They had been married for 27 years, Penny, so a child every two years on average is perfectly possible of course, especially if there was a set of twins in there to help the average out. However, the Census form is quite explicit and asks for 'Children born alive to present Marriage' with a separate column below that heading for 'Total Children Born Alive'. The words in bold here are also in bold on the form. So if Henry and Alice were including stillbirths they were being, strictly speaking, untruthful. Stillbirths have only been registerable in England since 1 Jul 1927. There is no index of the births, and copies of the certificates are only permitted in exceptional circumstances, and then only at the discretion of the Registrar General. Before 1926 the only relevant regulation was apparently a requirement established in 1874 for a 'declaration of stillbirth' to be obtained. This was to prevent a child who had been born alive but died a short time afterwards being buried as a stillborn, and the parents therefore avoiding the expense of a Birth Certificate and a Death Certificate. I've no idea what form the declarations took, but there doesn't seem to be any central record of them either. Regards, Graham ________________________________ From: Penny Wolswinkel <perwinkle9@gmail.com> Sent: 11 July 2018 00:23 To: Lovelock family history Subject: [LOVELOCK] Re: Unlucky ..... or Untruthful? Over what length of marriage? They could have been stillbirths...when were they first recorded? Sent from my iPad > On 11 Jul 2018, at 12:48 am, Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Hello all, > > > Possibly the unluckiest family to appear in our records is that of Henry Croucher and Alice Lovelock in the Kingsclere Line. When Henry filled in his Return for the 1911 UK Census he recorded that he and Alice had had 13 children, of whom no less than 10 had died. > > > HOWEVER, using the GRO Online Index of Births which now enables us to identify the mother's maiden name for all legitimate births in the Index only flags up 6 births to Henry and Alice. > > > So why would Henry enter 13? > > > Regards, > > > Graham > > _______________________________________________ > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Lovelock family history Web pages: > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lovelock.free.fr_&d=DwIFAg&c=kKqjBR9KKWaWpMhASkPbOg&r=hFYkjJ0Abymve4FOiSRpElWZy6phqmjQEUJupyUnsn0&m=yxbzxBAbAjmPW6LC7SnwvqRl8UOoDcH4Hd1RUiGtPlQ&s=VZ4oAmctWbgBgZSp1vpwQmJfIQ_-RgSuMXmzzINur_c&e= > Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__loveluck.net_LovelockTrees_&d=DwIFAg&c=kKqjBR9KKWaWpMhASkPbOg&r=hFYkjJ0Abymve4FOiSRpElWZy6phqmjQEUJupyUnsn0&m=yxbzxBAbAjmPW6LC7SnwvqRl8UOoDcH4Hd1RUiGtPlQ&s=TCS_ovRszWh80pvhCJ-W-IlQqkN0esXqEr44ZYhm8is&e= > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bit.ly_rootswebpref&d=DwIFAg&c=kKqjBR9KKWaWpMhASkPbOg&r=hFYkjJ0Abymve4FOiSRpElWZy6phqmjQEUJupyUnsn0&m=yxbzxBAbAjmPW6LC7SnwvqRl8UOoDcH4Hd1RUiGtPlQ&s=X0W67A_r_JdBc-PcASxFbetsHC1VzOCVUlG3-S8QR20&e= > > Unsubscribe and Archives https://mailinglists.rootsweb.com/listindexes/search/lovelock/ > > Privacy Statement: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ancstry.me_2JWBOdY&d=DwIFAg&c=kKqjBR9KKWaWpMhASkPbOg&r=hFYkjJ0Abymve4FOiSRpElWZy6phqmjQEUJupyUnsn0&m=yxbzxBAbAjmPW6LC7SnwvqRl8UOoDcH4Hd1RUiGtPlQ&s=1IBrfW7QwHxXZ5wG22DD7NZrGmXE7z2F1IEBEWzRsvY&e= Terms and Conditions: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ancstry.me_2HDBym9&d=DwIFAg&c=kKqjBR9KKWaWpMhASkPbOg&r=hFYkjJ0Abymve4FOiSRpElWZy6phqmjQEUJupyUnsn0&m=yxbzxBAbAjmPW6LC7SnwvqRl8UOoDcH4Hd1RUiGtPlQ&s=ALeMvNZ8OLc6yBtDrAbeP0KoltdRH6bdpTI4WB1Mwms&e= > > Rootsweb Blog: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rootsweb.blog&d=DwIFAg&c=kKqjBR9KKWaWpMhASkPbOg&r=hFYkjJ0Abymve4FOiSRpElWZy6phqmjQEUJupyUnsn0&m=yxbzxBAbAjmPW6LC7SnwvqRl8UOoDcH4Hd1RUiGtPlQ&s=rKR3Oa3yR6hfFXs6wMZ0L5YWgTxyggeeRz802SSHHW4&e= > > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community _______________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lovelock.free.fr_&d=DwIFAw&c=kKqjBR9KKWaWpMhASkPbOg&r=hFYkjJ0Abymve4FOiSRpElWZy6phqmjQEUJupyUnsn0&m=ARhMwyuMnwXdshdWb0RVjgxPfMHYpC_X3X_GIXcrB6M&s=S6o9j2qsUgwLAbs8MIp__9mdxzqN7PbnOWrGb8J9NHs&e= Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__loveluck.net_LovelockTrees_&d=DwIFAw&c=kKqjBR9KKWaWpMhASkPbOg&r=hFYkjJ0Abymve4FOiSRpElWZy6phqmjQEUJupyUnsn0&m=ARhMwyuMnwXdshdWb0RVjgxPfMHYpC_X3X_GIXcrB6M&s=FX4AISXXXsBW3ef55WmGJaKqSf5UYHw63zNom-6eOZ8&e= _______________________________________________ Email preferences: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bit.ly_rootswebpref&d=DwIFAw&c=kKqjBR9KKWaWpMhASkPbOg&r=hFYkjJ0Abymve4FOiSRpElWZy6phqmjQEUJupyUnsn0&m=ARhMwyuMnwXdshdWb0RVjgxPfMHYpC_X3X_GIXcrB6M&s=qoBrXeSf9Sy9cRgHwaB-nJ_o8cgXrgtEA8TnBm6vuSo&e= Unsubscribe and Archives https://mailinglists.rootsweb.com/listindexes/search/lovelock/ Privacy Statement: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ancstry.me_2JWBOdY&d=DwIFAw&c=kKqjBR9KKWaWpMhASkPbOg&r=hFYkjJ0Abymve4FOiSRpElWZy6phqmjQEUJupyUnsn0&m=ARhMwyuMnwXdshdWb0RVjgxPfMHYpC_X3X_GIXcrB6M&s=uQJkKOvfaq1shHPdUtl0AZstN7Nhg0UHJSNgnQaI5OQ&e= Terms and Conditions: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ancstry.me_2HDBym9&d=DwIFAw&c=kKqjBR9KKWaWpMhASkPbOg&r=hFYkjJ0Abymve4FOiSRpElWZy6phqmjQEUJupyUnsn0&m=ARhMwyuMnwXdshdWb0RVjgxPfMHYpC_X3X_GIXcrB6M&s=bPbbU6ly2TcwlnuCVYylWEI0spXDXm8vNAuVMBAwu9M&e= Rootsweb Blog: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rootsweb.blog&d=DwIFAw&c=kKqjBR9KKWaWpMhASkPbOg&r=hFYkjJ0Abymve4FOiSRpElWZy6phqmjQEUJupyUnsn0&m=ARhMwyuMnwXdshdWb0RVjgxPfMHYpC_X3X_GIXcrB6M&s=l9hbupxWs3EwxC7ReyG8K34pZlKMHt2ix58CNqXNtig&e= RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Over what length of marriage? They could have been stillbirths...when were they first recorded? Sent from my iPad > On 11 Jul 2018, at 12:48 am, Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Hello all, > > > Possibly the unluckiest family to appear in our records is that of Henry Croucher and Alice Lovelock in the Kingsclere Line. When Henry filled in his Return for the 1911 UK Census he recorded that he and Alice had had 13 children, of whom no less than 10 had died. > > > HOWEVER, using the GRO Online Index of Births which now enables us to identify the mother's maiden name for all legitimate births in the Index only flags up 6 births to Henry and Alice. > > > So why would Henry enter 13? > > > Regards, > > > Graham > > _______________________________________________ > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Lovelock family history Web pages: > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lovelock.free.fr_&d=DwIFAg&c=kKqjBR9KKWaWpMhASkPbOg&r=hFYkjJ0Abymve4FOiSRpElWZy6phqmjQEUJupyUnsn0&m=yxbzxBAbAjmPW6LC7SnwvqRl8UOoDcH4Hd1RUiGtPlQ&s=VZ4oAmctWbgBgZSp1vpwQmJfIQ_-RgSuMXmzzINur_c&e= > Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__loveluck.net_LovelockTrees_&d=DwIFAg&c=kKqjBR9KKWaWpMhASkPbOg&r=hFYkjJ0Abymve4FOiSRpElWZy6phqmjQEUJupyUnsn0&m=yxbzxBAbAjmPW6LC7SnwvqRl8UOoDcH4Hd1RUiGtPlQ&s=TCS_ovRszWh80pvhCJ-W-IlQqkN0esXqEr44ZYhm8is&e= > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bit.ly_rootswebpref&d=DwIFAg&c=kKqjBR9KKWaWpMhASkPbOg&r=hFYkjJ0Abymve4FOiSRpElWZy6phqmjQEUJupyUnsn0&m=yxbzxBAbAjmPW6LC7SnwvqRl8UOoDcH4Hd1RUiGtPlQ&s=X0W67A_r_JdBc-PcASxFbetsHC1VzOCVUlG3-S8QR20&e= > > Unsubscribe and Archives https://mailinglists.rootsweb.com/listindexes/search/lovelock/ > > Privacy Statement: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ancstry.me_2JWBOdY&d=DwIFAg&c=kKqjBR9KKWaWpMhASkPbOg&r=hFYkjJ0Abymve4FOiSRpElWZy6phqmjQEUJupyUnsn0&m=yxbzxBAbAjmPW6LC7SnwvqRl8UOoDcH4Hd1RUiGtPlQ&s=1IBrfW7QwHxXZ5wG22DD7NZrGmXE7z2F1IEBEWzRsvY&e= Terms and Conditions: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ancstry.me_2HDBym9&d=DwIFAg&c=kKqjBR9KKWaWpMhASkPbOg&r=hFYkjJ0Abymve4FOiSRpElWZy6phqmjQEUJupyUnsn0&m=yxbzxBAbAjmPW6LC7SnwvqRl8UOoDcH4Hd1RUiGtPlQ&s=ALeMvNZ8OLc6yBtDrAbeP0KoltdRH6bdpTI4WB1Mwms&e= > > Rootsweb Blog: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rootsweb.blog&d=DwIFAg&c=kKqjBR9KKWaWpMhASkPbOg&r=hFYkjJ0Abymve4FOiSRpElWZy6phqmjQEUJupyUnsn0&m=yxbzxBAbAjmPW6LC7SnwvqRl8UOoDcH4Hd1RUiGtPlQ&s=rKR3Oa3yR6hfFXs6wMZ0L5YWgTxyggeeRz802SSHHW4&e= > > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Not sure how to actually get back to the link - however there is information regarding my grandfather, William Richard/Ritchard Lovelock born 1880 Banbridge marriage to Annie Pett in 1908 in Wales. The information details their offspring. It shows Charles Bonnie Lovelock with a marriage to E. M. Tripp 1951. My Uncle Charles married Phyllis Harris in 1940! E. M. Tripp married Charles Bernard Lovelock in 1951. Perhaps you will be able to make an appropriate correction. Thank you. Jen Lovelock

Hello all, Possibly the unluckiest family to appear in our records is that of Henry Croucher and Alice Lovelock in the Kingsclere Line. When Henry filled in his Return for the 1911 UK Census he recorded that he and Alice had had 13 children, of whom no less than 10 had died. HOWEVER, using the GRO Online Index of Births which now enables us to identify the mother's maiden name for all legitimate births in the Index only flags up 6 births to Henry and Alice. So why would Henry enter 13? Regards, Graham

Hello all, In this Tree we had William Lovelock (I122) marrying Harriet Brown in 1819 and Hannah Knapp in 1824. However, William and Harriet were still very much a married couple after 1824, and appear in the 1841, 1851, 1861 and 1871 Census Returns. The William Lovelock who married Hannah Knapp was apparently from Kintbury, but there the trail goes cold, and thus it is by no means certain that this couple and their family belong to this tree. Can anyone turn up any evidence to show the correct attribution as I am having no luck? In the meantime I have created a new William, but left the family 'floating' as it were until we can find where their permanent home should be. All contributions most welcome. http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/individual.php?pid=I122&ged=shaw-berks http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/individual.php?pid=I7288&ged=shaw-berks Regards, Graham

Hello everyone, once more, Despite Rootsweb's announcement on 14 June that they were removing access to the Archives'for a few weeks' the problems they had discovered seem to have been more easily resolved than they anticipated. The good news is that the Lovelock Archive is functioning once again, although they have still not managed to restore any messages from before January 2005: https://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/hyperkitty/list/lovelock@rootsweb.com/2018/6/ Regards, Graham

Hello all, One of the fascinating aspects of Quantum Mechanics, as I understand it, is that it is perfectly possible for a particle to be in two different places at one and the same time. So it is perhaps not surprising to find that a Lovelock can be in two different places at the same time. Consider the story of a member of the Tangley Tree. Our Hampshire Census data for 1871 records a Thos (sic) Lovelock aged 41 with his parents George and Martha (nee Blanchard) in Appleshaw. Thomas is described as a Pensioner, born in Appleshaw, and he is included in our list of Chelsea Pensioners. But our Wiltshire Census data for 1871 records a Thomas Lovelock aged 40 as a Visitor in the household of Henry and Lucy A Lawes in Newton Toney. Thomas is described as a Pensioner, born in Appleshaw. Can we be sure that this is one and the same man apparently in two different places on the same night? Indeed we can, and this is through the information on a website that I have only just become aware of. At https://salisburyinquests.wordpress.com you can find the details of an inquest carried out on 5 May 1877 on a Thomas Lovelock who had been found drowned in the river Avon close to Longford Castle, just south of Salisbury. The telling part of the report is a reference to 'A cousin of the deceased, with whom he lodged at Newton Toney', and absolute confirmation of his identity is the statement that 'He was discharged from the army in consequence of his having had a sunstroke'. It transpires that Lucy A Lawes was born Lucy Adelaide Challis, the daughter of William Challis and Hannah Blanchard, Hannah being a younger sister of Thomas' mother Martha. QED ! Regards, Graham

Hello all, I don't know if you have ever come across the Internet Archive - a non-profit set-up that is building a digital library of internet sites and other cultural artifacts in digital form (I quote)? Amongst their vast store of 'stuff' is a piece entitled 'Biographical sketches of old settlers and prominent people of Wisconsin', and one of those included as the subject of a sketch is a Charles White. Charles is described as the son of Isaac and Charlotte White, born in Linton, Kent, England on 25 Mar 1820. He is stated to have married Susannah Sedgwick on 10 Jul 1842 in Borton, Kent, and to have fathered six children. On 19 Dec 1849 he, Susannah and three of the children left for New York, and moved to York, Dane County, Wisconsin in 1854. Alas in 1857 Susannah died, but three years later Charles married Mrs Susan (Gray) Lovelock. That all seems like a fairly straightforward tale, although of course it does not reveal to us which Lovelock Susan Gray was the widow of. But let us come at this from a different direction. Suppose that, for reasons which need not concern us here, you have tried a search of Ancestry.co.uk's Public Member Trees for 'Susan Ann Lovelock'. Some way down the page of results you will find several trees that include a Susan Gray Lovelock. As is the way with these trees, it seems, several appear to have copied from others, so that it is difficult to know which is the 'original'. However, one which has more detail than most tells us that Susan Gray Lovelock (note the absence of parentheses) was born in 1824 in Little Hadham, Hertfordshire, England, and had three daughters and two sons between 1843 and 1850, all with the surname of White. This tree further informs us that Susan married Charles White in Wisconsin in 1860. What a mess! Even the most basic of research steps would show that Susanna and Charles White, with all five children, were still resident in Little Hadham in 1851, and again in 1861, albeit with three new daughters, and if the tree owner had investigated properly they would have found that Susanna's maiden name was Hale, and that the couple had married in the Stepney RD in Oct-Dec 1841. As it happens, we can add to the story that the Wisconsin sketch touches upon. Susan Gray married William Lovelock from the Tonbridge Tree in 1844, and by 1850 the couple were living in New York. They may well have moved west just as Charles and Susanna White did, which is how Mr White and Mrs Lovelock (nee Gray) came to marry in due course. http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/individual.php?pid=I303&ged=tonbridge-kent Beware those who would make two and two make four despite evidence that the answer is five, or indeed any number but four! Regards, Graham

Hello all, This is just to let you know that there has been a bit of re-configuration of the pages accessible from the 'Sources' page or from the Sources drop-down menu: http://lovelock.free.fr/sources.htm The changes are that Australia and New Zealand data are now on separate pages, and USA and Canada data are likewise on separate pages. Some minor cosmetic changes have also been implemented. Some 'Fragments' have been added to the USA page and any additions to these, or any new fragments, are more than welcome. Regards, Graham

Hello again all, Thanks to some useful pointers to the Family Search and FindaGrave websites the family referred to in my earlier message below can be assembled into a small fragment, which begins - guess what - with a John Lovelock! The fragment looks like this (hoping that the formatting holds): 1. John Lovelock b 1829 in England + Cordelia Watts b 1858 in Ireland 2. Francis Joseph Lovelock b 19 Oct 1882 in Manhattan, New York, USA, d 20 Nov 1946, bur 25 Nov 1946 +Alice M Gillen b 1879 in New York, bur 6 Sep 1949 3. Frank J Lovelock b 6 Oct 1906 in New York, bur 15 Mar 1973 3. Mary S Lovelock b 1908 in New York 3. Edward Joseph Lovelock b 1908, d 26 May 1992 (dob quoted as 26 Feb 1910) in San Diego, California, USA + Catherine M Unknown b 11 Jun 1912, d 6 Dec 2007 4. Catherine Lovelock b 1936 4. Robert J Lovelock b May 1939 + Patricia Ann McDermott b 29 Aug 1939, d 7 Feb 2008, m 3 Feb 1960 5. Kerry Lovelock + Mark Bazany 6. Cory Bazany 6. Kelsey Bazany 6. Caeley Bazany 3. Alice E Lovelock b 1911 in New York 3. Ethel E Lovelock b 1917 in New York, d 12 Mar 1924 in Brooklyn Kings, New York, USA 3. Joseph Francis Lovelock b 12 Dec 1916 in New York, d 10 Nov 2007 in Manorville, Suffolk, New York, USA + Margaret Unknown b 1 Sep 1914, d 21 Jul 2013 4. Carol Lovelock + James Dinnigan 4. Susan Lovelock + Gordon Hansen There are several confusions over the dates of birth of Francis Joseph Lovelock and Alice M Gillen which may be summarised thus: In 1910 Frank (ie Francis Joseph) was recorded as aged 26, Alice 31, Frank Jr 3, Mary 2 and Edward 2. In 1915 Frank was 28, Alice 29, Frank Jr 8, Mary 7, Edward 6 and Alice 3. In 1920 Frank was 38, Alice 38, Frank Jr 13, Mary 12, Edward 10, Alice 9, Ethel 3 and Joseph 3. In 1925 Frank was 38, Alice 36, Frank Jr 17, Mary 16, Edward 14, Alice 13 and Joseph 8. In 1930 Frank was 40, Alice 38, Frank Jr 21, Edward 18 and John (sic) 13. In 1940 Frank was 53, Alice 45, Frank Jr 33 and Joseph 23. Frank’s WW1 Draft Registration Card gives his date of birth as 19 Oct 1885 (and his nearest relative as Joseph Lovelock) but his WW2 Draft Registration Card gives his date of birth as 19 Oct 1882 and refers to his wife Alice. The Family Search entry of Frank’s birth names his father as John aged 53, and his mother as Cordelia Watts aged 24, but the Family Search entry of his death and burial gives his date of birth as 25 Oct 1883. The birth entry also states that John was born in England and Cordelia in Ireland, which agrees with the 1930 entry for Frank, but not his 1900, 1910 and 1920 entries when he stated both were born in New York. Regards, Graham ________________________________ From: Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> Sent: 11 June 2018 11:26 To: lovelock@rootsweb.com Hello all, Over the years there have been a number of Lovelock families recorded as living in various parts of New York, but for one reason or another most of them have not been identified as belonging to any of our family trees. Here's a case in point: Patricia Ann Lovelock (nee McDermott) died on 7 Feb 2008. Patricia was the wife of Robert J Lovelock who, according to the 1940 US Census, was born in May 1939. Robert was the son of Edward Lovelock and his wife Catherine. Edward was the son of Frank Lovelock and his wife Alice and was born in New York in 1910 according to the 1940 and 1920 US Censuses, or 1908 according to the 1910 US Census. We have no record of Edward in the 1930 US Census. In 1910 Frank was aged 26, born in New York, as, apparently, were his parents. In 1900 Frank's birthdate was recorded as May 1884, birthplace New York, and parents' birthplace also New York. Alas, the 1890 US Census has, to all intents and purposes for this exercise, not survived. Turning thus to the 1880 US Census the only married Lovelock couple we have so far recorded as being born in New York are Nelson G Lovelock, aged 38, and his wife Kittie, aged 34. We have no record at the moment of Nelson in 1870, 1860 or 1850, nor do he and Kittie appear in our records from the 1900 US Census or a later one. So, was Frank the son of Nelson and Kittie, and if so who were Nelson's parents? Without those answers there seems little hope of determining much more. Does anyone know more of the New York Lovelocks than we have so far recorded? Regards, Graham

Hello all, Rootsweb are now reporting that they have 'performance problems' with the Mailing List Archives, so they have all been taken down for 'a few weeks'. E-Mails can still be sent to the list (obviously, or you would not be reading this!) and they say that any E-Mails sent whilst the Archives are down will be there when the Archives are restored. Fingers crossed! Graham

This time it's a UK situation. The Hungerford-Shalbourne Tree contains one Joseph James Lovelock: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/individual.php?pid=I65&ged=hungerford-shalbourne In our 'Lovelocks in Surrey' data we include his baptism on 26 Jan 1873 as the son of James and Mariah, and he appears, aged 1, in the 1871 Census entry with his parents. Thus we have assumed that he is the subject of the birth entry for Joseph James Lovelock in the Lambeth RD in Jul-Sep 1869. The trouble is that the GRO Online Index now reveals that the maiden name of that Joseph James Lovelock was BELDON. The 1871 Census entry also includes John Hyatt, recorded as James' Father-in-Law, but we have been unable to find any record of the marriage of James Lovelock and Maria Hyatt. Equally there seems to be no record of a Lovelock/Beldon marriage, nor for that matter of a Beldon/Hyatt marriage. You understand what I mean by 'trouble'? !!! Regards, Graham

Here's another puzzle: The 'Find A Grave' website has a photograph of the headstone of James Arthur Lovelock, born 1848, died 1940. The creator of this particular record is identified as Todd James Dean, who has presumably accessed some other records to add the information that James A was James Arthur born in England on 4 Mar 1848 and died at Mount Vernon, Knox County, Ohio, USA on 27 Oct 1940. There is no GRO record of the birth of a James Arthur Lovelock, although there was a James Lovelock born in the Hungerford RD, the birth being registered in the Apr-Jun quarter. This was the son of Thomas Lovelock and Rebecca Smith of the Wroughton-Tidcombe Tree, born in Tidcombe according to the 1851 and 1861 Census Returns and baptised at Tidcombe on 22 May 1848. At present we have assumed that this James is the 18 year-old whose death at the age of 18 was registered in the Hungerford RD in Apr-Jun 1866. What is certain is that the 1871 UK Census does not include a James Lovelock born in Tidcombe. On the other hand, the 1870 US Census does include two James Lovelocks, both aged 23, both born in England, and living in Nelson and Portage, Ohio respectively. We have no record of either James from the 1880 US Census, but in 1900 a James, with wife Martha A and children Charles born Jul 1879, Edward M born Apr 1883 and Emma H born Apr 1888, was recorded in Ellsworth, Mahoning County, Ohio, claiming a date of birth of May 1845 in England. This is partly consistent with other information that Todd James Dean has recorded on the Find A Grave website, viz. that the second of James' wives was Martha A Miller whom he married in 1877 (the 1900 Census states that they had been married 24 years), but the only children recorded are Clara H born 1876 and Edward J born 1883. Fast forward to the 1920 US Census and James has become James A and Martha has become Martha M, but another useful piece of information is that James arrived in the US in 1865. There are other supporting bits and pieces amongst our data, including that James was still alive at the time of the 1940 US Census, living in Ohio with his married daughter Emma. So there are two unanswered questions here: is the man buried in Ohio in 1940 as James Arthur Lovelock the James Lovelock, son of Thomas Lovelock and Rebecca Smith, and if so who was the 18 year-old James Lovelock whose death was registered in the Hungerford RD in 1866? Any ideas, anyone? Regards, Graham

Hello all, Over the years there have been a number of Lovelock families recorded as living in various parts of New York, but for one reason or another most of them have not been identified as belonging to any of our family trees. Here's a case in point: Patricia Ann Lovelock (nee McDermott) died on 7 Feb 2008. Patricia was the wife of Robert J Lovelock who, according to the 1940 US Census, was born in May 1939. Robert was the son of Edward Lovelock and his wife Catherine. Edward was the son of Frank Lovelock and his wife Alice and was born in New York in 1910 according to the 1940 and 1920 US Censuses, or 1908 according to the 1910 US Census. We have no record of Edward in the 1930 US Census. In 1910 Frank was aged 26, born in New York, as, apparently, were his parents. In 1900 Frank's birthdate was recorded as May 1884, birthplace New York, and parents' birthplace also New York. Alas, the 1890 US Census has, to all intents and purposes for this exercise, not survived. Turning thus to the 1880 US Census the only married Lovelock couple we have so far recorded as being born in New York are Nelson G Lovelock, aged 38, and his wife Kittie, aged 34. We have no record at the moment of Nelson in 1870, 1860 or 1850, nor do he and Kittie appear in our records from the 1900 US Census or a later one. So, was Frank the son of Nelson and Kittie, and if so who were Nelson's parents? Without those answers there seems little hope of determining much more. Does anyone know more of the New York Lovelocks than we have so far recorded? Regards, Graham

Nice to hear from you again, Kate. Before you do too much digging of your own you might want to have words with Shaun and your aunt Adrienne who have already contributed quite a lot of information to our records. The following link will take you to your grandfather's page: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/individual.php?pid=I2524&ged=wilts-trees1 If you click on your mum's name in the right-hand pane (if it's not open click on 'Family navigator' at top right) you will find that's as far as you can go, and that there's no information apart from her name. However, there is more hidden information which to those who have access shows your dad, brothers and sisters, you, of course, and your aunt Adrienne's two husbands, although there are no dates associated with anyone of them. But there might be bits missing even from the 'public' pages which we have not been able to glean from on-line sources or your relations, so if you came across anything like that we would love to add it. You and I, by the way, are 4th cousins, once removed. Kind regards, Graham ________________________________ From: Kate Fitzpatrick <katepaul@iinet.net.au> Sent: 09 June 2018 15:04 To: lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject: [LOVELOCK] Re: LOVELOCK Digest, Vol 13, Issue 18 Who's at Fault Hi Graham, Thank you for your reply, and apologies for not replying sooner myself…didn’t check my emails thoroughly enough! It is quite exciting to see a connection made between 'us colonials' and the old country! Off the top of my head, I believe George Lovelock was married to Annie Glass, and they travelled to Australia in 1839 on board the ‘Prince Regent’ with (I think) 5 children. The youngest perished on the journey. Once they arrived in Australia, I think they went on to have a few more children. They took up land in Aldinga (south of Adelaide), in 1841, and the family farmed in this district until approximately the 1990’s when the land was acquired by the State Government under a compulsory acquisition. My family descends from George’s son Henry, who had a son Henry, who had a son Cecil Keith, who had a daughter Beverley Mildred-Ellen Lovelock, who had me (Katherine Mary-Anne Fitzpatrick) and my brothers and sisters. I will need to research this a bit more (ie ask mum), but when George died, there was no churchyard available for burial, so poor old George was buried in the corner of one of his paddocks. When a church and graveyard were built, he was dug up and reburied on consecrated ground. With so many children, they didn’t all stay around the Aldinga district. Some, I believe ended up over on the York Peninsula. Thanks again for your reply, Cheers Kate > On 23 May 2018, at 5:34 pm, lovelock-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > > Send LOVELOCK mailing list submissions to > lovelock@rootsweb.com > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via email, send a message with subject or > body 'help' to > lovelock-request@rootsweb.com > > You can reach the person managing the list at > lovelock-owner@rootsweb.com > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of LOVELOCK digest..." > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: LOVELOCK Digest, Vol 13, Issue 17 (LOVELOCK) Who's at fault? > (Kate Fitzpatrick) > 2. Re: LOVELOCK Digest, Vol 13, Issue 17 (LOVELOCK) Who's at fault? > (Graham Lovelock) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 19:50:25 +0930 > From: Kate Fitzpatrick <katepaul@iinet.net.au> > Subject: [LOVELOCK] Re: LOVELOCK Digest, Vol 13, Issue 17 (LOVELOCK) > Who's at fault? > To: <lovelock@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <E3F1CEB3-FC60-4622-905F-E57DFE547C8C@iinet.net.au> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hi All, > > It was with interest that I perused the words “Hannah Maria Lovelock from the Lieflock line…”, and it made me wonder if she is related to George Lovelock who came out to Australia in 1839 on the Prince Regent, and took up land at Aldinga, South Australia in 1841. As far as I know George hailed from Wiltshire. > > Cheers from Down Under, > > Kate > >> On 22 May 2018, at 5:34 pm, lovelock-request@rootsweb.com wrote: >> >> Send LOVELOCK mailing list submissions to >> lovelock@rootsweb.com >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via email, send a message with subject or >> body 'help' to >> lovelock-request@rootsweb.com >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> lovelock-owner@rootsweb.com >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of LOVELOCK digest..." >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Who's at fault? (Graham Lovelock) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 13:14:23 +0000 >> From: Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> >> Subject: [LOVELOCK] Who's at fault? >> To: "lovelock@rootsweb.com" <lovelock@rootsweb.com> >> Message-ID: <AM5P190MB043467F988A3D6FF35EE9EA5C4950@AM5P190MB0434.EURP >> 190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> Hello all, >> >> >> Hannah Maria Lovelock from the Lieflock Line married William Swatton on 30 November 1861. >> >> >> The 1891 Census records them in East Grafton, Wiltshire with son Walter and daughter Kate. >> >> >> What's wrong with that? Only that William's death is recorded in the GRO Index in Jan-Mar 1891, the quarter in which the death occurred according to GRO practice, but the Census was taken on the night of 5 April 1891. >> >> >> So had the Enumerator been preparing paperwork naughtily in advance, was William's death prematurely reported, or is there some other odd circumstance to explain the anomaly? >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> Graham >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Subject: Digest Footer >> >> To contact the %(real_name)s list administrator, send an email to >> %(real_name)s-admin@rootsweb.com. >> >> To post a message to the LOVELOCK mailing list -- lovelock@rootsweb.com, send an email to %(real_name)s@rootsweb.com. >> >> __________________________________________________________ >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to %(real_name)s-request@%(host_name)s >> with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the body of the >> email with no additional text. >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> End of LOVELOCK Digest, Vol 13, Issue 17 >> **************************************** > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 10:39:58 +0000 > From: Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> > Subject: [LOVELOCK] Re: LOVELOCK Digest, Vol 13, Issue 17 (LOVELOCK) > Who's at fault? > To: "lovelock@rootsweb.com" <lovelock@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <AM5P190MB0434AE6058AFD6871522B55EC4940@AM5P190MB0434.EURP > 190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" > > Hello Kate, > > > Yes they are related: George was Hannah Maria's Great Uncle, although as she was born about 18 months after George and family arrived in Australia they obviously never met. > > > When Hannah married in 1861 she signed the Register so presumably could read and write. Tempting to think she might have corresponded with some of her Australian relations ..... but I seriously doubt it! > > > Regards, > > > Graham > > > ________________________________ > From: Kate Fitzpatrick <katepaul@iinet.net.au> > Sent: 22 May 2018 11:20 > To: lovelock@rootsweb.com > Subject: [LOVELOCK] Re: LOVELOCK Digest, Vol 13, Issue 17 (LOVELOCK) Who's at fault? > > Hi All, > > It was with interest that I perused the words “Hannah Maria Lovelock from the Lieflock line…”, and it made me wonder if she is related to George Lovelock who came out to Australia in 1839 on the Prince Regent, and took up land at Aldinga, South Australia in 1841. As far as I know George hailed from Wiltshire. > > Cheers from Down Under, > > Kate > >> On 22 May 2018, at 5:34 pm, lovelock-request@rootsweb.com wrote: >> >> Send LOVELOCK mailing list submissions to >> lovelock@rootsweb.com >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via email, send a message with subject or >> body 'help' to >> lovelock-request@rootsweb.com >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> lovelock-owner@rootsweb.com >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of LOVELOCK digest..." >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Who's at fault? (Graham Lovelock) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 13:14:23 +0000 >> From: Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> >> Subject: [LOVELOCK] Who's at fault? >> To: "lovelock@rootsweb.com" <lovelock@rootsweb.com> >> Message-ID: <AM5P190MB043467F988A3D6FF35EE9EA5C4950@AM5P190MB0434.EURP >> 190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> Hello all, >> >> >> Hannah Maria Lovelock from the Lieflock Line married William Swatton on 30 November 1861. >> >> >> The 1891 Census records them in East Grafton, Wiltshire with son Walter and daughter Kate. >> >> >> What's wrong with that? Only that William's death is recorded in the GRO Index in Jan-Mar 1891, the quarter in which the death occurred according to GRO practice, but the Census was taken on the night of 5 April 1891. >> >> >> So had the Enumerator been preparing paperwork naughtily in advance, was William's death prematurely reported, or is there some other odd circumstance to explain the anomaly? >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> Graham >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Subject: Digest Footer >> >> To contact the %(real_name)s list administrator, send an email to >> %(real_name)s-admin@rootsweb.com. >> >> To post a message to the LOVELOCK mailing list -- lovelock@rootsweb.com, send an email to %(real_name)s@rootsweb.com. >> >> __________________________________________________________ >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to %(real_name)s-request@%(host_name)s >> with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the body of the >> email with no additional text. >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> End of LOVELOCK Digest, Vol 13, Issue 17 >> **************************************** > > _______________________________________________ > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 https://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/postorius/lists/lovelock@rootsweb.com/ > > Archives: https://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/hyperkitty/list/lovelock@rootsweb.com/ > > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > To contact the %(real_name)s list administrator, send an email to > %(real_name)s-admin@rootsweb.com. > > To post a message to the LOVELOCK mailing list -- lovelock@rootsweb.com, send an email to %(real_name)s@rootsweb.com. > > __________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to %(real_name)s-request@%(host_name)s > with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the body of the > email with no additional text. > > > ------------------------------ > > End of LOVELOCK Digest, Vol 13, Issue 18 > **************************************** _______________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 https://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/postorius/lists/lovelock@rootsweb.com/ Archives: https://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/hyperkitty/list/lovelock@rootsweb.com/ Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Hi Graham, Thank you for your reply, and apologies for not replying sooner myself…didn’t check my emails thoroughly enough! It is quite exciting to see a connection made between 'us colonials' and the old country! Off the top of my head, I believe George Lovelock was married to Annie Glass, and they travelled to Australia in 1839 on board the ‘Prince Regent’ with (I think) 5 children. The youngest perished on the journey. Once they arrived in Australia, I think they went on to have a few more children. They took up land in Aldinga (south of Adelaide), in 1841, and the family farmed in this district until approximately the 1990’s when the land was acquired by the State Government under a compulsory acquisition. My family descends from George’s son Henry, who had a son Henry, who had a son Cecil Keith, who had a daughter Beverley Mildred-Ellen Lovelock, who had me (Katherine Mary-Anne Fitzpatrick) and my brothers and sisters. I will need to research this a bit more (ie ask mum), but when George died, there was no churchyard available for burial, so poor old George was buried in the corner of one of his paddocks. When a church and graveyard were built, he was dug up and reburied on consecrated ground. With so many children, they didn’t all stay around the Aldinga district. Some, I believe ended up over on the York Peninsula. Thanks again for your reply, Cheers Kate > On 23 May 2018, at 5:34 pm, lovelock-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > > Send LOVELOCK mailing list submissions to > lovelock@rootsweb.com > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via email, send a message with subject or > body 'help' to > lovelock-request@rootsweb.com > > You can reach the person managing the list at > lovelock-owner@rootsweb.com > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of LOVELOCK digest..." > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: LOVELOCK Digest, Vol 13, Issue 17 (LOVELOCK) Who's at fault? > (Kate Fitzpatrick) > 2. Re: LOVELOCK Digest, Vol 13, Issue 17 (LOVELOCK) Who's at fault? > (Graham Lovelock) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 19:50:25 +0930 > From: Kate Fitzpatrick <katepaul@iinet.net.au> > Subject: [LOVELOCK] Re: LOVELOCK Digest, Vol 13, Issue 17 (LOVELOCK) > Who's at fault? > To: <lovelock@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <E3F1CEB3-FC60-4622-905F-E57DFE547C8C@iinet.net.au> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hi All, > > It was with interest that I perused the words “Hannah Maria Lovelock from the Lieflock line…”, and it made me wonder if she is related to George Lovelock who came out to Australia in 1839 on the Prince Regent, and took up land at Aldinga, South Australia in 1841. As far as I know George hailed from Wiltshire. > > Cheers from Down Under, > > Kate > >> On 22 May 2018, at 5:34 pm, lovelock-request@rootsweb.com wrote: >> >> Send LOVELOCK mailing list submissions to >> lovelock@rootsweb.com >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via email, send a message with subject or >> body 'help' to >> lovelock-request@rootsweb.com >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> lovelock-owner@rootsweb.com >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of LOVELOCK digest..." >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Who's at fault? (Graham Lovelock) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 13:14:23 +0000 >> From: Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> >> Subject: [LOVELOCK] Who's at fault? >> To: "lovelock@rootsweb.com" <lovelock@rootsweb.com> >> Message-ID: <AM5P190MB043467F988A3D6FF35EE9EA5C4950@AM5P190MB0434.EURP >> 190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> Hello all, >> >> >> Hannah Maria Lovelock from the Lieflock Line married William Swatton on 30 November 1861. >> >> >> The 1891 Census records them in East Grafton, Wiltshire with son Walter and daughter Kate. >> >> >> What's wrong with that? Only that William's death is recorded in the GRO Index in Jan-Mar 1891, the quarter in which the death occurred according to GRO practice, but the Census was taken on the night of 5 April 1891. >> >> >> So had the Enumerator been preparing paperwork naughtily in advance, was William's death prematurely reported, or is there some other odd circumstance to explain the anomaly? >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> Graham >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Subject: Digest Footer >> >> To contact the %(real_name)s list administrator, send an email to >> %(real_name)s-admin@rootsweb.com. >> >> To post a message to the LOVELOCK mailing list -- lovelock@rootsweb.com, send an email to %(real_name)s@rootsweb.com. >> >> __________________________________________________________ >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to %(real_name)s-request@%(host_name)s >> with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the body of the >> email with no additional text. >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> End of LOVELOCK Digest, Vol 13, Issue 17 >> **************************************** > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 10:39:58 +0000 > From: Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> > Subject: [LOVELOCK] Re: LOVELOCK Digest, Vol 13, Issue 17 (LOVELOCK) > Who's at fault? > To: "lovelock@rootsweb.com" <lovelock@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <AM5P190MB0434AE6058AFD6871522B55EC4940@AM5P190MB0434.EURP > 190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" > > Hello Kate, > > > Yes they are related: George was Hannah Maria's Great Uncle, although as she was born about 18 months after George and family arrived in Australia they obviously never met. > > > When Hannah married in 1861 she signed the Register so presumably could read and write. Tempting to think she might have corresponded with some of her Australian relations ..... but I seriously doubt it! > > > Regards, > > > Graham > > > ________________________________ > From: Kate Fitzpatrick <katepaul@iinet.net.au> > Sent: 22 May 2018 11:20 > To: lovelock@rootsweb.com > Subject: [LOVELOCK] Re: LOVELOCK Digest, Vol 13, Issue 17 (LOVELOCK) Who's at fault? > > Hi All, > > It was with interest that I perused the words “Hannah Maria Lovelock from the Lieflock line…”, and it made me wonder if she is related to George Lovelock who came out to Australia in 1839 on the Prince Regent, and took up land at Aldinga, South Australia in 1841. As far as I know George hailed from Wiltshire. > > Cheers from Down Under, > > Kate > >> On 22 May 2018, at 5:34 pm, lovelock-request@rootsweb.com wrote: >> >> Send LOVELOCK mailing list submissions to >> lovelock@rootsweb.com >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via email, send a message with subject or >> body 'help' to >> lovelock-request@rootsweb.com >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> lovelock-owner@rootsweb.com >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of LOVELOCK digest..." >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Who's at fault? (Graham Lovelock) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 13:14:23 +0000 >> From: Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> >> Subject: [LOVELOCK] Who's at fault? >> To: "lovelock@rootsweb.com" <lovelock@rootsweb.com> >> Message-ID: <AM5P190MB043467F988A3D6FF35EE9EA5C4950@AM5P190MB0434.EURP >> 190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> Hello all, >> >> >> Hannah Maria Lovelock from the Lieflock Line married William Swatton on 30 November 1861. >> >> >> The 1891 Census records them in East Grafton, Wiltshire with son Walter and daughter Kate. >> >> >> What's wrong with that? Only that William's death is recorded in the GRO Index in Jan-Mar 1891, the quarter in which the death occurred according to GRO practice, but the Census was taken on the night of 5 April 1891. >> >> >> So had the Enumerator been preparing paperwork naughtily in advance, was William's death prematurely reported, or is there some other odd circumstance to explain the anomaly? >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> Graham >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Subject: Digest Footer >> >> To contact the %(real_name)s list administrator, send an email to >> %(real_name)s-admin@rootsweb.com. >> >> To post a message to the LOVELOCK mailing list -- lovelock@rootsweb.com, send an email to %(real_name)s@rootsweb.com. >> >> __________________________________________________________ >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to %(real_name)s-request@%(host_name)s >> with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the body of the >> email with no additional text. >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> End of LOVELOCK Digest, Vol 13, Issue 17 >> **************************************** > > _______________________________________________ > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 https://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/postorius/lists/lovelock@rootsweb.com/ > > Archives: https://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/hyperkitty/list/lovelock@rootsweb.com/ > > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > To contact the %(real_name)s list administrator, send an email to > %(real_name)s-admin@rootsweb.com. > > To post a message to the LOVELOCK mailing list -- lovelock@rootsweb.com, send an email to %(real_name)s@rootsweb.com. > > __________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to %(real_name)s-request@%(host_name)s > with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the body of the > email with no additional text. > > > ------------------------------ > > End of LOVELOCK Digest, Vol 13, Issue 18 > ****************************************

Hello all, Another clanger to report. At present the Descendant Trees for the Second Saint Pancras and Second Stepney Trees both contain Ivy Lilian Lovelock, born on 31 Mar 1904, and died (as Ivy Lilian Cunnington) in Jun 1981: http://lovelock.free.fr/fragments/st-pancras-second-tree.html http://lovelock.free.fr/fragments/stepney-2nd-tree.html The GRO Online Index of Births now allows us to identify Ivy Lilian's mother's maiden name as Berry, meaning that she is a member of the Second Saint Pancras Tree. The young lady in the Second Stepney Tree would therefore appear to be the Ivy Louisa Lovelock born in Jul-Sep 1903. However (you just knew one of those was to come), Ivy Louisa's mother's maiden name is recorded as Lewis, whereas the mother's maiden name of her sister Eileen Amy is recorded, as we would expect, as De Cuigneir, in accordance with the 1911 Census entry: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/individual.php?pid=I15&ged=stepney-2 For this I have no explanation - does anyone else? In the meantime I have made appropriate amendments to the two gedcom files at Webtrees. Regards, Graham

Hello all, If you examine the Descendant Tree for the Beckenham (Kent) Tree you will find that William Lovelock (1892 - 1974) is presented as having married Rose Ethel Wolfe (in 1921, although that is not shown, in keeping with our Privacy Policy) and Hildreth Jane Comley in 1913: http://lovelock.free.fr/fragments/beckenham-kent.html HOWEVER ..... The 1939 Register shows that William was still with his bride of 1913 (in Lewisham) and therefore can not be the man who married Rose Ethel Wolfe. Moreover, the 1939 Register also reveals that Rose Ethel (in Maidstone) was a widow. http://lovelock.free.fr/documents/1939-Register-London.html http://lovelock.free.fr/documents/1939-Register-Kent.html A little investigation suggests that Rose Wolfe had in fact married William Lovelock (1864 - 1928) from the Tonbridge Tree, and so I have made the necessary amendments to both gedcom files. New Descendant Trees will be produced shortly. This is perhaps an opportune moment to remind all that the gedcom files are always the most up-to-date sources of our data, so they should always be consulted first on the Webtrees website. Those of you who like to keep one step ahead wherever possible will already have discovered that the current Descendant Tree for the Tonbridge Tree presents William Lovelock (1864 - 1928) as having married Jane Terry in 1892 in the Staines RD. He stated his age as 32 in 1901 and 43 in 1911, suggesting a birth between 1867 and 1869, but in both instances he claimed Maidstone as his birthplace and the 1864 birth is the only one in the Maidstone RD between 1860 and 1875. So this leads to two interesting situations. Firstly it makes William the father of no less than 19 children, of whom 6 died in infancy. More importantly if the reasoning above is correct then William married Rose Ethel Wolfe before the date (1922) that we have been given for Jane Terry's death. But Free BMD has no entry in 1922 for a Jane Lovelock born in 1869, nor in any year from 1911 (when she was recorded in the Census) to 1922. Equally there is no record of Jane herself marrying in that period for a second time. RED HERRING ALERT !!! (Which is to say that that which follows may just be a red herring.) The 1939 Register records a widowed Jane Lovelock on her own in a house in Camborne-Redruth in Cornwall: http://lovelock.free.fr/documents/1939-Register-Cornwall.html So far that entry is not associated with any of our trees, but the date of birth quoted for that Jane is 27 Feb 1869, and Jane Terry's birth was registered in the Jan-Mar quarter of 1869. There are no Cornwall entries for the marriage or death of a Jane Lovelock between 1939 and 1969, but there is the death in 1952 of a Jane LOVELASS in Penzance RD, aged 85. There seems to be no matching birth, nor a marriage of a Mr Lovelass to a Jane, so this may be a relevant find ... or just another red herring. Can anyone contribute any more information? Regards, Graham

Hello all, especially those with an interest in the above. We have for some time had a Thomas Alfred Lovelock in the Kingsclere Line, although he never really 'fitted' where he had been placed. The GRO Online Index of Births now reveals that his mother's maiden name was Giles, and I believe that he must therefore be the son of Arthur James Lovelock and Emily Giles: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/individual.php?pid=I7159&ged=st-pancras-2 One thing that puzzles me is that in 1891 he was recorded in Wokingham, Berkshire as the nephew of William and Anne Pearce. Can anyone explain the family links that establish that relationship? Regards, Graham

Consider: Amongst the Military Records at Ancestry.com is an entry in the Royal Navy Registers of Seamen's Services for one George Lovelock. According to the entry George was born on 8 April 1862 in Dartford, Kent. He had signed on for 12 years of service on 25 October 1898. You will not be surprised to hear that there was no birth of a George Lovelock registered in Dartford in 1862. What there was instead was the birth of a George Lovelock in the Kingsclere RD, and in the Apr-Jun quarter. George from the Kingsclere Line was recorded in Hannington, Hampshire in the 1871, 1881 and 1891 Census Returns, but then disappears from the records ... or does he? There's certainly no sign of him in the 1901 Census Return, but there is the death of a George aged 47 in Apr-Jun 1909 in the Fulham RD. However, if George from the Kingsclere Line is the man who joined the Navy in 1898 his Service Record indicates that he was still alive in 1914. No prizes for guessing that the 1911 Census Return contains no 1862-born George from either Dartford or Hannington. A 74-year-old George died in Southampton RD in Apr-Jun 1936 - could he be part of the picture? A very confusing set of 'facts'. Or can you sort the wheat from the chaff of this particular poser? Regards, Graham