Hi, Just thought I'd check out the Kent section of the site after the email re the 1939 project as my grandparents lived at Minster on Sheppey at that time - and of course, came across the Sheerness Fragment. Could be completely coincidental - but my Grandfather (Navy) was stationed at Chatham and my grandparents lived for many years in Minster (adjacent to Sheerness) - we often visited when I was a child - I don't know of any earlier family connection to Sheppey - but my tree (Bethnal Green) goes back to a John Lovelock (common name of course) at about the same time as the Sheerness fragment. Probably just coincidence, but I'd love to take my tree a little further back, and indeed connect up to other trees possibly. Regards Roger Lovelock (Melbourne, Australia) On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 8:55 AM, Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com > wrote: > Hello all, > > > This is just to let you know that the 1939 data for Berkshire, Hampshire, > Kent and Surrey has been added to the website and can be accessed through > the appropriate County Records pages. > > > There is also a small amount of data for Monmouthshire which can be > accessed through the Miscellaneous Counties page. > > > 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, This is just to let you know that the 1939 data for Berkshire, Hampshire, Kent and Surrey has been added to the website and can be accessed through the appropriate County Records pages. There is also a small amount of data for Monmouthshire which can be accessed through the Miscellaneous Counties page. Regards, Graham

Can't see any of my Relations there Graham. My ex father in law is now 92 if alive but he isn't there Christmas Salutations Sian Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> wrote: Now included, David. Many thanks, Graham ________________________________ From: LOVELOCK <lovelock-bounces+lovelockgraham=hotmail.com@rootsweb.com> on behalf of David Lovelock <dlvlck@gmail.com> Sent: 19 December 2016 16:56 To: lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LOVELOCK] A small Christmas bonus The only other one I recognize is John Leslie Lovelock 5 Nov 2014 19 Feb 2015 Cardiff which should also have an L. On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com > wrote: > That's more than enough, David. > > > All we really need is an indication of which tree applies so that the > appropriate code letter can be added to the right hand column. > > > Thank you for responding so quickly. > > > Regards > > > Graham > > > ________________________________ > From: LOVELOCK <lovelock-bounces+lovelockgraham=hotmail.com@rootsweb.com> > on behalf of David Lovelock <dlvlck@gmail.com> > Sent: 19 December 2016 15:40 > To: lovelock@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [LOVELOCK] A small Christmas bonus > > Graham, > > Is this the sort of thing you want? > > The entry > Gwendoline Ivy May Lovelock 16 Apr 1998 14 Aug 1998 Brighton > on > http://lovelock.free.fr/documents/Wills%20from%201996%20onwards.html > is > Gwendoline Ivy May Hood b. 29 Oct 1913, London, > England, d. 16 Apr 1998, Broadstairs, Kent, England, > par. Albert Victor Hood and May Florence Barnes > on > http://lovelock.free.fr/fragments/lieflock-line.htm. > > David > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 7:33 AM, Graham Lovelock < > lovelockgraham@hotmail.com > > wrote: > > > Dear all, > > > > > > Details of the Lovelock Wills listed on the UK 'Find a Will' beta > facility > > for the years 1996 to 2016 have been added to the website: > > > > > > http://lovelock.free.fr/documents/Wills%20from%201996%20onwards.html > > > > > > A start has been made on linking the entries to our various family trees, > > but your help in completing that task would be much appreciated. Perhaps > if > > you have a few quiet moments over Christmas and New Year .....? > > > > > > 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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

Thanks Graham Happy New Year to you and everyone on the list. Please keep up the brilliant work, you, James and the rest of the team do. Regards Malcolm. -----Original Message----- From: "Graham Lovelock" <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> Sent: ‎06/‎01/‎2017 18:32 To: "Lovelock mailing list" <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Subject: [LOVELOCK] The 1939 Register Project Hello all, A happy new year to everyone. Sue Lovelock has extracted all of the Wiltshire entries in the 1939 Register and they can be accessed directly from: http://lovelock.free.fr/documents/1939-Register-Wiltshire.html or through the link in the Census Records section of the Wiltshire Records page: http://lovelock.free.fr/wilts-records.htm Many thanks to Sue for this major contribution and to James for converting the file to make it suitable for the website. Note also that last year's 'What's New' material has now been effectively archived, but can be accessed through the 'Earlier Log entries' links at the top and bottom of the current 'What's New' page: http://lovelock.free.fr/new.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, A happy new year to everyone. Sue Lovelock has extracted all of the Wiltshire entries in the 1939 Register and they can be accessed directly from: http://lovelock.free.fr/documents/1939-Register-Wiltshire.html or through the link in the Census Records section of the Wiltshire Records page: http://lovelock.free.fr/wilts-records.htm Many thanks to Sue for this major contribution and to James for converting the file to make it suitable for the website. Note also that last year's 'What's New' material has now been effectively archived, but can be accessed through the 'Earlier Log entries' links at the top and bottom of the current 'What's New' page: http://lovelock.free.fr/new.html Regards, Graham

Indeed it could, Mick. However, I could find nothing online to suggest the death was unexplained, and nothing in Findmypast's newspapers. Helen was only 28 when she died so an inquest might well have been called. Regards Graham ________________________________ From: Michael Lovelock Sent: 09 November 2016 16:23 To: lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: A quick question (but a long answer perhaps?) Hi I have come across late registration of death when there is an inquest - could it be the case here? Mick Lovelock ________________________________ From: LOVELOCK <lovelock-bounces+michael.lovelock=hotmail.co.uk@rootsweb.com> on behalf of Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> Sent: 09 November 2016 15:39 To: Lovelock mailing list Subject: [LOVELOCK] A quick question (but a long answer perhaps?) Hello all, Can anyone explain why the death of Helen Wallis Lovelock was registered (as Helen Wallace Lovelock) in the Jan-Mar quarter of 1867 when the lady in question had been buried on 12 November 1866? I understood that deaths were always added to the Index in the quarter when they occurred, even if the death was reported in the next quarter (as would obviously happen in the case of a death after office hours on December 31st). Regards, Graham

Hi I have come across late registration of death when there is an inquest - could it be the case here? Mick Lovelock ________________________________ From: LOVELOCK <lovelock-bounces+michael.lovelock=hotmail.co.uk@rootsweb.com> on behalf of Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> Sent: 09 November 2016 15:39 To: Lovelock mailing list Subject: [LOVELOCK] A quick question (but a long answer perhaps?) Hello all, Can anyone explain why the death of Helen Wallis Lovelock was registered (as Helen Wallace Lovelock) in the Jan-Mar quarter of 1867 when the lady in question had been buried on 12 November 1866? I understood that deaths were always added to the Index in the quarter when they occurred, even if the death was reported in the next quarter (as would obviously happen in the case of a death after office hours on December 31st). Regards, Graham ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Lovelock Family History<http://lovelock.free.fr/> lovelock.free.fr Lovelock Family History web site, overview ... Purpose The purpose of this Web Site is to collect together family history ... Browse Lovelock trees on the PhpGedView portal: http://lovelock.free.fr/PGV/ ------------------------------- 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, Can anyone explain why the death of Helen Wallis Lovelock was registered (as Helen Wallace Lovelock) in the Jan-Mar quarter of 1867 when the lady in question had been buried on 12 November 1866? I understood that deaths were always added to the Index in the quarter when they occurred, even if the death was reported in the next quarter (as would obviously happen in the case of a death after office hours on December 31st). Regards, Graham

Thanks for the good news Graham ------ Original Message ------ From: "Graham Lovelock" <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> To: "lovelock@rootsweb.com" <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, 9 Nov, 2016 At 4:09 AM Subject: [LOVELOCK] Exciting UK GRO news Hello all, I don't know if you have heard, but the UK's General Record Office have just launched new Birth and Death Indices. At the moment they only cover Births from 1837 to 1915 and Deaths from 1837 to 1957. However, the exciting part of this development is that for most of the Birth entries they include the mother's maiden name, and for most of the Deaths they include the age. The data available at Free BMD only gives the mother's maiden name from July 1911 and age at death from 1866 so these are terrific additions that should help us to positively identify a few Lovelocks where before we were only guessing. Go to: https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates You will need to register if you have not used the site before, or login if you have. In either case you should then see the option 'Search the GRO Online Index' in the menu at the top right of the screen. Select that and away you go! If you use the facility and can identify someone that we have previously been unable to, either not positively or absolutely not at all, please let us all know. Happy hunting. Regards, Graham ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the PhpGedView portal: http://lovelock.free.fr/PGV/ ------------------------------- 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 don't know if you have heard, but the UK's General Record Office have just launched new Birth and Death Indices. At the moment they only cover Births from 1837 to 1915 and Deaths from 1837 to 1957. However, the exciting part of this development is that for most of the Birth entries they include the mother's maiden name, and for most of the Deaths they include the age. The data available at Free BMD only gives the mother's maiden name from July 1911 and age at death from 1866 so these are terrific additions that should help us to positively identify a few Lovelocks where before we were only guessing. Go to: https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates You will need to register if you have not used the site before, or login if you have. In either case you should then see the option 'Search the GRO Online Index' in the menu at the top right of the screen. Select that and away you go! If you use the facility and can identify someone that we have previously been unable to, either not positively or absolutely not at all, please let us all know. Happy hunting. Regards, Graham

Hello all, In 1897 Susan Lovelock, a member of the Lambourn-Sparsholt Tree, married Herbert Frank Green. Susan died in 1950 somewhere in the Wallingford RD. In the same RD Herbert F Green married Emily Lovelock in 1951. The 1939 Register reveals that Emily was born Emily Hayden and was the widow of Frederick James Lovelock, also a member of the Lambourn-Sparsholt Tree. It seems very likely that the same Herbert Green was the groom in both marriages, but does anyone know for certain? Regards Graham

Thanks James ------ Original Message ------ From: "James Loveluck" <james.loveluck@laposte.net> To: "Lovelock mailing list" <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, 7 Nov, 2016 At 9:25 AM Subject: [LOVELOCK] Mailing list now working (?) Hello all, You may have noticed that there have been no messages on the Lovelock mailing list for some time now. This was due to problems on the RootsWeb mail severs, which apparently took some time to get sorted out. It would seem that the problems have now been resolved, so hopefully normal service should be resumed. I’m sure you’ve all stored up lots of comments and questions on Lovelock matters! Regards, James ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the PhpGedView portal: http://lovelock.free.fr/PGV/ ------------------------------- 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, You may have noticed that there have been no messages on the Lovelock mailing list for some time now. This was due to problems on the RootsWeb mail severs, which apparently took some time to get sorted out. It would seem that the problems have now been resolved, so hopefully normal service should be resumed. I’m sure you’ve all stored up lots of comments and questions on Lovelock matters! Regards, James

Hello all, Alyson Lovelock has very generously provided details of no less than 21 copies of Certificates of Birth, Death and Marriage that she holds. The information has been added to the table on the website: http://lovelock.free.fr/documents/bdm_certs.html Most of the Certificates are for members of the Second Wootton Rivers Tree, but there is one from the Wroughton-Tidcombe Tree and another from the Lyneham Line. Sincere thanks to Alyson for adding to our store of Lovelock information in this way. Regards Graham

Hello all, Here's one that's got me completely baffled. Nellie Louise Lovelock, a member of the Ropley, Crondall and Dogmersfield Tree, was born in the Oct-Dec quarter of 1887. The 1939 Register gives her date of birth as 16 November 1887. But the Register also records that she was divorced (from Albert Packham), and married a Mr Miller on 3 September 1947. Sure enough, the marriage of Nellie L Packham (or Lovelock) to Alfred Miller was recorded in the Paddington RD in the Jul-Sep quarter of 1947. How then to explain the death in the Worthing RD at the age of 55 of a Nellie Louise Miller on 9 February 1943, bequeathing her estate to her husband Alfred Edward Miller? I haven't found any evidence of another Nellie L Miller born in 1887 or of another marriage of an Alfred Miller to a Nellie Louise. What do you make of this one? Regards Graham

Oh - and that 1871 Preshute Workhouse entry is suspicious as well. Why an unmarried Domestic Servant would take herself from London where there must have been any number of jobs to end up in a Wiltshire Workhouse is a real puzzle. On the other hand if she was from Marlborough originally why disguise that by claiming to have been born in London? Furthermore there are no births anywhere of an Emily in the Free BMD data between 1840 and 1850, and the London Metropolitan Archive has not a single Emily between 1831 and 1859. So our Marlborough Miss seems to have been a comparatively rare specimen for all sorts of reasons, and quite as rare as the Workhouse Miss seems to have been too. Graham ________________________________ From: LOVELOCK <lovelock-bounces+lovelockgraham=hotmail.com@rootsweb.com> on behalf of Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> Sent: 03 October 2016 19:06 To: Alyson Lovelock; lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LOVELOCK] Can anyone fill the gaps? Dear Alyson, I wondered about her as well, but she would of course have been a very young mother. Also if the Census Return for 1861 is to be believed she was in Marlborough for that on 7 April, but had been in Cowley on 17 March for the baptism, and had apparently almost immediately given up the baby to Mr and Mrs White. If true, a sad tale. What's more if the baby was actually born in the Warwick RD Emily must have made another move because the Warwick RD does not extend into Oxfordshire. I wondered too, if it was Emily from Marlborough, why was she sent away to have the baby? Maybe she was young, but illegitimate births were hardly uncommon and the family was hardly one moving in the upper echelons of Marlborough society, whose opprobrium might have been wished to be avoided. All very mysterious! Regards Graham ________________________________ From: LOVELOCK <lovelock-bounces+lovelockgraham=hotmail.com@rootsweb.com> on behalf of Alyson Lovelock <alysonlovelock@yahoo.com> Sent: 03 October 2016 17:42 To: lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LOVELOCK] Can anyone fill the gaps? Hi Graham,On the Wotton Rivers tree there is an Emily recorded as the daughter of Susan Lovelock born 1845 in Marlborough. However we lose sight of her after Susan's death in 1861. In the 1871 Census, her brother John Lovelock is in the Preshute workhouse, and there is also an Emily in the same workhouse but her place of birth is recorded as Middlesex London and the age is recorded as 24 (in the 1861 census she is recorded as 14). I have always assumed this was our Emily. I have never been able to find out anything more about her though.So I don't really know if that is the slightest bit of help or not.Regards Alyson Lovelock From: Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> To: "lovelock@rootsweb.com" <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, 3 October 2016, 16:27 Subject: [LOVELOCK] Can anyone fill the gaps? Hello all, If you check out the 1861 Census entry for Cowley Road, St Clements in Oxford you will find George and Mary Ann White, aged 40 and 38 respectively, together with a 5 month old Emily Lovelock, recorded as a Nursechild, Illegitimate, Place of birth unknown. The recent (ie today!) release of Oxfordshire data from Ancestry reveals that Emily Marianne Lovelock was the daughter of Emily Lovelock, and she was baptised at St James, Cowley on 17 Mar 1861. There seems to be no candidate Emily for the mother in the 1861 Census, nor any marriage or death in the Free BMD data that would explain her absence. There is also no Emily Marianne's birth recorded, although there was an Emily in Islington RD in Oct-Dec 1860 and another in Jan-Mar 1861 in Warwick RD. The former is easily identifiable in the 1861 Census, so it would seem that the Nursechild is the one born in the Warwick RD. Fast forward to 1883 and an Emily Mary A Lovelock married in the Eastbourne RD. The 1891 Census reveals that this lady had married Alfred Dunstall, and her place of birth is recorded as Warwick. Her age is given as 29, which just about fits, although not quite, but I don't think there can be much doubt about her identity. They were living in Oxford. With them was a son recorded as Jesse Dunstall, but his age being 11 he would seem to be the illegitimate son of Emily Mary Ann, born in the Headington RD in Oct-Dec 1879 and recorded as Jesse George W Lovelock. I haven't been able to find Jesse or his mother in the 1881 Census, perhaps someone will have better luck than me. Emily can be found in the 1901 Census, but by 1911 Alfred Dunstall had become a widower. It would seem that Emily Mary Ann or Marianne must be the death recorded in Apr-Jun 1907 in Headington RD, although the name is recorded as Emily Alice. Her age was 47, which again is a near miss. Of Jesse G W Dunstall or Lovelock I have found no trace after 1891, unless he is the Jesse G Dunstall who died in Jan-Mar 1955 in the Swindon RD at the age of 76 - a good match for a birth in 1879. he does not seem to be included in the 1939 Register. Which tree this is, goodness knows, as we need to be able to identify the Emily who had her daughter baptised on 17 Mar 1861. Any ideas anyone? Regards Graham ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the PhpGedView portal: http://lovelock.free.fr/PGV/ ------------------------------- 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 PhpGedView portal: http://lovelock.free.fr/PGV/ ------------------------------- 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 PhpGedView portal: http://lovelock.free.fr/PGV/ ------------------------------- 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

Dear Alyson, I wondered about her as well, but she would of course have been a very young mother. Also if the Census Return for 1861 is to be believed she was in Marlborough for that on 7 April, but had been in Cowley on 17 March for the baptism, and had apparently almost immediately given up the baby to Mr and Mrs White. If true, a sad tale. What's more if the baby was actually born in the Warwick RD Emily must have made another move because the Warwick RD does not extend into Oxfordshire. I wondered too, if it was Emily from Marlborough, why was she sent away to have the baby? Maybe she was young, but illegitimate births were hardly uncommon and the family was hardly one moving in the upper echelons of Marlborough society, whose opprobrium might have been wished to be avoided. All very mysterious! Regards Graham ________________________________ From: LOVELOCK <lovelock-bounces+lovelockgraham=hotmail.com@rootsweb.com> on behalf of Alyson Lovelock <alysonlovelock@yahoo.com> Sent: 03 October 2016 17:42 To: lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LOVELOCK] Can anyone fill the gaps? Hi Graham,On the Wotton Rivers tree there is an Emily recorded as the daughter of Susan Lovelock born 1845 in Marlborough. However we lose sight of her after Susan's death in 1861. In the 1871 Census, her brother John Lovelock is in the Preshute workhouse, and there is also an Emily in the same workhouse but her place of birth is recorded as Middlesex London and the age is recorded as 24 (in the 1861 census she is recorded as 14). I have always assumed this was our Emily. I have never been able to find out anything more about her though.So I don't really know if that is the slightest bit of help or not.Regards Alyson Lovelock From: Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> To: "lovelock@rootsweb.com" <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, 3 October 2016, 16:27 Subject: [LOVELOCK] Can anyone fill the gaps? Hello all, If you check out the 1861 Census entry for Cowley Road, St Clements in Oxford you will find George and Mary Ann White, aged 40 and 38 respectively, together with a 5 month old Emily Lovelock, recorded as a Nursechild, Illegitimate, Place of birth unknown. The recent (ie today!) release of Oxfordshire data from Ancestry reveals that Emily Marianne Lovelock was the daughter of Emily Lovelock, and she was baptised at St James, Cowley on 17 Mar 1861. There seems to be no candidate Emily for the mother in the 1861 Census, nor any marriage or death in the Free BMD data that would explain her absence. There is also no Emily Marianne's birth recorded, although there was an Emily in Islington RD in Oct-Dec 1860 and another in Jan-Mar 1861 in Warwick RD. The former is easily identifiable in the 1861 Census, so it would seem that the Nursechild is the one born in the Warwick RD. Fast forward to 1883 and an Emily Mary A Lovelock married in the Eastbourne RD. The 1891 Census reveals that this lady had married Alfred Dunstall, and her place of birth is recorded as Warwick. Her age is given as 29, which just about fits, although not quite, but I don't think there can be much doubt about her identity. They were living in Oxford. With them was a son recorded as Jesse Dunstall, but his age being 11 he would seem to be the illegitimate son of Emily Mary Ann, born in the Headington RD in Oct-Dec 1879 and recorded as Jesse George W Lovelock. I haven't been able to find Jesse or his mother in the 1881 Census, perhaps someone will have better luck than me. Emily can be found in the 1901 Census, but by 1911 Alfred Dunstall had become a widower. It would seem that Emily Mary Ann or Marianne must be the death recorded in Apr-Jun 1907 in Headington RD, although the name is recorded as Emily Alice. Her age was 47, which again is a near miss. Of Jesse G W Dunstall or Lovelock I have found no trace after 1891, unless he is the Jesse G Dunstall who died in Jan-Mar 1955 in the Swindon RD at the age of 76 - a good match for a birth in 1879. he does not seem to be included in the 1939 Register. Which tree this is, goodness knows, as we need to be able to identify the Emily who had her daughter baptised on 17 Mar 1861. Any ideas anyone? Regards Graham ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the PhpGedView portal: http://lovelock.free.fr/PGV/ ------------------------------- 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 PhpGedView portal: http://lovelock.free.fr/PGV/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOVELOCK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Graham,On the Wotton Rivers tree there is an Emily recorded as the daughter of Susan Lovelock born 1845 in Marlborough. However we lose sight of her after Susan's death in 1861. In the 1871 Census, her brother John Lovelock is in the Preshute workhouse, and there is also an Emily in the same workhouse but her place of birth  is recorded as Middlesex London and the age is recorded as 24(in the 1861 census she is recorded as 14). I have always assumed this was our Emily. I have never been able to find out anything more about her though.So I don't really know if that is the slightest bit of help or not.Regards  Alyson Lovelock From: Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> To: "lovelock@rootsweb.com" <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, 3 October 2016, 16:27 Subject: [LOVELOCK] Can anyone fill the gaps? Hello all, If you check out the 1861 Census entry for Cowley Road, St Clements in Oxford you will find George and Mary Ann White, aged 40 and 38 respectively, together with a 5 month old Emily Lovelock, recorded as a Nursechild, Illegitimate, Place of birth unknown. The recent (ie today!) release of Oxfordshire data from Ancestry reveals that Emily Marianne Lovelock was the daughter of Emily Lovelock, and she was baptised at St James, Cowley on 17 Mar 1861. There seems to be no candidate Emily for the mother in the 1861 Census, nor any marriage or death in the Free BMD data that would explain her absence. There is also no Emily Marianne's birth recorded, although there was an Emily in Islington RD in Oct-Dec 1860 and another in Jan-Mar 1861 in Warwick RD. The former is easily identifiable in the 1861 Census, so it would seem that the Nursechild is the one born in the Warwick RD. Fast forward to 1883 and an Emily Mary A Lovelock married in the Eastbourne RD. The 1891 Census reveals that this lady had married Alfred Dunstall, and her place of birth is recorded as Warwick. Her age is given as 29, which just about fits, although not quite, but I don't think there can be much doubt about her identity. They were living in Oxford. With them was a son recorded as Jesse Dunstall, but his age being 11 he would seem to be the illegitimate son of Emily Mary Ann, born in the Headington RD in Oct-Dec 1879 and recorded as Jesse George W Lovelock. I haven't been able to find Jesse or his mother in the 1881 Census, perhaps someone will have better luck than me. Emily can be found in the 1901 Census, but by 1911 Alfred Dunstall had become a widower. It would seem that Emily Mary Ann or Marianne must be the death recorded in Apr-Jun 1907 in Headington RD, although the name is recorded as Emily Alice. Her age was 47, which again is a near miss. Of Jesse G W Dunstall or Lovelock I have found no trace after 1891, unless he is the Jesse G Dunstall who died in Jan-Mar 1955 in the Swindon RD at the age of 76 - a good match for a birth in 1879. he does not seem to be included in the 1939 Register. Which tree this is, goodness knows, as we need to be able to identify the Emily who had her daughter baptised on 17 Mar 1861. Any ideas anyone? Regards Graham ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the PhpGedView portal: http://lovelock.free.fr/PGV/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOVELOCK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hello again all, No sooner had I sent the message below than I discovered another baptism entry on 8 Jul 1880 at St Paul Oxford of Jessie George Wallis (no surname entered in the register) the son of George Wallis and Emily Lovelock. One gap filled. However, I have now found this boy in the 1881 Census: he is recorded as Jessie George Lovelock Wallace Jolly, the son of Alphonso and Clementina Jolly. Mr and Mrs Jolly hailed from Scotland and their household did not include anyone by the name of Emily, so the mystery deepens! Regards Graham ________________________________ From: LOVELOCK <lovelock-bounces+lovelockgraham=hotmail.com@rootsweb.com> on behalf of Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> Sent: 03 October 2016 16:27 To: lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject: [LOVELOCK] Can anyone fill the gaps? Hello all, If you check out the 1861 Census entry for Cowley Road, St Clements in Oxford you will find George and Mary Ann White, aged 40 and 38 respectively, together with a 5 month old Emily Lovelock, recorded as a Nursechild, Illegitimate, Place of birth unknown. The recent (ie today!) release of Oxfordshire data from Ancestry reveals that Emily Marianne Lovelock was the daughter of Emily Lovelock, and she was baptised at St James, Cowley on 17 Mar 1861. There seems to be no candidate Emily for the mother in the 1861 Census, nor any marriage or death in the Free BMD data that would explain her absence. There is also no Emily Marianne's birth recorded, although there was an Emily in Islington RD in Oct-Dec 1860 and another in Jan-Mar 1861 in Warwick RD. The former is easily identifiable in the 1861 Census, so it would seem that the Nursechild is the one born in the Warwick RD. Fast forward to 1883 and an Emily Mary A Lovelock married in the Eastbourne RD. The 1891 Census reveals that this lady had married Alfred Dunstall, and her place of birth is recorded as Warwick. Her age is given as 29, which just about fits, although not quite, but I don't think there can be much doubt about her identity. They were living in Oxford. With them was a son recorded as Jesse Dunstall, but his age being 11 he would seem to be the illegitimate son of Emily Mary Ann, born in the Headington RD in Oct-Dec 1879 and recorded as Jesse George W Lovelock. I haven't been able to find Jesse or his mother in the 1881 Census, perhaps someone will have better luck than me. Emily can be found in the 1901 Census, but by 1911 Alfred Dunstall had become a widower. It would seem that Emily Mary Ann or Marianne must be the death recorded in Apr-Jun 1907 in Headington RD, although the name is recorded as Emily Alice. Her age was 47, which again is a near miss. Of Jesse G W Dunstall or Lovelock I have found no trace after 1891, unless he is the Jesse G Dunstall who died in Jan-Mar 1955 in the Swindon RD at the age of 76 - a good match for a birth in 1879. he does not seem to be included in the 1939 Register. Which tree this is, goodness knows, as we need to be able to identify the Emily who had her daughter baptised on 17 Mar 1861. Any ideas anyone? Regards Graham ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the PhpGedView portal: http://lovelock.free.fr/PGV/ ------------------------------- 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