Hello all, Good news for anyone who likes poking about in the Archives to see what we were discussing in past times. Rootsweb have now managed to restore the 2004 messages: https://lists.rootsweb.com/hyperkitty/list/lovelock@rootsweb.com/2004/1/ Only 4 more years to go! Regards, Graham [https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ipmcdn.avast.com_images_icons_icon-2Denvelope-2Dtick-2Dround-2Dorange-2Danimated-2Dno-2Drepeat-2Dv1.gif&d=DwIFAw&c=kKqjBR9KKWaWpMhASkPbOg&r=hFYkjJ0Abymve4FOiSRpElWZy6phqmjQEUJupyUnsn0&m=4TFPXlBiL2ysumcX_swZr4-L_EmSY3GD0XTJNAH4Wls&s=ugZU2bEF9nNKT_cvkVe4VsVe1gNYajG6EkSsMRh4yiE&e=]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_sig-2Demail-3Futm-5Fmedium-3Demail-26utm-5Fsource-3Dlink-26utm-5Fcampaign-3Dsig-2Demail-26utm-5Fcontent-3Dwebmail&d=DwIFAw&c=kKqjBR9KKWaWpMhASkPbOg&r=hFYkjJ0Abymve4FOiSRpElWZy6phqmjQEUJupyUnsn0&m=4TFPXlBiL2ysumcX_swZr4-L_EmSY3GD0XTJNAH4Wls&s=pk1ubbXGMCbI2g6NgSzjP6PchSTnoAO7u1rQk54TU2E&e=> Virus-free. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avast.com&d=DwIFAw&c=kKqjBR9KKWaWpMhASkPbOg&r=hFYkjJ0Abymve4FOiSRpElWZy6phqmjQEUJupyUnsn0&m=4TFPXlBiL2ysumcX_swZr4-L_EmSY3GD0XTJNAH4Wls&s=r1Yp8A22Gg6HEoCZnVHHhyhFXVypB8j_4apDaNVmkog&e=<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_sig-2Demail-3Futm-5Fmedium-3Demail-26utm-5Fsource-3Dlink-26utm-5Fcampaign-3Dsig-2Demail-26utm-5Fcontent-3Dwebmail&d=DwIFAw&c=kKqjBR9KKWaWpMhASkPbOg&r=hFYkjJ0Abymve4FOiSRpElWZy6phqmjQEUJupyUnsn0&m=4TFPXlBiL2ysumcX_swZr4-L_EmSY3GD0XTJNAH4Wls&s=pk1ubbXGMCbI2g6NgSzjP6PchSTnoAO7u1rQk54TU2E&e=>

Hello all, Between 1880 and 1915 Free BMD records the births of 5 Daisy E Lovelocks: Daisy Elizabeth in West Ham RD in Apr-Jun 1887 Daisy Elizabeth in Andover RD in Oct-Dec 1887 Daisy Edith E in Highworth RD in Jan-Mar 1891 Daisy Ethel in Pancras RD in Jul-Sep 1893 Daisy Ethel F in Fulham RD in Oct-Dec 1894 Daisy Ethel F died in Fulham RD in Oct-Dec 1895, aged 1 Free BMD has 5 Daisy E marriages between 1902 and 1939: Daisy Elizabeth in West Ham RD in Apr-Jun 1909 who seems likely to be the one born in 1887 in West Ham RD - we have already established that she married Arthur Innes and they are part of the Farnham Tree Daisy E who married John W Sale in Edmonton RD in Oct-Dec 1913 Daisy E who married Ernest A Occomore in Andover RD in Oct-Dec 1916 - my grandparents in the Tangley Tree, so can also be eliminated from what follows Daisy E C who married Albert H Hull in Swindon RD in Jul-Sep 1919 - this is actually Daisy Edith Elizabeth and she and Albert are part of the Lyneham Line Daisy E who married Charles W Beck in Edmonton RD in Jul-Sep 1927 So the questions involve: Daisy E who married John W Sale in Edmonton RD in Oct-Dec 1913 Daisy E who married Charles W Beck in Edmonton RD in Jul-Sep 1927 The birth of an Eileen M Sale, mother Lovelock, was registered in Edmonton RD in Jul-Sep 1920. The 1939 Register records Eileen M Sale born 24 May 1920 with parents Daisy E and Alfred J. Not quite what might be expected. Moreover Daisy E Sale's date of birth is recorded in very clear writing as 27 Jun 1894. There is no such birth in Free BMD. However, digging deeper into Free BMD reveals the marriage in Apr-Jun 1938 of Alfred J Sale and Daisy E Sale, together with the death in Jul-Sep 1933 of John W Sale, all in Edmonton RD. The GRO Online Index indicates that John and Alfred both had a mother with maiden name Barnard so were presumably brothers, Daisy marrying them both. So could Daisy E Sale be originally Daisy Ethel Lovelock, and have taken a year off her age in 1939? Searching the 1939 Register for Daisy E Beck born in 1893 gives a nil return, as does a search for Charles W Beck with a wife Daisy. In Kensington there was a Charles Beck born 5 Sep 1891 with presumably his wife Daisy born 2 Sep 1890, and that's the nearest one can apparently get. There are no deaths of a Daisy E Beck between 1927 and 1939, and although there are 5 Charles W Beck deaths none of them seem likely to be of interest. There is, however, the death of a Daisy Ethel Beck in the Eastbourne RD in Apr-Jun 1974, which entry gives the date of birth as 7 Mar 1890. But there is no death of a Charles W born in 1891. What a mess! My head's spinning - as I suspect yours is. But all is not lost. A further search in the GRO Death records turns up Daisy Ethel Sale who died in Jan-Mar 1980 in the Hendon RD, and the entry gives the date of birth as 27 Jun 1893. A birth that late in June would probably have been registered in the Jul-Sep quarter, so I conclude that the lady did in fact take a year off her age in 1939. Any counter ideas anyone, as if not I shall make appropriate amendments to the St Pancras (Main) Tree whence originated my question as to the fate of Daisy Ethel? And if anyone can throw light on the Daisy who married Charles Beck please let us know. Regards, Graham

Good evening all (as it is here in London), I do not recall anyone mentioning before a possible link between the William Lovelock aged 43 who was recorded at LLanwonno in Glamorgan in 1911 and the Frederick Lovelock aged 45 who was recorded at Egremont in Cheshire also in 1911: http://lovelock.free.fr/documents/1911%20Census-Glamorgan%20Tree-flagged.html http://lovelock.free.fr/documents/1911%20Census-Cheshire%20Tree-flagged.html The former claimed to have been born in Peckham Rye in London and the latter in Peckham, Surrey. In the 1860s Peckham would have been in Surrey, so is it possible that William and Frederick were brothers? We have a few bits and pieces of information scattered about the website that relate to one or the other, but we seem never to have established their true origins. Any help to dig deeper into this particular matter will be most gratefully received. Regards, Graham

Hello all, No mystery this time. This is just to let you know that an item has been added at the bottom of the 'Other Matters of Lovelock Interest' page: http://lovelock.free.fr/Other-Matters.html If you have one of the items mentioned ..... lucky you! Regards, Graham

Hello all, Still with the St Pancras (Main) Tree ..... In 1891 the family of John and Mary (nee Robinson) Lovelock at 14 Drummond Street in St Pancras included a son Albert E Lovelock, aged 10 months. Free BMD furnished us with the birth entry for Albert Edwin Lovelock in the Apr-Jun quarter of 1890, and we linked that with the baptism of Albert Edward (sic) Lovelock, the son of John and Mary, at St Mary, Somers Town (which is in St Pancras) on 1 Jun 1890, the baby having been born on 12 May 1890, as recorded in our 'Lovelocks in Middlesex' data. All very neat. And then along came the GRO Online Index of Births and deaths ..... Checking the birth entry for Albert Edwin in the Online Index reveals that his mother's maiden name was Wheatley and not Robinson. Problem 1: there is no Lovelock/Wheatley marriage between 1860 and 1891 according to Free BMD. Problem 2: there is no other birth entry in either Free BMD or the GRO Online Index that could be the Albert E Lovelock who was at 14 Drummond Street in 1891. Problem 3: there is no birth of an Albert Edwin Wheatley in the Pancras RD in the period 1889-1891 that might have been confused with the Lovelock entry. Short of purchasing the Birth Certificate for Albert Edwin Lovelock to determine whether the GRO has made a mistake in its transcription I can't think of another line of investigation. Can anyone else? Regards, Graham

Hello all, The Gorrie family of interest are members of the St Pancras (Main) Tree. Eliza Rebecca Lovelock married Edward Gorrie in 1874 in St Pancras Old Church. We had put together Edward and Eliza's family on the basis of the Census entries for 1881 and 1891. In 1881 the couple were in Derry Street in St Pancras with their son Edward aged 6. Edward senior died in 1890 but in 1891 Eliza is easily found in Regent Terrace, St Pancras, with sons William, 18, Edward, 16, and daughter Frances, 8. Free BMD provides entries for a William in 1872 (two years before Edward and Eliza married, of course), an Edward James in 1874 and a Kathleen Frances in 1882. We also have a second daughter - Catherine Maria - who was born and died in 1880. Quite how we knew she was Edward and Eliza's daughter I know not, but it's a bit academic as we shall shortly see. One of the recent invaluable aids to research is the GRO's Online Index of Births and Deaths which now means we have mother's maiden names from 1837 onwards, except where the child was illegitimate in which case no mother's name is given for births from 1837 to 1911 but is assumed to be that of the child. So using this additional aid we now come to the problems. Firstly, the mother of the William Gorrie born in 1872 was in fact Rebecca Oram who had married a William Gorrie earlier that year. Their son's birth was registered in the St Olave RD - south of the river Thames, and he is identifiable in the 1881, 1891, 1901 and 1911 Census Returns. So why was a William recorded as Eliza's son born in 1872/3 in St Pancras - north of the river - in 1891? And why was he not with Edward and Eliza in 1881? The obvious answer is that as he must have been Eliza's illegitimate son he was registered at birth as a Lovelock, but there's no such entry. Secondly no mother's maiden name is recorded for Kathleen Frances, suggesting that she was not Eliza's daughter. Of course we know that illegitimate children were sometimes recorded as the children of their grandparents, but Edward and Eliza had no daughter who could have produced Kathleen Frances. Was she perhaps in fact a niece? The only positive result we have is that Catherine Maria's mother's maiden name was Lovelock, confirming her as a member of the family. Fast forward to 1901 and guess what? Eliza, William, Edward and Kathleen are nowhere to be found, and Free BMD has no death or marriage entries involving any of them in the intervening ten years. How many times have we been here before? And so to 1911, and yet another mystery. There is indeed a Kathleen Frances Gorrie in the data, but she is recorded as the wife of Joseph Gorrie. There is no record of a Joseph marrying a Kathleen Frances. Checking the births of their four children for mother's maiden name gives: None, Kofet, Bunyan and Bunyon. It would seem then that the couple are really the Joseph Gorrie and Sarah Ann Bunyan who married in 1897, and the family are a whole bunch of red herrings! Also in 1911 there is a William Gorrie born in St Pancras - but alas he was 30 years old, so not the 18-year-old from 1891. However, for good measure, Free BMD has no record of his birth, and he appears to be the William Joshua Gorrie who married Beatrice Eleanor Fordham in 1905, rather than the 1903/4 that they claimed in 1911. One small success - Edward James Gorrie surfaced in 1911, with wife Mary Ann (nee Clarke) and 7 children, but when he married in 1895 he chose to be recorded only as James Gorrie, and in 1911 he claimed to be only 35 years old. All in all a very frustrating family, with ultimately no light being thrown at all on the eventual fate of Eliza Rebecca with whom all this started. Unless I have missed something ..... Regards, Graham

Hello all, The 'small club' in question is of Lovelocks who lived to the age of 100 or more. The latest 'member' that I have discovered is Catherine Victoria Lovelock from the St Pancras (Main) Tree. She was born on 15 June 1897 and died in August 1998. She married Albert William Nowland on Christmas Day 1917, and he pre-deceased her by some 33 years. Regards, Graham

Hello all, If you peruse our London records from the 1901 Census you will find an entry for 115 Bayham Street in St Pancras. The household consisted of Alfred Lovelock, a Coal Porter aged 33, born in St Pancras, and his wife Alice, aged 30, and also born in St Pancras. At present the entry is not linked to any of our Family Trees. The reason for this is very simple - Alfred's birth seems not to be recorded in the GRO Index, and he can not be identified in any Census before 1901. So was he a figment of someone's imagination, a man hiding behind an alias, or just a Lovelock who was actually born abroad who came to England after 1891? All three scenarios seem unlikely. And then serendipity strikes - after a fashion. The 'Oxford Weekly News ' of 29 October 1890 carried a short, somewhat distressing item: "An inquest was held on Friday by Dr Danford Thomas upon Emily Rushbrook, a girl of 23, of Lancing-street, Euston, London, who died from the effects of burns. Apparently there was a quarrel between herself and her sister Alice, in the presence of the latter's sweetheart, a man named Lovelock. Lovelock seems to be the only one who can give an account of the occurrence, but from his version it would appear that the two girls began a squabble, in the course of which a paraffin lamp was upset, and the dresses of both were set on fire. Emily rushed into the street with the flames shooting two or three feet over her head, and although Police-constable Collins managed to extinguish them she succumbed to her injuries. Alice was also badly burned, but is expected to recover. The jury returned a verdict of 'Accidental death '." Ten years later and Alfred married Alice Rushbrook in the Pancras RD in Apr-Jun 1900 (ref 1b 12). A dreadful tragedy, but Alfred obviously stood by his sweetheart. But then what became of them? There are no births in the GRO Index, so perhaps they had no family; they do not seem to appear in the 1911 Census or the 1939 Register; and the only death entry that might be relevant is of a 36 year old Alfred in 1903 in the Romford RD in Essex. They are not included in our ships passengers data, so what indeed became of them? Any ideas anyone? Regards, Graham

Hello all, FamilySearch has recently expanded the content of its 'New York Passenger Lists 1820-1891' record. Lovelock and Loveluck data has been extracted and added to the table accessible through our 'Lovelock Records from the USA'page: http://lovelock.free.fr/USA-records.html The table now contains 54 Lovelocks, 2 Lovlocks and 2 Lovelucks, compared to 22 Lovelocks and 1 Loveluck in the previous version. The names of the new additions are highlighted in red. Any help to identify which tree these new entries belong to will be much appreciated, as will the details of any candidates for entry that have been missed in the latest trawling exercise. Regards, Graham

Well FreeBMD says they have 6090 Lovelock births from 1837 to 1983 and I shouldn't think there will be more than that in the rest of the world, so little chance of quads in that case. However, that number of births suggests a reasonably high probability of a triplet birth so having two sets and assuming twice the number of births worldwide sort of fits. Which means there probably aren't any others to come to light. Graham ________________________________ From: tns750--- via LOVELOCK <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Sent: 27 July 2018 17:32:22 To: lovelock@rootsweb.com Cc: tns750@aol.com Subject: [LOVELOCK] Re: Multiple births Forgot to say - the earliest report using the word quadruplet I found in the BNA was in the Dublin Medical Press Wednesday 17 October 1860 - which just gives the stats of their rarity: "1 in 129, 172" Not sure how they arrived at that - or from what corpus of data. So , on average, one would surmise their might have been an instance in a surname which has a total of more than 130,000 births 1837 -2017. Is Lovelock in that category ? Don't think so. My Hemps(h)all instance among a total of only about 2000 births of those names was therefore rather unusual. Steve Tanner -----Original Message----- From: Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> To: lovelock <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Sent: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 14:25 Subject: [LOVELOCK] Multiple births Hello all, Multiple Lovelock births are by no means rare, although most only concern the arrival of twins. Indeed my great-great-grandparents Thomas Lovelock and Sarah Dudman managed to produce three consecutive sets of twins. I know of two sets of Lovelock triplets born alive - coincidentally both in the Jul-Sep quarter of 1899, one in Leyton, Essex, the other in Staines, Middlesex - but of no others and certainly of no quadruplets. Are there, or have there ever been, any others? Regards, Graham _______________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe and Archives https://mailinglists.rootsweb.com/listindexes/search/lovelock Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community _______________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe and Archives https://mailinglists.rootsweb.com/listindexes/search/lovelock Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Hello Steve, Yes I did find that newspaper entry, but we already knew about the family thanks to the GRO Online facility now revealing mother's maiden names. That would have helped with your Hempshall entries as well. I tried a few variables in searches but found nothing apart from a similar entry about the Essex trio, but of course there may have been births outside the U.K. which might not have come to light. Thanks for the input, especially regarding the use of terms. Regards, Graham ________________________________ From: tns750--- via LOVELOCK <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Sent: 27 July 2018 17:16:41 To: lovelock@rootsweb.com Cc: tns750@aol.com Subject: [LOVELOCK] Re: Multiple births Hi Graham I presume you got the Staines trio from the British Newspaper archive - below? Middlesex & Surrey Express - Saturday 29 July 1899 "BIRTH OF TRIPLETS AT STAINES. ON Sunday, Mrs. Lovelock, the wife of a journeyman blacksmithresiding at Birch Green, Staines, gave birth to three children, who, with themother, are doing well. We understand that through the instrumentality of the Rev. J. R. Armstrong, vicar ofStaines, the Queens’ bounty hasbeen obtained. There are three other children to the family, the eldest beingonly six years of age. " Earlier references to multiples are made harder by the fact that the words quadruplets and higher were not in general use till the 20th century - in fact, even triplets was I think a relatively new term in 1899. For quads, in the BNA you wouldhave to search for "lovelock gave birth to four children" or some such ponderous search term combination - I've just done it, but no hits on a quick try. The other way is through FREEBMD, in case one happens to come across four entries for a surname birth with the same references numbers (pages, volumes etc). Often , they will have no given name , just male or female, indicating that all died. I 've come across one instance which I suspected were quads in my Hempsall One name study: Births Sep 1872 (>99%) HEMPSHALL Male Lincoln 7a 518 HEMPSHALL Female Lincoln 7a 518 HEMPSHALL Female Lincoln 7a 518 HEMPSHALL Female Lincoln 7a 518 Reluctant to apply for and pay for all four certificates to confirm this, I left the search on hold for quite a while, till I serependitiously (?)I found the birth mentioned in the BNA . The report did not mention the word quads, just that the wife of a labourer named Hempshall, residing in Saxilby, gave birth to four live children. However, they all died within a few days. Friday 23 August 1872 :Stamford Mercury I suppose the only way to discover quads by this method would be to make a spreadsheet of all Lovelock births, say, 1837 onwards, and check either laboriously through for a reference four times repeated (there must be some way of doing this quickly- ask an "EXCELPERT"! You might try searching for LOVELOCK MALE to find registrations of unbaptised infants , given that invariably at least one of the four would have died quickly. They wouldn't have registered any all -four -stillborn ones I suppose, but not sure they'd have dealt with a mixture of survivors and non-survivors, if there were any such cases. Might try a few oblique searches on the BNA e.g. Lovelock gave birth to or lovelock all died etc. Steve Tanner -----Original Message----- From: Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> To: lovelock <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Sent: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 14:25 Subject: [LOVELOCK] Multiple births Hello all, Multiple Lovelock births are by no means rare, although most only concern the arrival of twins. Indeed my great-great-grandparents Thomas Lovelock and Sarah Dudman managed to produce three consecutive sets of twins. I know of two sets of Lovelock triplets born alive - coincidentally both in the Jul-Sep quarter of 1899, one in Leyton, Essex, the other in Staines, Middlesex - but of no others and certainly of no quadruplets. Are there, or have there ever been, any others? Regards, Graham _______________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe and Archives https://mailinglists.rootsweb.com/listindexes/search/lovelock Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community _______________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe and Archives https://mailinglists.rootsweb.com/listindexes/search/lovelock Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Forgot to say - the earliest report using the word quadruplet I found in the BNA was in the Dublin Medical Press Wednesday 17 October 1860 - which just gives the stats of their rarity: "1 in 129, 172" Not sure how they arrived at that - or from what corpus of data. So , on average, one would surmise their might have been an instance in a surname which has a total of more than 130,000 births 1837 -2017. Is Lovelock in that category ? Don't think so. My Hemps(h)all instance among a total of only about 2000 births of those names was therefore rather unusual. Steve Tanner -----Original Message----- From: Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> To: lovelock <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Sent: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 14:25 Subject: [LOVELOCK] Multiple births Hello all, Multiple Lovelock births are by no means rare, although most only concern the arrival of twins. Indeed my great-great-grandparents Thomas Lovelock and Sarah Dudman managed to produce three consecutive sets of twins. I know of two sets of Lovelock triplets born alive - coincidentally both in the Jul-Sep quarter of 1899, one in Leyton, Essex, the other in Staines, Middlesex - but of no others and certainly of no quadruplets. Are there, or have there ever been, any others? Regards, Graham _______________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe and Archives https://mailinglists.rootsweb.com/listindexes/search/lovelock Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Hi Graham I presume you got the Staines trio from the British Newspaper archive - below? Middlesex & Surrey Express - Saturday 29 July 1899 "BIRTH OF TRIPLETS AT STAINES. ON Sunday, Mrs. Lovelock, the wife of a journeyman blacksmithresiding at Birch Green, Staines, gave birth to three children, who, with themother, are doing well. We understand that through the instrumentality of the Rev. J. R. Armstrong, vicar ofStaines, the Queens’ bounty hasbeen obtained. There are three other children to the family, the eldest beingonly six years of age. " Earlier references to multiples are made harder by the fact that the words quadruplets and higher were not in general use till the 20th century - in fact, even triplets was I think a relatively new term in 1899. For quads, in the BNA you wouldhave to search for "lovelock gave birth to four children" or some such ponderous search term combination - I've just done it, but no hits on a quick try. The other way is through FREEBMD, in case one happens to come across four entries for a surname birth with the same references numbers (pages, volumes etc). Often , they will have no given name , just male or female, indicating that all died. I 've come across one instance which I suspected were quads in my Hempsall One name study: Births Sep 1872 (>99%) HEMPSHALL Male Lincoln 7a 518 HEMPSHALL Female Lincoln 7a 518 HEMPSHALL Female Lincoln 7a 518 HEMPSHALL Female Lincoln 7a 518 Reluctant to apply for and pay for all four certificates to confirm this, I left the search on hold for quite a while, till I serependitiously (?)I found the birth mentioned in the BNA . The report did not mention the word quads, just that the wife of a labourer named Hempshall, residing in Saxilby, gave birth to four live children. However, they all died within a few days. Friday 23 August 1872 :Stamford Mercury I suppose the only way to discover quads by this method would be to make a spreadsheet of all Lovelock births, say, 1837 onwards, and check either laboriously through for a reference four times repeated (there must be some way of doing this quickly- ask an "EXCELPERT"! You might try searching for LOVELOCK MALE to find registrations of unbaptised infants , given that invariably at least one of the four would have died quickly. They wouldn't have registered any all -four -stillborn ones I suppose, but not sure they'd have dealt with a mixture of survivors and non-survivors, if there were any such cases. Might try a few oblique searches on the BNA e.g. Lovelock gave birth to or lovelock all died etc. Steve Tanner -----Original Message----- From: Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> To: lovelock <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Sent: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 14:25 Subject: [LOVELOCK] Multiple births Hello all, Multiple Lovelock births are by no means rare, although most only concern the arrival of twins. Indeed my great-great-grandparents Thomas Lovelock and Sarah Dudman managed to produce three consecutive sets of twins. I know of two sets of Lovelock triplets born alive - coincidentally both in the Jul-Sep quarter of 1899, one in Leyton, Essex, the other in Staines, Middlesex - but of no others and certainly of no quadruplets. Are there, or have there ever been, any others? Regards, Graham _______________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe and Archives https://mailinglists.rootsweb.com/listindexes/search/lovelock Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Hello all, Multiple Lovelock births are by no means rare, although most only concern the arrival of twins. Indeed my great-great-grandparents Thomas Lovelock and Sarah Dudman managed to produce three consecutive sets of twins. I know of two sets of Lovelock triplets born alive - coincidentally both in the Jul-Sep quarter of 1899, one in Leyton, Essex, the other in Staines, Middlesex - but of no others and certainly of no quadruplets. Are there, or have there ever been, any others? Regards, Graham

Well, it does and it doesn't, Helen. At least we now have the names of his parents, but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any record of their marriage, and they do not appear in either the Welsh or English 1901 Census records. If John Godfrey was passed into the care of Barnardo's presumably both of his parents had died. I can't find any candidate GRO entry for Emily, but a Thomas Jenkin Loveluck died in Jan-Mar 1910 in the Neath RD. No other likely Thomas entry apart from that, although Thomas Jenkin Loveluck does not seem to have a birth or marriage entry, so that doesn't seem to get us anywhere. Rather odd also that John Godfrey declared on 12 Jun 1935 that he was born in Abertillery, but on 24 Apr 1937 he simply said England. Don't we just love mysteries like this! Regards, Graham ________________________________ From: Helen Norton <helmar@bigpond.net.au> Sent: 20 July 2018 11:57 To: 'Lovelock family history' Subject: [LOVELOCK] Re: Can we place this couple? Here's more info, not sure it helps! >>Ancestry also has a record of John Godfrey Lovelock arriving in Detroit, Michigan, Aged 31 years, 7 months. Born Abertilley, Wales. Notes: Was deported from USA (visa expired), permission to reapply granted. Lived with friend, John Alexander 1930 -1933 (USA) Going to live with friend, William Nolan. Arrived Montreal Aug 1911. >> a Naturalisation Record of a John Godfrey in Michigan, index card only, no further info dob 4/11/1902 >> and a marriage entry for a John G in Wayne County, Michigan. Unfortunately I do not have the appropriate Ancestry subscription to be able to see the dates for those three entries. 24th April 1937 John G Lovelock aged 31, Occupation Labourer Fathers name: Thomas Lovelock Mothers name: Emily Jones Birthplace: England Mary Bromley, aged 31, occupation Accountant Father: Harry Bromley Mother: Susanna Moxham Birthplace: Ontario Neither previously married. Helen -----Original Message----- From: Graham Lovelock [mailto:lovelockgraham@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, 19 July 2018 7:07 PM To: lovelocks6@btinternet.com; Lovelock family history Subject: [LOVELOCK] Re: Can we place this couple? Another piece of the jigsaw perhaps, Sue. William Sidney Slater went to Canada on the same sailing as John Godfrey. There was a John Godfrey Maldwin James born in the Bedwellty RD (includes Abertillery) in Oct-Nov 1902, but the 1911 Census suggests he might be the son of William Arthur James and Agnes Davies (nee Jones), and can therefore be discounted. Ancestry has a record of John G Lovelock on the Electoral Roll of Wellington, Ontario in 1968. That's after the man in Arizona died, so although the man in Ontario may be the Barnardo's boy, he obviously can't be the man we are after. Does anyone? But we may be on to something here. Our 1940 US Census data includes John and Mary Lovelock in Detroit. John declared his birthplace to be 'Wales, England' (sic), and in 1935 he declared he was living in Windsor, Canada. Turning to FamilySearch and hey! presto! - there's his immigration record: John Godfrey Lovelock, age 31 years and 7 months, born in Abertillery, Wales, late of Windsor, Ontario. He had landed in Montreal in August 1911. He had apparently lived in the US from June 1930 to June 1933, but obviously missed the 1930 Census. The Manifest entry of his arrival in the US is dated 12 June 1935. So our man must be the Barnardo's boy, The only aberration in the record seems to be his claim in 1940 to be only 33 years old. Alas, for some reason the birth would seem to have never been registered, so unless anyone has information not in the public domain I think we must close this one out. Regards, Graham ________________________________ From: SUE LOVELOCK via LOVELOCK <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Sent: 19 July 2018 07:31 To: Lovelock family history Cc: SUE LOVELOCK Subject: [LOVELOCK] Re: Can we place this couple? Hello Graham, The 1911 census shows a John Godfrey Lovelock living in North Weald Bassett, Essex, with a couple called William and Emma Latchford. The unusual thing about this census record is that the relationship to head of family is shown as "From Dr Barnardo Boarder" and there is another boy in the same household, William Sidney Slater, with the same relationship entry. The record states that John Godfrey was born in Monmouth Abertilley [sic] and was 8 years old. But that doesn't get us very far, because the only Lovelock family who were in Abertillery in 1911 were Francis and Harriet with 2 children, and they had obviously moved there fairly recently from Reading as the older child was born there. And there were no Lovelocks (or Lovelucks) in Abertillery in 1901. So John Godfrey's origins remain elusive....unless someone else has more information? Regards Sue Lovelock ----Original message---- From : lovelockgraham@hotmail.com Date : 18/07/2018 - 19:04 (GMTST) To : lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject : [LOVELOCK] Can we place this couple? Hello all, In the Evergreen Memorial Park in Tucson, Arizona are the memorials to Jack G Lovelock and, I assume, his wife Mary E Lovelock. The Find A Grave website declares that Jack was born on the 5 Nov 1902 in England, the son of Thomas, and died on 21 Mar 1951 following a gas explosion. He had apparently lived in Tucson for 4 years. Mary was born on 9 Nov 1905 and died on 14 Feb 1994, according to the US Social Security Index. His memorial names him 'Husband and father', whilst hers refers to 'Our beautiful loving mother' so they clearly had issue. Now we come to the difficult bit. There is no birth of a Jack G or John G Lovelock in the GRO Birth Index in 1902, nor indeed from 1889 to 1909. Our Ships' Passengers data shows that an 8-year-old J G Lovelock sailed from London to Quebec in Canada on 29 Jun 1911, but he appeared to be alone, which was a little hard to believe, and sure enough further enquiry shows that he was amongst a group of Barnardo's children. Can anyone link this couple to any one of our family trees? Regards, Graham _______________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Lovelock Family History<http://lovelock.free.fr/> lovelock.free.fr Purpose The purpose of this Web Site is to collect together family history information concerning families with the Lovelock name, and related versions of it. Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe and Archives https://mailinglists.rootsweb.com/listindexes/search/lovelock Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community _______________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe and Archives https://mailinglists.rootsweb.com/listindexes/search/lovelock Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community _______________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe and Archives https://mailinglists.rootsweb.com/listindexes/search/lovelock Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community _______________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe and Archives https://mailinglists.rootsweb.com/listindexes/search/lovelock Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Here's more info, not sure it helps! >>Ancestry also has a record of John Godfrey Lovelock arriving in Detroit, Michigan, Aged 31 years, 7 months. Born Abertilley, Wales. Notes: Was deported from USA (visa expired), permission to reapply granted. Lived with friend, John Alexander 1930 -1933 (USA) Going to live with friend, William Nolan. Arrived Montreal Aug 1911. >> a Naturalisation Record of a John Godfrey in Michigan, index card only, no further info dob 4/11/1902 >> and a marriage entry for a John G in Wayne County, Michigan. Unfortunately I do not have the appropriate Ancestry subscription to be able to see the dates for those three entries. 24th April 1937 John G Lovelock aged 31, Occupation Labourer Fathers name: Thomas Lovelock Mothers name: Emily Jones Birthplace: England Mary Bromley, aged 31, occupation Accountant Father: Harry Bromley Mother: Susanna Moxham Birthplace: Ontario Neither previously married. Helen -----Original Message----- From: Graham Lovelock [mailto:lovelockgraham@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, 19 July 2018 7:07 PM To: lovelocks6@btinternet.com; Lovelock family history Subject: [LOVELOCK] Re: Can we place this couple? Another piece of the jigsaw perhaps, Sue. William Sidney Slater went to Canada on the same sailing as John Godfrey. There was a John Godfrey Maldwin James born in the Bedwellty RD (includes Abertillery) in Oct-Nov 1902, but the 1911 Census suggests he might be the son of William Arthur James and Agnes Davies (nee Jones), and can therefore be discounted. Ancestry has a record of John G Lovelock on the Electoral Roll of Wellington, Ontario in 1968. That's after the man in Arizona died, so although the man in Ontario may be the Barnardo's boy, he obviously can't be the man we are after. Does anyone? But we may be on to something here. Our 1940 US Census data includes John and Mary Lovelock in Detroit. John declared his birthplace to be 'Wales, England' (sic), and in 1935 he declared he was living in Windsor, Canada. Turning to FamilySearch and hey! presto! - there's his immigration record: John Godfrey Lovelock, age 31 years and 7 months, born in Abertillery, Wales, late of Windsor, Ontario. He had landed in Montreal in August 1911. He had apparently lived in the US from June 1930 to June 1933, but obviously missed the 1930 Census. The Manifest entry of his arrival in the US is dated 12 June 1935. So our man must be the Barnardo's boy, The only aberration in the record seems to be his claim in 1940 to be only 33 years old. Alas, for some reason the birth would seem to have never been registered, so unless anyone has information not in the public domain I think we must close this one out. Regards, Graham ________________________________ From: SUE LOVELOCK via LOVELOCK <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Sent: 19 July 2018 07:31 To: Lovelock family history Cc: SUE LOVELOCK Subject: [LOVELOCK] Re: Can we place this couple? Hello Graham, The 1911 census shows a John Godfrey Lovelock living in North Weald Bassett, Essex, with a couple called William and Emma Latchford. The unusual thing about this census record is that the relationship to head of family is shown as "From Dr Barnardo Boarder" and there is another boy in the same household, William Sidney Slater, with the same relationship entry. The record states that John Godfrey was born in Monmouth Abertilley [sic] and was 8 years old. But that doesn't get us very far, because the only Lovelock family who were in Abertillery in 1911 were Francis and Harriet with 2 children, and they had obviously moved there fairly recently from Reading as the older child was born there. And there were no Lovelocks (or Lovelucks) in Abertillery in 1901. So John Godfrey's origins remain elusive....unless someone else has more information? Regards Sue Lovelock ----Original message---- From : lovelockgraham@hotmail.com Date : 18/07/2018 - 19:04 (GMTST) To : lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject : [LOVELOCK] Can we place this couple? Hello all, In the Evergreen Memorial Park in Tucson, Arizona are the memorials to Jack G Lovelock and, I assume, his wife Mary E Lovelock. The Find A Grave website declares that Jack was born on the 5 Nov 1902 in England, the son of Thomas, and died on 21 Mar 1951 following a gas explosion. He had apparently lived in Tucson for 4 years. Mary was born on 9 Nov 1905 and died on 14 Feb 1994, according to the US Social Security Index. His memorial names him 'Husband and father', whilst hers refers to 'Our beautiful loving mother' so they clearly had issue. Now we come to the difficult bit. There is no birth of a Jack G or John G Lovelock in the GRO Birth Index in 1902, nor indeed from 1889 to 1909. Our Ships' Passengers data shows that an 8-year-old J G Lovelock sailed from London to Quebec in Canada on 29 Jun 1911, but he appeared to be alone, which was a little hard to believe, and sure enough further enquiry shows that he was amongst a group of Barnardo's children. Can anyone link this couple to any one of our family trees? Regards, Graham _______________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Lovelock Family History<http://lovelock.free.fr/> lovelock.free.fr Purpose The purpose of this Web Site is to collect together family history information concerning families with the Lovelock name, and related versions of it. Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe and Archives https://mailinglists.rootsweb.com/listindexes/search/lovelock Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community _______________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe and Archives https://mailinglists.rootsweb.com/listindexes/search/lovelock Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community _______________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe and Archives https://mailinglists.rootsweb.com/listindexes/search/lovelock Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Hi Graham, I happen to live in Tucson, AZ, and found the funeral notice for Jack G Lovelock in the archives of the Tucson Daily Citizen dated 23 March 1951. (That was an evening paper and is no longer published.) Quoting from that: "He lived at 2617 E. Hedrick dr., and is survived by his wife Mary; a daughter, Joyce Sue; and a son, Larry John, all of Tucson." A further search of TDC for a Joyce Lovelock shows that on 24 July 1965 she was a bridesmaid at a wedding in Tucson. From TDC, Larry J. Lovelock of Tucson obtained a BS in business administration from Arizona State University (which is in Phoenix) on 26 July 1968. That would make him about 4 or so when his father died. I also found in TDC a death notice for a Henry Bromley living 2617 E. Hedrick dr, Tucson in the paper dated 15 Jan 1959. He was 84, and a native of Canada. Came to Tucson in 1951 (the year Jack G died). "Father of Mrs Mary Lovelock, Tucson; Joseph, Las Vegas, Nev.; James, Sierra Vista, and Mrs Rita Newman, London, Ontario, Canada." Sierra Vista is about 70 miles SE of Tucson. I then searched the archives of the other Tucson paper, the Arizona Daily Star, and found Mary's death notice. "Lovelock, Mary Elizabeth, 87, of Las Vegas, Nevada, died February 14, 1994. Survived by son, Larry Lovelock; daughter, Joyce Montoya, both of NV; three grandchildren. She was the owner of Nu-Look Beauty Shop in Tucson from 1950 to 1970." I located an ad for the beauty shop, dated 1956, where a Betty Pierce and Mary Lovelock were described as "Operators". So (1994) Joyce is married. I located Joyce's obituary in the Reno Gazette Journal, Reno, NV, 14 Aug 1998. "Joyce Sue Lovelock Montoya, 55, died Aug 10, 1998, at her residence. A native of Detroit, she was born June 22, 1943, to John G. and Mary Bromley Lovelock, and had lived in Reno for the past six years, coming from Las Vegas. She was a special education teacher and had a master's degree in teaching. Surviving is brother Larry Lovelock of Las Vegas." I was unable to locate her marriage, or what happened to her husband. Apparently she had no children. I believe I have located the son, Larry, alive in LV, and have left him a message. However, most people in the US are suspicious of strange messages out of the blue, so I may never receive a reply! This does not answer your original question, but I hope it helps in some way. The images I have referred to (and some others) can be downloaded from https://www.dropbox.com/s/ury67avfy8nkyjj/JGLovelock.zip?dl=0 . Please use these for accuracy. Regards, and keep up the good work. David On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 11:04 AM Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> wrote: > Hello all, > > > In the Evergreen Memorial Park in Tucson, Arizona are the memorials to > Jack G Lovelock and, I assume, his wife Mary E Lovelock. > > > The Find A Grave website declares that Jack was born on the 5 Nov 1902 in > England, the son of Thomas, and died on 21 Mar 1951 following a gas > explosion. He had apparently lived in Tucson for 4 years. > > > Mary was born on 9 Nov 1905 and died on 14 Feb 1994, according to the US > Social Security Index. > > > His memorial names him 'Husband and father', whilst hers refers to 'Our > beautiful loving mother' so they clearly had issue. > > > Now we come to the difficult bit. There is no birth of a Jack G or John G > Lovelock in the GRO Birth Index in 1902, nor indeed from 1889 to 1909. > > > Our Ships' Passengers data shows that an 8-year-old J G Lovelock sailed > from London to Quebec in Canada on 29 Jun 1911, but he appeared to be > alone, which was a little hard to believe, and sure enough further enquiry > shows that he was amongst a group of Barnardo's children. > > > Can anyone link this couple to any one of our family trees? > > > Regards, > > > Graham > > _______________________________________________ > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Lovelock family history Web pages: > http://lovelock.free.fr/ > Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: > http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe and Archives > https://mailinglists.rootsweb.com/listindexes/search/lovelock > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: > https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb > community >

Another piece of the jigsaw perhaps, Sue. William Sidney Slater went to Canada on the same sailing as John Godfrey. There was a John Godfrey Maldwin James born in the Bedwellty RD (includes Abertillery) in Oct-Nov 1902, but the 1911 Census suggests he might be the son of William Arthur James and Agnes Davies (nee Jones), and can therefore be discounted. Ancestry has a record of John G Lovelock on the Electoral Roll of Wellington, Ontario in 1968. That's after the man in Arizona died, so although the man in Ontario may be the Barnardo's boy, he obviously can't be the man we are after. Ancestry also has a record of John Godfrey Lovelock arriving in Detroit, Michigan, a Naturalisation Record of a John Godfrey in Michigan, and a marriage entry for a John G in Wayne County, Michigan. Unfortunately I do not have the appropriate Ancestry subscription to be able to see the dates for those three entries. Does anyone? But we may be on to something here. Our 1940 US Census data includes John and Mary Lovelock in Detroit. John declared his birthplace to be 'Wales, England' (sic), and in 1935 he declared he was living in Windsor, Canada. Turning to FamilySearch and hey! presto! - there's his immigration record: John Godfrey Lovelock, age 31 years and 7 months, born in Abertillery, Wales, late of Windsor, Ontario. He had landed in Montreal in August 1911. He had apparently lived in the US from June 1930 to June 1933, but obviously missed the 1930 Census. The Manifest entry of his arrival in the US is dated 12 June 1935. So our man must be the Barnardo's boy, The only aberration in the record seems to be his claim in 1940 to be only 33 years old. Alas, for some reason the birth would seem to have never been registered, so unless anyone has information not in the public domain I think we must close this one out. Regards, Graham ________________________________ From: SUE LOVELOCK via LOVELOCK <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Sent: 19 July 2018 07:31 To: Lovelock family history Cc: SUE LOVELOCK Subject: [LOVELOCK] Re: Can we place this couple? Hello Graham, The 1911 census shows a John Godfrey Lovelock living in North Weald Bassett, Essex, with a couple called William and Emma Latchford. The unusual thing about this census record is that the relationship to head of family is shown as "From Dr Barnardo Boarder" and there is another boy in the same household, William Sidney Slater, with the same relationship entry. The record states that John Godfrey was born in Monmouth Abertilley [sic] and was 8 years old. But that doesn't get us very far, because the only Lovelock family who were in Abertillery in 1911 were Francis and Harriet with 2 children, and they had obviously moved there fairly recently from Reading as the older child was born there. And there were no Lovelocks (or Lovelucks) in Abertillery in 1901. So John Godfrey's origins remain elusive....unless someone else has more information? Regards Sue Lovelock ----Original message---- From : lovelockgraham@hotmail.com Date : 18/07/2018 - 19:04 (GMTST) To : lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject : [LOVELOCK] Can we place this couple? Hello all, In the Evergreen Memorial Park in Tucson, Arizona are the memorials to Jack G Lovelock and, I assume, his wife Mary E Lovelock. The Find A Grave website declares that Jack was born on the 5 Nov 1902 in England, the son of Thomas, and died on 21 Mar 1951 following a gas explosion. He had apparently lived in Tucson for 4 years. Mary was born on 9 Nov 1905 and died on 14 Feb 1994, according to the US Social Security Index. His memorial names him 'Husband and father', whilst hers refers to 'Our beautiful loving mother' so they clearly had issue. Now we come to the difficult bit. There is no birth of a Jack G or John G Lovelock in the GRO Birth Index in 1902, nor indeed from 1889 to 1909. Our Ships' Passengers data shows that an 8-year-old J G Lovelock sailed from London to Quebec in Canada on 29 Jun 1911, but he appeared to be alone, which was a little hard to believe, and sure enough further enquiry shows that he was amongst a group of Barnardo's children. Can anyone link this couple to any one of our family trees? Regards, Graham _______________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Lovelock Family History<http://lovelock.free.fr/> lovelock.free.fr Purpose The purpose of this Web Site is to collect together family history information concerning families with the Lovelock name, and related versions of it. Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe and Archives https://mailinglists.rootsweb.com/listindexes/search/lovelock Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community _______________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe and Archives https://mailinglists.rootsweb.com/listindexes/search/lovelock Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Hello Graham, The 1911 census shows a John Godfrey Lovelock living in North Weald Bassett, Essex, with a couple called William and Emma Latchford. The unusual thing about this census record is that the relationship to head of family is shown as "From Dr Barnardo Boarder" and there is another boy in the same household, William Sidney Slater, with the same relationship entry. The record states that John Godfrey was born in Monmouth Abertilley [sic] and was 8 years old. But that doesn't get us very far, because the only Lovelock family who were in Abertillery in 1911 were Francis and Harriet with 2 children, and they had obviously moved there fairly recently from Reading as the older child was born there. And there were no Lovelocks (or Lovelucks) in Abertillery in 1901. So John Godfrey's origins remain elusive....unless someone else has more information? Regards Sue Lovelock ----Original message---- From : lovelockgraham@hotmail.com Date : 18/07/2018 - 19:04 (GMTST) To : lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject : [LOVELOCK] Can we place this couple? Hello all, In the Evergreen Memorial Park in Tucson, Arizona are the memorials to Jack G Lovelock and, I assume, his wife Mary E Lovelock. The Find A Grave website declares that Jack was born on the 5 Nov 1902 in England, the son of Thomas, and died on 21 Mar 1951 following a gas explosion. He had apparently lived in Tucson for 4 years. Mary was born on 9 Nov 1905 and died on 14 Feb 1994, according to the US Social Security Index. His memorial names him 'Husband and father', whilst hers refers to 'Our beautiful loving mother' so they clearly had issue. Now we come to the difficult bit. There is no birth of a Jack G or John G Lovelock in the GRO Birth Index in 1902, nor indeed from 1889 to 1909. Our Ships' Passengers data shows that an 8-year-old J G Lovelock sailed from London to Quebec in Canada on 29 Jun 1911, but he appeared to be alone, which was a little hard to believe, and sure enough further enquiry shows that he was amongst a group of Barnardo's children. Can anyone link this couple to any one of our family trees? Regards, Graham _______________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe and Archives https://mailinglists.rootsweb.com/listindexes/search/lovelock Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Hello all, In the Evergreen Memorial Park in Tucson, Arizona are the memorials to Jack G Lovelock and, I assume, his wife Mary E Lovelock. The Find A Grave website declares that Jack was born on the 5 Nov 1902 in England, the son of Thomas, and died on 21 Mar 1951 following a gas explosion. He had apparently lived in Tucson for 4 years. Mary was born on 9 Nov 1905 and died on 14 Feb 1994, according to the US Social Security Index. His memorial names him 'Husband and father', whilst hers refers to 'Our beautiful loving mother' so they clearly had issue. Now we come to the difficult bit. There is no birth of a Jack G or John G Lovelock in the GRO Birth Index in 1902, nor indeed from 1889 to 1909. Our Ships' Passengers data shows that an 8-year-old J G Lovelock sailed from London to Quebec in Canada on 29 Jun 1911, but he appeared to be alone, which was a little hard to believe, and sure enough further enquiry shows that he was amongst a group of Barnardo's children. Can anyone link this couple to any one of our family trees? Regards, Graham