A good suggestion, Steve, but what a remarkable coincidence that the clergyman who made the entry in the Baptism Register should make the same mistake as the Registrar had made when the birth was registered. Unless of course the parents handed the birth certificate to the clergyman to assist him in making his entry. If it is a genuine mis-spelling of codling one wonders why they chose that in the first place ..... Graham ________________________________ From: LOVELOCK <lovelock-bounces+lovelockgraham=hotmail.com@rootsweb.com> on behalf of tns750@aol.com <tns750@aol.com> Sent: 26 September 2017 18:41 To: lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LOVELOCK] What's in a name? Graham Surely it's a mistake for Codling, of which there were and are many? And Freebmd has four cases of Codling used as a given name prior to the one you mention Or maybe a way to avoid the homonymie facheuse aspects of Codling Like Botham for Bottom, etc. Letitia was quite common then - almost like Olivia today. Steve Tanner -----Original Message----- From: Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> To: lovelock <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 10:49 Subject: [LOVELOCK] What's in a name? Hello all, Is this the most unusual name ever given to a Lovelock? On 2 August 1914 Bert and Kate Mary Ann (nee Jeavons) Lovelock had a daughter baptised in the church of St Paul at Deptford. The names they gave her are: Kate Letitia Codhling Lovelock. The image at Ancestry is quite clear, and the Reverend G S Reakes had good, legible handwriting. Moreover, the GRO Online Index, based on a scan of the Birth Certificate, also gives the names as Kate Letitia Codhling. Free BMD has not a single Codhling entry, so it seems unlikely to be a surname, and Google returns nothing at all. Were Bert and Kate determined to make their daughter unique in one way if in no other? Kate Letitia and her husband had a daughter, so if she happens to come across this message perhaps she might enlighten us? 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/ Tonbridge, Kent - webtrees<http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/> loveluck.net These web pages use the Webtrees software to display information concerning Lovelock family trees. Select the tree that you are interested in from the 'Home page ... ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOVELOCK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Lovelock Family History<http://lovelock.free.fr/> lovelock.free.fr Purpose The purpose of this Web Site is to collect together family history information concerning families with the Lovelock ... Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ Tonbridge, Kent - webtrees<http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/> loveluck.net These web pages use the Webtrees software to display information concerning Lovelock family trees. Select the tree that you are interested in from the 'Home page ... ------------------------------- 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

Graham Surely it's a mistake for Codling, of which there were and are many? And Freebmd has four cases of Codling used as a given name prior to the one you mention Or maybe a way to avoid the homonymie facheuse aspects of Codling Like Botham for Bottom, etc. Letitia was quite common then - almost like Olivia today. Steve Tanner -----Original Message----- From: Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> To: lovelock <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 10:49 Subject: [LOVELOCK] What's in a name? Hello all, Is this the most unusual name ever given to a Lovelock? On 2 August 1914 Bert and Kate Mary Ann (nee Jeavons) Lovelock had a daughter baptised in the church of St Paul at Deptford. The names they gave her are: Kate Letitia Codhling Lovelock. The image at Ancestry is quite clear, and the Reverend G S Reakes had good, legible handwriting. Moreover, the GRO Online Index, based on a scan of the Birth Certificate, also gives the names as Kate Letitia Codhling. Free BMD has not a single Codhling entry, so it seems unlikely to be a surname, and Google returns nothing at all. Were Bert and Kate determined to make their daughter unique in one way if in no other? Kate Letitia and her husband had a daughter, so if she happens to come across this message perhaps she might enlighten us? Regards, Graham ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOVELOCK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hello all, Is this the most unusual name ever given to a Lovelock? On 2 August 1914 Bert and Kate Mary Ann (nee Jeavons) Lovelock had a daughter baptised in the church of St Paul at Deptford. The names they gave her are: Kate Letitia Codhling Lovelock. The image at Ancestry is quite clear, and the Reverend G S Reakes had good, legible handwriting. Moreover, the GRO Online Index, based on a scan of the Birth Certificate, also gives the names as Kate Letitia Codhling. Free BMD has not a single Codhling entry, so it seems unlikely to be a surname, and Google returns nothing at all. Were Bert and Kate determined to make their daughter unique in one way if in no other? Kate Letitia and her husband had a daughter, so if she happens to come across this message perhaps she might enlighten us? Regards, Graham

Hi Graham. You do a brilliant job all the time. Hopefully one day I might be able contribute again. Keep up the good work. Regards Malcolm. -----Original Message----- From: "Graham Lovelock" <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> Sent: ‎25/‎09/‎2017 17:12 To: "lovelock@rootsweb.com" <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Subject: [LOVELOCK] Lovelocks in Surrey Hello again all, Details of 20 baptisms have been added to our Lovelocks in Surrey collection. They are (for the moment) highlighted in red in the file (along with the recently added marriage entries): <http://lovelock.free.fr/documents/lovelocks-in-middlesex.html>http://lovelock.free.fr/documents/lovelocks-in-surrey.html Regards, Graham ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOVELOCK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hello again all, Details of 20 baptisms have been added to our Lovelocks in Surrey collection. They are (for the moment) highlighted in red in the file (along with the recently added marriage entries): <http://lovelock.free.fr/documents/lovelocks-in-middlesex.html>http://lovelock.free.fr/documents/lovelocks-in-surrey.html Regards, Graham

Hello all, Details of 53 baptisms have been added to our Lovelocks in Middlesex collection. They are (for the moment) highlighted in red in the file (along with the recently added marriage entries): http://lovelock.free.fr/documents/lovelocks-in-middlesex.html Regards, Graham

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

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

Hello all, I am sure you recall that I wrote on the above subject at the beginning of last month. The man in question was born John Lovelock, and indeed he appears as such in the 1851 and 1861 Census Returns. However, the next thing we have on record for him is his marriage, as William John Lovelock, to Sarah Fifield in 1879, and then he appears in the 1881 Census as William J, in 1891 as William, as John in 1901, and was registered at death as William. This seemed all the more strange as he had an older brother William, who was buried in 1854. My Webtrees correspondent has now turned up some information that may help to explain just what was going on. A John Lovelock, possibly in training with the Royal Engineers, was court-martialled at Aldershot on 8 Jun 1866, although I do not have the appropriate subscription to Ancestry to determine whether there are any other details. A John Lovelock, possibly the same man, was court-martialled at Aldershot on 21 Sep 1870. Again I have no further details. But on 15 Sep 1871 and again on 18 Sep 1871 a notice was issued concerning the desertion from Aldershot on 13 Aug 1871 of 24 year-old John Lovelock born in Dogmersfield. A third Court Martial concerning a John Lovelock was held at Aldershot on 16 Jun 1875. We believe that all these entries concern I139 from the Ropley, Crondall and Dogmersfield Tree: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/individual.php?pid=I139&ged=ropley-tidcombe If the Court Martial of 21 Sep 1870 resulted in John being incarcerated in a military prison that may explain why he does not appear in the 1871 Census. And if the Court Martial of 16 Jun 1875 resulted in a Dishonourable Discharge the adoption of his brother's name may have been an attempt on his part to put the past behind him. Unless anyone can see any reasons why not I propose to add some appropriate notes to the I139 entry to capture the above. Any comments anyone? Regards, Graham

Hello all, This is just to let you know that Burial and Baptism data has been added to a number of parishes in Wiltshire. Details are on the 'What's New' page: http://lovelock.free.fr/new.html Regards, Graham What's New in Lovelock Family History<http://lovelock.free.fr/new.html> lovelock.free.fr Lovelock Family History web site ... Note: This page of the website only covers changes made during 2017.

Hello again all, At 15 Empress Avenue, East Ham, Essex in 1939 was Winifred J Slader who married Harold Lovelock on 22 Jun 1951 in the Epping Registration District. The bride's name is recorded in the GRO Index as Jessie W Slader, and her birth entry (Jan-Mar 1896) records her as Jessie Winifred. A Jessie W Lovelock died in the Jul-Sep quarter of 1951 in the Wallingford RD, but there seems to be no record of the death of a Winifred J Lovelock, nor of another Jessie W. Miss Slader's birthdate was recorded in 1939 as 6 Dec 1895, and the age of the lady who died in 1951 was 55, so the two are compatible. Does anyone know what apparently took Mrs Lovelock from Essex to Berkshire - was it that Harold was a Berkshire man perhaps - and what led to her apparent death so soon after the marriage? Regards, Graham

Hi Graham Henry George LOVELOCK was buried in 2008, no age or estimated DOB - buried Wickham Road (part 2), Fareham, Hampshire [gravestonephotos.com] with Mary Christine "Maureen" Lovelock, 1923-1997 also Ellen Christine "Christina" Meade, 1898-1981 and Margaret Aherne, 1888-1965 findmypast has him living 29 Central Road, Fareham, Hampshire for 24 years up until 2008 with daughters family - Loreen & Charles Ferris Doesn't help with birth details though... Vicki Houlbrooke On 28 August 2017 at 21:30, Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> wrote: > Hello all, > > > Our 1939 Register data for Hampshire includes a Mary C (Christina) Meade > whose entry indicates that she married a Lovelock. > > > Sure enough, in Jul-Sep 1942 she and Henry G Lovelock were married in the > Gosport Registration District. > > > Mary died in Jun 1997 in the South East Hampshire RD, this being confirmed > by the date of birth matching the 1939 entry. > > > Mary and Henry had two daughters, both of whom appear to be still living. > > > As you would guess from the title, the problem here is Henry G Lovelock. > Free BMD lists only 3: births in 1860, 1893 and 1898, all far too early, > surely, to be marrying an 18 year-old in 1942. In any case the child born > in 1898 died in the same quarter as his birth. There is no G H Lovelock > candidate either, which I checked in case he reversed the order of his > forenames. > > > There does not seem to be a death entry for Henry, so does anyone know > whether he is still living, and if so what his origins are? > > > Regards, > > > Graham > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Lovelock family history Web pages: > http://lovelock.free.fr/ > Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: > http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > LOVELOCK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Thanks for finding this, Vicki, although as so often seems to be the case a step forward takes us two steps back. Henry George left a Will, and the entry in the Find a Will database gives his date of death as 19 Nov 2008. Be that as it may he does not appear in Ancestry's Index of Deaths 2007-2015. The 1939 entry in full reads: Fareham, Hampshire Avoca, Central Road, Wykeham RD/SD 91-1, Sch 128 Name Gender Date of Birth Marital Condition Occupation Catherine Glavin F 15 Jun 87 W Unpaid Domestic Duties Kathleen Glavin F 4 Jan 07 S Factory Labourer (Fertilizer Co) Ellen C Meade F 26 Dec 97 W Unpaid Domestic Duties Mary C Meade (married Lovelock) F 27 Dec 23 S Seeking work not previously employed Margaret Ahern F 22 May 85 S Unpaid Domestic Duties There is no birth entry for Margaret Ahern, so I wonder if she might have been Irish? But more concerning is that there is no birth entry for Mary Meade either. I presume that Ellen was Mary's mother. Her death entry gives her date of birth as 26 Dec 1898 rather than 1897, but I can't find the entry for when she married Mr Meade, and there's no death of a Meade in the Fareham or Gosport RDs between 1922 and 1939. I don't think the Glavins have any part to play in all this, although one never knows. There doesn't seem to be a birth entry for Kathleen, so goodness knows what we have stumbled on here. ________________________________ From: LOVELOCK <lovelock-bounces+lovelockgraham=hotmail.com@rootsweb.com> on behalf of Vicki Houlbrooke <vicki@houlbrooke.co.nz> Sent: 28 August 2017 20:51 To: lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LOVELOCK] The man from nowhere Hi Graham Henry George LOVELOCK was buried in 2008, no age or estimated DOB - buried Wickham Road (part 2), Fareham, Hampshire [gravestonephotos.com] with Mary Christine "Maureen" Lovelock, 1923-1997 also Ellen Christine "Christina" Meade, 1898-1981 and Margaret Aherne, 1888-1965 findmypast has him living 29 Central Road, Fareham, Hampshire for 24 years up until 2008 with daughters family - Loreen & Charles Ferris Doesn't help with birth details though... Vicki Houlbrooke On 28 August 2017 at 21:30, Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> wrote: > Hello all, > > > Our 1939 Register data for Hampshire includes a Mary C (Christina) Meade > whose entry indicates that she married a Lovelock. > > > Sure enough, in Jul-Sep 1942 she and Henry G Lovelock were married in the > Gosport Registration District. > > > Mary died in Jun 1997 in the South East Hampshire RD, this being confirmed > by the date of birth matching the 1939 entry. > > > Mary and Henry had two daughters, both of whom appear to be still living. > > > As you would guess from the title, the problem here is Henry G Lovelock. > Free BMD lists only 3: births in 1860, 1893 and 1898, all far too early, > surely, to be marrying an 18 year-old in 1942. In any case the child born > in 1898 died in the same quarter as his birth. There is no G H Lovelock > candidate either, which I checked in case he reversed the order of his > forenames. > > > There does not seem to be a death entry for Henry, so does anyone know > whether he is still living, and if so what his origins are? > > > Regards, > > > Graham > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Lovelock family history Web pages: > http://lovelock.free.fr/ > Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: > http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ The Lieflock Line, Wootton Rivers and Tangley Trees - webtrees<http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/> loveluck.net These three trees are connected by marriages. The progenitors of the three trees are as follows: The Lieflock Line - Richard Lovelock (? - 1760) who married Mary Head ... > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > LOVELOCK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ 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, Our 1939 Register data for Hampshire includes a Mary C (Christina) Meade whose entry indicates that she married a Lovelock. Sure enough, in Jul-Sep 1942 she and Henry G Lovelock were married in the Gosport Registration District. Mary died in Jun 1997 in the South East Hampshire RD, this being confirmed by the date of birth matching the 1939 entry. Mary and Henry had two daughters, both of whom appear to be still living. As you would guess from the title, the problem here is Henry G Lovelock. Free BMD lists only 3: births in 1860, 1893 and 1898, all far too early, surely, to be marrying an 18 year-old in 1942. In any case the child born in 1898 died in the same quarter as his birth. There is no G H Lovelock candidate either, which I checked in case he reversed the order of his forenames. There does not seem to be a death entry for Henry, so does anyone know whether he is still living, and if so what his origins are? Regards, Graham

Hello all, The 1939 Register gives us two Thomas Lovelocks apparently born in 1895: 1. In a Cottage in White Lane, Hannington in Hampshire was Thomas born 31 Jan 1895, with wife Ada and sons Leonard and Victor. That clearly identifies him as a member of the Kingsclere Line. ALAS there appears to be no record in Free BMD or in the GRO Online Index of Births of the registration of that birth. 2. At 21 Warner Road, West Ham, Essex was Thomas born 4 May 1895 with wife Mary E. That seems to identify them as the Thomas Lovelock and Mary E Humphreys who married in the West Ham RD in Apr-Jun 1926. Both Free BMD and the GRO Online Index of Births have an entry in the Apr-Jun quarter of 1895. HOWEVER, that birth was of Thomas Woodhouse Lovelock, who is the man at 1. above! Thus the situation, crazy as it may seem, is that the man whose birth possibly took place between February and June claimed instead to have been born in January, and the man who claimed to have been born in May was not registered at birth at all. Can anyone add anything to this little story that might help to explain what was going on? Regards, Graham

I had a quick check on Ancestry and that shows the GRO in Dec Q 1960 in Manchester RD. There is also another reference, the internment of Lorenzo, in Southern Cemetery 13 August 1960 in section HH, grave 1698. There is some limited details on http://www.burialrecords.manchester.gov.uk/GenLocDetails.aspx?ID=11160 and more information, I assume, is available if you have credits (4 credits is £12!). Regards, Julie Goucher On 15 August 2017 at 22:15, Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> wrote: > Here's something for the sleuths amongst us. > > > The UK National Archives Catalogue includes some Case Papers amongst the Records of the Director of Public Prosecutions. DPP2/3146 appears to refer to the murder of Lorenzo Lovelock, and is apparently dated 1960-1961. > > > The actual record is said to be closed and thus cannot be viewed or reproduced, and one is also told that no further detail is available without submitting a Freedom of Information request, which in itself might not result in the disclosure of any salient facts. Confusingly the entry also says the Record Opening Date is 2 September 2002. > > > Recourse to Free BMD reveals that a Lorenzo A Lovelock died in the Manchester RD in Oct-Dec 1960 at the age of 25. > > > Free BMD has no record of the birth of a Lorenzo Lovelock apart from one in 1953. > > > Findmypast's Newspaper collection has no mention of the matter - indeed it has no mention of a Lorenzo Lovelock anywhere at any time. > > > A search through Google seems to turn up nothing of relevance. > > > The TNA entry also includes a mention of a George Cuthbert Lyle Hinkson, who may or may not have been a defendant in the case, although there is also a statement to be noted to the effect that "the naming of a defendant within this catalogue does not imply guilt". Curiously Free BMD has no birth entry for a George Cuthbert Lyle Hinkson either, and neither of the protagonists appears in the 1939 Register. > > > Lots of unknowns in this tale - does anyone have any other information? > > > 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

Hi Graham On the Gale Newspapers website (subscription), there is a newspaper article, but for some reason the image is not available... Title: News in BriefPublication Title: The TimesDate: September 15, 1960Issue Number: 54877Page Number: 5Place of Publication: London, EnglandLanguage: EnglishDocument Type: ArticleSource Library: Times Newspapers LimitedCopyright Statement: (c) Times Newspapers Limited. Perhaps this newspaper archive is available in libraries in UK?? Vicki Houlbrooke On 16 August 2017 at 09:15, Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> wrote: > Here's something for the sleuths amongst us. > > > The UK National Archives Catalogue includes some Case Papers amongst the > Records of the Director of Public Prosecutions. DPP2/3146 appears to refer > to the murder of Lorenzo Lovelock, and is apparently dated 1960-1961. > > > The actual record is said to be closed and thus cannot be viewed or > reproduced, and one is also told that no further detail is available > without submitting a Freedom of Information request, which in itself might > not result in the disclosure of any salient facts. Confusingly the entry > also says the Record Opening Date is 2 September 2002. > > > Recourse to Free BMD reveals that a Lorenzo A Lovelock died in the > Manchester RD in Oct-Dec 1960 at the age of 25. > > > Free BMD has no record of the birth of a Lorenzo Lovelock apart from one > in 1953. > > > Findmypast's Newspaper collection has no mention of the matter - indeed it > has no mention of a Lorenzo Lovelock anywhere at any time. > > > A search through Google seems to turn up nothing of relevance. > > > The TNA entry also includes a mention of a George Cuthbert Lyle Hinkson, > who may or may not have been a defendant in the case, although there is > also a statement to be noted to the effect that "the naming of a defendant > within this catalogue does not imply guilt". Curiously Free BMD has no > birth entry for a George Cuthbert Lyle Hinkson either, and neither of the > protagonists appears in the 1939 Register. > > > Lots of unknowns in this tale - does anyone have any other information? > > > 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 >

Here's something for the sleuths amongst us. The UK National Archives Catalogue includes some Case Papers amongst the Records of the Director of Public Prosecutions. DPP2/3146 appears to refer to the murder of Lorenzo Lovelock, and is apparently dated 1960-1961. The actual record is said to be closed and thus cannot be viewed or reproduced, and one is also told that no further detail is available without submitting a Freedom of Information request, which in itself might not result in the disclosure of any salient facts. Confusingly the entry also says the Record Opening Date is 2 September 2002. Recourse to Free BMD reveals that a Lorenzo A Lovelock died in the Manchester RD in Oct-Dec 1960 at the age of 25. Free BMD has no record of the birth of a Lorenzo Lovelock apart from one in 1953. Findmypast's Newspaper collection has no mention of the matter - indeed it has no mention of a Lorenzo Lovelock anywhere at any time. A search through Google seems to turn up nothing of relevance. The TNA entry also includes a mention of a George Cuthbert Lyle Hinkson, who may or may not have been a defendant in the case, although there is also a statement to be noted to the effect that "the naming of a defendant within this catalogue does not imply guilt". Curiously Free BMD has no birth entry for a George Cuthbert Lyle Hinkson either, and neither of the protagonists appears in the 1939 Register. Lots of unknowns in this tale - does anyone have any other information? Regards, Graham

Ooops! Forget this one, folks. All buttoned up in the Dowdeswell Tree. Graham ________________________________ From: LOVELOCK <lovelock-bounces+lovelockgraham=hotmail.com@rootsweb.com> on behalf of Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> Sent: 15 August 2017 16:00 To: lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject: [LOVELOCK] Yet another phantom marriage? Hello all, The GRO Online Index of Births is turning out to be a mixed blessing. Diana Lovelock was born in Oct-Dec 1851 in the Banbury RD, ref 16 3. Edward Lovelock was born in Apr-Jun 1854 in the Banbury RD, ref 3a 634. In both cases the mother's maiden name is recorded as COLLINS. I can find no record of a Lovelock/Collins marriage. There is no death or marriage entry for Diana in Free BMD and she does not appear in any Census. I can not positively identify a marriage for Edward, he does not appear in any Census, but he may be the subject of a death in Jan-Mar 1919 in Salford RD, ref 8d 107 (aged 64). Probably needless to say, but neither Diana nor Edward appears in the 1939 Register, nor in the lists of Incoming Passengers at Ancestry. Any ideas anyone? Regards, Graham ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOVELOCK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hello all, The GRO Online Index of Births is turning out to be a mixed blessing. Diana Lovelock was born in Oct-Dec 1851 in the Banbury RD, ref 16 3. Edward Lovelock was born in Apr-Jun 1854 in the Banbury RD, ref 3a 634. In both cases the mother's maiden name is recorded as COLLINS. I can find no record of a Lovelock/Collins marriage. There is no death or marriage entry for Diana in Free BMD and she does not appear in any Census. I can not positively identify a marriage for Edward, he does not appear in any Census, but he may be the subject of a death in Jan-Mar 1919 in Salford RD, ref 8d 107 (aged 64). Probably needless to say, but neither Diana nor Edward appears in the 1939 Register, nor in the lists of Incoming Passengers at Ancestry. Any ideas anyone? Regards, Graham