In connection with Graham's three redoubtable guides, our family newsletter, Lovelock Lines, carried a tribute to Gwen Eastment in its 2008 number (#7, pp.2-7). This was written by her second cousin, Robert Sterry, and accompanied a biographical fragment she wrote about herself. It is available on the family history website at  http://lovelock.free.fr/l-lines/lovelock-lines-7th-ed.pdfand also on Scribd at https://www.scribd.com/document/25114890/Lovelock-Lines-7. Regards, Yann From: Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> To: "lovelock@rootsweb.com" <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, 8 November 2017, 17:09 Subject: [LOVELOCK] 'Dee' Allhands Hello all, I've been researching family history for a while now, but I have not forgotten my early days when I was desperately searching for support, advice, and guidance as most of us do at the start. In my case that came from three ladies in particular, all of whom we have now lost: Gwen Eastment, who used to send the most enormous epistles (no internet back then!) and who left us in 2008, Janet Hearle, a friend of Gwen's I believe who started out in the days when Parish Churches still had to be visited to view the contents of Registers and who died in 1996, and Dee Allhands. I have just discovered that Dee died in August last year so I have now lost all my links to those early days. But those ladies left us with a splendid legacy which we continue to add to and which I am sure they would take great pride in. 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

Hear! Hear! Well said Graham. All remarkable women who pioneered Lovelock family history research. -----Original Message----- From: LOVELOCK [mailto:lovelock-bounces+robert=sterryworldwide.com@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Graham Lovelock Sent: Thursday, 9 November 2017 4:09 AM To: lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject: [LOVELOCK] 'Dee' Allhands Hello all, I've been researching family history for a while now, but I have not forgotten my early days when I was desperately searching for support, advice, and guidance as most of us do at the start. In my case that came from three ladies in particular, all of whom we have now lost: Gwen Eastment, who used to send the most enormous epistles (no internet back then!) and who left us in 2008, Janet Hearle, a friend of Gwen's I believe who started out in the days when Parish Churches still had to be visited to view the contents of Registers and who died in 1996, and Dee Allhands. I have just discovered that Dee died in August last year so I have now lost all my links to those early days. But those ladies left us with a splendid legacy which we continue to add to and which I am sure they would take great pride in. 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

Thank you Ladies & thank you Sir. Cheers Col ------ Original Message ------ From: "Graham Lovelock" <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> To: "lovelock@rootsweb.com" <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, 9 Nov, 2017 At 4:09 AM Subject: [LOVELOCK] 'Dee' Allhands Hello all, I've been researching family history for a while now, but I have not forgotten my early days when I was desperately searching for support, advice, and guidance as most of us do at the start. In my case that came from three ladies in particular, all of whom we have now lost: Gwen Eastment, who used to send the most enormous epistles (no internet back then!) and who left us in 2008, Janet Hearle, a friend of Gwen's I believe who started out in the days when Parish Churches still had to be visited to view the contents of Registers and who died in 1996, and Dee Allhands. I have just discovered that Dee died in August last year so I have now lost all my links to those early days. But those ladies left us with a splendid legacy which we continue to add to and which I am sure they would take great pride in. 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, I've been researching family history for a while now, but I have not forgotten my early days when I was desperately searching for support, advice, and guidance as most of us do at the start. In my case that came from three ladies in particular, all of whom we have now lost: Gwen Eastment, who used to send the most enormous epistles (no internet back then!) and who left us in 2008, Janet Hearle, a friend of Gwen's I believe who started out in the days when Parish Churches still had to be visited to view the contents of Registers and who died in 1996, and Dee Allhands. I have just discovered that Dee died in August last year so I have now lost all my links to those early days. But those ladies left us with a splendid legacy which we continue to add to and which I am sure they would take great pride in. Graham

adding to the confusion are the following baptisms: Alfreda Wilson Lovelock and William Lawrence Lovelock - parents are recorded as Francis & Jane Emily, abode Lambeth Workhouse, occupation cabman. Source: St Phillip , Lambeth. They were both baptised in 1898 on the 22nd of May, Dates of birth, 25th Feb 1894 and 24 April 1897 respectively. (It seems a 'mass baptism' of workhouse children was done that day) Looking at the 1939 register, Alfreda seemingly had a son, Ewart W Lovelock born 1917. But what happened to Jane Emily ? The 1911 census records the following HAMBROOK family in Shepherds Bush: Francis, aged 60, Jane Emily, wife, 47 Francis Seymour, son, aged 9 Joseph James, son, aged 5 Alice, daughter, aged 3 They had been married 27 Years (!) , with three children. (the 27 years gives a marriage date of 1884, the year of the Lovelock / Willson marriage) Very Confusing ! Helen -----Original Message----- From: LOVELOCK [mailto:lovelock-bounces+helmar=bigpond.net.au@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Graham Lovelock Sent: Wednesday, 5 July 2017 7:56 AM To: Lovelock mailing list Subject: Re: [LOVELOCK] Lovelock/Willson Dear all, I do hope you are managing to keep up on this one. I have been pointed at some other information, which simply adds to my confusion, but perhaps you will see things more clearly. In the 1901 Census there is an entry for the 'St Pancras Schools' at Leavesden in Hertfordshire. Amongst the pupils are three Lovelocks: Alfreda aged 7 Florence aged 11 William aged 4 Like their fellow pupils their place of birth is entered as 'N K' or Not Known. This may have been a deliberate artifice on the part of the staff. The schools had been established 'for the maintenance of Poor-Law children from the parish of St Pancras, Middlesex'. The reason this is of interest is because Florence seems likely to be Florence Emily born Jan-Mar 1890, mother's name Willson (2 Ls), whilst Alfreda must be the Alfreda Wilson Lovelock born Apr-Jun 1894, mother's name Wilson (one L), and William must be William Lawrence Lovelock born Apr-Jun 1897, mother's name Willson (2 Ls). So what kind of scenario might we now envisage? Alfred Robert and Caroline Westwood had a son of their own in Apr-Jun 1897, so it looks as though he had simply walked out on his family with Jane Emily Willson at some point in 1896, leaving her possibly pregnant, and eventually perhaps forcing her and the 3 children above into the Workhouse. But how then to account for the 'Hambrook' births in 1903 and 1906? Was Alfred Robert running two families at some point? Did Mrs Lovelock have a liaison with a Mr Hambrook, but register the births as if she and Alfred were still together? Curiouser and curiouser. Graham ________________________________ From: Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> Sent: 04 July 2017 20:36 To: Lovelock mailing list Subject: Re: Lovelock/Willson Hello again all, Further to my message below I have been directed to some other information which is obviously relevant, but leaves my head spinning. Perhaps you can help ..... The 1939 Register has a peculiar entry for 20 Goodwin Road, Hammersmith, London. The occupants are: James Hambrook Married Born 8 Jul 1906 Elsie Hambrook Married Born 21 Oct 1907 Closed record (but the image is not properly obscured so it is possible to see that the person is Female and was born on 18 Mar 1937) Frances S H Hambrook Single (the date of birth being obscured) Findmypast's transcription indicates that the fourth person is Francis (ie Male) S H Hambrook born 23 Dec 1902, although the image is clearly Frances. However, more importantly the name Lovelock is written above Hambrook, which in the case of ladies usually indicates the surname of the person they later married. In those case Hambrook would be crossed through, but in this case it is not. Furthermore, something is written before the word Lovelock, but the poorly arranged image has this obscured. I have asked fmp what is written there. What is odd is that we now have a Frances/Francis S H Hambrook in 1939 and a Francis Seymour Hambrook Lovelock in the 1903 birth index. Surely the same person, especially as fmp's transciption says the date of birth for the 1939 person is 23 Dec 1902. But there is more ..... James Hambrook as above does not exist. After some searching it transpires that he is really Joseph James Hambrook Lovelock, whose mother's maiden name was recorded as WILSON (just one L). I have looked at the Lovelock/Wilson marriages in Free BMD from 1890 to 1910 and none of them are relevant. The married couple in Hammersmith in 1939 were recorded at their marriage (1928) as Joseph J Hambrook and Elsie I Creed. So, as I said, my head is spinning trying to decipher all this. HELP !!! ________________________________ From: Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> Sent: 04 July 2017 18:41 To: Lovelock mailing list Subject: Lovelock/Willson Dear All, I believe the subject of this message is one that I addressed in one of several messages last December. If you have looked at the Rootsweb home page for the Lovelock Mailing List you may have noticed that there are no messages recorded for December 2016. I have written to Rootsweb several times to enquire into the fate of the missing messages and each time they fob me off with waffle about technological changes that they are engaged in for which they can give me no completion date, but that I may rest assured that everything will be restored in due course. 6 months on those responses are clearly terminological inexactitudes. So let me try again. Alfred Robert Lovelock from the St Pancras (Main) Tree married Jane Emily WILLSON (note the double L) on 30 June 1884 in Bethnal Green, London. This is the only marriage of a Lovelock and a Willson in the Free BMD database between 1838 and 1911. Using the GRO Online Index of Births the following Lovelocks whose mother's maiden name was Willson can be identified: Alfred William Jul-Sep 1885 Pancras RD Edith Helen Jul-Sep 1887 Pancras RD Florence Emily Jan-Mar 1890 Pancras RD Louis Walter Apr-Jun 1891 Pancras RD William Lawrence Apr-Jun 1897 St Giles RD Francis Seymour Hambrook Jan-Mar 1903 St Marylebone RD Complications arise when you realise that Alfred Robert married Caroline Elizabeth Westwood in Jul-Sep 1896, plus the fact that there seems to be no death entry at all that can be unequivocally identified as Jane Emily. Furthermore when William Lawrence married in 1922 he gave his father's name as Alfred Robert Lovelock, and declared that Alfred was a Wine Cooper. Turning to Free BMD again, there is only one birth entry for an Alfred Robert Lovelock (not even an Alfred R in addition). In the 1891 Census Alfred (with Jane) was a Carman aged 26, born Holborn, in 1901 (with Caroline) he was a Hackney Carriage Driver aged 36, born Holborn, and in 1911 (still with Caroline) a Cab Driver (Horse) aged 46, born Holborn. However, in 1939, declaring himself to be married, he was a retired Gas Fitter living in the same house as a Mary F Lovelock, also married. We know it is the same man as his birthdate agrees with that recorded in the St Pancras (Old Church) Register. You will not be surprised to learn that there is no record in Free BMD or elsewhere of his marriage to a Mary F, nor perhaps that Caroline was recorded as married in the 1939 Register and did not die until 1962. If anybody can add to this rather tortuous tale please do. 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

Apologies for the earlier incomplete version of what follows - my computer decided willy-nilly to send without asking my permission! Please delete it. Thanks for picking this one up again, Helen. I think we can now make educated guesses about what went on. 1. Alfred Robert Lovelock married Jane Emily Willson in 1884 in a church service at Saint Philip, Bethnal Green. 2. Sometime in the July-September quarter of 1896 Alfred Robert married Caroline Elizabeth Westwood. The marriage is not included in the London Metropolitan Archive data at Ancestry.co.uk so may have been a Register Office wedding. In any case the marriage appears to have been bigamous on Alfred Robert's part. 3. Alfred and Jane were the parents of 5 children: Alfred William (1885-1892), Edith Helen (1887-1890), Florence Emily (1889-1953), Louis Walter (1891-1892) and Alfreda Wilson (1894-1979). 4. William Lawrence Lovelock was born on 24 April 1897. He must have been conceived in July 1896, and may therefore be the son of Alfred Robert. 5. On 12 April 1897 Alfred and Caroline had a son Alfred Joseph Herbert (1897-1961). 6. On 22 May 1898 Alfreda Wilson Lovelock and William Lawrence Lovelock were baptised, when their parents were recorded as Francis and Jane Emily Lovelock, who at the time were resident in Lambeth Workhouse. 7. The most likely scenario seems to be that Alfred Robert deserted Jane Emily, Florence Emily and Alfreda Wilson, leaving Jane also pregnant with William Lawrence. Jane was obliged to enter the Workhouse. However, it seems odd that neither she nor the authorities pursued Alfred Robert for support. This may be because she had already taken up with Francis Hambrook, and indeed he might possibly be the natural father of William Lawrence, which could have been at least part of the reason why Alfred Robert left. Both Alfred and Francis were Carmen, but whether their employment played any part in the turn of events is impossible to say. 8. By 1901 a somewhat confusing situation had developed. Florence, Alfreda and William were at a school for Pancras Workhouse children, rather than at the Lambeth Schools. Neither Jane nor Francis seem to be identifiable in the Census Returns. Alfred and Caroline were living in St Pancras with their son. 9. In 1911 the Hambrook household was as described by Helen below, with Francis and Jane cheekily claiming to have been married at the time she actually married Alfred Lovelock, and therefore presenting the rather bizarre situation of having been married for 18 years without producing any children, and then begetting 3 in relatively close succession. 10. There are still one or two, probably unanswerable, questions. As well as the matter of Alfred not supporting his first family, necessitating them entering the Workhouse, how did Francis Hambrook come to be identified as Francis Lovelock for the baptism of two children, and were they actually his? The expression 'It's a wise child that knows his father' certainly applies here! The St Pancras (Main) Tree now generally reflects the suggestions above, but includes only 'facts' supported by Census entries, etc, and none of the speculation. Regards, Graham ________________________________ From: LOVELOCK on behalf of Helen Norton Sent: 04 November 2017 03:03 To: lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LOVELOCK] Lovelock/Willson adding to the confusion are the following baptisms: Alfreda Wilson Lovelock and William Lawrence Lovelock - parents are recorded as Francis & Jane Emily, abode Lambeth Workhouse, occupation cabman. Source: St Phillip , Lambeth. They were both baptised in 1898 on the 22nd of May, Dates of birth, 25th Feb 1894 and 24 April 1897 respectively. (It seems a 'mass baptism' of workhouse children was done that day) Looking at the 1939 register, Alfreda seemingly had a son, Ewart W Lovelock born 1917. But what happened to Jane Emily ? The 1911 census records the following HAMBROOK family in Shepherds Bush: Francis, aged 60, Jane Emily, wife, 47 Francis Seymour, son, aged 9 Joseph James, son, aged 5 Alice, daughter, aged 3 They had been married 27 Years (!) , with three children. (the 27 years gives a marriage date of 1884, the year of the Lovelock / Willson marriage) Very Confusing ! Helen -----Original Message----- From: LOVELOCK On Behalf Of Graham Lovelock Sent: Wednesday, 5 July 2017 7:56 AM To: Lovelock mailing list Subject: Re: [LOVELOCK] Lovelock/Willson Dear all, I do hope you are managing to keep up on this one. I have been pointed at some other information, which simply adds to my confusion, but perhaps you will see things more clearly. In the 1901 Census there is an entry for the 'St Pancras Schools' at Leavesden in Hertfordshire. Amongst the pupils are three Lovelocks: Alfreda aged 7 Florence aged 11 William aged 4 Like their fellow pupils their place of birth is entered as 'N K' or Not Known. This may have been a deliberate artifice on the part of the staff. The schools had been established 'for the maintenance of Poor-Law children from the parish of St Pancras, Middlesex'. The reason this is of interest is because Florence seems likely to be Florence Emily born Jan-Mar 1890, mother's name Willson (2 Ls), whilst Alfreda must be the Alfreda Wilson Lovelock born Apr-Jun 1894, mother's name Wilson (one L), and William must be William Lawrence Lovelock born Apr-Jun 1897, mother's name Willson (2 Ls). So what kind of scenario might we now envisage? Alfred Robert and Caroline Westwood had a son of their own in Apr-Jun 1897, so it looks as though he had simply walked out on his family with Jane Emily Willson at some point in 1896, leaving her possibly pregnant, and eventually perhaps forcing her and the 3 children above into the Workhouse. But how then to account for the 'Hambrook' births in 1903 and 1906? Was Alfred Robert running two families at some point? Did Mrs Lovelock have a liaison with a Mr Hambrook, but register the births as if she and Alfred were still together? Curiouser and curiouser. Graham ________________________________ From: Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> Sent: 04 July 2017 20:36 To: Lovelock mailing list Subject: Re: Lovelock/Willson Hello again all, Further to my message below I have been directed to some other information which is obviously relevant, but leaves my head spinning. Perhaps you can help ..... The 1939 Register has a peculiar entry for 20 Goodwin Road, Hammersmith, London. The occupants are: James Hambrook Married Born 8 Jul 1906 Elsie Hambrook Married Born 21 Oct 1907 Closed record (but the image is not properly obscured so it is possible to see that the person is Female and was born on 18 Mar 1937) Frances S H Hambrook Single (the date of birth being obscured) Findmypast's transcription indicates that the fourth person is Francis (ie Male) S H Hambrook born 23 Dec 1902, although the image is clearly Frances. However, more importantly the name Lovelock is written above Hambrook, which in the case of ladies usually indicates the surname of the person they later married. In those case Hambrook would be crossed through, but in this case it is not. Furthermore, something is written before the word Lovelock, but the poorly arranged image has this obscured. I have asked fmp what is written there. What is odd is that we now have a Frances/Francis S H Hambrook in 1939 and a Francis Seymour Hambrook Lovelock in the 1903 birth index. Surely the same person, especially as fmp's transciption says the date of birth for the 1939 person is 23 Dec 1902. But there is more ..... James Hambrook as above does not exist. After some searching it transpires that he is really Joseph James Hambrook Lovelock, whose mother's maiden name was recorded as WILSON (just one L). I have looked at the Lovelock/Wilson marriages in Free BMD from 1890 to 1910 and none of them are relevant. The married couple in Hammersmith in 1939 were recorded at their marriage (1928) as Joseph J Hambrook and Elsie I Creed. So, as I said, my head is spinning trying to decipher all this. HELP !!! ________________________________ From: Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> Sent: 04 July 2017 18:41 To: Lovelock mailing list Subject: Lovelock/Willson Dear All, I believe the subject of this message is one that I addressed in one of several messages last December. If you have looked at the Rootsweb home page for the Lovelock Mailing List you may have noticed that there are no messages recorded for December 2016. I have written to Rootsweb several times to enquire into the fate of the missing messages and each time they fob me off with waffle about technological changes that they are engaged in for which they can give me no completion date, but that I may rest assured that everything will be restored in due course. 6 months on those responses are clearly terminological inexactitudes. So let me try again. Alfred Robert Lovelock from the St Pancras (Main) Tree married Jane Emily WILLSON (note the double L) on 30 June 1884 in Bethnal Green, London. This is the only marriage of a Lovelock and a Willson in the Free BMD database between 1838 and 1911. Using the GRO Online Index of Births the following Lovelocks whose mother's maiden name was Willson can be identified: Alfred William Jul-Sep 1885 Pancras RD Edith Helen Jul-Sep 1887 Pancras RD Florence Emily Jan-Mar 1890 Pancras RD Louis Walter Apr-Jun 1891 Pancras RD William Lawrence Apr-Jun 1897 St Giles RD Francis Seymour Hambrook Jan-Mar 1903 St Marylebone RD Complications arise when you realise that Alfred Robert married Caroline Elizabeth Westwood in Jul-Sep 1896, plus the fact that there seems to be no death entry at all that can be unequivocally identified as Jane Emily. Furthermore when William Lawrence married in 1922 he gave his father's name as Alfred Robert Lovelock, and declared that Alfred was a Wine Cooper. Turning to Free BMD again, there is only one birth entry for an Alfred Robert Lovelock (not even an Alfred R in addition). In the 1891 Census Alfred (with Jane) was a Carman aged 26, born Holborn, in 1901 (with Caroline) he was a Hackney Carriage Driver aged 36, born Holborn, and in 1911 (still with Caroline) a Cab Driver (Horse) aged 46, born Holborn. However, in 1939, declaring himself to be married, he was a retired Gas Fitter living in the same house as a Mary F Lovelock, also married. We know it is the same man as his birthdate agrees with that recorded in the St Pancras (Old Church) Register. You will not be surprised to learn that there is no record in Free BMD or elsewhere of his marriage to a Mary F, nor perhaps that Caroline was recorded as married in the 1939 Register and did not die until 1962. If anybody can add to this rather tortuous tale please do. Regards, Graham ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ The Lovelock Family History Web Site<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/ The Lovelock Family History Web Site<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/ The Lovelock Family History Web Site<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 for picking this one up again, Helen. I think we can now make educated guesses about what went on. 1. Alfred Robert Lovelock married Jane Emily Willson in 1884 in a church service at Saint Philip, Bethnal Green. 2. Sometime in the July-September quarter of 1896 Alfred Robert married Caroline Elizabeth Westwood. The marriage is not included in the London Metropolitan Archive data at Ancestry.co.uk so may have been a Register Office wedding. In any case the marriage appears to have been bigamous on Alfred Robert's part. 3. Alfred and Jane were the parents of 6 children: Alfred William (1885-1892), Edith Helen (1887-1890), Florence Emily (1889-1953), Louis Walter (1891-1892) and Alfreda Wilson (1894-1979). 4. William Lawrence Lovelock was born on 24 April 1897. He must have been conceived in July 1896, and may therefore be the son of Alfred Robert. 5. On 12 April 1897 Alfred and Caroline had a son Alfred Joseph Herbert (1897-1961). 6. On 22 May 1898 Alfreda Wilson Lovelock and William Lawrence Lovelock were baptised, when their parents were recorded as Francis and Jane Emily Lovelock, who at the time were resident in Lambeth Workhouse. 7. ________________________________ From: LOVELOCK on behalf of Helen Norton Sent: 04 November 2017 03:03 To: lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LOVELOCK] Lovelock/Willson adding to the confusion are the following baptisms: Alfreda Wilson Lovelock and William Lawrence Lovelock - parents are recorded as Francis & Jane Emily, abode Lambeth Workhouse, occupation cabman. Source: St Phillip , Lambeth. They were both baptised in 1898 on the 22nd of May, Dates of birth, 25th Feb 1894 and 24 April 1897 respectively. (It seems a 'mass baptism' of workhouse children was done that day) Looking at the 1939 register, Alfreda seemingly had a son, Ewart W Lovelock born 1917. But what happened to Jane Emily ? The 1911 census records the following HAMBROOK family in Shepherds Bush: Francis, aged 60, Jane Emily, wife, 47 Francis Seymour, son, aged 9 Joseph James, son, aged 5 Alice, daughter, aged 3 They had been married 27 Years (!) , with three children. (the 27 years gives a marriage date of 1884, the year of the Lovelock / Willson marriage) Very Confusing ! Helen -----Original Message----- From: LOVELOCK [mailto:lovelock-bounces+helmar=bigpond.net.au@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Graham Lovelock Sent: Wednesday, 5 July 2017 7:56 AM To: Lovelock mailing list Subject: Re: [LOVELOCK] Lovelock/Willson Dear all, I do hope you are managing to keep up on this one. I have been pointed at some other information, which simply adds to my confusion, but perhaps you will see things more clearly. In the 1901 Census there is an entry for the 'St Pancras Schools' at Leavesden in Hertfordshire. Amongst the pupils are three Lovelocks: Alfreda aged 7 Florence aged 11 William aged 4 Like their fellow pupils their place of birth is entered as 'N K' or Not Known. This may have been a deliberate artifice on the part of the staff. The schools had been established 'for the maintenance of Poor-Law children from the parish of St Pancras, Middlesex'. The reason this is of interest is because Florence seems likely to be Florence Emily born Jan-Mar 1890, mother's name Willson (2 Ls), whilst Alfreda must be the Alfreda Wilson Lovelock born Apr-Jun 1894, mother's name Wilson (one L), and William must be William Lawrence Lovelock born Apr-Jun 1897, mother's name Willson (2 Ls). So what kind of scenario might we now envisage? Alfred Robert and Caroline Westwood had a son of their own in Apr-Jun 1897, so it looks as though he had simply walked out on his family with Jane Emily Willson at some point in 1896, leaving her possibly pregnant, and eventually perhaps forcing her and the 3 children above into the Workhouse. But how then to account for the 'Hambrook' births in 1903 and 1906? Was Alfred Robert running two families at some point? Did Mrs Lovelock have a liaison with a Mr Hambrook, but register the births as if she and Alfred were still together? Curiouser and curiouser. Graham ________________________________ From: Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> Sent: 04 July 2017 20:36 To: Lovelock mailing list Subject: Re: Lovelock/Willson Hello again all, Further to my message below I have been directed to some other information which is obviously relevant, but leaves my head spinning. Perhaps you can help ..... The 1939 Register has a peculiar entry for 20 Goodwin Road, Hammersmith, London. The occupants are: James Hambrook Married Born 8 Jul 1906 Elsie Hambrook Married Born 21 Oct 1907 Closed record (but the image is not properly obscured so it is possible to see that the person is Female and was born on 18 Mar 1937) Frances S H Hambrook Single (the date of birth being obscured) Findmypast's transcription indicates that the fourth person is Francis (ie Male) S H Hambrook born 23 Dec 1902, although the image is clearly Frances. However, more importantly the name Lovelock is written above Hambrook, which in the case of ladies usually indicates the surname of the person they later married. In those case Hambrook would be crossed through, but in this case it is not. Furthermore, something is written before the word Lovelock, but the poorly arranged image has this obscured. I have asked fmp what is written there. What is odd is that we now have a Frances/Francis S H Hambrook in 1939 and a Francis Seymour Hambrook Lovelock in the 1903 birth index. Surely the same person, especially as fmp's transciption says the date of birth for the 1939 person is 23 Dec 1902. But there is more ..... James Hambrook as above does not exist. After some searching it transpires that he is really Joseph James Hambrook Lovelock, whose mother's maiden name was recorded as WILSON (just one L). I have looked at the Lovelock/Wilson marriages in Free BMD from 1890 to 1910 and none of them are relevant. The married couple in Hammersmith in 1939 were recorded at their marriage (1928) as Joseph J Hambrook and Elsie I Creed. So, as I said, my head is spinning trying to decipher all this. HELP !!! ________________________________ From: Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> Sent: 04 July 2017 18:41 To: Lovelock mailing list Subject: Lovelock/Willson Dear All, I believe the subject of this message is one that I addressed in one of several messages last December. If you have looked at the Rootsweb home page for the Lovelock Mailing List you may have noticed that there are no messages recorded for December 2016. I have written to Rootsweb several times to enquire into the fate of the missing messages and each time they fob me off with waffle about technological changes that they are engaged in for which they can give me no completion date, but that I may rest assured that everything will be restored in due course. 6 months on those responses are clearly terminological inexactitudes. So let me try again. Alfred Robert Lovelock from the St Pancras (Main) Tree married Jane Emily WILLSON (note the double L) on 30 June 1884 in Bethnal Green, London. This is the only marriage of a Lovelock and a Willson in the Free BMD database between 1838 and 1911. Using the GRO Online Index of Births the following Lovelocks whose mother's maiden name was Willson can be identified: Alfred William Jul-Sep 1885 Pancras RD Edith Helen Jul-Sep 1887 Pancras RD Florence Emily Jan-Mar 1890 Pancras RD Louis Walter Apr-Jun 1891 Pancras RD William Lawrence Apr-Jun 1897 St Giles RD Francis Seymour Hambrook Jan-Mar 1903 St Marylebone RD Complications arise when you realise that Alfred Robert married Caroline Elizabeth Westwood in Jul-Sep 1896, plus the fact that there seems to be no death entry at all that can be unequivocally identified as Jane Emily. Furthermore when William Lawrence married in 1922 he gave his father's name as Alfred Robert Lovelock, and declared that Alfred was a Wine Cooper. Turning to Free BMD again, there is only one birth entry for an Alfred Robert Lovelock (not even an Alfred R in addition). In the 1891 Census Alfred (with Jane) was a Carman aged 26, born Holborn, in 1901 (with Caroline) he was a Hackney Carriage Driver aged 36, born Holborn, and in 1911 (still with Caroline) a Cab Driver (Horse) aged 46, born Holborn. However, in 1939, declaring himself to be married, he was a retired Gas Fitter living in the same house as a Mary F Lovelock, also married. We know it is the same man as his birthdate agrees with that recorded in the St Pancras (Old Church) Register. You will not be surprised to learn that there is no record in Free BMD or elsewhere of his marriage to a Mary F, nor perhaps that Caroline was recorded as married in the 1939 Register and did not die until 1962. If anybody can add to this rather tortuous tale please do. 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, There used to be an entry on our 'Strays and Unattached Lovelocks' page for Madeline Lovelock. Thanks to some excellent detective work by Ian Lovelock we now know rather more about Madeline, and especially what became of her after 1871 - the only date we previously had. However, that has led to a different puzzle concerning the origins of her father, a Charles Edward Lovelock. You can read the latest version of their story here under the heading of Charles Edward Lovelock: http://lovelock.free.fr/wip/Strays.html If you can add to the story in any way please let us know. Regards, Graham

Hello all, If you do have a Portsmouth connection you may be interested to learn that some data has just been published by Findmypast. The 'new' Lovelock baptisms, marriages and burials have been extracted and added to our 'Lovelocks in Hampshire' collection. As with other recent additions the new entries are in red: http://lovelock.free.fr/documents/lovelocks-in-hants.htm Regards, Graham

Hello all, Sometimes the records appear to be in direct conflict, which leaves one wondering what the truth is or was. A case in point is a Maria who appears in the Hungerford-Shalbourne Tree: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/individual.php?pid=I64&ged=hungerford-shalbourne The 1871 Census entry quite clearly states that she was the wife of James Lovelock and that James' father-in-law was John Hyatt. The obvious conclusion one would reach is that James had married Maria Hyatt. Free BMD, however, has no record of any such marriage. The advent of the GRO Online Index of births gives us another possible approach. James and Maria had four children, and the maiden name of their mother is now revealed. In three cases the GRO process has read it as 'Beldon' and in the fourth case as 'Beldom'. So where now? You will not be totally surprised to hear that there is no Lovelock/Beldon or Lovelock/Beldom marriage in Free BMD, nor does there seem to be any relevant evidence in the London Metropolitan Archive data at Ancestry. There is no Lovelock/Hyatt marriage at all in the records so, assuming that the 1871 Census has the truth the solution seems to be that James had married a Miss Hyatt who had died, a marriage which has not been documented, he had then taken up with a Miss Beldon in a marriage, if it ever took place, that seems also to not be documented, and in 1871 he and Miss Beldon had taken in the parents of his first wife. Or is that a speculation too far? Can anyone think of or find another solution? Regards, Graham

Hello all, Sarah Amelia Lovelock, a member of the Farnham Tree, was born on 26 Oct 1894 and baptised in Leytonstone, Essex on 25 Feb 1895. She does not appear in the 1901 Census Return with her parents, nor anywhere else that I can find. By which I mean not in any Census, Marriage or Death data. In 1911 her parents, Richard and Emily, claimed to have had no less than 16 children, of whom 8 were still living. At present we have details of 15 only, and of those we know that 4 had died by 1911. Can anyone fill the gaps in our knowledge, and in particular say what happened to Sarah Amelia? Regards, Graham

Hello again all, I doubt if anyone remembers the 'Puzzle of the Month' that I set on 1 November 2008? I noted that Free BMD records in the Apr-Jun quarter of 1872 the birth of 'Sir William T Lovelock', in the Milton Registration District (Kent, Sittingbourne area), and asked if anyone knew more of him. Well, the GRO Online Index now reveals that his mother was none other than Ellen Harfleet, who had married William Lovelock in the Medway RD in Apr-Jun 1870 (the Farnham, Surrey tree refers). Despite the name under which his birth was registered his parents had him baptised simply as Thomas William, in St Mary's church, Stoke Newington on 22 February 1873. That, however, seems to be the last evidence of his existence. There seems to be no 1881 Census entry for the family, and he is not included in the 1891, 1901 or 1911 entries, each of which captures various members of the family living in Croydon. Another interesting aspect to this particular jigsaw is that in 1911 William and Ellen claimed to have had 10 children, of whom 6 were still living. From the various Census entries we know of only 8 children, and the GRO Online Index does not identify the missing two. Moreover, of the 8 we can identify no less than 4 of their births do not seem to have been registered, and of the 4 two were apparently not baptised. Unless all the documentation has somehow until now evaded our attention ...! All contributions, as ever, gratefully received. Regards, Graham

Hello all, 'Findagrave' has a photograph of a headstone in the Stayner Union Cemetery in Stayner, Simcoe County, Ontario, Canada that reads 'William Lovelock 1881 - 1930 His Wife Annie Spicker 1875 - 1957'. William would appear to be the subject of a death entry in our Ontario records that names him as the son of John Lovelock, and gives his date of birth as 19 Jan 1881 in England. The only William born in the first quarter of 1881 in England was William Alfred (Wandsworth RD, ref 1d 648), but he was the son of Charles George Lovelock and Elizabeth Harriet Gore. The GRO Online Index allows us to identify the mother's maiden name. Charles George, we know, was also known as Charles Thomas and Charles Alfred at various times, but there does not seem to be a record of him using the name John. So can anyone provide any information that will clarify this situation? Regards, Graham

Hello all, A very small collection of Lovelocks who were in one or other military establishment at the time of the 1841 UK Census and not otherwise recorded has been added to the Military Records section of our General Sources page: http://lovelock.free.fr/gen-records.htm#military As you will see the information is pretty sparse, and so none of the seven men is presently associated with one of our 45 family trees. If you can provide such a link for any of them please let us know. Regards, Graham

Hello all, In case you were unaware you might like to know that the UK General Register Office will be piloting a service from 12 October 2017 to provide portable document format (PDF) copies of digitised historical birth and death records. The pilot will run for a minimum of 3 months to enable the GRO to assess the demand for this service over a prolonged period. Applications for each PDF cost £6, must be made online, and must include a GRO index reference. England and Wales records which will be available as PDFs in this extended pilot will include: Births: 1837 –1916 Deaths: 1837 –1957 The GRO stress that a PDF is not a certificate and has no “evidential” value, and therefore an appropriate certificate will still be required for official purposes, e.g. when applying for a passport, driving licence or giving notice of marriage. Regards, Graham

Hi Graham, Ran out of time now, but i hoped my small efforts helped. Best wishes and thanks for all your hard work bringing the families together. Ian ________________________________ From: LOVELOCK <lovelock-bounces+ianlovelock=hotmail.com@rootsweb.com> on behalf of Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> Sent: 07 October 2017 12:07 To: lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject: [LOVELOCK] Help requested Hello all, Mary Ann Lovelock (variously also referred to as Mary Ann LovelUck) was a member of the Hambleden-Tasmania Tree: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/individual.php?pid=I39&ged=Hambleden-Tasmania She married Simeon Fraser on 1 Jan 1828. A poorly rendered photograph of the 1841 Census Return for the couple shows them in Shorts' Gardens, St Giles in the Fields, Middlesex, England with children Charlot (sic), Henry, Anna, James, Harriat (sic), Simeon and Edmond. The GRO Online index records the birth of a son John in 1846. I can find no trace of any of the family using either of the spellings of Fraser and Frazer after 1841, apart from the birth of John. Ancestry and Findmypast more or less agree with my transcription of the names. I am hoping that those with better search strategies than mine will be able to find something else on this family. 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/ ------------------------------- 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

Hi Graham, Ran out of time now, but i hoped my small efforts helped. Best wishes and thanks for all your hard work bringing the families together. Ian ________________________________ From: LOVELOCK <lovelock-bounces+ianlovelock=hotmail.com@rootsweb.com> on behalf of Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> Sent: 07 October 2017 12:07 To: lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject: [LOVELOCK] Help requested Hello all, Mary Ann Lovelock (variously also referred to as Mary Ann LovelUck) was a member of the Hambleden-Tasmania Tree: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/individual.php?pid=I39&ged=Hambleden-Tasmania She married Simeon Fraser on 1 Jan 1828. A poorly rendered photograph of the 1841 Census Return for the couple shows them in Shorts' Gardens, St Giles in the Fields, Middlesex, England with children Charlot (sic), Henry, Anna, James, Harriat (sic), Simeon and Edmond. The GRO Online index records the birth of a son John in 1846. I can find no trace of any of the family using either of the spellings of Fraser and Frazer after 1841, apart from the birth of John. Ancestry and Findmypast more or less agree with my transcription of the names. I am hoping that those with better search strategies than mine will be able to find something else on this family. 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

Hello all, Findmypast have recently added to their database of Berkshire Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, thanks to the work of the Berkshire FHS transcribers. The new Lovelock data has been extracted and added to the 'Lovelocks in Berkshire' collection. The new entries are (for the moment) in red: http://lovelock.free.fr/documents/berks-lovelocks.html A considerable number of our already existing records have been amended, mostly by the addition of full dates or addresses. These are not highlighted in any way. You will notice that most of the new entries are not associated (yet!) with any particular Lovelock Family Tree. Regards, Graham

Hello all, Mary Ann Lovelock (variously also referred to as Mary Ann LovelUck) was a member of the Hambleden-Tasmania Tree: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/individual.php?pid=I39&ged=Hambleden-Tasmania She married Simeon Fraser on 1 Jan 1828. A poorly rendered photograph of the 1841 Census Return for the couple shows them in Shorts' Gardens, St Giles in the Fields, Middlesex, England with children Charlot (sic), Henry, Anna, James, Harriat (sic), Simeon and Edmond. The GRO Online index records the birth of a son John in 1846. I can find no trace of any of the family using either of the spellings of Fraser and Frazer after 1841, apart from the birth of John. Ancestry and Findmypast more or less agree with my transcription of the names. I am hoping that those with better search strategies than mine will be able to find something else on this family. Regards, Graham

Thanks, Robert. ________________________________ From: LOVELOCK <lovelock-bounces+lovelockgraham=hotmail.com@rootsweb.com> on behalf of Robert Sterry <robert.sterry24@gmail.com> Sent: 24 September 2017 10:07 To: lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LOVELOCK] Lovelocks in Middlesex and Surrey Well done Graham! -----Original Message----- From: LOVELOCK [mailto:lovelock-bounces+robert=sterryworldwide.com@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Graham Lovelock Sent: Sunday, 24 September 2017 2:38 AM To: lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject: [LOVELOCK] Lovelocks in Middlesex and Surrey Hello all, Ancestry have just published a new lot of data from the London Metropolitan Archives. Details of Lovelock marriages in Middlesex and Surrey have been extracted and added to our appropriate collections. There are 39 new Middlesex entries and 15 in Surrey. To make them easy to spot in the files the new entries are (for the moment) coloured red. Only a few are presently attributed to one or other of our trees. 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