Ah ha! Some years ago, Steve, I tried to initiate statistical analyses of Lovelock data but not being a statistician my approach was rather clumsy and inept ... which is probably why nobody has ever followed up on the subject. However I did have the nerve to add some things to the website and you will find them in the 'Work in Progress' section, through the 'Statistical Analyses' link in the yellow box. If you have any ideas for further work I for one will be delighted to hear of them. Regards, Graham ________________________________ From: Aol via LOVELOCK <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Sent: 20 November 2019 08:12:40 To: lovelock@rootsweb.com <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Cc: Aol <tns750@aol.com> Subject: [LOVELOCK] Re: The GRO Online Index Hi Graham The new GRO facility is certainly a boon to anyone wantingto take a snapshot of the “health”of a surname in 2019 – it will be evenmore so if they add births before too long . Are the LOVELOCKS holding theirown demographically, or are they declining, numerically? Taking a look at the last ten years, I note that there were120 LOVELOCK deaths in 2009-13, and 149 deaths in 2014-18 – an increase of 24%.Not sure if the sample is large enough to be significant, but could it men thatthe death rate is higher mong Lovelocks –owing to an ageing population structure – or is it simply that the present increaseis due to higher birth rate and lower death rate among immigrants. Given that there are – what? – about 2500Lovelocks in England and Wales – then thedeath rate over the past 5 years has been about 12 per 1000, compared with the nationalrate of just over 9.. Steve Tanner -----Original Message----- From: Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> To: Lovelock mailing list <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 9:31 Subject: [LOVELOCK] The GRO Online Index Hello all, You may have heard that those terribly helpful people at the UK's General Record Office have added information on Deaths from 1984 to 2019 to their Online Index. The Lovelock and Loveluck data for the years 2007 to 2019 has been transcribed and can now be accessed through our 'Sources - General' page. Select the 'General Record Office Records' link, and then the link below the table containing links to the 1984 to 2007 data: http://lovelock.free.fr/gen-records.htm A quick link from here to the new data is: http://lovelock.free.fr/documents/GRO_Online_Deaths_data_for_2007-2019.html If you spot any errors in the transcription please let us know. Please note that as the data is presented on the GRO website in a different fashion to the presentations on Ancestry and Findmypast for the same years (which we had already transcribed) the entries are duplicated. However, whereas the Ancestry and Findmypast data is only partial for each year the new data should fill a lot of the gaps. You will find that a small number of the entries in the previous data do not appear in the GRO listing. I have no explanation for this, except that we know that the GRO Indices of both Births and Deaths do generally have a few missing entries, and I suppose the odd entry has been missed in the exercise to capture the new records digitally. The Loveluck entries are included at the end of the relevant quarter and highlighted in bold to make them easier to find. As with the earlier data where the deceased left a Will a link has been provided to our page with further details. Hope you find this helpful. Regards. Graham _______________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/lovelock@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community _______________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/lovelock@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Hi Graham   The new GRO facility is certainly a boon to anyone wantingto take a snapshot of the  “health”of  a surname in 2019 – it will be evenmore so if they add births before too long . Are the LOVELOCKS holding theirown demographically, or are they declining, numerically? Taking a look at the last ten years, I note that there were120 LOVELOCK deaths in 2009-13, and 149 deaths in 2014-18 – an increase of 24%.Not sure if the sample is large enough to be significant, but could it men thatthe death rate is higher mong  Lovelocks –owing to an ageing population structure – or is it simply that the present increaseis due to higher birth rate and lower death rate among immigrants.  Given that there are – what? – about 2500Lovelocks in  England and Wales – then thedeath rate over the past 5 years has been about 12 per 1000, compared with the nationalrate of just over 9..   Steve Tanner -----Original Message----- From: Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> To: Lovelock mailing list <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 9:31 Subject: [LOVELOCK] The GRO Online Index Hello all, You may have heard that those terribly helpful people at the UK's General Record Office have added information on Deaths from 1984 to 2019 to their Online Index. The Lovelock and Loveluck data for the years 2007 to 2019 has been transcribed and can now be accessed through our 'Sources - General' page. Select the 'General Record Office Records' link, and then the link below the table containing links to the 1984 to 2007 data: http://lovelock.free.fr/gen-records.htm A quick link from here to the new data is: http://lovelock.free.fr/documents/GRO_Online_Deaths_data_for_2007-2019.html If you spot any errors in the transcription please let us know. Please note that as the data is presented on the GRO website in a different fashion to the presentations on Ancestry and Findmypast for the same years (which we had already transcribed) the entries are duplicated. However, whereas the Ancestry and Findmypast data is only partial for each year the new data should fill a lot of the gaps. You will find that a small number of the entries in the previous data do not appear in the GRO listing. I have no explanation for this, except that we know that the GRO Indices of both Births and Deaths do generally have a few missing entries, and I suppose the odd entry has been missed in the exercise to capture the new records digitally. The Loveluck entries are included at the end of the relevant quarter and highlighted in bold to make them easier to find. As with the earlier data where the deceased left a Will a link has been provided to our page with further details. Hope you find this helpful. Regards. Graham _______________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/lovelock@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Hello all, You may have heard that those terribly helpful people at the UK's General Record Office have added information on Deaths from 1984 to 2019 to their Online Index. The Lovelock and Loveluck data for the years 2007 to 2019 has been transcribed and can now be accessed through our 'Sources - General' page. Select the 'General Record Office Records' link, and then the link below the table containing links to the 1984 to 2007 data: http://lovelock.free.fr/gen-records.htm A quick link from here to the new data is: http://lovelock.free.fr/documents/GRO_Online_Deaths_data_for_2007-2019.html If you spot any errors in the transcription please let us know. Please note that as the data is presented on the GRO website in a different fashion to the presentations on Ancestry and Findmypast for the same years (which we had already transcribed) the entries are duplicated. However, whereas the Ancestry and Findmypast data is only partial for each year the new data should fill a lot of the gaps. You will find that a small number of the entries in the previous data do not appear in the GRO listing. I have no explanation for this, except that we know that the GRO Indices of both Births and Deaths do generally have a few missing entries, and I suppose the odd entry has been missed in the exercise to capture the new records digitally. The Loveluck entries are included at the end of the relevant quarter and highlighted in bold to make them easier to find. As with the earlier data where the deceased left a Will a link has been provided to our page with further details. Hope you find this helpful. Regards. Graham

Well, well, well - what a curious affair. Registered at birth as Ethel Ruby Whytock, but baptised as Ethel Ruby the daughter of Thomas Robert and Alice Lovelock. I wonder how that was managed? Some matter of being economical with the truth must have been going on. Whoever reported the birth gave Ethel's mother's maiden name as Fry, which was of course correct, but if either William or Alice reported the birth they must at least have given the impression that Ethel's parents were married which, if they were William and Alice they clearly were not. But then how was the baptism arranged? If William was the father surely Thomas would not have attended the baptism as the father, but if Thomas was the father why was Ethel not registered as a Lovelock? Puzzles never to be solved one feels, but many thanks, Hilary, for finding at least part of the answer. Regards, Graham ________________________________ From: Hilary Smith via LOVELOCK <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Sent: 08 November 2019 22:45 To: Lovelock family history <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Cc: Hilary Smith <hilary_s_smith@yahoo.co.uk> Subject: [LOVELOCK] Re: Faulty Memories? Hi Graham I think Ethel Ruby Lovelock was possibly Ethel Ruby Whytock. Alice was living with William Whytock in 1911 and she then went on to marry him in 1912. Ethel married Cecil G Phillips in 1930. Ethel is on the 1934 electoral register address the same as her mother Alice. Thomas Robert’s war record states a mix of next of kin throughout the documents: Elizabeth Cox No next of kin Brother Walter Lovelock, address unknown Hope this helps. Thanks Hilary > On 8 Nov 2019, at 14:47, Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Hello all, > > Thomas Robert Lovelock married Alice Maud Mary Fry in 1896. They are members of the Lambeth-Australia tree. > > The GRO Online Index of Births identifies only the following as Lovelocks whose mother's maiden name was Fry: > > Florence Ivy Emily Maud (1897 - 1898) > Dorothy May (1903 - 1971) > Mary Thompson Boys (1908 - 1909) > > The London Metropolitan Archive, however, also includes the baptism in St Mary, Hoxton of Ethel Ruby on 11 Jun 1911 (born 9 May 1911). Neither the GRO Online Index nor Free BMD have any trace of this birth. What's more, there seems to be no record of Ethel Ruby marrying or dying. > > But faulty memories? Well in 1911 Thomas Robert declared that he was living apart from his wife, but that the marriage had produced 3 children of whom 2 had died, whilst Alice claimed to be a widow, but that her marriage had produced 5 children of whom 4 had died. > > Now although Alice would have been about 8 months pregnant at the time of the 1911 Census that child-to-be could obviously not be counted. So was Thomas correct regarding the number of his children or was Alice correct regarding the number of hers, or were they both wrong in some respect? > > Regards, > > Graham > > _______________________________________________ > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Lovelock family history Web pages: > http://lovelock.free.fr/ > Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: > http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/lovelock@rootsweb.com > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community _______________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/lovelock@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Hi Graham I think Ethel Ruby Lovelock was possibly Ethel Ruby Whytock. Alice was living with William Whytock in 1911 and she then went on to marry him in 1912. Ethel married Cecil G Phillips in 1930. Ethel is on the 1934 electoral register address the same as her mother Alice. Thomas Robert’s war record states a mix of next of kin throughout the documents: Elizabeth Cox No next of kin Brother Walter Lovelock, address unknown Hope this helps. Thanks Hilary > On 8 Nov 2019, at 14:47, Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Hello all, > > Thomas Robert Lovelock married Alice Maud Mary Fry in 1896. They are members of the Lambeth-Australia tree. > > The GRO Online Index of Births identifies only the following as Lovelocks whose mother's maiden name was Fry: > > Florence Ivy Emily Maud (1897 - 1898) > Dorothy May (1903 - 1971) > Mary Thompson Boys (1908 - 1909) > > The London Metropolitan Archive, however, also includes the baptism in St Mary, Hoxton of Ethel Ruby on 11 Jun 1911 (born 9 May 1911). Neither the GRO Online Index nor Free BMD have any trace of this birth. What's more, there seems to be no record of Ethel Ruby marrying or dying. > > But faulty memories? Well in 1911 Thomas Robert declared that he was living apart from his wife, but that the marriage had produced 3 children of whom 2 had died, whilst Alice claimed to be a widow, but that her marriage had produced 5 children of whom 4 had died. > > Now although Alice would have been about 8 months pregnant at the time of the 1911 Census that child-to-be could obviously not be counted. So was Thomas correct regarding the number of his children or was Alice correct regarding the number of hers, or were they both wrong in some respect? > > Regards, > > Graham > > _______________________________________________ > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Lovelock family history Web pages: > http://lovelock.free.fr/ > Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: > http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/lovelock@rootsweb.com > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Hello all, Thomas Robert Lovelock married Alice Maud Mary Fry in 1896. They are members of the Lambeth-Australia tree. The GRO Online Index of Births identifies only the following as Lovelocks whose mother's maiden name was Fry: Florence Ivy Emily Maud (1897 - 1898) Dorothy May (1903 - 1971) Mary Thompson Boys (1908 - 1909) The London Metropolitan Archive, however, also includes the baptism in St Mary, Hoxton of Ethel Ruby on 11 Jun 1911 (born 9 May 1911). Neither the GRO Online Index nor Free BMD have any trace of this birth. What's more, there seems to be no record of Ethel Ruby marrying or dying. But faulty memories? Well in 1911 Thomas Robert declared that he was living apart from his wife, but that the marriage had produced 3 children of whom 2 had died, whilst Alice claimed to be a widow, but that her marriage had produced 5 children of whom 4 had died. Now although Alice would have been about 8 months pregnant at the time of the 1911 Census that child-to-be could obviously not be counted. So was Thomas correct regarding the number of his children or was Alice correct regarding the number of hers, or were they both wrong in some respect? Regards, Graham

Hello all, Clarice Edith Lovelock married William E Philpotts in Jul-Sep 1945 in the Hereford Registration District (RD). She died in Jul 2006 in the Shropshire RD. Both the death entry and the 1939 Register give her date of birth as 11 Sep 1919. However, there is no record of her birth in the Free BMD data. Does anyone know anything of her origins? Regards, Graham [https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free. www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>

Hello all, Is there anyone on the Mailing List with a connection to the Stepney Tree who knows anything about a child adopted by Cyril Augustus Lovelock and his wife Maud Elizabeth Annie Crouch (formerly Hunt)? Please let me know soonest. Regards, Graham [https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free. www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>

Hello all, Sydney (Thomas) Lovelock and Mary Maria Noakes from the St Pancras (Main) Tree had twelve children, according to their various Census Returns. Although they moved house a number of times, a very common occurrence in late-19th-century London, they were fairly assiduous with respect to their offsprings' baptisms. Our 'Lovelocks in Surrey' collection has the baptisms of George Sidney (1876), Mary Lucy Rosa (1878), Thomas James (1880), Elizabeth Sarah (1884), Daisy Violet (1884), Alfred Ernest (1885), Frederick (1888), Leonard Ernest (1890), Beatrice (1893) and Percy (1895). How strange then that they apparently failed to baptise their daughters Mary and Dolly. Mary aged 11 is listed between Fred (sic) aged 13 and Beatrice aged 7 in 1901, but was not included in the 1891 or 1911 entries. Dolly aged 6 was listed after Beatrice aged 7 in 1901 and again, aged 16, after Beatrice aged 18 in 1911. But that's not all as their births are not traceable in the GRO records. Add to that the presence in the household in 1911 of an unmarried May Leggett aged 22 recorded as a daughter and we have the makings of the mystery. Part of the mystery can be solved when we realise that Sydney (Thomas)'s second wife was Martha Annie Watts Leggett (nee Patman). May's mother's maiden name is not included in her birth entry in Oct-Dec 1889, suggesting an illegitimate birth, and sure enough Martha's first husband Samuel William Leggett had died in Jan-Mar 1887. So the Mary Lovelock shown in 1901 was very probably May Leggett. There is good reason for believing this as the 1901 entry also includes Martha Lovelock aged 18 and Arthur Lovelock aged 17. Thanks to the Leggett clue from 1911 we can now identify these two as Martha Holmes Priscilla Leggett born Jul-Sep 1882 and Arthur William Leggett born Apr-Jun 1884. This also explains why their births and May's were in Peckham, unlike any of Sydney's other children. Dolly 'Lovelock' was also born in Peckham, and before Sydney and Martha were married, so she is possibly a Leggett as well. I have not been able to find the birth. And then ..... all these Leggetts/Lovelocks seem to disappear from the records, unless you have a better search strategy than I? Regards, Graham [https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free. www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>

Hello all, Whilst indulging in a bit of internet browsing I came across a family history that puzzled. Apparently: Sarah Ann Westwood (born 1862 in Staffordshire, England) married George Gerald Augustus Simpson (born 1856) in New Zealand in 1879. They had a daughter Henrietta Lovelock Simpson in 1880, who later married a John Hunter. Sarah Ann's parents were Edward Westwood and Elizabeth Coinforth, but there is no information on George Simpson's parents. However, George is also referred to as George Gerald Augustus Lovelock Simpson so it seems that the Lovelock connection is something to do with him. Does anyone know what that Lovelock connection is? Regards, Graham [https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free. www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>

Hello all, Ancestry have just published data on some of the Lovelocks and a Loveluck-Edwards who died in 2018. This has been transcribed and added to our 2007-2018 data which can be accessed from the 'Sources - General' page: http://lovelock.free.fr/gen-records.htm#gro Regards, Graham

Hello all, As a result of a review of the data and imagery available on the irishgenealogy.ie website our Ireland Records have been updated. Modified or new records are presently coloured red. Note that there are two entries for Lovelocks who were baptised before they were born! Notes to explain how this has apparently come about are included. http://lovelock.free.fr/ireland-records.html Regards, Graham

Does anyone know if Frederick Charles Lovelock born Jul-Sep 1909 was the man who married Rita Maud Cozens in Jan-Mar 1944 and Peggy S F Hornagold in Jul-Sep 1951, both in the Willesden RD? And if he is not does anyone know who is? Regards, Graham

Well done, Hilary - I'm sure this is the right man. I will make the appropriate amendments to the Beckenham Tree. And I have now found more on his wife: she was at 14 Waite Davies Road in Lewisham in 1939. The proof is that with her was her daughter Mabel Louise whose mother's maiden name is recorded in the GRO Index as Edgerton not Egerton. By 1939 Florence was widowed so Harry died some time between then and 1925. He must be the man who died in 1938 at the age of 56 in the Lewisham RD - the death was registered in the name of Henry A Lovelock. Good sleuthing! Kind regards, Graham ________________________________ From: Hilary Smith via LOVELOCK <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Sent: 13 October 2019 08:14 To: Lovelock family history <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Cc: Hilary Smith <hilary_s_smith@yahoo.co.uk> Subject: [LOVELOCK] Re: H A Lovelock Hi I think Harry was registered as Albert Harry Lovelock, 1882 (first quarter) Lewisham, FreeBMD and was the son of Charles William Lovelock & Emma Jane. His wife’s name was Florence Ethel Egerton. Hope this helps. Thanks Hilary > On 11 Oct 2019, at 18:43, Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Hello all, > > Next in a never-ending series: > > Harry A Lovelock married Flora E Egerton in Lewisham RD in Jul-Sep 1911, but who is Harry A? > > Free BMD has no births of a Harry A or Harold A between 1860 and 1895, and only one Henry A - Henry Arthur born in the West Ham RD in Oct-Dec 1892. However, Henry Arthur married Daisy Gertrude Hall in 1913, also in the West Ham RD, well before Harry and Flora had most of their children. > > I haven't identified either Harry or Flora in the 1911 Census or the 1939 Register. Their daughter Florence Ethel L Lovelock (later Jacob) does appear in the 1939 Register, and died in 1975. Of their 3 sons, Harry F appears in the 1939 Register and died in 1953, William C died in 1934, and the last does not appear in the 1939 Register and may be still living. > > I have not found a death entry for either Harry or Flora, and they are not in our Ships' Passengers data, and there is no UK record of Flora re-marrying. > > Has anyone got any other clues to Harry's identity? > > Regards, > > Graham > > > > _______________________________________________ > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Lovelock family history Web pages: > http://lovelock.free.fr/ > Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: > http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/lovelock@rootsweb.com > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community _______________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/lovelock@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Hi I think Harry was registered as Albert Harry Lovelock, 1882 (first quarter) Lewisham, FreeBMD and was the son of Charles William Lovelock & Emma Jane. His wife’s name was Florence Ethel Egerton. Hope this helps. Thanks Hilary > On 11 Oct 2019, at 18:43, Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Hello all, > > Next in a never-ending series: > > Harry A Lovelock married Flora E Egerton in Lewisham RD in Jul-Sep 1911, but who is Harry A? > > Free BMD has no births of a Harry A or Harold A between 1860 and 1895, and only one Henry A - Henry Arthur born in the West Ham RD in Oct-Dec 1892. However, Henry Arthur married Daisy Gertrude Hall in 1913, also in the West Ham RD, well before Harry and Flora had most of their children. > > I haven't identified either Harry or Flora in the 1911 Census or the 1939 Register. Their daughter Florence Ethel L Lovelock (later Jacob) does appear in the 1939 Register, and died in 1975. Of their 3 sons, Harry F appears in the 1939 Register and died in 1953, William C died in 1934, and the last does not appear in the 1939 Register and may be still living. > > I have not found a death entry for either Harry or Flora, and they are not in our Ships' Passengers data, and there is no UK record of Flora re-marrying. > > Has anyone got any other clues to Harry's identity? > > Regards, > > Graham > > > > _______________________________________________ > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Lovelock family history Web pages: > http://lovelock.free.fr/ > Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: > http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/lovelock@rootsweb.com > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Hello all, Next in a never-ending series: Harry A Lovelock married Flora E Egerton in Lewisham RD in Jul-Sep 1911, but who is Harry A? Free BMD has no births of a Harry A or Harold A between 1860 and 1895, and only one Henry A - Henry Arthur born in the West Ham RD in Oct-Dec 1892. However, Henry Arthur married Daisy Gertrude Hall in 1913, also in the West Ham RD, well before Harry and Flora had most of their children. I haven't identified either Harry or Flora in the 1911 Census or the 1939 Register. Their daughter Florence Ethel L Lovelock (later Jacob) does appear in the 1939 Register, and died in 1975. Of their 3 sons, Harry F appears in the 1939 Register and died in 1953, William C died in 1934, and the last does not appear in the 1939 Register and may be still living. I have not found a death entry for either Harry or Flora, and they are not in our Ships' Passengers data, and there is no UK record of Flora re-marrying. Has anyone got any other clues to Harry's identity? Regards, Graham

Hello all, As a result of recent additions at Ancestry.co.uk 22 entries have been added to our 'Lovelocks in Gloucestershire' collection. They are coloured red at the moment to make it easier to find them. Regards, Graham [https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free. www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>

Hello all, I expect I am the last person to realise that Free BMD's end-date for transcriptions has been moved from 1983 to 1992. However, as of today there are only 33 Lovelock marriages in 1984, one Loveluck marriage in each of 1984 and 1985, and no birth or death data beyond 1983 whatsoever. Fortunately we are lucky enough to have transcriptions of Lovelock and Loveluck BMDs from 1984 through to 2007 on the website already: http://lovelock.free.fr/gen-records.htm#gro Remember that transcription errors are always likely to arise, so it is good practice to check all sources to make sure that they agree. Regards, Graham

It doesn't sound as though it does, Sue, but ..... If we assume Charles was at least 18 years old and not more than 40 when he died then Free BMD only lists 6 Charles Lovelocks born in what Free BMD considers to be London between 1903 and 1925: Charles William - born 1903 in Hackney RD Charles John - born 1906 in Lambeth RD Charles Amaury - born 1906 in Fulham RD Charles Alfred - born 1907 in Wandsworth RD Charles Frederick - born 1909 in Islington RD Charles E - born 1914 in Holborn RD We can probably eliminate the ones born in Fulham and Wandsworth, and possibly those born in Lambeth and Holborn, but let's include them all for the moment. Mother's maiden names were: Robson Freeman Smith Tillman Stringle Hart From which we can identify: Charles William, who died within a few weeks of birth: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/individual.php?pid=I8456&ged=st-pancras-2 Charles John, who did not die until 1969: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/individual.php?pid=I39&ged=Froyle Charles Amaury, who did not die until 1987: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/individual.php?pid=I140&ged=hungerford-shalbourne Charles Alfred, who died within a few weeks of birth: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/individual.php?pid=I6177&ged=lambourn-sparsholt Charles Frederick, who did not die until 2007: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/individual.php?pid=I4290&ged=wilts-trees1 Which leaves us with Charles E, born 1914. There are no Lovelock/Hart marriages in Holborn, in fact the only one to consider is that of Arthur Lovelock and May Hart in the Paddington RD in Jul-Sep 1913. Charles Edward was their son, but alas he died in 1915: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/individual.php?pid=I220&ged=NewBrentford Conclusion from the above? Either Charles Lovelock was an assumed name, or perhaps Charles was a second forename which he preferred to use, or he was not born in East London at any time from 1903 to 1925. There is another possibility, which is to assume he was aged anything up to 50. That brings in another 8 possible candidates. Working through them in the same way as above eliminates 7. The one remaining is Charles James Lovelock from the Luckington-Dowdeswell Tree: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/individual.php?pid=I490&ged=Luckington-Dowdeswell Is it him? Well in 1911 his birthplace was named as Islington, which we could consider to be East rather than West London. His mother died in 1908 and his father in 1923, which would explain why they are not named in the CWGC data. We have not identified a marriage for Charles James, and alas he seems to have escaped the 1939 Register - perhaps because he was already serving - so no clue on marital status from there. He had a brother George who died in 1938, but there was also a sister Helena who did not die until 1981, so one wonders why she is not identified as his next of kin in the CWGC data, if indeed this is the right man. And if you think that suggests that I still have my doubts you are right. What causes the doubt is the death of a Charles J Lovelock in the Windsor RD in Jan-Mar 1963 at the claimed age of 62. That suggests a birth round about 1901, but the only Charles J Lovelock birth between 1897 and 1905 is the Charles James above. Any suggestions? Regards, Graham ________________________________ From: lovelocks6--- via LOVELOCK <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Sent: 03 October 2019 14:30 To: Lovelock family history <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Subject: [LOVELOCK] Re: Yet another Mystery Man It probably doesn't help much, but Forces War Records website has a record for the death of Charles Lovelock (service number 14553738) which gives his place of birth and place of residence as "East London". Will that begin to narrow down the search? Regards Sue Lovelock ------ Original Message ------ From: "Graham Lovelock" <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> To: "Lovelock family history" <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, 3 Oct, 2019 At 14:08 Subject: [LOVELOCK] Re: Yet another Mystery Man Spot on, Helen. I obviously didn't look hard enough - the details are all in the Wallingford Line: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/individual.php?pid=I1287&ged=berks-lovelocks <http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/individual.php?pid=I1287&ged=berks-lovelocks> Now just the Charles who died in 1943 to identify - no family details on the CWGC website, and no age either, so a bit more of a challenge! Many thanks for putting me right. Regards, Graham ________________________________ From: Helen Norton <helmar@bigpond.net.au> Sent: 03 October 2019 13:39 To: 'Lovelock family history' <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Subject: [LOVELOCK] Re: Yet another Mystery Man Just a suggestion, could Maurice have been a middle name? There is the birth of an Arthur S M Lovelock in June Qtr, 1918, Bedfordshire, mothers maiden name Duck Arthur S W(?) Lovelock married Doris A Ford in 1942, Hertfordshire. Helen -----Original Message----- From: Graham Lovelock [mailto:lovelockgraham@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, 3 October 2019 7:35 PM To: Lovelock mailing list Subject: [LOVELOCK] Yet another Mystery Man Hello all, Findmypast have recently revealed some 79,000 individuals in the 1939 Register who had been previously concealed, some on the grounds that there was no indication that they had died before 1992 and, if still living, would be up to 100 years old. One of those we can now see is a Maurice Lovelock, a Jig and Tool Draughtsman born on 29 May 1918, who was living with the Stoddard family in Letchworth, Hertfordshire. Neither the GRO Online Index nor Free BMD have any record of the birth. Maurice seems likely to be the man who was killed on 17 Feb 1945, a member of the 1st Battalion, Worcestershire Regiment, who is buried in the Reichswald Forest War Cemetery in Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany: https://www.twgpp.org/photograph/view/3453461 <https://www.twgpp.org/photograph/view/3453461> The inscription on his gravestone reads: 'Only those who have lost know the pain of parting without farewell. Wife & Mother' The information on the CWGC website includes the statement that Maurice was the husband of Doris Ada Lovelock of Acton, Middlesex. Again, Free BMD has no record of the marriage. Doris may have married Alfred D Sutton in Jul-Sep 1946, but if so I can't identify her death. Does anyone have any more information on Maurice? Regards, Graham [https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-anima <https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-anima> ted-no-repeat-v1.gif]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_s <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_s> ource=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free. www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=li <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=li> nk&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> _______________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ <http://lovelock.free.fr/> Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ <http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/> _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref <http://bit.ly/rootswebpref> Unsubscribe lovelock@rootsweb.com">https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/lovelock@rootsweb.com <https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/<span class=> Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY <https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY> Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 <https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9> Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog <http://rootsweb.blog> RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community _______________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ <http://lovelock.free.fr/> Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ <http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/> _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref <http://bit.ly/rootswebpref> Unsubscribe lovelock@rootsweb.com">https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/lovelock@rootsweb.com <https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/<span class=> Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY <https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY> Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 <https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9> Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog <http://rootsweb.blog> RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community [https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif <https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif> ]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > Virus-free. www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > _______________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ <http://lovelock.free.fr/> Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ <http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/> _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref <http://bit.ly/rootswebpref> Unsubscribe lovelock@rootsweb.com">https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/lovelock@rootsweb.com <https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/<span class=> Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY <https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY> Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 <https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9> Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog <http://rootsweb.blog> RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community _______________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/lovelock@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Hello all, William George Lovelock and Emily Alliez of the Wroughton-Tidcombe Tree had 6 children between 1924 and 1933. Free BMD records the second, fifth and sixth with mother's maiden name of Alliez, the third with mother's maiden name of Allie[zs] and the fourth with mother's maiden name of Allies. Their first child, William G Junior, was, according to Free BMD, registered as William G Allie[_s], mother's maiden name Alliie_. He married as William G Lovelock in 1947. Now the interesting bit: William G Lovelock married Emily Alliez in the Bromley RD, ref 2a 2518 ..... in Jan-Mar 1940 ! So did William and Emily marry some time between 14 January 1924 and 17 July 1925 (first and second children's births), a marriage which is not included in Free BMD, or were they economical with the truth when reporting births two to six? If they did marry before the second birth why get married again in 1940? Just for the record, they declared in the 1939 Register that they were married, and Emily took no less than 9 years off her true age, unless the Enumerator made a mistake with her date of birth. William, Emily and all their children are now deceased, although there were two grandchildren who may still be living. And now the possible red herring. William George was the only man of that name born in the Croydon RD between 1880 and 1905. He was recorded living in Penge, which is in the Croydon RD, in 1901 and 1911, aged 1 and 12 respectively. So was he the man who married Emily E Smith in the Croydon RD in Apr-Jun 1921? And if so, what happened to that Emily? Suggestions welcome, as always. Regards, Graham