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

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

Hello all, Robert recently picked up on a new Oxfordshire Family History Society surnames research project, examining surnames recorded in Oxfordshire parish registers from 1538 onwards, currently estimated at up to 20,000 key variants. The project team will also be using many other early recorded sources to build a comprehensive database of Oxfordshire surnames. The aim is to trace their whereabouts in different parishes over time, their origins, hotspots, DNA connections and many other facets. The project will take about 2 years to complete. The project team has appealed for help from those who have a good recorded family history in Oxfordshire, and so I have contacted the team leader, Sue Honore, and provided her, as they have requested, with a list of the places in Oxfordshire where we have records of the Lovelock name's occurrence. Sue has confirmed that they already have the name on their list, so will definitely be analysing its occurrence in due course, at which time they will contact me again for appropriate contributions. It will obviously be some time before we are likely to see any output, but I will keep you informed as and when I hear more. Thanks to Robert for his timely alert. Regards, Graham

Here's a little more to add even more confusion ..... There was another James Tarrant, born around 1832. He was born in Rodbourne Cheney according to the 1851 Census, when he was recorded as a 20 year old Cordwinder, following in his father Richard's footsteps. In 1841 he had been recorded as being only 8 years old. Unfortunately this James seems to disappear after the 1851 Census, but the reason for mentioning him is that his parents were the Richard Tarrant and Sophia Lovelock who married in Wroughton on 14 Dec 1822. So there's a Tarrant/Lovelock link - but does it have anything to do with James George Thomas Tarrant? Regards, Graham ________________________________ From: Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> Sent: 31 May 2017 12:36 To: Lovelock mailing list Subject: No doubt there's a logical explanation ..... ..... but it escapes me. In Oct-Dec 1867 James Tarrant married Elizabeth Williams, somewhere in the Highworth Registration District in Wiltshire. I have only managed to find the GRO Index entry so the marriage may have taken place in a Non-Conformist church or a Register Office. In Oct-Dec 1868 their son Edmund Lovelock Tarrant was born. Alas, Edmund died in Jan-Mar 1869, and he was buried at Christ Church with St Mary in Swindon on 3 April. Curiously, when the Vicar made the appropriate entry in his Burial Register he named the child simply as Edmund Lovelock. The usual explanation for such name combinations as Edmund Lovelock Tarrant is that the second name is the maiden name of the mother, but the GRO Online Index reveals that Williams was Elizabeth's maiden name. Elizabeth was 24 in the 1871 Census, born in Christian Malford, and that leads to two possible births in 1846, but with mothers' maiden names of Smith and Harding. No clues there. James was 32 in the 1871 Census, born in Cricklade, and turns out (from the 1881 Census) to be James George Thomas, the son of Edmund (Ah!) and Amelia Tarrant, baptised on 2 Jan 1838. However, Amelia's maiden name, revealed in the imagery of the marriage entry at Ancestry, was Enock (sic). Any ideas, anyone? Regards, Graham

" 'Swat keeps us going though .....! " All us nice folks on the outside ;-) Col with thanks ------ Original Message ------ From: "Graham Lovelock" <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> To: "Lovelock mailing list" <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, 31 May, 2017 At 6:19 PM Subject: Re: [LOVELOCK] The Ramsbury Tree Mea culpa, James. Just one of the unresolved Ramsbury entries in terms of the final fate of the person concerned. Amazing how the 'missing links' in the records can provide so much frustration. There's a couple in the Ramsbury data named William and Elizabeth who had no less than 6 sons. The first died within a few weeks of his birth, and perhaps a second (they were both called John!) in his mid-teens, but of the other 4 there is no trace - no marriages and no burials. Perhaps the family moved away - it otherwise seems an amazing coincidence that no further records of them in Ramsbury exist. 'Swat keeps us going though .....! Regards, Graham ________________________________ From: LOVELOCK <lovelock-bounces+lovelockgraham=hotmail.com@rootsweb.com> on behalf of James Loveluck <james.loveluck@gmail.com> Sent: 30 May 2017 14:30 To: Lovelock mailing list Subject: Re: [LOVELOCK] The Ramsbury Tree Hello Graham and all, Thanks for this excellent bit of detective work concerning the two William Lovelocks and their re-allocated spouses in the Ramsbury Tree. You wrote: > As far as I am aware nobody on the Mailing List has a particular > interest in the Ramsbury Tree. Since you juggle with a large number of trees and sources, I’ll pardon you for this memory slip, but I have a long standing interest in the Ramsbury Tree, and in particular John Lovelock (bap 21 Oct 1739, son of Thomas and Mary Lovelock), as a possible progenitor of the Glamorgan Loveluck Tree. The theory is that this John Lovelock migrated to Glamorgan, where he changed his name to LovelUck due to the Welsh pronunciation. This is mentioned on my web page on the origins of the Loveluck tree and surname: http://www.loveluck.net/family-history/origins.html <http://www.loveluck.net/family-history/origins.html> and also in the compilation of John Lovelocks born about 1740, compiled by Robert Sterry: http://lovelock.free.fr/wip/john-lovelocks-b-abt1740.html Your discovery doesn’t shed any light on this hypothesis, but at least it doesn’t demolish it. Regards, James > On 30 May 2017, at 12:25, Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > Hello all, > > > As far as I am aware nobody on the Mailing List has a particular > interest in the Ramsbury Tree. However, that may just be down to my > ignorance or forgetfulness, so although updates to the Trees are > normally just posted on the 'What's New' page I am sending this > message out to bring to your attention a significant change to the > Ramsbury Tree. > > > This has come about because a hitherto unrecorded (by us) 1841 Census > entry has surfaced. The reasons for it having been omitted until now > are that firstly no Lovelock researcher seems to have come across it > (rather obviously) and secondly because Ancestry (which has been our > main long-term source of Census information) has it indexed under the > name LOUCLOCK. > > > The entry is of a second Lovelock household in Ramsbury High Street, > which consists of William and Charlotte Lovelock. William was a > Labourer, Charlotte a schoolmistress, and there were two young > scholars recorded (not Lovelocks) and a Lewis Williams who, being a 30 > year old Carpenter, was probably a lodger. > > > The importance of the entry stems from the fact that the Enumerator, > bless him (presumably a him), did not follow instructions and recorded > William and Charlotte's actual ages - 58 and 47 respectively. Thus > William must be the one baptised in Ramsbury on 5 Jan 1783, and his > wife was the Charlotte Adams that he had married at Ramsbury on 16 Oct > 1823. At present the Tree shows this William marrying Mary Williams in > 1811 but that can surely not be so on the basis of the new 1841 entry: > > > http://lovelock.free.fr/fragments/ramsbury-tree.htm > > > William baptised in 1783 died in 1844 - the GRO Online Index tells > that he was indeed 61 when he died, which of course we did not > previously know for certain, although we had made that assumption. > Charlotte subsequently married Thomas Duck at Chilton Foliat on 4 Dec > 1852 - just one of the many facts in this story already recorded on > the 'Lovelocks in Wiltshire' page. > > > So the question now is who was the William Lovelock who married Mary > Williams in 1811? As it happens, there is another candidate - the son > of yet another William (who was himself baptised on 13 Jun 1756) and > Martha Plumb. This William (Martha's son) was baptised on 27 Nov 1791, > and was buried at Ramsbury on 29 May 1834. > > > Thus we can see why Mary, recorded as being 55, had no husband with > her in the 1841 entry - but she did have Sophia, 25, Edwin, 12, and > Mary 8. The family relationships are of course not shown, but > fortunately the 1851 entry provides clarification. Sophia was the > daughter of Mary, and her baptism at Chilton Foliat was on 24 May > 1812, as the daughter of William and Mary. The 1851 entry also records > Maryann (17) and Francis (8) as the grandchildren of Mary; Mary Anne > was certainly Sophia's illegitimate daughter, and presumably Francis > was her illegitimate son. Edwin was baptised as the son of William and > Mary on 8 Nov 1829, but following his appearance in the 1841 entry he > seems to entirely dis-appear. Sophia married Joseph Kimber in 1855, > and declared for the marriage certificate that her father was William, > a barber. What either she omitted to say, or the incumbent omitted to > record, was that William was deceased. Fortunately Mary was recorded > as a Widow in 1851, so another potential > point of confusion is removed. > > > This all seemed to be nicely slotting into place, which left two other > Census entries to be taken into account. In the High Street, Ramsbury > in 1841 there was another Mary Lovelock, this one aged 45, with an > Elizabeth aged 15. The 1851 entry again clarifies, after a fashion, in > that Mary had miraculously aged by between 19 and 23 years (depending > on how old she said she actually was in 1841 before it got rounded > down) to become 68, whilst Elizabeth had aged only 12 years at most. > But this is sufficient to identify Elizabeth as the daughter of Thomas > and Mary, baptised at Ramsbury on 21 Mar 1824. So the next question > is, who was Thomas? > > > He may well have been the son of William (!) and Elizabeth, baptised > on 29 Jul 1781, but that does not help as we do not know who William > and Elizabeth were - we have no record of a marriage in Ramsbury, just > as we have no record of the marriage of Thomas and Mary. We know from > the 1851 Census entry that Mary was born in Ramsbury, so tradition > would have dictated that she be married there, but we do not have the > data. > > A rather tortuous tale, but if you can spot any errors or can add any > details please let us know. > > Regards, > > Graham > ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOVELOCK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOVELOCK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

..... but it escapes me. In Oct-Dec 1867 James Tarrant married Elizabeth Williams, somewhere in the Highworth Registration District in Wiltshire. I have only managed to find the GRO Index entry so the marriage may have taken place in a Non-Conformist church or a Register Office. In Oct-Dec 1868 their son Edmund Lovelock Tarrant was born. Alas, Edmund died in Jan-Mar 1869, and he was buried at Christ Church with St Mary in Swindon on 3 April. Curiously, when the Vicar made the appropriate entry in his Burial Register he named the child simply as Edmund Lovelock. The usual explanation for such name combinations as Edmund Lovelock Tarrant is that the second name is the maiden name of the mother, but the GRO Online Index reveals that Williams was Elizabeth's maiden name. Elizabeth was 24 in the 1871 Census, born in Christian Malford, and that leads to two possible births in 1846, but with mothers' maiden names of Smith and Harding. No clues there. James was 32 in the 1871 Census, born in Cricklade, and turns out to be James George Thomas, the son of Edmund (Ah!) and Amelia Tarrant, baptised on 2 Jan 1838. However, Amelia's maiden name, revealed in the imagery of the marriage entry at Ancestry, was Enock (sic). Any ideas, anyone? Regards, Graham

Looks like it all comes together reasonably nicely Graham. Well done! -----Original Message----- From: LOVELOCK [mailto:lovelock-bounces+robert=sterryworldwide.com@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Graham Lovelock Sent: Tuesday, 30 May 2017 8:25 PM To: Lovelock mailing list <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Subject: [LOVELOCK] The Ramsbury Tree Hello all, As far as I am aware nobody on the Mailing List has a particular interest in the Ramsbury Tree. However, that may just be down to my ignorance or forgetfulness, so although updates to the Trees are normally just posted on the 'What's New' page I am sending this message out to bring to your attention a significant change to the Ramsbury Tree. This has come about because a hitherto unrecorded (by us) 1841 Census entry has surfaced. The reasons for it having been omitted until now are that firstly no Lovelock researcher seems to have come across it (rather obviously) and secondly because Ancestry (which has been our main long-term source of Census information) has it indexed under the name LOUCLOCK. The entry is of a second Lovelock household in Ramsbury High Street, which consists of William and Charlotte Lovelock. William was a Labourer, Charlotte a schoolmistress, and there were two young scholars recorded (not Lovelocks) and a Lewis Williams who, being a 30 year old Carpenter, was probably a lodger. The importance of the entry stems from the fact that the Enumerator, bless him (presumably a him), did not follow instructions and recorded William and Charlotte's actual ages - 58 and 47 respectively. Thus William must be the one baptised in Ramsbury on 5 Jan 1783, and his wife was the Charlotte Adams that he had married at Ramsbury on 16 Oct 1823. At present the Tree shows this William marrying Mary Williams in 1811 but that can surely not be so on the basis of the new 1841 entry: http://lovelock.free.fr/fragments/ramsbury-tree.htm William baptised in 1783 died in 1844 - the GRO Online Index tells that he was indeed 61 when he died, which of course we did not previously know for certain, although we had made that assumption. Charlotte subsequently married Thomas Duck at Chilton Foliat on 4 Dec 1852 - just one of the many facts in this story already recorded on the 'Lovelocks in Wiltshire' page. So the question now is who was the William Lovelock who married Mary Williams in 1811? As it happens, there is another candidate - the son of yet another William (who was himself baptised on 13 Jun 1756) and Martha Plumb. This William (Martha's son) was baptised on 27 Nov 1791, and was buried at Ramsbury on 29 May 1834. Thus we can see why Mary, recorded as being 55, had no husband with her in the 1841 entry - but she did have Sophia, 25, Edwin, 12, and Mary 8. The family relationships are of course not shown, but fortunately the 1851 entry provides clarification. Sophia was the daughter of Mary, and her baptism at Chilton Foliat was on 24 May 1812, as the daughter of William and Mary. The 1851 entry also records Maryann (17) and Francis (8) as the grandchildren of Mary; Mary Anne was certainly Sophia's illegitimate daughter, and presumably Francis was her illegitimate son. Edwin was baptised as the son of William and Mary on 8 Nov 1829, but following his appearance in the 1841 entry he seems to entirely dis-appear. Sophia married Joseph Kimber in 1855, and declared for the marriage certificate that her father was William, a barber. What either she omitted to say, or the incumbent omitted to record, was that William was deceased. Fortunately Mary was recorded as a Widow in 1851, so another potential point of confusion is removed. This all seemed to be nicely slotting into place, which left two other Census entries to be taken into account. In the High Street, Ramsbury in 1841 there was another Mary Lovelock, this one aged 45, with an Elizabeth aged 15. The 1851 entry again clarifies, after a fashion, in that Mary had miraculously aged by between 19 and 23 years (depending on how old she said she actually was in 1841 before it got rounded down) to become 68, whilst Elizabeth had aged only 12 years at most. But this is sufficient to identify Elizabeth as the daughter of Thomas and Mary, baptised at Ramsbury on 21 Mar 1824. So the next question is, who was Thomas? He may well have been the son of William (!) and Elizabeth, baptised on 29 Jul 1781, but that does not help as we do not know who William and Elizabeth were - we have no record of a marriage in Ramsbury, just as we have no record of the marriage of Thomas and Mary. We know from the 1851 Census entry that Mary was born in Ramsbury, so tradition would have dictated that she be married there, but we do not have the data. A rather tortuous tale, but if you can spot any errors or can add any details please let us know. 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

Mea culpa, James. Just one of the unresolved Ramsbury entries in terms of the final fate of the person concerned. Amazing how the 'missing links' in the records can provide so much frustration. There's a couple in the Ramsbury data named William and Elizabeth who had no less than 6 sons. The first died within a few weeks of his birth, and perhaps a second (they were both called John!) in his mid-teens, but of the other 4 there is no trace - no marriages and no burials. Perhaps the family moved away - it otherwise seems an amazing coincidence that no further records of them in Ramsbury exist. 'Swat keeps us going though .....! Regards, Graham ________________________________ From: LOVELOCK <lovelock-bounces+lovelockgraham=hotmail.com@rootsweb.com> on behalf of James Loveluck <james.loveluck@gmail.com> Sent: 30 May 2017 14:30 To: Lovelock mailing list Subject: Re: [LOVELOCK] The Ramsbury Tree Hello Graham and all, Thanks for this excellent bit of detective work concerning the two William Lovelocks and their re-allocated spouses in the Ramsbury Tree. You wrote: > As far as I am aware nobody on the Mailing List has a particular interest in the Ramsbury Tree. Since you juggle with a large number of trees and sources, I’ll pardon you for this memory slip, but I have a long standing interest in the Ramsbury Tree, and in particular John Lovelock (bap 21 Oct 1739, son of Thomas and Mary Lovelock), as a possible progenitor of the Glamorgan Loveluck Tree. The theory is that this John Lovelock migrated to Glamorgan, where he changed his name to LovelUck due to the Welsh pronunciation. This is mentioned on my web page on the origins of the Loveluck tree and surname: http://www.loveluck.net/family-history/origins.html <http://www.loveluck.net/family-history/origins.html> and also in the compilation of John Lovelocks born about 1740, compiled by Robert Sterry: http://lovelock.free.fr/wip/john-lovelocks-b-abt1740.html Your discovery doesn’t shed any light on this hypothesis, but at least it doesn’t demolish it. Regards, James > On 30 May 2017, at 12:25, Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Hello all, > > > As far as I am aware nobody on the Mailing List has a particular interest in the Ramsbury Tree. However, that may just be down to my ignorance or forgetfulness, so although updates to the Trees are normally just posted on the 'What's New' page I am sending this message out to bring to your attention a significant change to the Ramsbury Tree. > > > This has come about because a hitherto unrecorded (by us) 1841 Census entry has surfaced. The reasons for it having been omitted until now are that firstly no Lovelock researcher seems to have come across it (rather obviously) and secondly because Ancestry (which has been our main long-term source of Census information) has it indexed under the name LOUCLOCK. > > > The entry is of a second Lovelock household in Ramsbury High Street, which consists of William and Charlotte Lovelock. William was a Labourer, Charlotte a schoolmistress, and there were two young scholars recorded (not Lovelocks) and a Lewis Williams who, being a 30 year old Carpenter, was probably a lodger. > > > The importance of the entry stems from the fact that the Enumerator, bless him (presumably a him), did not follow instructions and recorded William and Charlotte's actual ages - 58 and 47 respectively. Thus William must be the one baptised in Ramsbury on 5 Jan 1783, and his wife was the Charlotte Adams that he had married at Ramsbury on 16 Oct 1823. At present the Tree shows this William marrying Mary Williams in 1811 but that can surely not be so on the basis of the new 1841 entry: > > > http://lovelock.free.fr/fragments/ramsbury-tree.htm > > > William baptised in 1783 died in 1844 - the GRO Online Index tells that he was indeed 61 when he died, which of course we did not previously know for certain, although we had made that assumption. Charlotte subsequently married Thomas Duck at Chilton Foliat on 4 Dec 1852 - just one of the many facts in this story already recorded on the 'Lovelocks in Wiltshire' page. > > > So the question now is who was the William Lovelock who married Mary Williams in 1811? As it happens, there is another candidate - the son of yet another William (who was himself baptised on 13 Jun 1756) and Martha Plumb. This William (Martha's son) was baptised on 27 Nov 1791, and was buried at Ramsbury on 29 May 1834. > > > Thus we can see why Mary, recorded as being 55, had no husband with her in the 1841 entry - but she did have Sophia, 25, Edwin, 12, and Mary 8. The family relationships are of course not shown, but fortunately the 1851 entry provides clarification. Sophia was the daughter of Mary, and her baptism at Chilton Foliat was on 24 May 1812, as the daughter of William and Mary. The 1851 entry also records Maryann (17) and Francis (8) as the grandchildren of Mary; Mary Anne was certainly Sophia's illegitimate daughter, and presumably Francis was her illegitimate son. Edwin was baptised as the son of William and Mary on 8 Nov 1829, but following his appearance in the 1841 entry he seems to entirely dis-appear. Sophia married Joseph Kimber in 1855, and declared for the marriage certificate that her father was William, a barber. What either she omitted to say, or the incumbent omitted to record, was that William was deceased. Fortunately Mary was recorded as a Widow in 1851, so another potential > point of confusion is removed. > > > This all seemed to be nicely slotting into place, which left two other Census entries to be taken into account. In the High Street, Ramsbury in 1841 there was another Mary Lovelock, this one aged 45, with an Elizabeth aged 15. The 1851 entry again clarifies, after a fashion, in that Mary had miraculously aged by between 19 and 23 years (depending on how old she said she actually was in 1841 before it got rounded down) to become 68, whilst Elizabeth had aged only 12 years at most. But this is sufficient to identify Elizabeth as the daughter of Thomas and Mary, baptised at Ramsbury on 21 Mar 1824. So the next question is, who was Thomas? > > > He may well have been the son of William (!) and Elizabeth, baptised on 29 Jul 1781, but that does not help as we do not know who William and Elizabeth were - we have no record of a marriage in Ramsbury, just as we have no record of the marriage of Thomas and Mary. We know from the 1851 Census entry that Mary was born in Ramsbury, so tradition would have dictated that she be married there, but we do not have the data. > > A rather tortuous tale, but if you can spot any errors or can add any details please let us know. > > 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 Graham and all, Thanks for this excellent bit of detective work concerning the two William Lovelocks and their re-allocated spouses in the Ramsbury Tree. You wrote: > As far as I am aware nobody on the Mailing List has a particular interest in the Ramsbury Tree. Since you juggle with a large number of trees and sources, I’ll pardon you for this memory slip, but I have a long standing interest in the Ramsbury Tree, and in particular John Lovelock (bap 21 Oct 1739, son of Thomas and Mary Lovelock), as a possible progenitor of the Glamorgan Loveluck Tree. The theory is that this John Lovelock migrated to Glamorgan, where he changed his name to LovelUck due to the Welsh pronunciation. This is mentioned on my web page on the origins of the Loveluck tree and surname: http://www.loveluck.net/family-history/origins.html <http://www.loveluck.net/family-history/origins.html> and also in the compilation of John Lovelocks born about 1740, compiled by Robert Sterry: http://lovelock.free.fr/wip/john-lovelocks-b-abt1740.html Your discovery doesn’t shed any light on this hypothesis, but at least it doesn’t demolish it. Regards, James > On 30 May 2017, at 12:25, Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Hello all, > > > As far as I am aware nobody on the Mailing List has a particular interest in the Ramsbury Tree. However, that may just be down to my ignorance or forgetfulness, so although updates to the Trees are normally just posted on the 'What's New' page I am sending this message out to bring to your attention a significant change to the Ramsbury Tree. > > > This has come about because a hitherto unrecorded (by us) 1841 Census entry has surfaced. The reasons for it having been omitted until now are that firstly no Lovelock researcher seems to have come across it (rather obviously) and secondly because Ancestry (which has been our main long-term source of Census information) has it indexed under the name LOUCLOCK. > > > The entry is of a second Lovelock household in Ramsbury High Street, which consists of William and Charlotte Lovelock. William was a Labourer, Charlotte a schoolmistress, and there were two young scholars recorded (not Lovelocks) and a Lewis Williams who, being a 30 year old Carpenter, was probably a lodger. > > > The importance of the entry stems from the fact that the Enumerator, bless him (presumably a him), did not follow instructions and recorded William and Charlotte's actual ages - 58 and 47 respectively. Thus William must be the one baptised in Ramsbury on 5 Jan 1783, and his wife was the Charlotte Adams that he had married at Ramsbury on 16 Oct 1823. At present the Tree shows this William marrying Mary Williams in 1811 but that can surely not be so on the basis of the new 1841 entry: > > > http://lovelock.free.fr/fragments/ramsbury-tree.htm > > > William baptised in 1783 died in 1844 - the GRO Online Index tells that he was indeed 61 when he died, which of course we did not previously know for certain, although we had made that assumption. Charlotte subsequently married Thomas Duck at Chilton Foliat on 4 Dec 1852 - just one of the many facts in this story already recorded on the 'Lovelocks in Wiltshire' page. > > > So the question now is who was the William Lovelock who married Mary Williams in 1811? As it happens, there is another candidate - the son of yet another William (who was himself baptised on 13 Jun 1756) and Martha Plumb. This William (Martha's son) was baptised on 27 Nov 1791, and was buried at Ramsbury on 29 May 1834. > > > Thus we can see why Mary, recorded as being 55, had no husband with her in the 1841 entry - but she did have Sophia, 25, Edwin, 12, and Mary 8. The family relationships are of course not shown, but fortunately the 1851 entry provides clarification. Sophia was the daughter of Mary, and her baptism at Chilton Foliat was on 24 May 1812, as the daughter of William and Mary. The 1851 entry also records Maryann (17) and Francis (8) as the grandchildren of Mary; Mary Anne was certainly Sophia's illegitimate daughter, and presumably Francis was her illegitimate son. Edwin was baptised as the son of William and Mary on 8 Nov 1829, but following his appearance in the 1841 entry he seems to entirely dis-appear. Sophia married Joseph Kimber in 1855, and declared for the marriage certificate that her father was William, a barber. What either she omitted to say, or the incumbent omitted to record, was that William was deceased. Fortunately Mary was recorded as a Widow in 1851, so another potential > point of confusion is removed. > > > This all seemed to be nicely slotting into place, which left two other Census entries to be taken into account. In the High Street, Ramsbury in 1841 there was another Mary Lovelock, this one aged 45, with an Elizabeth aged 15. The 1851 entry again clarifies, after a fashion, in that Mary had miraculously aged by between 19 and 23 years (depending on how old she said she actually was in 1841 before it got rounded down) to become 68, whilst Elizabeth had aged only 12 years at most. But this is sufficient to identify Elizabeth as the daughter of Thomas and Mary, baptised at Ramsbury on 21 Mar 1824. So the next question is, who was Thomas? > > > He may well have been the son of William (!) and Elizabeth, baptised on 29 Jul 1781, but that does not help as we do not know who William and Elizabeth were - we have no record of a marriage in Ramsbury, just as we have no record of the marriage of Thomas and Mary. We know from the 1851 Census entry that Mary was born in Ramsbury, so tradition would have dictated that she be married there, but we do not have the data. > > A rather tortuous tale, but if you can spot any errors or can add any details please let us know. > > Regards, > > Graham >

I couldn't get any further than you I'm afraid Graham. The best I could do is find a possible GRO birth abt 30 miles away from Shalbourne in Basingstoke, Hampshire. But registration was usually in same or following quarter as birth date. So registration in 3Q of 1883 is rather stretching it. Name: Alfred George Lovelock Registration Year: 1883 Registration Quarter: Jul-Aug-Sep Registration district: Basingstoke Inferred County: Hampshire Volume: 2c Page: 202 As you say nothing in census that appears to match. No Alfred Lovelock marriage to a Jane abt 1882 anywhere in England. So I'm stumped too. Cheers Robert -----Original Message----- From: LOVELOCK [mailto:lovelock-bounces+robert=sterryworldwide.com@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Graham Lovelock Sent: Tuesday, 30 May 2017 2:33 AM To: Lovelock mailing list <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Subject: [LOVELOCK] Is this another one-off? Hello all, Ancestry has an image of a page from the Baptism Register of Shalbourne "in the County of Wilts and Berks" showing that on 3 December 1882 Alfred George, the son of Alfred and Jane Lovelock of Shalboune, was baptised. The writing is very clear, so there seems to be no arguing with those basic facts. However, neither Free BMD nor the GRO's Online Index have any record of the birth of Alfred George. Furthermore, there seems to be no record of the marriage of Alfred and Jane, and none of the three of them seem to be identifiable in a Census Return (although my search strategies have often let me down!). Alfred senior was recorded as a Labourer in the baptism entry, so one might expect him to be fairly local in his origins. Can anyone 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, As far as I am aware nobody on the Mailing List has a particular interest in the Ramsbury Tree. However, that may just be down to my ignorance or forgetfulness, so although updates to the Trees are normally just posted on the 'What's New' page I am sending this message out to bring to your attention a significant change to the Ramsbury Tree. This has come about because a hitherto unrecorded (by us) 1841 Census entry has surfaced. The reasons for it having been omitted until now are that firstly no Lovelock researcher seems to have come across it (rather obviously) and secondly because Ancestry (which has been our main long-term source of Census information) has it indexed under the name LOUCLOCK. The entry is of a second Lovelock household in Ramsbury High Street, which consists of William and Charlotte Lovelock. William was a Labourer, Charlotte a schoolmistress, and there were two young scholars recorded (not Lovelocks) and a Lewis Williams who, being a 30 year old Carpenter, was probably a lodger. The importance of the entry stems from the fact that the Enumerator, bless him (presumably a him), did not follow instructions and recorded William and Charlotte's actual ages - 58 and 47 respectively. Thus William must be the one baptised in Ramsbury on 5 Jan 1783, and his wife was the Charlotte Adams that he had married at Ramsbury on 16 Oct 1823. At present the Tree shows this William marrying Mary Williams in 1811 but that can surely not be so on the basis of the new 1841 entry: http://lovelock.free.fr/fragments/ramsbury-tree.htm William baptised in 1783 died in 1844 - the GRO Online Index tells that he was indeed 61 when he died, which of course we did not previously know for certain, although we had made that assumption. Charlotte subsequently married Thomas Duck at Chilton Foliat on 4 Dec 1852 - just one of the many facts in this story already recorded on the 'Lovelocks in Wiltshire' page. So the question now is who was the William Lovelock who married Mary Williams in 1811? As it happens, there is another candidate - the son of yet another William (who was himself baptised on 13 Jun 1756) and Martha Plumb. This William (Martha's son) was baptised on 27 Nov 1791, and was buried at Ramsbury on 29 May 1834. Thus we can see why Mary, recorded as being 55, had no husband with her in the 1841 entry - but she did have Sophia, 25, Edwin, 12, and Mary 8. The family relationships are of course not shown, but fortunately the 1851 entry provides clarification. Sophia was the daughter of Mary, and her baptism at Chilton Foliat was on 24 May 1812, as the daughter of William and Mary. The 1851 entry also records Maryann (17) and Francis (8) as the grandchildren of Mary; Mary Anne was certainly Sophia's illegitimate daughter, and presumably Francis was her illegitimate son. Edwin was baptised as the son of William and Mary on 8 Nov 1829, but following his appearance in the 1841 entry he seems to entirely dis-appear. Sophia married Joseph Kimber in 1855, and declared for the marriage certificate that her father was William, a barber. What either she omitted to say, or the incumbent omitted to record, was that William was deceased. Fortunately Mary was recorded as a Widow in 1851, so another potential point of confusion is removed. This all seemed to be nicely slotting into place, which left two other Census entries to be taken into account. In the High Street, Ramsbury in 1841 there was another Mary Lovelock, this one aged 45, with an Elizabeth aged 15. The 1851 entry again clarifies, after a fashion, in that Mary had miraculously aged by between 19 and 23 years (depending on how old she said she actually was in 1841 before it got rounded down) to become 68, whilst Elizabeth had aged only 12 years at most. But this is sufficient to identify Elizabeth as the daughter of Thomas and Mary, baptised at Ramsbury on 21 Mar 1824. So the next question is, who was Thomas? He may well have been the son of William (!) and Elizabeth, baptised on 29 Jul 1781, but that does not help as we do not know who William and Elizabeth were - we have no record of a marriage in Ramsbury, just as we have no record of the marriage of Thomas and Mary. We know from the 1851 Census entry that Mary was born in Ramsbury, so tradition would have dictated that she be married there, but we do not have the data. A rather tortuous tale, but if you can spot any errors or can add any details please let us know. Regards, Graham

Hello all, Ancestry has an image of a page from the Baptism Register of Shalbourne "in the County of Wilts and Berks" showing that on 3 December 1882 Alfred George, the son of Alfred and Jane Lovelock of Shalboune, was baptised. The writing is very clear, so there seems to be no arguing with those basic facts. However, neither Free BMD nor the GRO's Online Index have any record of the birth of Alfred George. Furthermore, there seems to be no record of the marriage of Alfred and Jane, and none of the three of them seem to be identifiable in a Census Return (although my search strategies have often let me down!). Alfred senior was recorded as a Labourer in the baptism entry, so one might expect him to be fairly local in his origins. Can anyone enlighten us? Regards, Graham

Well done Graham! A big job. But a great addition to the Lovelocks in Wiltshire parish records. Robert -----Original Message----- From: LOVELOCK [mailto:lovelock-bounces+robert=sterryworldwide.com@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Graham Lovelock Sent: Monday, 22 May 2017 9:42 PM To: Lovelock mailing list <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Subject: [LOVELOCK] More 'Lovelocks in Wiltshire' data Hello all, Ancestry have added to their data baptism, marriage and burial data from the Wiltshire County Council and Swindon Borough Council archives. Lovelock entries have been extracted and added to our 'Lovelocks in Wiltshire' page. There are far too many entries to list them here, but if you have looked for a particular entry in our data before and not found it, it may be worth having another look in case it is part of the new material. There are one or two interesting entries, including that for Anne Amelia Drew in the Bishops Cannings marriages who managed to persuade the clergyman officiating to enter on the marriage certificate that one Stephen Lovelock was her 'reputed father'. I have never come across such an entry before, and can't help wondering if it might be verging on the libellous. Most of the new entries are so far unattributed to family trees, but I am working gradually through them. If you can identify some please let me know. http://lovelock.free.fr/documents/lovelocks-in-wilts.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 all, Ancestry have added to their data baptism, marriage and burial data from the Wiltshire County Council and Swindon Borough Council archives. Lovelock entries have been extracted and added to our 'Lovelocks in Wiltshire' page. There are far too many entries to list them here, but if you have looked for a particular entry in our data before and not found it, it may be worth having another look in case it is part of the new material. There are one or two interesting entries, including that for Anne Amelia Drew in the Bishops Cannings marriages who managed to persuade the clergyman officiating to enter on the marriage certificate that one Stephen Lovelock was her 'reputed father'. I have never come across such an entry before, and can't help wondering if it might be verging on the libellous. Most of the new entries are so far unattributed to family trees, but I am working gradually through them. If you can identify some please let me know. http://lovelock.free.fr/documents/lovelocks-in-wilts.html Regards, Graham

Dear all, Sue Lovelock and I have been puzzling over the birth of Geoffrey J Lovelock in the Jan-Mar quarter of 1929 in the Cardiff RD, whose mother's maiden name was Hubbard. Can anyone throw any light on the family arrangements that led to this birth, as we are stumped? Regards, Graham

Hello all, If you regularly check out the 'What's New' page on the main website you will have noticed a veritable flurry of items over the last few days. These have resulted from dippings into the GRO Online Indices of Births and Deaths which provide the mother's maiden name for births from 1837 to 1911 and ages at death from 1837 to 1865 which are not available from the Free BMD Data. This means that it is now possible to identify children who were born and died between successive Census entries, where before we had no proof of their affiliations, and enables us to be surer of deaths where before we might have had options and alternatives that left us in doubt. The task is by no means complete, so if you happen across additions to one or other of our family trees from the information in this new source please let us all know. The GRO link is: https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates/Login.asp Regards, Graham

Thanks Graham, Charles Henry is also one of mine! Rgds Roger On 09/05/2017 8:21 PM, "Graham Lovelock" <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> wrote: > Wow! Fastest ever response I should think, Roger. > > > Amendment in place. > > > Enjoy the rest of your hols. > > > Regards, > > > Graham > > > ________________________________ > From: LOVELOCK <lovelock-bounces+lovelockgraham=hotmail.com@rootsweb.com> > on behalf of Roger Lovelock <lovelockrg@gmail.com> > Sent: 09 May 2017 11:13 > To: lovelock@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [LOVELOCK] New Material > > Hi Graham, > Charles Lovelock of Virginia Row, Bethnal Green is definitely my ancestor > from the Bethnal Green tree - I am on holiday at Bright in the Victorian > High Country at the moment, sl will have to leave checking the other names > until later in the week when wecreturn to Melbourne. > Regards > Roger Lovelock > > On 09/05/2017 8:02 PM, "Graham Lovelock" <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hello all, > > > > > > Details of the burials of 35 Lovelocks and 1 Loveluck in the City of > > London and Tower Hamlets Cemetery have been added to the website. > > > > > > You can access the data direct from this link: > > > > > > http://lovelock.free.fr/documents/London%20Burials.html > > > > > > or through the appropriate link on the London Records page: > > > > > > http://lovelock.free.fr/london-records.htm > > > > > > As usual, any help to identify which tree the subjects belong to will be > > welcome. > > > > > > Those with good memories will recall that we had some correspondence > about > > Isabella Lovelock (buried on 23 Dec 1867) back in 2014. At that time Free > > BMD did not include the record of her death registration, but it now > does. > > However, that still does not clear up the mystery of why the lady > described > > herself as a Widow in 1851 (unless to conceal the fact that she was an > > unmarried mother), was co-habiting in 1861 with the man she would marry > in > > 1862 who was also, nonetheless, recorded as a Lovelock, and was > registered > > at death and buried under her maiden name. A Lovelock through and > through! > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Graham > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Lovelock family history Web pages: > > http://lovelock.free.fr/ > > Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: > > http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > LOVELOCK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Lovelock family history Web pages: > http://lovelock.free.fr/ > Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: > http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > LOVELOCK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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, Charles Lovelock of Virginia Row, Bethnal Green is definitely my ancestor from the Bethnal Green tree - I am on holiday at Bright in the Victorian High Country at the moment, sl will have to leave checking the other names until later in the week when wecreturn to Melbourne. Regards Roger Lovelock On 09/05/2017 8:02 PM, "Graham Lovelock" <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> wrote: > Hello all, > > > Details of the burials of 35 Lovelocks and 1 Loveluck in the City of > London and Tower Hamlets Cemetery have been added to the website. > > > You can access the data direct from this link: > > > http://lovelock.free.fr/documents/London%20Burials.html > > > or through the appropriate link on the London Records page: > > > http://lovelock.free.fr/london-records.htm > > > As usual, any help to identify which tree the subjects belong to will be > welcome. > > > Those with good memories will recall that we had some correspondence about > Isabella Lovelock (buried on 23 Dec 1867) back in 2014. At that time Free > BMD did not include the record of her death registration, but it now does. > However, that still does not clear up the mystery of why the lady described > herself as a Widow in 1851 (unless to conceal the fact that she was an > unmarried mother), was co-habiting in 1861 with the man she would marry in > 1862 who was also, nonetheless, recorded as a Lovelock, and was registered > at death and buried under her maiden name. A Lovelock through and through! > > > 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 >

Wow! Fastest ever response I should think, Roger. Amendment in place. Enjoy the rest of your hols. Regards, Graham ________________________________ From: LOVELOCK <lovelock-bounces+lovelockgraham=hotmail.com@rootsweb.com> on behalf of Roger Lovelock <lovelockrg@gmail.com> Sent: 09 May 2017 11:13 To: lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LOVELOCK] New Material Hi Graham, Charles Lovelock of Virginia Row, Bethnal Green is definitely my ancestor from the Bethnal Green tree - I am on holiday at Bright in the Victorian High Country at the moment, sl will have to leave checking the other names until later in the week when wecreturn to Melbourne. Regards Roger Lovelock On 09/05/2017 8:02 PM, "Graham Lovelock" <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> wrote: > Hello all, > > > Details of the burials of 35 Lovelocks and 1 Loveluck in the City of > London and Tower Hamlets Cemetery have been added to the website. > > > You can access the data direct from this link: > > > http://lovelock.free.fr/documents/London%20Burials.html > > > or through the appropriate link on the London Records page: > > > http://lovelock.free.fr/london-records.htm > > > As usual, any help to identify which tree the subjects belong to will be > welcome. > > > Those with good memories will recall that we had some correspondence about > Isabella Lovelock (buried on 23 Dec 1867) back in 2014. At that time Free > BMD did not include the record of her death registration, but it now does. > However, that still does not clear up the mystery of why the lady described > herself as a Widow in 1851 (unless to conceal the fact that she was an > unmarried mother), was co-habiting in 1861 with the man she would marry in > 1862 who was also, nonetheless, recorded as a Lovelock, and was registered > at death and buried under her maiden name. A Lovelock through and through! > > > Regards, > > > Graham > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Lovelock family history Web pages: > http://lovelock.free.fr/ > Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: > http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > LOVELOCK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOVELOCK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hello all, Details of the burials of 35 Lovelocks and 1 Loveluck in the City of London and Tower Hamlets Cemetery have been added to the website. You can access the data direct from this link: http://lovelock.free.fr/documents/London%20Burials.html or through the appropriate link on the London Records page: http://lovelock.free.fr/london-records.htm As usual, any help to identify which tree the subjects belong to will be welcome. Those with good memories will recall that we had some correspondence about Isabella Lovelock (buried on 23 Dec 1867) back in 2014. At that time Free BMD did not include the record of her death registration, but it now does. However, that still does not clear up the mystery of why the lady described herself as a Widow in 1851 (unless to conceal the fact that she was an unmarried mother), was co-habiting in 1861 with the man she would marry in 1862 who was also, nonetheless, recorded as a Lovelock, and was registered at death and buried under her maiden name. A Lovelock through and through! Regards, Graham