Thanks Malcolm. So we may not need to get that info again - or do we? Possibly they have added a lot of new entries since then? Cheers Robert > My original marriage data for Wiltshire was from the Nimrod Index > in the early eighties.

Hello all, Well I'm back from my Glamorgan trip now, so I can start tackling my backlog. No amazing new Loveluck discoveries from Glamorgan, but it was a very enjoyable trip. I met two of my Glamorgan collaborators - Ann Willis and Allen Blethyn, who very kindly helped me find my way around, and to find the graves of all my direct line Loveluck ancestors from my g.grandfather right back to John Loveluck (1740-1803) who started the Glamorgan dynasty, as well as quite a few more. Concerning the Nimrod Wiltshire Indices, I did order the Loveluck marriages some time ago (November 1998 to be exact), and I believe that all the extracts I got have found their way into Robert's collected records file (where they're flagged as such). However, I could put the original file on the Web pages if its of interest. Malcolm's reply puzzles me, since he states that he also got marriage entries from the Nimrod index in the 80s, yet he had many entries which I did not have, even though he obtained them earlier than I. It looks as if I need to compare notes with Malcolm. I had about 90 records altogether. I remember that you did send me a paper copy of the Nimrod 1851 census records Robert, but I can't find an electronic version of it so it seems as if I never got round to typing it up. I'll have to dig it out of my archives! Regards, James Robert Sterry wrote: > > Hi All > > Came across the Nimrod Wiltshire Index site on > http://www.redbreast.co.uk/nimrod/ > > Had actually forgotten about it. > > I inherited the 1851 census for Lovelocks courtesy of the Nimrod Index via > cousin Gwen. This is complete as far as I know. Did James ever include it on > his site? Can't seem to find it there. Perhaps it was on our list of > to-dos - needs typing up - and got lost along the way. Can anyone remember? > > How much of the Nimrod index have we accessed? Wills I think. Might be worth > using again sometime. I'm sure James will remember, won't you James? When > was he getting back from hunting ancestors in Glamorgan? > > Cheers to all > > Robert >

Hi Robert My original marriage data for Wiltshire was from the Nimrod Index in the early eighties. Regards Malcolm "L"

Hi All Came across the Nimrod Wiltshire Index site on http://www.redbreast.co.uk/nimrod/ Had actually forgotten about it. I inherited the 1851 census for Lovelocks courtesy of the Nimrod Index via cousin Gwen. This is complete as far as I know. Did James ever include it on his site? Can't seem to find it there. Perhaps it was on our list of to-dos - needs typing up - and got lost along the way. Can anyone remember? How much of the Nimrod index have we accessed? Wills I think. Might be worth using again sometime. I'm sure James will remember, won't you James? When was he getting back from hunting ancestors in Glamorgan? Cheers to all Robert

Hi All Just to let you all know I have ordered a CD of the 1851 Census for Gloucestershire. I will scan it for all the Lovelock's/Loveluck's and make the data available to you all. ( James may consider using it on his web site) Regards Malcolm "L"

Hi all Having extracted Lovelocks from the NBI for the big Lovelock counties (Berkshire, Wiltshire and Hampshire), I expect you're all wondering what's in the rest. I checked Oxfordshire. Only one Lovelock burial and we had it already. I checked Hampshire. Only one Lovelock burial which we did not have as follows: St Swithin, Coombe: 1731 Aug 10 Robt Lovelock For the rest of England and Wales (which is all that is included on the NBI) there are only 9 for Glamorgan 4 for Gloucestershire 3 for Cambridgeshire 2 for Surrey 1 for Hertfordshire There are only two entries pre-1800 and both are in St Mary, Margam, Glamorgan This does not represent the actual distribution of Lovelocks but rather how active each county's respective Family History Society (or its equivalent) in contributing to this national project by the Federation of Family History Societies. For example, only one parish from Hampshire is repesented on this CD but 566 parishes are included from Lincolnshire. As a matter of interest, the number of parishes represented for each county where Lovelocks were found on the NBI are as follows: Berkshire 90 Wiltshire 70 Oxfordshire 135 Glamorgan 118 Gloucestershire 289 Cambridgeshire 184 Surrey 178 Hertforshire 91 Parishes are in their counties pre about 1832. There are no parishes included for the ancient city of London. The NBI is an ongoing project and local county FHS' will have more up to date burial indexes for their own county. I have sent a html version of 'all counties except Berkshire, Wiltshire, Hampshire and Oxfordshire)' to James but, as usual, if you would like a copy, email me separately. (Html is a good format since everyone can read it though whatever internet browser they use - even those with Macs - and it shows all the detail set out on the one page.) Cheers Robert PS It's a particularly delightful sunny winter's day here in Kurrajong, NSW, Australia. Not a cloud in the sky. About 18 degrees C. [ Just in case you wondered if I ever left my computer! ;-) ] PPS Apart from the 'biggies' it looks like Gloucestershire would be an interesting county to focus on for Lovelocks since James is doing a pretty good job covering Glamorgan. Because of its proximity to Glamorgan, Wiltshire, Berkshire and Oxfordshire, it could well form a link between them and provide some interesting family connections. What do the rest of you think?

Hi all Have completed extracting Lovelocks and Variants from the Berkshire FHS indexes for the 1851 census. The indexes give surname, first name, age and registration district and subdistrict NOT relationship to head, birthplace or occupation. They also of course give the PRO reference (piece and folio number). They are intended as a finding aide and appear to be complete. Have emailed to James Loveluck. If any of you would like a copy (in html format), please email me separately. Cheers Robert

Hi all Have now extracted all Lovelocks and variants form the NBI for Wiltshire and updated the Lovelocks in Wiltshire file. There were 80 Lovelock burials in Wiltshire, of which 25 were new and 5 were variations of what we already had extracted. Proportionally not as many new entries as in Berkshire - but then more work has been done on Wiltshire Vital Records for Lovelocks. As usual, I will send the file to James Loveluck. However, as you know James is about to depart for an ancestral hunt to Wales so it may be a while before he is able to place the updated file on the Lovelock website. If you would like the file before then, please email me individually. I can either send the updated whole Lovelocks in Wiltshire file (in html format) or the extracted Lovelock burials in Wiltshire from the CD in your choice of three possible formats: gedcom, dBase or html. Best wishes Robert

Hello all, I've now updated the Hampshire records on the Lovelock Web pages: -> Sources -> Hampshire -> Lovelock from Hampshire This version includes the new records for Eversley and Heckfield provided by Helen Norton. Thanks again Helen! In the meantime, Robert provided yet another file (Berks including entries from the National Burial Index for Berkshire), so I still have work to do! I'm taking a week of vacation from this evening, so it may have to wait for a while. I'm going to be spending a few days in Glamorgan, visiting the land of my ancestors! Regards, James

Hi all The National Burial Index for England and Wales produced by the Federation of Family History Societies has arrived. Have so far extracted and included burials for Berkshire. File available on request. Sending to James Loveluck as usual. I was actually quite pleased with what I found on CD, although the major work has, as usual, been done by the amazingly prolific and active Oxfordshire FHS, so entries are skewed towards that end of the county. There were 58 burials for Lovelock/luck of which 52 were new. Excellent. Of course this work highlights any Berkshire parishes which we did not know contained Lovelocks and would be worth checking for baptisms and marriages. The CD would be worth having for this alone. Haven't tried to identify any of the burials within major Lovelock lines yet but bound to be some. All the best Robert

Hello Robert, Dont want to spoil your awaiting delivery of National Burial Index UK. But will give you an indecation of what to expect. 1538-1825. Loveluck. 15 burials. Lovelock. 144 burials. 1826-2000. Loveluck. 36. burials. Lovelock. 132. burials. Best Regards Allen in Aberavon, Wales.

Hi all Helen Norton has been busy extracting Lovelocks from the parishes of Eversley and Heckfield, Hampshire. Helen kindly sent me her research to date and I have incorporated it into the Lovelocks in Hampshire Vital Records file. Helen has turned up quite a few new entries, especially burials. I have sent to James Loveluck and it will undoubtedly in due course appear on the Lovelock website. If any members of the list would like the updated Lovelocks in Hampshire file, please email me separately. Great to see another Lovelock researcher getting stuck into some PRs! Best wishes Robert PS I have purchased a copy of the new CD of the National Burial Index for the UK produced by the Federation of Family History Societies. It will mainly be burials between 1800 and 1900 but nevertheless should be a useful resource. I will of course be extracting Lovelocks and sharing with the list. It should hopefully arrive in next couple of weeks.

Hello all, Helen's document is now linked to the Lovelock Web pages in the section Sources -> Hampshire. Thanks Helen for this useful addition! James PS for Robert - please make sure you extract the LovelUcks from the burial index as well as the LovelOcks! Robert Sterry wrote: > > Hi all > > Helen Norton has been busy extracting Lovelocks from the parishes of > Eversley and Heckfield, Hampshire. Helen kindly sent me her research to date > and I have incorporated it into the Lovelocks in Hampshire Vital Records > file. Helen has turned up quite a few new entries, especially burials. > > I have sent to James Loveluck and it will undoubtedly in due course appear > on the Lovelock website. > > If any members of the list would like the updated Lovelocks in Hampshire > file, please email me separately. > > Great to see another Lovelock researcher getting stuck into some PRs! > > Best wishes > > Robert > > PS I have purchased a copy of the new CD of the National Burial Index for > the UK produced by the Federation of Family History Societies. It will > mainly be burials between 1800 and 1900 but nevertheless should be a useful > resource. I will of course be extracting Lovelocks and sharing with the > list. It should hopefully arrive in next couple of weeks. >

Hi Brian From your death details, the IGI baptism of Edward Lovelock in 1811 at Kingsclere certainly looks like a match. I quite understand the problems of distance and time. After all, I live in Australia! Great that you have his death certificate. Obtaining a fiche reader sounds an excellent idea - provided you can obtain the fiche you need of course. Alteratively, you could go along to your local Mormon Family History Centre and order films of parishes of interest through them and view them there. Not all are filmed of course, but an awful lot are. Are you aware of the LDS internet site where you can check what films are available through the Mormons on www.familysearch.org? But then, your nearest LDS FHC might not be within practical travelling distance for you either. I guess I'm pretty lucky here. I have one just ten minutes drive from home - even though I live on the other side of the globe. I just checked the LDS site. They have lots on Kingsclere, including: Title: Parish registers, 1809-1920 Authors: Church of England. Parish Church of Kingsclere (Hampshire) (Main Author) Note Location Film Banns, 1809-1881 (fiche 1-3 out of a set of 4) FHL BRITISH Fiche 6344310 Baptisms, 1867-1920 (fiche 4 out of a set of 4) FHL BRITISH Fiche 6344311 Marriages, 1837-1873 (fiche 1-4 out of a set 5) FHL BRITISH Fiche 6344312 I wondered about purchasing fiche through the Hampshire RO so, just out of interest, I checked them out on http://www.hants.gov.uk Didn't find any fiche for sale there so tried Hampshire Genealogical Society on http://www.hantsgensoc.demon.co.uk/ They have the whole 1851 and 1891 census for Hampshire available in booklet form. and some monumental inscriptions for some parishes. No PRs though. Checked out a few links from these sites but couldn't locate any fiche of PRs for sale. So you might be out of luck there. Pity. A number of Record Offices and Family History Societies do offer fiche for sale. Perhaps they are available through some other commercial supplier? Phillimore's index to Hampshire marriage registers - £8.00 is available through the RO. Anyone on Lovelock list know? Anyhow, glad I could help a bit. Let's know how you go. Best wishes Robert -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- Thanks for the info from the IGI on Edward Lovelock,this seems very likely the Edward I have been looking for (now subject to confirmation) for your information if it is the right one which i reckon as a guess sounds like it is then his death details are in the Oct-Dec quarter of 1877 his death was recorded in the Kingsclere registration district aged 66 yrs yes i do live in the uk but i live a distance that is unpractical for travelling to and from the Hampshire RO due to amount of searching needed at present would need loads of vists,and due to other committitments on my time is limited at present however i am currently on the look out for a fiche reader to enable me to view records in my own time at home etc hopefully this will be over the next few weeks. regards brian p.s my intrest in Edward is that he is my 2nd gt grandfather

Hi Brian > I have an Edward LOVELOCK who married Mary Ann MAY on 1st > February 1834 at Kingsclere.Hampshire,uk > im looking for birth date and place and death date and place for > either person > any info much appreciated regardless how small Yes. I see that this marriage is in the IGI. Also in the IGI is the following baptism at Kingsclere: 1811 Aug 11 Edward s. William & Anne Lovelock that may very well be the same Edward. Also in IGI marriages for Hampshire: 1810 Jun 13 William Lovelock & Anne Tucker However, we mainly have only IGI/Vital Records entries for Hampshire, plus a few Phillimore marriages. It would be very helpful if you were willing to check the registers. The IGI does not of course include burials. I see that your email address is in the UK. Any chance of a visit to the Hampshire Record Office in the near future? IGI records may be inaccurate and are usually incomplete. Very much worth checking the original PRs. Best wishes Robert PS What is your interest in Edward Lovelock by the way?

Hi Valerie Thank you very much for sending through the extracts from the 1881 and 1891 census and the picture and newspaper clipping of Emma Marley ne Lovelock's 50th wedding anniversary. What we have so far seems to be: Your great-aunt Emma was born in 1887 to a Harriet Lovelock. Harriet was then living at Bethersden, Kent and was a housekeeper, according to Emma's birth certificate. No father is listed on the birth certificate. At about the time Emma was born, her mother Harriet was housekeeper to Frank Boulding who is the presumed father. On Emma's marriage certificate in 1908, her father is shown as "Frank Lovelock, deceased". Frank's first wife, Elizabeth Newing, died about 1882/83 and Frank remarried a Charlotte by 1891, because she appears as his wife in the 1891 census. It is presumed Frank and Charlotte 'adopted' Emma because she appears as their daughter, aged 4, in the 1891 census. (However, she reverts to her name of 'Emma Lovelock' on her wedding certificate.) Frank Boulding had one son, Frank, aged 9 (in 1891 census; born abt 1882) and one daughter, Rose Emma, aged 1 (in 1881 census; born abt 1881) from his first marriage and had another son, Arthur, aged 3 (in 1891 census; bn abt 1888) and a daughter, Mary, aged 1 (in 1891 census; bn abt 1890) from his second marriage. It may therefore be presumed that he remarried about 1887. Frank Boulding and his family moved from Coombe Cottage, Brabourne, Kent in 1881 to the town of Aldington in 1891, a distance of about 4 miles. According to the 1891 census, his son Frank was born in Braborne abt 1882, Emma and his son Arthur born in Waltham (abt 1887-1888) and daughter Mary in Aldington (abt 1890), suggesting that the Boulding family also lived for a time at Waltham, which is abt 5 miles north of Braborne. Such family movements are probably not unusual for an agricultural labourer at that time. Harriet does not appear in either the 1881 census or the 1891 census as living with Frank Boulding and his family so it may be presumed that she was housekeeper between those years, most probably between 1882/83 and 1887. We do not know her age or where she was born, which causes something of a problem in trying to locate her Lovelock connections. If one assumes she was living in Kent at the time of the 1881 census - since she was living at Bethersden in 1887 - there is only one Harriet Lovelock that appears in the 1881 census of about the right age and living in Kent in 1881. However, this Harriet Lovelock doesn't appear to be correct as she was living in Greenwich, Kent. So probably the assumption that she was living in Kent in 1881 is not correct. Which means she could have been living almost anywhere! I believe the only way we can trace Emma's family further is to try and discover her approximate age and birthplace. We also have a few presumptions which, in attempting to prove them one way or another, may shed some further light on Emma's mother. We don't know the exact period when Harriet was Frank Boulding's housekeeper. She may have even been with him before 1881 but not present at the Boulding home on census night. She may have still been there in 1891 but again away on census night. I don't think Valerie you have told us how in fact you came to discover that Harriet was Frank Boulding's housekeeper. However, an agricultural labourer would not normally have the money to employ a housekeeper. Usually they had to remarry as quickly as they could, often within months of the decease of their wife. As far as I know, only the wealthy could afford housekeepers. We haven't found when Harriet died. This would be good to find as it would at least give us her age. We don't know when Frank married his second wife or when his first wife died. It is curious that Emma's birthplace in the 1891 census is shown as Waltham but on her birth certificate as Bethersden, given that they are some 15 miles apart. Hardly commuting distance for a housekeeper in the 1880s! The information shown on Emma's birth certificate may of course be deliberately inaccurate to hide the true detail of Emma's illegitimate birth - for discretion's sake. Well Valerie, I hope that summarises what we have so that others on the Lovelock list (to which I will also post this reply) might be able to add something to the discussion. Perhaps you still have some other scraps of information that you have not yet documented. Perhaps we might yet find some of those other missing pieces. Best wishes for now. Robert Sterry

hi all I have an Edward LOVELOCK who married Mary Ann MAY on 1st February 1834 at Kingsclere.Hampshire,uk im looking for birth date and place and death date and place for either person any info much appreciated regardless how small regards brian

Thanks for your reply Mike. "I have been a research historian for over 30 years and although demography is not one of my areas of interest, certainly rural history since 1700 is right up my street. This means that I am familiar with the language of rural society and its source materials. My wife is a trained librarian .." Now I understand why you've made such remarkable headway so quickly! Glad to have you on side!! "Apart from IGI entries, my wife has also been through the GRO indexes. We are lucky that Hull Central Library has these on microfische, and laborious though it has been, my wife has gone through them not only for Lovelocks but also for the many other grand-parental names. The generation of my Jane Lovelock, for example, contains 16 grand parents (though since my mother was Irish, half of all my generational grandparents have been put to one side for the moment)." Do you mean for all of England? Hell. That's a huge undertaking. You don't happen to have it typed up on a database or speadsheet that you'd be willing to share would you? It would be a fabulous resource for the Lovelock/luck websites! I have such a resource for my other main surname of interest: STERRY so I know the work involved. And I only extracted a part of it! Amazing. Check out my Sterry website if you're interested. (See below) "We are hoping to check out some of the main actors in the IGI lists by reference to the parish registers. The Hampshire Gen Soc website indicates that Hampshire Record Office offers these registers on microfische, and we have ordered a number of likely suspects (but it takes several weeks to process the orders)." "We visited the Family Records Centre in London last Summer, hence our familiarity with the 1841-91 censuses, but at the time we hadn’t really discovered much about the Lovelock connection, so we plan to go again this Summer." Fantastic!! Would it be imposing too much if you noted down and shared all instances of Lovelocks you come across - regardless of whether they appear to be related or not? I suspect you'd do this anyway - but some people only seem to sample when they do parish searches. The fiche will be a wonderful resource. And of course you have a fiche reader at home - I'm green with envy. They cost an arm and a leg here! I was in London at the end of May last and managed to grab some time from our hectic travel agenda (it's a long way from Australia to England and one feels compelled to make the most of every minute!) to do a bit of research at the PRO - ah, that mecca of English archives! - and at SOG. Wonderful to be able to access all those local resources - well, at least from my point of view Yorkshire is just a hop and skip to London! ;-) "You asked specifically about the Surname Index for 1851 and how we connected Caroline Lovelock with Thomas Hooker. It was all part of that laborious trawl through the GRO, plus making an initial guess about identifying a Caroline (anybody, but in this case Hooker) in the right parish, and then going back to the GRO and looking up Caroline’s marriage and cross-referring it to a Thomas Hooker and discovering that they shared the same reference entry in the marriage index. I put it down to a combination of luck, intuition and assiduity." Amazing! What tenacity! "We don’t think the James Lovelock in the 1881 census is anything to do with ours. The Henry Lovelock born in Dogmersfield in 1837 is an interesting case which we hope to follow up when we get back to the Family Record Centre. In the surname index for Aldershot there is a Henry Lovelock of the right listed age and supposedly born in the right place." Wonderful! "My wife says that sometime this Summer she will collate all of the GRO stuff she has collected on the Lovelocks (mostly by chance in looking for our specific branch). But be warned, most of it is limited to the Hartley Wintney Registration District." Ah! That answers my question above. I actually have some Lovelocks extracted from the GRO many years ago by my cousin Gwen Eastment ne Lovelock - who got me into this family history stuff! It would be great to see if we could enlist the support of some of the Lovelock reseachers on the list to help extract more. How do you feel about combining what you have with what I have? That would be a great start. Maybe some others will be able to contribute a well. I don't mind typing it into say a spreadsheet format for sharing purposes. Let me know what you think. I'll post this to the Lovelock list as well so that hopefully others will join in. We have so little on Lovelocks in Hampshire other than the IGI. With your assistance, we'll soon have heaps!! Best wishes Robert Sterry WorldWide http://www.zipworld.com.au/~rsterry/gen

Hello all, I've updated the Lovelock Web pages to include the latest updates from Robert, which include additional records provided by John Dixon: o Lovelocks in Wiltshire by parish o Lovelocks in Berkshire by Parish Regards, James

Hi Mike Sorry it's taken a while to get back to you. However, I must admit I was a bit puzzled as to why you found further IGI entries for Lovelocks in Hampshire. I believed I had extracted them all ages ago. So I had to recheck. The additional entries you found are births not baptisms. Now I certainly did not extract all IGI entries in Hampshire. I excluded any entries - and there are a great many - that appeared to be just guesses. As you know, the IGI is made up of direct extractions from parish registers by LDS volunteers plus personal submissions by members of the Mormon Church. The parish extractions are usually extremely reliable - at least within the dates searched and excluding of course burials. But the personal submissions are only as good as that person's research and are often just wild guesses. As you would imagine, it is extremely unusual for parish registers - at least in the Anglican Church - to include births without baptisms. So any births without baptisms - especially before civil registration in 1837 - are rather dubious. Personal submissions from the civil register after 1837 could of course show as births not baptisms - either by reference to the GRO or from the birth certificate itself. However, I apparently decided to include births from the IGI where the information looked more than just a complete guess because there are some births included. But it appears I was not completely consistent in this. When I rechecked all the IGI entries I found some births which logically should have been included. Not many - but it just so happened that it included the ones you located. So I have updated the Lovelocks in Hampshire file accordingly. However, I would still treat these entries with caution. The LDS itself recommends that the IGI be treated as a 'finding aid' and that original registers need to be checked. The Hampshire Lovelock file also includes any published transcriptions of parish registers that are held by the Society of Australian Genealogists in Sydney, plus all Boyd's marriages plus the LDS Vital Records for the British Isles. I believe I also cross referenced the LDS Ancestral File and Pedigree Resource File - but these are both completely made up of personal submissions and need to be particularly treated with caution. You have certainly come a long way in a short time! You appear to have been able to access some excellent resources to help you construct quite a bit of at least a tentative family tree. In fact I am quite intrigued how you have been able to access so much so quickly. I assume you are accessing resources at one of the county record offices in Yorkshire - or are you? You are obviously able to readily acquire certificates from the Family Records Office, access substantial parts of the 1851, 1871 and 1881 census for Hampshire, the IGI, the GRO indexes and several other very useful indexes. Wonderful!! It's most unusual to find someone so keen and so thorough in their research. I gather you are by no means new to genealogy? You have already pursued your Lovelock connection back to the mid 1700s! Pretty impressive! I must admit I was very curious about your detective work using the Hants. Gen. Soc. Index of Surnames for the 1851 that established that Caroline Lovelock married Thomas Hooker in Mar Q 1840. Perhaps you might care to share your methodology here? You can of course double check this by looking up Thomas Hooker in the GRO Index for 1Q, 1840, Hartley Wintney and see if the GRO reference number matches that of Caroline Lovelock. But I expect I may be suggesting the obvious here. If she did, then I agree with you that Caroline is very probably the sister of Jane who married Michael Turner. I also agree with you that the Richard Lovelock you found in the 1881 census is probably a brother of Jane. I am amazed how you are finding all these GRO entries. It takes so long to go through the GRO indexes! Yet you seem to have managed to locate relevant marriages and deaths all over the place. Amazing. By the way, when you're going through all those wonderful resources, all members of the Lovelock list would be very grateful - I'm sure- if you also manage to jot down any other Lovelocks you come across - even if they don't appear to be relevant to your own family line. The information will be bound to help someone, sometime. Since you seem to be so successful at tracking this line down in the 1881, I thoguht I'd have a go too. I have the LDS 1881 here at home - so it's pretty easy to check. I looked for the following: James Lovelock bn abt 1858 in Crondall. There was only one entry that matched - but I don't think it's him: Dwelling: Lower Wootton Census Place: Wootton St Lawrence, Hampshire, England Source: FHL Film 1341307 PRO Ref RG11 Piece 1257 Folio 23 Page 37 Marr Age Sex Birthplace James LOVELOCK M 25 M Hannington, Hampshire, England Rel: Head Occ: Thatcher Elizabeth LOVELOCK M 23 F Wootton St Lawrence, Hampshire, England Rel: Wife Henry Lovelock bn abt 1837 in Dogmersfield: No match. William Lovelock bn abt 1839 in Winchfield: The closest was this entry but doesn't look like a match: Dwelling: No 24 B St Census Place: Chelsea, London, Middlesex, England Source: FHL Film 1341020 PRO Ref RG11 Piece 0089 Folio 105 Page 31 Marr Age Sex Birthplace William LOVELOCK M 44 M Kingsclere, Hampshire, England Rel: Hd Occ: Ry Gd Eliza J. LOVELOCK M 39 F Penzance, Cornwall, England Rel: Wife Martha J. LOVELOCK U 12 F Teddington, Middlesex, England Rel: Daur Occ: Scholar William E. LOVELOCK U 10 M Kensington, Middlesex, England Rel: Son Occ: Scholar Sarah L. LOVELOCK U 9 F Kensington, Middlesex, England Rel: Daur Occ: Scholar Albert LOVELOCK U 8 M Kensington, Middlesex, England Rel: Son Occ: Scholar Walter H. LOVELOCK U 5 M Kensington, Middlesex, England Rel: Son Occ: Scholar Frederick G. LOVELOCK U 4 M Chelsea, Middlesex, England Rel: Son Occ: Inft Arthur LOVELOCK U 3 M Chelsea, Middlesex, England Rel: Son Occ: Inft Henry E. LOVELOCK U 2 M Chelsea, Middlesex, England Rel: Son Occ: Inft Oh well!!! My concern at this stage is that we're relying overmuch on the IGI. It would be wonderful, Mike, if you had the time to check the parish registers for Crondall, Winchfield and Dogmerfield say between 1750 and 1900. Is that possible? If the Mormons have filmed them, I could probably access them from here. But it sounds like your access to relevant resources is far superior to mine. Keep up the great work!! Best wishes Robert PS If anyone on the list wants to have a copy of the correspondence Mike sent through so that you can better join in the discussion, please email me separately.