 1901 census. I obtained these results from the "no charge" data using the program that Graham brought to our attention to group the data into families. Since these files involve data for Wiltshire only, I've linked them to the page Sources -> Wiltshire. There are also links on the "What's New" page. I hope this will earn me a brownie point from Graham ;-) Now on to Berks, Hants, ... Regards, James

Sorry to be pushy, but where do we all go from here? Robert made an off-list enquiry about doing all counties. Shall we? I'm happy to do some - James do you have the time to allocate to each volunteer? And whilst I am being pushy, was there not a recent mention also of putting all the 1881 entries on the Site? Why is a vision of a can of worms swimming before my eyes? Regards Graham ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Loveluck" <james.loveluck@numericable.fr> To: <LOVELOCK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 9:00 AM Subject: Re: RE: Extracting Information from the 1901 Census > Absolutely! I've now used the program on the LovelUck extracts and > replaced the original file on the Web pages with the Excel file > generated by the program, together with an HTML file derived from it. > > Its now hardly necessary to purchase the complete transcripts! I hope > that the PRO don't try to make it more difficult! > > Regards, > > James > > Robert Sterry wrote: > > >This program Graham found is fantastic!! Try it out! Groups people very > >nicely into families by ID number and exports into Excel spreadsheet. Well > >done Graham! > > > >Cheers > > > >Robert > > > > > > > > > >>You may all find the program at the following address of use if > >>you are not > >>already aware of it: > >> > >> > >>http://members.lycos.co.uk/yks/Tools.htm#1901GuessTimator > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==== LOVELOCK Mailing List ==== > Lovelock family history Web pages: > http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/ > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 >