Hello all, I have just been made aware of the death of Edward Joseph Lovelock of Rancho Mirage, Riverside, California, USA on 31 Dec 2017. The obituary notice started me on a hunt through various of our US data and sources and I have put together a small fragment which can be accessed from our 'Work in Progress' page (in the 'Proposed Trees and Fragments' section): http://lovelock.free.fr/wip/wip.html As if you could not have guessed, the fragment apparently starts with a John Lovelock who may have been born around 1860 somewhere in England. If you can add anything to the fragment, bearing in mind our undertaking not to publish on the website anything other than the names of living persons, please do so. Regards, Graham Work in Progress - Free<http://lovelock.free.fr/wip/wip.html> lovelock.free.fr The purpose of this page is to provide a home for material which is somewhat tentative or incomplete. It may also be used to pose ...

Hello all, I'm not sure if we've addressed this one before, but without the Mailing List Archive I'm unable to check. Searching at Free BMD from 1900 to 1983 only reveals the birth of one Henry F Lovelock, in Jan-Mar 1931. Switching to Ancestry.co.uk we find only one death of a Henry F between 1916 and 2007: Henry Frederick born 14 Dec 1930, who died in 2004. Our data on Lovelock Wills from 1996 onwards reveals that he died on 1 Dec 2004. Whether one then uses Free BMD or Ancestry three marriages of a Henry F Lovelock are listed. It would seem that the same man was involved in all three, but I've fallen into that sort of trap before so does anyone know for certain? The wives of all three marriages may still be living so I will not name them here. The wives of the second and third marriages do not seem to have birth entries, so may well have been married before. Are these four people all part of one story? Is there some more relevant evidence that I have overlooked (which wouldn't be the first time for such an occurrence!)? Regards, Graham

Hello all, You will all be aware that the Mailing List and its Archive are hosted by Rootsweb. What you may not be aware of is that the Archive has not been available for some weeks, and will not be accessible for some time. Apparently Rootsweb discovered 'an issue' towards the end of 2017 which has security implications. They have not disclosed the precise nature of the issue, although it is clear it is to do with personal information, and it is serious enough for them to have taken more or less the whole site content off-line. The Mailing Lists themselves have not been affected, which is why you can read this, but the Archives are unavailable. The programme they have posted most recently, on 9 January, indicates that they will make the Archives available once the 'WorldConnect' function has been restored, although even that will be in a read-only version, meaning that if you use that facility to post your own gedcom file you will not be able to amend it in any way for 'the next few weeks'. If you were planning to upload a new gedcom file to that facility it seems that will be possible 'in the coming months'. Not much we can do about the situation, except hope that when Archive access is restored nothing has been lost. Personally I am not over-optimistic on that score as they have already lost all the messages from December 2016, although they refuse to admit that and have fobbed all of my enquiries off with the statement that they were dealing with ongoing technical issues and could give me no timetable for when the issues would be resolved. Much like the above, in fact. Don't hold your breath! The good news is that none of the content of the two Lovelock websites is hosted by Rootsweb, so is all available for your perusal as normal, and rest assured that James has put in place measures to ensure that the information is protected at all times. Regards, Graham

Hello all, We were all very pleased when the UK's 1939 Register became available, enabling us to close so many gaps in our knowledge. But just occasionally ... For instance, the Register records Allan W and Edith L Lovelock at 2 Reigate Villas in Wantage, Berkshire. Allan and Edith were members of the Lambourn-Sparsholt Tree. You will recall that the Register was originally used to support the National Identification programme, but when the National Health Service was established after WW2 the Register was used to underpin that instead. In consequence the Register was amended from time to time, usually to record that single ladies had married, and sometimes to record subsequent marriages of widows and divorcees. Thus at some time Edith's entry was modified in time-honoured fashion, viz. by crossing out 'Lovelock' and writing 'MILAM' above it. At the same time a note was added in the margin of the page, a note which includes what may be a date: 17/6/54, and the L of her second name was expanded to Louisa. However, Edith Louisa Lovelock died under that name in 1975, the death entry containing a birthdate that matches the 1939 date of birth. What's more there seems to be no record of any Lovelock/Milam marriage, although there could have been as Allan died in 1941. The GRO data presented by Free BMD and Ancestry does not have a single Edith L Lovelock marriage to anyone anywhere between 1939 and 1975, and to add to the confusion there is no marriage of anyone named Milam in 1954. And to cap it all, Allan and Edith's daughter Joan was not with them in 1939, seems not to be in a visible record, and apparently did not marry or die before 2008. As I said above - sometimes the records do not help. Unless, of course, you can explain all? Regards, Graham

Christmas is over, New Year's begun If you like a puzzle I've got a new one: In 1939 William H Lovelock was recorded at 134 Wessex Road, Didcot, Berkshire, England with his parents Frederick and Emily. They were all members of the Lambourn-Sparsholt Tree. William Henry was born on 28 Nov 1910. The crucial part of his entry is that his Marital Status is 'Married', but his wife was not in the household. There were four marriages of a William H between 1926 and 1939 according to Free BMD. We can dismiss the one in 1926 as the groom can be shown to have been born in 1905. The next marriage was in Jul-Sep 1933 to an Elizabeth E Pritchard. The 1939 Register has the entry of an Elizabeth E in Witney, Oxfordshire, a married lady, accompanied by what is presumably her daughter Pauline born on 21 Dec 1937, but no husband. Elizabeth was possibly born on 8 Aug 1910, but the 1910 could just be read as 1916. The complication here is that the birth entry in Free BMD for Pauline, in Jan-Mar 1938 (Shoreditch RD), gives her mother's maiden name as Powell. However, the birth of an Elizabeth E Powell was registered in Holborn RD in Jul-Sep 1910, so I thought this might be the mother of Pauline. Alas, Free BMD has no record of the marriage of an Elizabeth E Powell and a Mr Pritchard. So is the lady in Witney the wife of the man in Didcot? And if so, can anyone explain the other discrepancies? And if not does anyone know who William Henry did marry, and what happened to him in the end as there seems to be no death record in the UK data? Regards, Graham

Hello all, Getting the new year off to a really good start Robert Sterry has carried out an extensive review of the Wallingford (Berks) Line which has resulted in substantial changes. These are all detailed on the 'What's New' page of the website, sandwiched between some very much shorter lists of amendments to the Lieflock and Kingsclere Lines.: http://lovelock.free.fr/new.html A revised Descendant Tree that will reflect the updated contents of the gedcom file will be posted by James shortly. Regards, Graham

Hello Graham and all, The quantity of data you’ve added this year is very impressive Graham, not to mention your meticulous attention to detail. Many thanks for all your efforts and keep up the good work! Happy Christmas to everyone on the list, James > On 18 Dec 2017, at 16:37, Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Hello all, > > > I have now made a number of amendments to the family of William Lovelock and Sarah Ann White: > > > http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/family.php?famid=F729&ged=ropley-tidcombe > > > As has always been the case, any of the information on this family, in common with that on all the other families in this and our numerous other trees, is there to be challenged if errors have been made (for instance due to my current one-hand-typing and a lack of effective proof reading) or research unearths new information. > > > You will note that the sources quoted for much of the information are the usual on-line facilities: Free BMD, Ancestry, FamilySearch, Findmypast, and so on. I am sure I am about to teach granny how to suck eggs, but we need always to bear in mind that these are not in many cases the repositories of original information, often providing transcriptions rather than, for instance, imagery showing the actual entry in a Baptism or Burial Register or the Certificate of a Marriage, and therefore subject to error. If you are building your own family tree based on information on either of our websites you should always endeavour to gain access to the original documentation to verify the facts. > > > That said our information is always presented in good faith, with a total willingness to eliminate mistakes and errors whenever these come to light. > > > 2017 has been a very busy year in terms of the addition of new information and amendments to existing records. In fact our annual log files show that this has been the busiest year ever for us. And there is already work in hand which will see the light of day in 2018. > > > Next year the main website will be, believe it or not, 20 years old. James and Robert can have had no idea back then just what a 'Topsy' they were launching, but I for one am eternally grateful that they took that initiative. > > > By definition almost family history is never-ending and there's always something else that can be done. If there are particular gaps in our data that you believe could be plugged, or there's a pet project idea of yours that you think it would be worth us launching please do let us know. No guarantees regarding outcomes of course - we are all volunteers after all - but a gap shared just might be a gap that shrinks. > > > I am not expecting to send any more messages before the end of the year (famous last words?) so I will take this opportunity of wishing all well, passing on the compliments of the impending season, and hoping that we will all enjoy a healthy and prosperous new year. > > > Kind regards, > > > Graham > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Lovelock family history Web pages: > http://lovelock.free.fr/ > Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: > http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOVELOCK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

That is a nice Christmas present thanks Graham ;-) Cheers Col ------ Original Message ------ From: "Graham Lovelock" <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> To: "lovelock@rootsweb.com" <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, 17 Dec, 2017 At 2:50 AM Subject: Re: [LOVELOCK] Here's something to mull over ... as it's a mulling time of year! Thanks, Col - all the very best to you and yours. The good news is that the GRO service is completely free. Here's the link to get started: https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates/default.asp Note also that they are currently running a trial service to provide a PDF copy of a certificate at a lower cost than a registered copy. Not suitable for legal purposes but probably good enough for lots of genealogical purposes. If you are inclined to use it (I have and it's quick and easy to do) don't delay as this trial will not last forever, and there's no guarantee that it will become a permanent facility. Regards, Graham ________________________________ From: LOVELOCK <lovelock-bounces+lovelockgraham=hotmail.com@rootsweb.com> on behalf of colinbm1 colinbm1 <colinbm1@bigpond.com> Sent: 16 December 2017 05:40 To: lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LOVELOCK] Here's something to mull over ... as it's a mulling time of year! To all our Lovies, please have a Merry Christmas & a very Happy New Year. Sorry Graham I have no ideas to help with this problem. Graham you mention " the fact that we can now discover the mother's maiden name for all births between 1837 and 1911 ". I this a free online service or one of the paid services, Please ? Cheers all Col ------ Original Message ------ From: "Graham Lovelock" <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> To: "lovelock@rootsweb.com" <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, 15 Dec, 2017 At 9:11 PM Subject: [LOVELOCK] Here's something to mull over ... as it's a mulling time of year! Hello all, You may recall that we have visited the family of William Lovelock and Sarah Ann White from the Ropley, Crondall and Dogmersfield Tree on more than one occasion in the past. http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/family.php?famid=F729&ged=ropley-tidcombe The fact that we can now discover the mother's maiden name for all births between 1837 and 1911 and the publication of the 1939 Register suggest that we need to consider this family again. Firstly we need to take into account the fact that William Lovelock and Sarah Ann White married in Jul-Sep 1891. Despite that they are recorded in the 1891 Census Return as husband and wife, together with daughter Elizabeth Lovelock, aged 7, and son William (actually William Albert) Lovelock, aged 5. We can now see that both births were registered, and the mother's maiden name recorded on each occasion as White. In 1901 Sarah Ann was recorded in the household of her brother-in-law Evans Forster and was accompanied by two children, Lily (Lily Louisa), aged 6, and Ernest, aged 6 months. Lily's birth is confirmed by the GRO Online Index, but there is no record of an Ernest. There had been two more Lovelock/White births in the West Ham RD, where the family were apparently living - Mabel Charlotte (born and died in 1888) and Arthur John (born and died in 1890), who of course do not feature in any Census Return. Meanwhile William was apparently residing with his brother John in 1901, accompanied by son Arthur (actually Henry Arthur) born in 1892. But now we come to the difficult bits. Firstly, in 1896 Florence Violet was born and in 1898 Edith Maud was born, both in West Ham RD and both with a mother named White. There do not seem to be any other Lovelock/White marriages to account for these births, nor for Mabel Charlotte and Arthur John above. Florence died in 1897 but Edith Maud should appear in 1901 and 1911, but apparently does not. Secondly in 1911 William and Sarah Ann have in their household a son named George, aged 10. He should have appeared in the 1901 Census, but does not, and what's more no such birth was registered with the GRO. Was George indeed the son named as Ernest 10 years earlier as we have previously mused? Thirdly (and we have noted this before) in 1903 William and Sarah Ann produced Ernest Evans Lovelock (why would anyone give their son as a forename the forename of the wife's brother in law?), who died in 1905, and in 1906 Edith Forster Lovelock (why would anyone give their daughter as a forename the surname of the wife's brother in law?). And then even more strangely in 1909 came son Evans Foster (sic) Lovelock who died later that year. Fourthly in 1911 William and Sarah Ann's family included a son Albert Lovelock aged 6 whom we assumed to be Albert Foster Lovelock born 1905, but whose mother's maiden name is now stated by the GRO Online Index to be Edmonds. However, there is no Lovelock/Edmonds marriage in the records so it looks as though either the GRO have perpetrated an error or whoever registered the birth told a blatant lie. Now if you do the simple maths you end up with 14 children: Elizabeth William Albert Mabel Charlotte Arthur John Henry Arthur Lily Louisa Florence Violet Edith Maud Ernest George Ernest Evans Albert Foster Edith Forster Evans Foster And yet in 1911 William and Sarah Ann declared they had had only 9 children of whom 3 had died. Were they adhering strictly to the instruction on the Return Form to enumerate the 'Children born alive to (the) present Marriage', and therefore omitting Elizabeth and William Albert? That would leave them with 12, or 11 if Ernest and George were indeed one and the same. Still not right. Other ponderables include why name a daughter Edith Forster Lovelock when they apparently already had an Edith Maud? And if Edith Maud had died how had the death evaded the attentions of the GRO? And if Edith Maud had died why did William and Sarah Ann say only 3 of their children had died when it should have been 4? Don't forget that we surmised that Sarah Ann probably married her brother-in-law in 1928. This is reinforced by the 1939 Register recording a widowed Sarah A Forster at 67 Brent Road, West Ham (Evans Forster died in 1932) living with Albert Lovelock. But that entry generates yet more uncertainty, for Sarah's birthdate is given as 3 Apr 1866 and Albert's as 29 Nov 1905. Sarah's birth was registered in Jan-Mar 1863 which is more or less supported by her census ages of 29 (1891), 37 (1901) and 47 (1911). So why the necessity to create a totally false date in 1939? Furthermore Albert's birth was registered in Jan-Mar 1905, so why choose the falsehood of 29 Nov for a birthdate? Shall we ever understand what was going on in this family? Any ideas for further research gratefully received! 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 ... Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ The Lieflock Line, Wootton Rivers and Tangley Trees - webtrees<http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/> loveluck.net These three trees are connected by marriages. The progenitors of the three trees are as follows: The Lieflock Line - Richard Lovelock (? - 1760) who married Mary Head ... ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOVELOCK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ... Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ The Lieflock Line, Wootton Rivers and Tangley Trees - webtrees<http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/> loveluck.net These three trees are connected by marriages. The progenitors of the three trees are as follows: The Lieflock Line - Richard Lovelock (? - 1760) who married Mary Head ... ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOVELOCK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOVELOCK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hello all, I have now made a number of amendments to the family of William Lovelock and Sarah Ann White: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/family.php?famid=F729&ged=ropley-tidcombe As has always been the case, any of the information on this family, in common with that on all the other families in this and our numerous other trees, is there to be challenged if errors have been made (for instance due to my current one-hand-typing and a lack of effective proof reading) or research unearths new information. You will note that the sources quoted for much of the information are the usual on-line facilities: Free BMD, Ancestry, FamilySearch, Findmypast, and so on. I am sure I am about to teach granny how to suck eggs, but we need always to bear in mind that these are not in many cases the repositories of original information, often providing transcriptions rather than, for instance, imagery showing the actual entry in a Baptism or Burial Register or the Certificate of a Marriage, and therefore subject to error. If you are building your own family tree based on information on either of our websites you should always endeavour to gain access to the original documentation to verify the facts. That said our information is always presented in good faith, with a total willingness to eliminate mistakes and errors whenever these come to light. 2017 has been a very busy year in terms of the addition of new information and amendments to existing records. In fact our annual log files show that this has been the busiest year ever for us. And there is already work in hand which will see the light of day in 2018. Next year the main website will be, believe it or not, 20 years old. James and Robert can have had no idea back then just what a 'Topsy' they were launching, but I for one am eternally grateful that they took that initiative. By definition almost family history is never-ending and there's always something else that can be done. If there are particular gaps in our data that you believe could be plugged, or there's a pet project idea of yours that you think it would be worth us launching please do let us know. No guarantees regarding outcomes of course - we are all volunteers after all - but a gap shared just might be a gap that shrinks. I am not expecting to send any more messages before the end of the year (famous last words?) so I will take this opportunity of wishing all well, passing on the compliments of the impending season, and hoping that we will all enjoy a healthy and prosperous new year. Kind regards, Graham

To all our Lovies, please have a Merry Christmas & a very Happy New Year. Sorry Graham I have no ideas to help with this problem. Graham you mention " the fact that we can now discover the mother's maiden name for all births between 1837 and 1911 ". I this a free online service or one of the paid services, Please ? Cheers all Col ------ Original Message ------ From: "Graham Lovelock" <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> To: "lovelock@rootsweb.com" <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, 15 Dec, 2017 At 9:11 PM Subject: [LOVELOCK] Here's something to mull over ... as it's a mulling time of year! Hello all, You may recall that we have visited the family of William Lovelock and Sarah Ann White from the Ropley, Crondall and Dogmersfield Tree on more than one occasion in the past. http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/family.php?famid=F729&ged=ropley-tidcombe The fact that we can now discover the mother's maiden name for all births between 1837 and 1911 and the publication of the 1939 Register suggest that we need to consider this family again. Firstly we need to take into account the fact that William Lovelock and Sarah Ann White married in Jul-Sep 1891. Despite that they are recorded in the 1891 Census Return as husband and wife, together with daughter Elizabeth Lovelock, aged 7, and son William (actually William Albert) Lovelock, aged 5. We can now see that both births were registered, and the mother's maiden name recorded on each occasion as White. In 1901 Sarah Ann was recorded in the household of her brother-in-law Evans Forster and was accompanied by two children, Lily (Lily Louisa), aged 6, and Ernest, aged 6 months. Lily's birth is confirmed by the GRO Online Index, but there is no record of an Ernest. There had been two more Lovelock/White births in the West Ham RD, where the family were apparently living - Mabel Charlotte (born and died in 1888) and Arthur John (born and died in 1890), who of course do not feature in any Census Return. Meanwhile William was apparently residing with his brother John in 1901, accompanied by son Arthur (actually Henry Arthur) born in 1892. But now we come to the difficult bits. Firstly, in 1896 Florence Violet was born and in 1898 Edith Maud was born, both in West Ham RD and both with a mother named White. There do not seem to be any other Lovelock/White marriages to account for these births, nor for Mabel Charlotte and Arthur John above. Florence died in 1897 but Edith Maud should appear in 1901 and 1911, but apparently does not. Secondly in 1911 William and Sarah Ann have in their household a son named George, aged 10. He should have appeared in the 1901 Census, but does not, and what's more no such birth was registered with the GRO. Was George indeed the son named as Ernest 10 years earlier as we have previously mused? Thirdly (and we have noted this before) in 1903 William and Sarah Ann produced Ernest Evans Lovelock (why would anyone give their son as a forename the forename of the wife's brother in law?), who died in 1905, and in 1906 Edith Forster Lovelock (why would anyone give their daughter as a forename the surname of the wife's brother in law?). And then even more strangely in 1909 came son Evans Foster (sic) Lovelock who died later that year. Fourthly in 1911 William and Sarah Ann's family included a son Albert Lovelock aged 6 whom we assumed to be Albert Foster Lovelock born 1905, but whose mother's maiden name is now stated by the GRO Online Index to be Edmonds. However, there is no Lovelock/Edmonds marriage in the records so it looks as though either the GRO have perpetrated an error or whoever registered the birth told a blatant lie. Now if you do the simple maths you end up with 14 children: Elizabeth William Albert Mabel Charlotte Arthur John Henry Arthur Lily Louisa Florence Violet Edith Maud Ernest George Ernest Evans Albert Foster Edith Forster Evans Foster And yet in 1911 William and Sarah Ann declared they had had only 9 children of whom 3 had died. Were they adhering strictly to the instruction on the Return Form to enumerate the 'Children born alive to (the) present Marriage', and therefore omitting Elizabeth and William Albert? That would leave them with 12, or 11 if Ernest and George were indeed one and the same. Still not right. Other ponderables include why name a daughter Edith Forster Lovelock when they apparently already had an Edith Maud? And if Edith Maud had died how had the death evaded the attentions of the GRO? And if Edith Maud had died why did William and Sarah Ann say only 3 of their children had died when it should have been 4? Don't forget that we surmised that Sarah Ann probably married her brother-in-law in 1928. This is reinforced by the 1939 Register recording a widowed Sarah A Forster at 67 Brent Road, West Ham (Evans Forster died in 1932) living with Albert Lovelock. But that entry generates yet more uncertainty, for Sarah's birthdate is given as 3 Apr 1866 and Albert's as 29 Nov 1905. Sarah's birth was registered in Jan-Mar 1863 which is more or less supported by her census ages of 29 (1891), 37 (1901) and 47 (1911). So why the necessity to create a totally false date in 1939? Furthermore Albert's birth was registered in Jan-Mar 1905, so why choose the falsehood of 29 Nov for a birthdate? Shall we ever understand what was going on in this family? Any ideas for further research gratefully received! Regards, Graham ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOVELOCK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Thanks, Col - all the very best to you and yours. The good news is that the GRO service is completely free. Here's the link to get started: https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates/default.asp Note also that they are currently running a trial service to provide a PDF copy of a certificate at a lower cost than a registered copy. Not suitable for legal purposes but probably good enough for lots of genealogical purposes. If you are inclined to use it (I have and it's quick and easy to do) don't delay as this trial will not last forever, and there's no guarantee that it will become a permanent facility. Regards, Graham ________________________________ From: LOVELOCK <lovelock-bounces+lovelockgraham=hotmail.com@rootsweb.com> on behalf of colinbm1 colinbm1 <colinbm1@bigpond.com> Sent: 16 December 2017 05:40 To: lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LOVELOCK] Here's something to mull over ... as it's a mulling time of year! To all our Lovies, please have a Merry Christmas & a very Happy New Year. Sorry Graham I have no ideas to help with this problem. Graham you mention " the fact that we can now discover the mother's maiden name for all births between 1837 and 1911 ". I this a free online service or one of the paid services, Please ? Cheers all Col ------ Original Message ------ From: "Graham Lovelock" <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> To: "lovelock@rootsweb.com" <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, 15 Dec, 2017 At 9:11 PM Subject: [LOVELOCK] Here's something to mull over ... as it's a mulling time of year! Hello all, You may recall that we have visited the family of William Lovelock and Sarah Ann White from the Ropley, Crondall and Dogmersfield Tree on more than one occasion in the past. http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/family.php?famid=F729&ged=ropley-tidcombe The fact that we can now discover the mother's maiden name for all births between 1837 and 1911 and the publication of the 1939 Register suggest that we need to consider this family again. Firstly we need to take into account the fact that William Lovelock and Sarah Ann White married in Jul-Sep 1891. Despite that they are recorded in the 1891 Census Return as husband and wife, together with daughter Elizabeth Lovelock, aged 7, and son William (actually William Albert) Lovelock, aged 5. We can now see that both births were registered, and the mother's maiden name recorded on each occasion as White. In 1901 Sarah Ann was recorded in the household of her brother-in-law Evans Forster and was accompanied by two children, Lily (Lily Louisa), aged 6, and Ernest, aged 6 months. Lily's birth is confirmed by the GRO Online Index, but there is no record of an Ernest. There had been two more Lovelock/White births in the West Ham RD, where the family were apparently living - Mabel Charlotte (born and died in 1888) and Arthur John (born and died in 1890), who of course do not feature in any Census Return. Meanwhile William was apparently residing with his brother John in 1901, accompanied by son Arthur (actually Henry Arthur) born in 1892. But now we come to the difficult bits. Firstly, in 1896 Florence Violet was born and in 1898 Edith Maud was born, both in West Ham RD and both with a mother named White. There do not seem to be any other Lovelock/White marriages to account for these births, nor for Mabel Charlotte and Arthur John above. Florence died in 1897 but Edith Maud should appear in 1901 and 1911, but apparently does not. Secondly in 1911 William and Sarah Ann have in their household a son named George, aged 10. He should have appeared in the 1901 Census, but does not, and what's more no such birth was registered with the GRO. Was George indeed the son named as Ernest 10 years earlier as we have previously mused? Thirdly (and we have noted this before) in 1903 William and Sarah Ann produced Ernest Evans Lovelock (why would anyone give their son as a forename the forename of the wife's brother in law?), who died in 1905, and in 1906 Edith Forster Lovelock (why would anyone give their daughter as a forename the surname of the wife's brother in law?). And then even more strangely in 1909 came son Evans Foster (sic) Lovelock who died later that year. Fourthly in 1911 William and Sarah Ann's family included a son Albert Lovelock aged 6 whom we assumed to be Albert Foster Lovelock born 1905, but whose mother's maiden name is now stated by the GRO Online Index to be Edmonds. However, there is no Lovelock/Edmonds marriage in the records so it looks as though either the GRO have perpetrated an error or whoever registered the birth told a blatant lie. Now if you do the simple maths you end up with 14 children: Elizabeth William Albert Mabel Charlotte Arthur John Henry Arthur Lily Louisa Florence Violet Edith Maud Ernest George Ernest Evans Albert Foster Edith Forster Evans Foster And yet in 1911 William and Sarah Ann declared they had had only 9 children of whom 3 had died. Were they adhering strictly to the instruction on the Return Form to enumerate the 'Children born alive to (the) present Marriage', and therefore omitting Elizabeth and William Albert? That would leave them with 12, or 11 if Ernest and George were indeed one and the same. Still not right. Other ponderables include why name a daughter Edith Forster Lovelock when they apparently already had an Edith Maud? And if Edith Maud had died how had the death evaded the attentions of the GRO? And if Edith Maud had died why did William and Sarah Ann say only 3 of their children had died when it should have been 4? Don't forget that we surmised that Sarah Ann probably married her brother-in-law in 1928. This is reinforced by the 1939 Register recording a widowed Sarah A Forster at 67 Brent Road, West Ham (Evans Forster died in 1932) living with Albert Lovelock. But that entry generates yet more uncertainty, for Sarah's birthdate is given as 3 Apr 1866 and Albert's as 29 Nov 1905. Sarah's birth was registered in Jan-Mar 1863 which is more or less supported by her census ages of 29 (1891), 37 (1901) and 47 (1911). So why the necessity to create a totally false date in 1939? Furthermore Albert's birth was registered in Jan-Mar 1905, so why choose the falsehood of 29 Nov for a birthdate? Shall we ever understand what was going on in this family? Any ideas for further research gratefully received! 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 ... Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ The Lieflock Line, Wootton Rivers and Tangley Trees - webtrees<http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/> loveluck.net These three trees are connected by marriages. The progenitors of the three trees are as follows: The Lieflock Line - Richard Lovelock (? - 1760) who married Mary Head ... ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOVELOCK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ... Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ The Lieflock Line, Wootton Rivers and Tangley Trees - webtrees<http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/> loveluck.net These three trees are connected by marriages. The progenitors of the three trees are as follows: The Lieflock Line - Richard Lovelock (? - 1760) who married Mary Head ... ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOVELOCK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Thanks Colin, have nice Christmas your self and all the best to you and your family. Regards Malcolm Lovelock -----Original Message----- From: "colinbm1 colinbm1" <colinbm1@bigpond.com> Sent: ‎16/‎12/‎2017 05:41 To: "lovelock@rootsweb.com" <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Subject: Re: [LOVELOCK] Here's something to mull over ... as it's a mullingtime of year! To all our Lovies, please have a Merry Christmas & a very Happy New Year. Sorry Graham I have no ideas to help with this problem. Graham you mention " the fact that we can now discover the mother's maiden name for all births between 1837 and 1911 ". I this a free online service or one of the paid services, Please ? Cheers all Col ------ Original Message ------ From: "Graham Lovelock" <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> To: "lovelock@rootsweb.com" <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, 15 Dec, 2017 At 9:11 PM Subject: [LOVELOCK] Here's something to mull over ... as it's a mulling time of year! Hello all, You may recall that we have visited the family of William Lovelock and Sarah Ann White from the Ropley, Crondall and Dogmersfield Tree on more than one occasion in the past. http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/family.php?famid=F729&ged=ropley-tidcombe The fact that we can now discover the mother's maiden name for all births between 1837 and 1911 and the publication of the 1939 Register suggest that we need to consider this family again. Firstly we need to take into account the fact that William Lovelock and Sarah Ann White married in Jul-Sep 1891. Despite that they are recorded in the 1891 Census Return as husband and wife, together with daughter Elizabeth Lovelock, aged 7, and son William (actually William Albert) Lovelock, aged 5. We can now see that both births were registered, and the mother's maiden name recorded on each occasion as White. In 1901 Sarah Ann was recorded in the household of her brother-in-law Evans Forster and was accompanied by two children, Lily (Lily Louisa), aged 6, and Ernest, aged 6 months. Lily's birth is confirmed by the GRO Online Index, but there is no record of an Ernest. There had been two more Lovelock/White births in the West Ham RD, where the family were apparently living - Mabel Charlotte (born and died in 1888) and Arthur John (born and died in 1890), who of course do not feature in any Census Return. Meanwhile William was apparently residing with his brother John in 1901, accompanied by son Arthur (actually Henry Arthur) born in 1892. But now we come to the difficult bits. Firstly, in 1896 Florence Violet was born and in 1898 Edith Maud was born, both in West Ham RD and both with a mother named White. There do not seem to be any other Lovelock/White marriages to account for these births, nor for Mabel Charlotte and Arthur John above. Florence died in 1897 but Edith Maud should appear in 1901 and 1911, but apparently does not. Secondly in 1911 William and Sarah Ann have in their household a son named George, aged 10. He should have appeared in the 1901 Census, but does not, and what's more no such birth was registered with the GRO. Was George indeed the son named as Ernest 10 years earlier as we have previously mused? Thirdly (and we have noted this before) in 1903 William and Sarah Ann produced Ernest Evans Lovelock (why would anyone give their son as a forename the forename of the wife's brother in law?), who died in 1905, and in 1906 Edith Forster Lovelock (why would anyone give their daughter as a forename the surname of the wife's brother in law?). And then even more strangely in 1909 came son Evans Foster (sic) Lovelock who died later that year. Fourthly in 1911 William and Sarah Ann's family included a son Albert Lovelock aged 6 whom we assumed to be Albert Foster Lovelock born 1905, but whose mother's maiden name is now stated by the GRO Online Index to be Edmonds. However, there is no Lovelock/Edmonds marriage in the records so it looks as though either the GRO have perpetrated an error or whoever registered the birth told a blatant lie. Now if you do the simple maths you end up with 14 children: Elizabeth William Albert Mabel Charlotte Arthur John Henry Arthur Lily Louisa Florence Violet Edith Maud Ernest George Ernest Evans Albert Foster Edith Forster Evans Foster And yet in 1911 William and Sarah Ann declared they had had only 9 children of whom 3 had died. Were they adhering strictly to the instruction on the Return Form to enumerate the 'Children born alive to (the) present Marriage', and therefore omitting Elizabeth and William Albert? That would leave them with 12, or 11 if Ernest and George were indeed one and the same. Still not right. Other ponderables include why name a daughter Edith Forster Lovelock when they apparently already had an Edith Maud? And if Edith Maud had died how had the death evaded the attentions of the GRO? And if Edith Maud had died why did William and Sarah Ann say only 3 of their children had died when it should have been 4? Don't forget that we surmised that Sarah Ann probably married her brother-in-law in 1928. This is reinforced by the 1939 Register recording a widowed Sarah A Forster at 67 Brent Road, West Ham (Evans Forster died in 1932) living with Albert Lovelock. But that entry generates yet more uncertainty, for Sarah's birthdate is given as 3 Apr 1866 and Albert's as 29 Nov 1905. Sarah's birth was registered in Jan-Mar 1863 which is more or less supported by her census ages of 29 (1891), 37 (1901) and 47 (1911). So why the necessity to create a totally false date in 1939? Furthermore Albert's birth was registered in Jan-Mar 1905, so why choose the falsehood of 29 Nov for a birthdate? Shall we ever understand what was going on in this family? Any ideas for further research gratefully received! Regards, Graham ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOVELOCK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOVELOCK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hello all, You may recall that we have visited the family of William Lovelock and Sarah Ann White from the Ropley, Crondall and Dogmersfield Tree on more than one occasion in the past. http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/family.php?famid=F729&ged=ropley-tidcombe The fact that we can now discover the mother's maiden name for all births between 1837 and 1911 and the publication of the 1939 Register suggest that we need to consider this family again. Firstly we need to take into account the fact that William Lovelock and Sarah Ann White married in Jul-Sep 1891. Despite that they are recorded in the 1891 Census Return as husband and wife, together with daughter Elizabeth Lovelock, aged 7, and son William (actually William Albert) Lovelock, aged 5. We can now see that both births were registered, and the mother's maiden name recorded on each occasion as White. In 1901 Sarah Ann was recorded in the household of her brother-in-law Evans Forster and was accompanied by two children, Lily (Lily Louisa), aged 6, and Ernest, aged 6 months. Lily's birth is confirmed by the GRO Online Index, but there is no record of an Ernest. There had been two more Lovelock/White births in the West Ham RD, where the family were apparently living - Mabel Charlotte (born and died in 1888) and Arthur John (born and died in 1890), who of course do not feature in any Census Return. Meanwhile William was apparently residing with his brother John in 1901, accompanied by son Arthur (actually Henry Arthur) born in 1892. But now we come to the difficult bits. Firstly, in 1896 Florence Violet was born and in 1898 Edith Maud was born, both in West Ham RD and both with a mother named White. There do not seem to be any other Lovelock/White marriages to account for these births, nor for Mabel Charlotte and Arthur John above. Florence died in 1897 but Edith Maud should appear in 1901 and 1911, but apparently does not. Secondly in 1911 William and Sarah Ann have in their household a son named George, aged 10. He should have appeared in the 1901 Census, but does not, and what's more no such birth was registered with the GRO. Was George indeed the son named as Ernest 10 years earlier as we have previously mused? Thirdly (and we have noted this before) in 1903 William and Sarah Ann produced Ernest Evans Lovelock (why would anyone give their son as a forename the forename of the wife's brother in law?), who died in 1905, and in 1906 Edith Forster Lovelock (why would anyone give their daughter as a forename the surname of the wife's brother in law?). And then even more strangely in 1909 came son Evans Foster (sic) Lovelock who died later that year. Fourthly in 1911 William and Sarah Ann's family included a son Albert Lovelock aged 6 whom we assumed to be Albert Foster Lovelock born 1905, but whose mother's maiden name is now stated by the GRO Online Index to be Edmonds. However, there is no Lovelock/Edmonds marriage in the records so it looks as though either the GRO have perpetrated an error or whoever registered the birth told a blatant lie. Now if you do the simple maths you end up with 14 children: Elizabeth William Albert Mabel Charlotte Arthur John Henry Arthur Lily Louisa Florence Violet Edith Maud Ernest George Ernest Evans Albert Foster Edith Forster Evans Foster And yet in 1911 William and Sarah Ann declared they had had only 9 children of whom 3 had died. Were they adhering strictly to the instruction on the Return Form to enumerate the 'Children born alive to (the) present Marriage', and therefore omitting Elizabeth and William Albert? That would leave them with 12, or 11 if Ernest and George were indeed one and the same. Still not right. Other ponderables include why name a daughter Edith Forster Lovelock when they apparently already had an Edith Maud? And if Edith Maud had died how had the death evaded the attentions of the GRO? And if Edith Maud had died why did William and Sarah Ann say only 3 of their children had died when it should have been 4? Don't forget that we surmised that Sarah Ann probably married her brother-in-law in 1928. This is reinforced by the 1939 Register recording a widowed Sarah A Forster at 67 Brent Road, West Ham (Evans Forster died in 1932) living with Albert Lovelock. But that entry generates yet more uncertainty, for Sarah's birthdate is given as 3 Apr 1866 and Albert's as 29 Nov 1905. Sarah's birth was registered in Jan-Mar 1863 which is more or less supported by her census ages of 29 (1891), 37 (1901) and 47 (1911). So why the necessity to create a totally false date in 1939? Furthermore Albert's birth was registered in Jan-Mar 1905, so why choose the falsehood of 29 Nov for a birthdate? Shall we ever understand what was going on in this family? Any ideas for further research gratefully received! Regards, Graham

Hello all, Consider these three Census entries from the Stepney Tree: 1. 1891 51 Skidmore Street, Mile End Old Town, London, England RG12 307 F68 P11 James Crouch;Head;31;Horse Keeper;Bethnal Green, London Clara Crouch;No relationship quoted;24;Tailoress;Stepney, London 2. 1901 34 Ely Terrace, Mile End Old Town, London, England RG13 333 F64 P9 Clara Crouch;Head;Wid;31;Tailoress;Stepney, London Annie L Lovelock;Sister;;17;Tailoress;Stepney, London 3. 1911 1 Flemming Street, Shoreditch, London, England RG14 PN1333 RG78 PN46 RD16 SD1 ED12 SN456 James Crouch;Head;52;Stableman;Bethnal Green Clara Crouch;Wife, married 22 years;38;;Stephney (sic) By the looks of it James and Clara had a serious falling-out around 1901. Clara by the way is one of those frustrating examples of a child being baptised by the parents (albeit, in Clara's case, when she was 3 years old) but the birth not being registered. What's more, in 1871 her parents had her recorded as Clara E A Lovelock, but there is no other evidence of the E and A, and although her age in 1911 seems to have been originally written as 38 (in the wrong column) it looks as though James then overwrote it to make it 41, but that was crossed out and 38, possibly in pencil, added in what looks like a different hand in the correct column. Perhaps James and Clara were still having disagreements! Regards, Graham

Wasn't Oxford Road the address for Reading workhouse, later Battle hospital? Could explain why they were all at the same address. Helen -----Original Message----- From: LOVELOCK [mailto:lovelock-bounces+helmar=bigpond.net.au@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of colinbm1 colinbm1 Sent: Saturday, 18 November 2017 2:50 PM To: lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LOVELOCK] Coincidence or not? Thanks Graham It looks like 344 Oxford Street, Reading was the finishing house for Lovelocks ? Maria Jane Lovelock, Buried 23 Mar 1937, is my Great Grandmother. She with her family of 10 children with Husband Thomas Lovelock lived at Charles Street, Reading, in the late 1800s & early 1900s. Thomas was a Porter at the Reading Railway Station. From my research I know there was another Lovelock family living at Charles Street too. My Grandmother Rose Alice Lovelock spoke of other neighbours but not of the other Lovelock family. Why or what 344 Oxford Street is I am curious to know ? Cheers Col ------ Original Message ------ From: "Graham Lovelock" <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> To: "lovelock@rootsweb.com" <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, 17 Nov, 2017 At 5:00 AM Subject: [LOVELOCK] Coincidence or not? Hello all, You will recall that we were recently able to add a number of Berkshire Burial entries to our collection of data, and a curious situation has been highlighted through those additions. It all concerns 344 Oxford Road, Reading. There are four burials of persons who were resident at that address: Annie Maria Lovelock Buried 24 Nov 1927 Maria Jane Lovelock Buried 23 Mar 1937 Gladys Elsie Lovelock Buried 21 Nov 1939 James Lovelock Buried 27 Jun 1949 What is curious is that Annie Maria and Gladys Elsie were members of the Second Wootton Rivers Tree, whilst Maria Jane and James were members of the Ropley, Crondall and Dogmersfield Tree. Can coincidence really explain how the house came to be alternately occupied by two different sets of Lovelocks ..... or have I missed something (yet again!)? Regards, Graham ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOVELOCK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOVELOCK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Thanks Graham It looks like 344 Oxford Street, Reading was the finishing house for Lovelocks ? Maria Jane Lovelock, Buried 23 Mar 1937, is my Great Grandmother. She with her family of 10 children with Husband Thomas Lovelock lived at Charles Street, Reading, in the late 1800s & early 1900s. Thomas was a Porter at the Reading Railway Station. From my research I know there was another Lovelock family living at Charles Street too. My Grandmother Rose Alice Lovelock spoke of other neighbours but not of the other Lovelock family. Why or what 344 Oxford Street is I am curious to know ? Cheers Col ------ Original Message ------ From: "Graham Lovelock" <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> To: "lovelock@rootsweb.com" <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, 17 Nov, 2017 At 5:00 AM Subject: [LOVELOCK] Coincidence or not? Hello all, You will recall that we were recently able to add a number of Berkshire Burial entries to our collection of data, and a curious situation has been highlighted through those additions. It all concerns 344 Oxford Road, Reading. There are four burials of persons who were resident at that address: Annie Maria Lovelock Buried 24 Nov 1927 Maria Jane Lovelock Buried 23 Mar 1937 Gladys Elsie Lovelock Buried 21 Nov 1939 James Lovelock Buried 27 Jun 1949 What is curious is that Annie Maria and Gladys Elsie were members of the Second Wootton Rivers Tree, whilst Maria Jane and James were members of the Ropley, Crondall and Dogmersfield Tree. Can coincidence really explain how the house came to be alternately occupied by two different sets of Lovelocks ..... or have I missed something (yet again!)? Regards, Graham ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOVELOCK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Just a couple of snippets to add to the on-going discussion - a. There is a lot of information about the workhouse/hospital at www.workhouses.org/Reading, including some photos and the fact that an old people's infirmary was added. b. The other Lovelock family in Charles Street referred to by Col is probably that of Jacob Lovelock (1846-1916) on the Lyneham line, who is recorded as living at 22 Charles Street, Reading, in the 1901 and 1911 censuses. Kind regards Sue Lovelock ----Original message---- >From : colinbm1@bigpond.com Date : 18/11/2017 - 03:49 (GMTST) To : lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject : Re: [LOVELOCK] Coincidence or not? Thanks Graham It looks like 344 Oxford Street, Reading was the finishing house for Lovelocks ? Maria Jane Lovelock, Buried 23 Mar 1937, is my Great Grandmother. She with her family of 10 children with Husband Thomas Lovelock lived at Charles Street, Reading, in the late 1800s & early 1900s. Thomas was a Porter at the Reading Railway Station. From my research I know there was another Lovelock family living at Charles Street too. My Grandmother Rose Alice Lovelock spoke of other neighbours but not of the other Lovelock family. Why or what 344 Oxford Street is I am curious to know ? Cheers Col ------ Original Message ------ From: "Graham Lovelock" <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> To: "lovelock@rootsweb.com" <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, 17 Nov, 2017 At 5:00 AM Subject: [LOVELOCK] Coincidence or not? Hello all, You will recall that we were recently able to add a number of Berkshire Burial entries to our collection of data, and a curious situation has been highlighted through those additions. It all concerns 344 Oxford Road, Reading. There are four burials of persons who were resident at that address: Annie Maria Lovelock Buried 24 Nov 1927 Maria Jane Lovelock Buried 23 Mar 1937 Gladys Elsie Lovelock Buried 21 Nov 1939 James Lovelock Buried 27 Jun 1949 What is curious is that Annie Maria and Gladys Elsie were members of the Second Wootton Rivers Tree, whilst Maria Jane and James were members of the Ropley, Crondall and Dogmersfield Tree. Can coincidence really explain how the house came to be alternately occupied by two different sets of Lovelocks ..... or have I missed something (yet again!)? Regards, Graham ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOVELOCK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOVELOCK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hello Graham, As you know I am from the Wootton Rivers 2 tree. I have Annie Maria's death certificate. It records that she lived at No. 17 Belmont Rd, her sister Mary Jane Martin lived next door at no. 19 and was filed as the "Informant". Under where died it has 344 Oxford Rd.  If someone died in the work house, I understand the death was registered by the "Master of the Workhouse" as is recorded on what I believe to be Annie Maria's fathers death certificate. Therefore I believe that 344 Oxford Rd, must have been a hospital. Gladys Elsie died aged 39, but I do not have her Death Certificate. Hope this throws some light on the matter. Best wishes  Alyson Lovelock. From: Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> To: "lovelock@rootsweb.com" <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, 16 November 2017, 18:00 Subject: [LOVELOCK] Coincidence or not? Hello all, You will recall that we were recently able to add a number of Berkshire Burial entries to our collection of data, and a curious situation has been highlighted through those additions. It all concerns 344 Oxford Road, Reading. There are four burials of persons who were resident at that address: Annie Maria Lovelock    Buried 24 Nov 1927 Maria Jane Lovelock      Buried 23 Mar 1937 Gladys Elsie Lovelock      Buried 21 Nov 1939 James Lovelock                Buried 27 Jun 1949 What is curious is that Annie Maria and Gladys Elsie were members of the Second Wootton Rivers Tree, whilst Maria Jane and James were members of the Ropley, Crondall and Dogmersfield Tree. Can coincidence really explain how the house came to be alternately occupied by two different sets of Lovelocks ..... or have I missed something (yet again!)? Regards, Graham ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOVELOCK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hello all, Fortunately GRO errors in transcribing from the original Register Office submissions to the full Indices are comparatively rare, but unfortunately there are some. One that led us up the wrong garden path concerns an entry that should have been for Alfred J Lovelock, but was in fact transcribed as Alfred G Lovelock. The full story can be found in today's 'What's New' entry, which reveals once again the value of being able to compare a range of sources: http://lovelock.free.fr/new.html Regards, Graham

Hello all, You will recall that we were recently able to add a number of Berkshire Burial entries to our collection of data, and a curious situation has been highlighted through those additions. It all concerns 344 Oxford Road, Reading. There are four burials of persons who were resident at that address: Annie Maria Lovelock Buried 24 Nov 1927 Maria Jane Lovelock Buried 23 Mar 1937 Gladys Elsie Lovelock Buried 21 Nov 1939 James Lovelock Buried 27 Jun 1949 What is curious is that Annie Maria and Gladys Elsie were members of the Second Wootton Rivers Tree, whilst Maria Jane and James were members of the Ropley, Crondall and Dogmersfield Tree. Can coincidence really explain how the house came to be alternately occupied by two different sets of Lovelocks ..... or have I missed something (yet again!)? Regards, Graham