Hello all, If you have at any time perused Free BMD's Births data for Apr-Jun 1882 you will have come across the birth of a 'Male' Lovelock in the Hungerford RD. The reference is 2c 262. The child is probably the subject of the death of a 'Male' in the same quarter - reference 2c 150 - certainly there is no obvious candidate in the 1891 Census. The GRO Online Index now reveals that the mother's maiden name was Gibbs. Alas, Free BMD has no record of a Male Lovelock/Female Gibbs marriage before 1882, so perhaps the mother had been previously married. Does anyone have any additional information? Regards, Graham

Hi, the GRO index may not have William's death, but it seems he was buried - Name William Lovelock Age 18 Parish Dogmersfield County Hampshire Date of Burial 16th September 1854. So the theory may be correct. Helen Melbourne, Australia -----Original Message----- I have been contacted through Webtrees regarding the man above. I'm not sure there ever really was a William John, but that a part of the name is assumed. We have no Notes on the website, so if my answer to my correspondent disregards other facts that we have not presently included in the gedcom please let me know. I have suggested that the fly in the ointment seems to be William (I136) the son of Abraham Lovelock (I93). William was baptised on 27 Mar 1836. He appears in 1841 aged 5 and again in 1851 aged 15, but then seems to disappear from the records. The GRO Online facility confirms that he did not die between 1851 and 1861, at least not in England or Wales, but there is no entry in 1861 that could be him. He may, for instance, have joined the Army, but he does not appear in our list of Lovelock Chelsea Pensioners so if he did enlist he may have died overseas. The marriage of 'William John Lovelock' and Sarah Fifield, is included in the Ashford section of our 'Lovelocks in Middlesex' collection; the groom claimed to be 25 at his marriage, indicating a birth in 1853 or 1854, and of course you will not be surprised to hear that there isn't one. But the GRO Online facility now enables us to confirm that the maiden name of the mother of the 6 children baptised at Ashford was indeed Fifield as we have assumed, and so Sarah's husband recorded as William J in 1881, William in 1891 and John in 1901 must surely be one and the same (I139). However, the 1881 entry suggests a birth in 1850 or 1851, the 1891 a birth in 1850 or 1851, and, bizarrely, the 1901 entry suggests that he did not age at all in the 10 years since the previous Census! Despite that appearance as John in 1901 his death, in 1910, was registered in the name of William and his age as 60, indicating a birth in 1849 or 1850. My conclusion is that William born around 1836 died at some point after 1851 and his younger brother John, for reasons we shall probably never know, appended his brother's name to his own at some point between 1861 and 1879. Furthermore, and again for reasons unknown, he lied about his age when he married Sarah Fifield, taking no less than 7 years off his true age. But then, scarcely 2 years later, he claimed to have aged by 5 years, a pretence that he more or less maintained for the rest of his life. He always, note, recorded his birthplace as Dogmersfield so if there was a 'real' William John he would surely have surfaced somewhere else in the documentation. In summary, then, I do not believe 'William John' to have been baptised or registered under that name, but that John adopted the epithet, possibly following the death of his older brother William. Does anyone have anything to contribute to the discussion, or should I add a version of the above facts as a Note in the gedcom? Regards, Graham ----------------------------------------------------------------

Hello Helen - good to hear from you again, although you've got me puzzling now. We have the Dogmersfield 1854 burial in our 'Lovelocks in Hampshire' collection, but as reported by Mike and Alison Turner the entry apparently indicates that he was a resident of Andover. So how did he come to be buried in Dogmersfield? Coincidentally - or is it? - there was a death of a William Lovelock in the Andover RD in the Jul-Sep quarter of 1854. One might conjecture that William was the man born in 1836, who had gone to Andover to work, had died, and his family had arranged for him to be returned to Dogmersfield for burial. The only problem with that conjecture is that the GRO Online Index states that the William who died in the Andover RD was aged 21. Despite that, and of course whoever reported and certified the death may not have been well acquainted enough with William to know his exact age, I think there are too many coincidences here for there to be two Williams. Another factor that we should probably not ignore is that whilst it was easy enough for a birth not to be registered if the child was not baptised, officiating clergy would get into some trouble if they failed to advise the authorities of a marriage or burial. In consequence I'm sure the incumbent at Dogmersfield would have had to be satisfied that the death of the man he buried in 1854 had been registered elsewhere before allowing the burial to go ahead. And the only death in the records is the man in the Andover RD. QED? Regards, Graham ________________________________ From: LOVELOCK <lovelock-bounces+lovelockgraham=hotmail.com@rootsweb.com> on behalf of Helen Norton <helmar@bigpond.net.au> Sent: 03 August 2017 10:26 To: lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LOVELOCK] William John LOVELOCK born Dogmersfield 1850/51 Hi, the GRO index may not have William's death, but it seems he was buried - Name William Lovelock Age 18 Parish Dogmersfield County Hampshire Date of Burial 16th September 1854. So the theory may be correct. Helen Melbourne, Australia -----Original Message----- I have been contacted through Webtrees regarding the man above. I'm not sure there ever really was a William John, but that a part of the name is assumed. We have no Notes on the website, so if my answer to my correspondent disregards other facts that we have not presently included in the gedcom please let me know. I have suggested that the fly in the ointment seems to be William (I136) the son of Abraham Lovelock (I93). William was baptised on 27 Mar 1836. He appears in 1841 aged 5 and again in 1851 aged 15, but then seems to disappear from the records. The GRO Online facility confirms that he did not die between 1851 and 1861, at least not in England or Wales, but there is no entry in 1861 that could be him. He may, for instance, have joined the Army, but he does not appear in our list of Lovelock Chelsea Pensioners so if he did enlist he may have died overseas. The marriage of 'William John Lovelock' and Sarah Fifield, is included in the Ashford section of our 'Lovelocks in Middlesex' collection; the groom claimed to be 25 at his marriage, indicating a birth in 1853 or 1854, and of course you will not be surprised to hear that there isn't one. But the GRO Online facility now enables us to confirm that the maiden name of the mother of the 6 children baptised at Ashford was indeed Fifield as we have assumed, and so Sarah's husband recorded as William J in 1881, William in 1891 and John in 1901 must surely be one and the same (I139). However, the 1881 entry suggests a birth in 1850 or 1851, the 1891 a birth in 1850 or 1851, and, bizarrely, the 1901 entry suggests that he did not age at all in the 10 years since the previous Census! Despite that appearance as John in 1901 his death, in 1910, was registered in the name of William and his age as 60, indicating a birth in 1849 or 1850. My conclusion is that William born around 1836 died at some point after 1851 and his younger brother John, for reasons we shall probably never know, appended his brother's name to his own at some point between 1861 and 1879. Furthermore, and again for reasons unknown, he lied about his age when he married Sarah Fifield, taking no less than 7 years off his true age. But then, scarcely 2 years later, he claimed to have aged by 5 years, a pretence that he more or less maintained for the rest of his life. He always, note, recorded his birthplace as Dogmersfield so if there was a 'real' William John he would surely have surfaced somewhere else in the documentation. In summary, then, I do not believe 'William John' to have been baptised or registered under that name, but that John adopted the epithet, possibly following the death of his older brother William. Does anyone have anything to contribute to the discussion, or should I add a version of the above facts as a Note in the gedcom? 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/ Kingsclere (Hants) Line - webtrees - loveluck<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

Hello all, I have been contacted through Webtrees regarding the man above. I'm not sure there ever really was a William John, but that a part of the name is assumed. We have no Notes on the website, so if my answer to my correspondent disregards other facts that we have not presently included in the gedcom please let me know. I have suggested that the fly in the ointment seems to be William (I136) the son of Abraham Lovelock (I93). William was baptised on 27 Mar 1836. He appears in 1841 aged 5 and again in 1851 aged 15, but then seems to disappear from the records. The GRO Online facility confirms that he did not die between 1851 and 1861, at least not in England or Wales, but there is no entry in 1861 that could be him. He may, for instance, have joined the Army, but he does not appear in our list of Lovelock Chelsea Pensioners so if he did enlist he may have died overseas. The marriage of 'William John Lovelock' and Sarah Fifield, is included in the Ashford section of our 'Lovelocks in Middlesex' collection; the groom claimed to be 25 at his marriage, indicating a birth in 1853 or 1854, and of course you will not be surprised to hear that there isn't one. But the GRO Online facility now enables us to confirm that the maiden name of the mother of the 6 children baptised at Ashford was indeed Fifield as we have assumed, and so Sarah's husband recorded as William J in 1881, William in 1891 and John in 1901 must surely be one and the same (I139). However, the 1881 entry suggests a birth in 1850 or 1851, the 1891 a birth in 1850 or 1851, and, bizarrely, the 1901 entry suggests that he did not age at all in the 10 years since the previous Census! Despite that appearance as John in 1901 his death, in 1910, was registered in the name of William and his age as 60, indicating a birth in 1849 or 1850. My conclusion is that William born around 1836 died at some point after 1851 and his younger brother John, for reasons we shall probably never know, appended his brother's name to his own at some point between 1861 and 1879. Furthermore, and again for reasons unknown, he lied about his age when he married Sarah Fifield, taking no less than 7 years off his true age. But then, scarcely 2 years later, he claimed to have aged by 5 years, a pretence that he more or less maintained for the rest of his life. He always, note, recorded his birthplace as Dogmersfield so if there was a 'real' William John he would surely have surfaced somewhere else in the documentation. In summary, then, I do not believe 'William John' to have been baptised or registered under that name, but that John adopted the epithet, possibly following the death of his older brother William. Does anyone have anything to contribute to the discussion, or should I add a version of the above facts as a Note in the gedcom? Regards, Graham

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

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

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

Hi Ian, There is another web site where you can upload your DNA results for free. It is called GENI and the link is here: https://www.geni.com/dna-tests/upload_autosomal Family Tree - Geni<https://www.geni.com/dna-tests/upload_autosomal> www.geni.com Create your family tree and invite relatives to share. Search 175 million profiles and discover new ancestors. Share photos, videos and more at Geni.com. all the best, Bill ________________________________ From: LOVELOCK <lovelock-bounces+blovelock=hotmail.com@rootsweb.com> on behalf of Ian Lovelock <ianlovelock@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 1:54 PM To: lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LOVELOCK] DNA Hi Bill thanks for the info and I will upload to the site and see what comes of it. Can I ask which Lovelock tree you are on? Best wishes Ian Lovelock of the Lieflock line ________________________________ From: LOVELOCK <lovelock-bounces+ianlovelock=hotmail.com@rootsweb.com> on behalf of Bill Lovelock <blovelock@hotmail.com> Sent: 25 June 2017 13:39 To: lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LOVELOCK] DNA Hi Ian, Have you uploaded your raw DNA to Gedmatch? I've been contacted by distant relatives (First Cousins) who have taken tests other than the one offered by Ancestry, so it's quite worthwhile, and free, as well. https://www.yourdnaguide.com/upload-to-gedmatch/ How To Upload to Gedmatch — Your DNA Guide<https://www.yourdnaguide.com/upload-to-gedmatch/> www.yourdnaguide.com Gedmatch. Gedmatch can be a great place to collaborate with others who have been tested at other companies and gain access to more genetic tools to try to figure out ... How To Upload to Gedmatch — Your DNA Guide<https://www.yourdnaguide.com/upload-to-gedmatch/> How To Upload to Gedmatch — Your DNA Guide<https://www.yourdnaguide.com/upload-to-gedmatch/> www.yourdnaguide.com Gedmatch. Gedmatch can be a great place to collaborate with others who have been tested at other companies and gain access to more genetic tools to try to figure out ... www.yourdnaguide.com<http://www.yourdnaguide.com> [http://static1.squarespace.com/static/55d49893e4b0caee6f77186f/t/55de665be4b02d66e57291c5/1440638556367/LogoSidewaysNew-01.png?format=1000w]<http://www.yourdnaguide.com/> Your DNA Guide HOME<http://www.yourdnaguide.com/> www.yourdnaguide.com / Gedmatch. Gedmatch can be a great place to collaborate with others who have been tested at other companies and gain access to more genetic tools to try to figure out ... All the best, Bill Lovelock Beijing China -----Original Message----- From: LOVELOCK [mailto:lovelock-bounces+blovelock=hotmail.com@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Ian Lovelock Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 3:33 AM To: lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject: [LOVELOCK] DNA Hi I have got my DNA results through and are available on ancestry. Not sure if others are working on DNA and links Happy to liaise and expand our knowledge of the Lovelocks Best wishes to all Ian lovelock ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Ian, Ancestry.com just replied to my inquiry and here is there reply: Dear Wilfred, Thank you for contacting Ancestry in regards to options for your DNA results. We apologize for any frustration or confusion you have experienced as a result of this matter. Our records indicate that you have a Y-DNA test associated with your Ancestry account. In the spring of 2014, we sent emails to all of our members, with this type of DNA testing, in order to let everyone know that we were retiring this type of DNA test. More information about this announcement can be found in the link below. https://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2014/06/04/ancestry-com-focuses-on-core-offerings/ As of 5 September 2014, the full Y-DNA results were no longer supported, and certain aspects of the results are no longer available. There is no longer an option to view your DNA matches, to link your DNA to a family tree, or view your results directly on our website. Currently the only options for your results will be to download a printable report and the results from our website to your computer. So it appears if I want my DNA matches to show up on Ancestry.com, I'll have to purchase another DNA test kit from them. I already have downloaded my results to my computer and I've also had the 23andme test. All the best, Bill -----Original Message----- From: LOVELOCK [mailto:lovelock-bounces+blovelock=hotmail.com@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Ian Lovelock Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 4:54 AM To: lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LOVELOCK] DNA Hi Bill thanks for the info and I will upload to the site and see what comes of it. Can I ask which Lovelock tree you are on? Best wishes Ian Lovelock of the Lieflock line ________________________________ From: LOVELOCK <lovelock-bounces+ianlovelock=hotmail.com@rootsweb.com<mailto:lovelock-bounces+ianlovelock=hotmail.com@rootsweb.com>> on behalf of Bill Lovelock <blovelock@hotmail.com<mailto:blovelock@hotmail.com>> Sent: 25 June 2017 13:39 To: lovelock@rootsweb.com<mailto:lovelock@rootsweb.com> Subject: Re: [LOVELOCK] DNA Hi Ian, Have you uploaded your raw DNA to Gedmatch? I've been contacted by distant relatives (First Cousins) who have taken tests other than the one offered by Ancestry, so it's quite worthwhile, and free, as well. https://www.yourdnaguide.com/upload-to-gedmatch/ How To Upload to Gedmatch - Your DNA Guide<https://www.yourdnaguide.com/upload-to-gedmatch/> www.yourdnaguide.com<http://www.yourdnaguide.com> Gedmatch. Gedmatch can be a great place to collaborate with others who have been tested at other companies and gain access to more genetic tools to try to figure out ... All the best, Bill Lovelock Beijing China -----Original Message----- From: LOVELOCK [mailto:lovelock-bounces+blovelock=hotmail.com@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Ian Lovelock Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 3:33 AM To: lovelock@rootsweb.com<mailto:lovelock@rootsweb.com> Subject: [LOVELOCK] DNA Hi I have got my DNA results through and are available on ancestry. Not sure if others are working on DNA and links Happy to liaise and expand our knowledge of the Lovelocks Best wishes to all Ian lovelock ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:LOVELOCK-request@rootsweb.com> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Ian, It's good to hear from you. I'm in the 2nd St. Pancras Tree. I'm having problems viewing my Ancestry DNA matches at the moment. Somehow I apparently ended up with two Ancestry accounts. My tree is attached to one and my DNA results are attached to the other. I had an Ancestry Expert assisting me with it, but I haven't heard from the expert in a few days. Hopefully, it will be sorted out very soon. All the best, Wilfred M. (Bill) Lovelock -----Original Message----- From: LOVELOCK [mailto:lovelock-bounces+blovelock=hotmail.com@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Ian Lovelock Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 4:54 AM To: lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LOVELOCK] DNA Hi Bill thanks for the info and I will upload to the site and see what comes of it. Can I ask which Lovelock tree you are on? Best wishes Ian Lovelock of the Lieflock line ________________________________ From: LOVELOCK <lovelock-bounces+ianlovelock=hotmail.com@rootsweb.com> on behalf of Bill Lovelock <blovelock@hotmail.com> Sent: 25 June 2017 13:39 To: lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LOVELOCK] DNA Hi Ian, Have you uploaded your raw DNA to Gedmatch? I've been contacted by distant relatives (First Cousins) who have taken tests other than the one offered by Ancestry, so it's quite worthwhile, and free, as well. https://www.yourdnaguide.com/upload-to-gedmatch/ How To Upload to Gedmatch - Your DNA Guide<https://www.yourdnaguide.com/upload-to-gedmatch/> www.yourdnaguide.com Gedmatch. Gedmatch can be a great place to collaborate with others who have been tested at other companies and gain access to more genetic tools to try to figure out ... All the best, Bill Lovelock Beijing China -----Original Message----- From: LOVELOCK [mailto:lovelock-bounces+blovelock=hotmail.com@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Ian Lovelock Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 3:33 AM To: lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject: [LOVELOCK] DNA Hi I have got my DNA results through and are available on ancestry. Not sure if others are working on DNA and links Happy to liaise and expand our knowledge of the Lovelocks Best wishes to all Ian lovelock ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Bill thanks for the info and I will upload to the site and see what comes of it. Can I ask which Lovelock tree you are on? Best wishes Ian Lovelock of the Lieflock line ________________________________ From: LOVELOCK <lovelock-bounces+ianlovelock=hotmail.com@rootsweb.com> on behalf of Bill Lovelock <blovelock@hotmail.com> Sent: 25 June 2017 13:39 To: lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LOVELOCK] DNA Hi Ian, Have you uploaded your raw DNA to Gedmatch? I've been contacted by distant relatives (First Cousins) who have taken tests other than the one offered by Ancestry, so it's quite worthwhile, and free, as well. https://www.yourdnaguide.com/upload-to-gedmatch/ How To Upload to Gedmatch — Your DNA Guide<https://www.yourdnaguide.com/upload-to-gedmatch/> www.yourdnaguide.com Gedmatch. Gedmatch can be a great place to collaborate with others who have been tested at other companies and gain access to more genetic tools to try to figure out ... All the best, Bill Lovelock Beijing China -----Original Message----- From: LOVELOCK [mailto:lovelock-bounces+blovelock=hotmail.com@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Ian Lovelock Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 3:33 AM To: lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject: [LOVELOCK] DNA Hi I have got my DNA results through and are available on ancestry. Not sure if others are working on DNA and links Happy to liaise and expand our knowledge of the Lovelocks Best wishes to all Ian lovelock ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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

Unfortunately Bill, Gedmatch can't be used to compare Y-DNA results. And these are the tests we need to follow the Lovelock surname. Gedmatch can only compare tests for cousins as you rightly say. But I'm not sure what type of test Ian has taken. That's why we need a Lovelock DNA Project so the coordinator[s] can advise any Lovelocks interested in taking DNA tests which test they need to take. It gets a bit complicated as you can imagine and testing companies do not always make it terribly clear as to what different tests can achieve. But of course they're very happy to take your money for any test you care to have! All the best Robert -----Original Message----- From: LOVELOCK [mailto:lovelock-bounces+robert=sterryworldwide.com@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Bill Lovelock Sent: Sunday, 25 June 2017 10:40 PM To: lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LOVELOCK] DNA Hi Ian, Have you uploaded your raw DNA to Gedmatch? I've been contacted by distant relatives (First Cousins) who have taken tests other than the one offered by Ancestry, so it's quite worthwhile, and free, as well. https://www.yourdnaguide.com/upload-to-gedmatch/ All the best, Bill Lovelock Beijing China -----Original Message----- From: LOVELOCK [mailto:lovelock-bounces+blovelock=hotmail.com@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Ian Lovelock Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 3:33 AM To: lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject: [LOVELOCK] DNA Hi I have got my DNA results through and are available on ancestry. Not sure if others are working on DNA and links Happy to liaise and expand our knowledge of the Lovelocks Best wishes to all Ian lovelock ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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

Hi Ian, Have you uploaded your raw DNA to Gedmatch? I've been contacted by distant relatives (First Cousins) who have taken tests other than the one offered by Ancestry, so it's quite worthwhile, and free, as well. https://www.yourdnaguide.com/upload-to-gedmatch/ All the best, Bill Lovelock Beijing China -----Original Message----- From: LOVELOCK [mailto:lovelock-bounces+blovelock=hotmail.com@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Ian Lovelock Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 3:33 AM To: lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject: [LOVELOCK] DNA Hi I have got my DNA results through and are available on ancestry. Not sure if others are working on DNA and links Happy to liaise and expand our knowledge of the Lovelocks Best wishes to all Ian lovelock ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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

Excellent Ian. Did you have a Y-DNA37 test done? That's the one we need for following the Lovelock surname. -----Original Message----- From: LOVELOCK [mailto:lovelock-bounces+robert=sterryworldwide.com@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Ian Lovelock Sent: Thursday, 22 June 2017 5:33 AM To: lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject: [LOVELOCK] DNA Hi I have got my DNA results through and are available on ancestry. Not sure if others are working on DNA and links Happy to liaise and expand our knowledge of the Lovelocks Best wishes to all Ian lovelock ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 I have got my DNA results through and are available on ancestry. Not sure if others are working on DNA and links Happy to liaise and expand our knowledge of the Lovelocks Best wishes to all Ian lovelock

Hello all, 'The Hereford Times' of Saturday 3 May 1862 has a small item that reads 'A Mrs Ann Lovelock, the wife of a person of property living in Camberwell, committed suicide on Tuesday, by leaping into the Surrey Canal.'. However, there is no entry in either Free BMD or the GRO Online Index. A similar item concerning a Mrs Clara Bateman who threw herself into the Regent's Canal on the preceding Wednesday is matched by Free BMD and GRO Online entries. There is no obvious candidate for Ann in the 1861 Census. Can anyone cast more light on this tragic lady? Regards, Graham

I think that's a great idea, Robert. As a suggestion from a genealogist friend who is savvy about DNA testing, I uploaded my Raw DNA data from Ancestry.com to Family Tree DNA (No Cost) on Saturday. 23andme, Ancestry DNA and raw data from other DNA companies can be easily uploaded to the Family Tree Web site at the click of a button. After a couple of hours, I checked the web site again and they had identified a first cousin I wasn't aware of and many other people who shared my DNA. Their relationship to me was also listed although they were much further down the line (third cousins or more). Ancestry.com is running a $79 USD Father's day special until June 18. Not sure if it's valid across the big pond, but perhaps there is also a current special running in the UK too. I prefer 23andme because it has the added advantage of listing inherited disease traits you may or may not be pre-disposed to genetically. Some people may not want to know this information, but It's your choice whether you wish to know or not. It is also up to you whether to share any of your results or even to identify yourself publicly on any of these web sites. You can remain anonymous if you prefer. Even just a few Lovelock submissions from a few trees might prove to be enlightening. Best Regards to all, Wilfred (Bill) M. Lovelock 2nd St. Pancras Tree Beijing China ________________________________ From: LOVELOCK <lovelock-bounces+blovelock=hotmail.com@rootsweb.com> on behalf of Robert Sterry <robert.sterry24@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, June 9, 2017 6:01 PM To: lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LOVELOCK] Oxfordshire surnames project and DNA tests Sounds like a good time to get a Lovelock DNA Project started!! -----Original Message----- From: LOVELOCK [mailto:lovelock-bounces+robert=sterryworldwide.com@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Wendy Archer Sent: Saturday, 10 June 2017 5:44 AM To: lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject: [LOVELOCK] Oxfordshire surnames project and DNA tests Graham recently brought the Oxfordshire surname project to the attention of the list. The second part of the project focusses on DNA results, and includes a DNA competition. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ People with Oxfordshire ancestry who have been DNA tested and are not yet part of the Oxfordshire DNA project on FamilyTreeDNA are welcome to join the project at www.familytreedna.com/public/oxfordshire<http://www.familytreedna.com/public/oxfordshire>. As an incentive, Oxfordshire Family History Society has donated the cost of six Y-37 tests to be won in a competition. Any male (or female who could persuade a male relative to take the test) is eligible. We are looking for the six best candidates with good Oxfordshire surname history on the pure male line (father's father's father...) going back before 1870 and with good personal reasons to think a DNA test will be valuable. All that is required is an email describing your known Oxfordshire male line ancestry, why you think a DNA test would be valuable and full contact details. Full Ts & Cs can be obtained on application. The closing date is the 15th June 2017. If you know of a friend, relative or neighbour who might be a good candidate, then do tell them about this competition. Please mark any emails for the competition with a title of ‘DNA Competition’, and send them to dna@ofhs.org.uk. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Wendy OFHS publicity coordinator www.ofhs.org.uk<http://www.ofhs.org.uk> publicity@ofhs.org.uk ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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, The 'Taunton Courier and Western Advertiser' of 16 October 1918 has a very brief item which reads: 'Mrs Lovelock, the mother of a dead soldier, has been found drowned in five inches of water on Gelligeer Mountain, Glamorganshire.' Apart from the fact that it seems incredible that a grown woman could drown in five inches of water there is no death of a Mrs Lovelock (or Loveluck) in Glamorgan in the Free BMD data for 1918 or 1919. So what is the full story? Regards, Graham

Sounds like a good time to get a Lovelock DNA Project started!! -----Original Message----- From: LOVELOCK [mailto:lovelock-bounces+robert=sterryworldwide.com@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Wendy Archer Sent: Saturday, 10 June 2017 5:44 AM To: lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject: [LOVELOCK] Oxfordshire surnames project and DNA tests Graham recently brought the Oxfordshire surname project to the attention of the list. The second part of the project focusses on DNA results, and includes a DNA competition. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ People with Oxfordshire ancestry who have been DNA tested and are not yet part of the Oxfordshire DNA project on FamilyTreeDNA are welcome to join the project at www.familytreedna.com/public/oxfordshire. As an incentive, Oxfordshire Family History Society has donated the cost of six Y-37 tests to be won in a competition. Any male (or female who could persuade a male relative to take the test) is eligible. We are looking for the six best candidates with good Oxfordshire surname history on the pure male line (father's father's father...) going back before 1870 and with good personal reasons to think a DNA test will be valuable. All that is required is an email describing your known Oxfordshire male line ancestry, why you think a DNA test would be valuable and full contact details. Full Ts & Cs can be obtained on application. The closing date is the 15th June 2017. If you know of a friend, relative or neighbour who might be a good candidate, then do tell them about this competition. Please mark any emails for the competition with a title of ‘DNA Competition’, and send them to dna@ofhs.org.uk. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Wendy OFHS publicity coordinator www.ofhs.org.uk publicity@ofhs.org.uk ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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

Great work by all involved - another useful addition to our data! Kind regards Sue Lovelock ----Original message---- >From : lovelockgraham@hotmail.com Date : 10/06/2017 - 09:31 (GMTST) To : lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject : [LOVELOCK] You never know ..... Hello all, You may recall that last month I sent a message about the Ramsbury Tree which caused James to remind me that he is still searching for the missing information that will prove the origins of the John Lovelock who became John Loveluck in South Wales. This in turn caused Robert and a small band of assistants to turn their attentions once again to the hunt for the John Lovelock who is the progenitor of the Wallingford (Berkshire) Line, which we have documented at: http://lovelock.free.fr/wip/john-lovelocks-b-abt-1740-revised-2013.html The immediate consequence of the re-invigorated hunt was a short exchange regarding a Wiltshire Family History Society CD which contains details of the surviving Sarum Marriage Licence Bonds. The Lovelock and Loveluck entries in those records have now been added to the Berkshire and Wiltshire Records pages. The jurisdiction of the Dean of Sarum (Salisbury) extended through Berkshire, Wiltshire, Dorset and part of Devon, and that of the Bishop of Salisbury through Berkshire and Wiltshire. Many of the Bonds relate to marriages that were already part of our Berkshire and Wiltshire collections, and links from those marriage entries to the relevant Licence Bond page have also been added. Some of the entries refer to already proven members of one or other of our Family Trees and the Licence Bond pages indicate where this is so. http://lovelock.free.fr/berks-records.html http://lovelock.free.fr/wilts-records.htm One never knows where one of our messages might lead ..... 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