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

Thanks James. Brilliant and a brilliant age also. -----Original Message----- From: "James Loveluck" <james.loveluck@gmail.com> Sent: ‎30/‎09/‎2016 21:47 To: "Lovelock mailing list" <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Subject: [LOVELOCK] James Lovelock interview Hello all, There’s an interesting interview with James Lovelock (creator of the Gaia theory) on the Guardian web site: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/30/james-lovelock-interview-by-end-of-century-robots-will-have-taken-over Now aged 97 he appears to be very alert and provocative! 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

Received. Hope you are well. Sent from Samsung tablet -------- Original message -------- From James Loveluck <james.loveluck@gmail.com> Date: 31/08/2016 8:32 PM (GMT+00:00) To Lovelock mailing list <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Subject [LOVELOCK] Test Check whether messages are getting through to the list. 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

We all know that you can't necessarily believe what you read in a Census Return, and here's another example to prove just that. Edith Lovelock, the daughter of William Lovelock and Martha Cook, was apparently born in 1877 or 1878 in Pewsey, Wiltshire if the 1881 and 1891 Census Returns are to be believed, although unlike for most of her 10 siblings her parents appear not to have registered the birth nor to have had her baptised. Nevertheless at the declared age of 22 Edith married John Edward Postill in Marlborough on 19 Nov 1899. The 1901 Census captured the couple boarding in No 3 Windmill Cottages off Millbrook Street in Gloucester, with their 5 month old daughter Edith Freda. Edith's birthplace was recorded as Pewsey, Wiltshire and her daughter's as Brighton, Sussex. Edith's age was 24. Her husband had been born in late 1868, in Painswick, Gloucestershire, but nevertheless his age was recorded as 29. After that John Edward Postill disappears, although he may be the subject of the death of a John Postill registered in Gloucester in Oct-Dec of 1901 at the age of 31, which would at least be consistent with the birth registration. Edith next surfaces in the 1911 Census in curious circumstances. She is recorded as the 33 year old wife of William Smith (aged 46) living at 12 New Street, Stourbridge in Worcestershire. With the couple are 4 children, all recorded as Smiths: Freda (10), John (9), Albert (5) and Mable (sic) (8 months). The couple declared that they had been married for 12 years and had produced 4 children, all still living. Edith's and Freda's birthplaces are recorded as Pewsey and Brighton. William was born in St Johns in the city of Worcester. You will not be surprised to learn that there seems to be no marriage of a William Smith to an Edith Postill or Edith Lovelock. So why did William and Edith lie about being married? Why did they claim to have been married 12 years and thereby effectively declare Edith to be a bigamist? Why did they claim to have produced 4 living children when it was only 3? Why did they accurately record Edith's and Freda's birthplaces which actually reveal the lies? Shall we ever know? Regards Graham

Hello all, In Apr-Jun 1945 Wallace Henry Lovelock married Mabel Kate Lovelock. Wallace was a member of the St Pancras (Main) Tree, and was registered at birth as Wallace Henry L Williams. He also used the name Wallace Henry Lovelock when he married his first wife, Olive Alma Smith, in Oct-Dec 1910. The 1939 Register records Wallace as a Fencing Master living at 16 Colinette Road, Wandsworth, some 2kms from where I sit writing this. Also living in the house was Mabel K Lovelock, a Boarding House Keeper. Wallace's marital status is recorded as M (Married) and Mabel's as W (Widow). Olive Alma died in the Apr-Jun quarter of 1945, and presumably Wallace and Mabel married very shortly after the death. I have not been able to identify who Mabel Kate's first husband was. She was born on 1 March 1889 according to the 1939 entry (and as recorded in her death entry) so may have married Mr Lovelock any time between 1905 and 1939, but I can not find the relevant entry in Free BMD's or Ancestry's data. Mabel does not appear as a Lovelock in the 1911 Census (as either Mabel or Mable) so possibly married after that. Can anyone identify Mabel Kate and her first husband for us? Regards Graham

Hello all, You may have forgotten our 'Origins of Trees' page in the 'Work in Progress' section as it has not been mentioned for some time. I have just added a page which relates to the Lambeth-Australia-NZ and Wiltshire-Cornwall Trees, based on various Notes that are included in the appropriate entries in the Webtrees gedcom files. You can access the new page by following the last two links in the table here: http://lovelock.free.fr/wip/The-Origins-of-Trees.html If you have come across any additional information that is pertinent to the discussion please let us know. Regards Graham

Check whether messages are getting through to the list. James

Received. Thank you, Charlotte Huggins On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 12:32 PM, James Loveluck <james.loveluck@gmail.com> wrote: > Check whether messages are getting through to the list. > > 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 >

Dear James and all, The Archives at Rootsweb have now been restored and are accessible again through the link on the Mailing List page of the main website. Regards Graham > From: james.loveluck@gmail.com > Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2016 18:32:21 +0200 > To: lovelock@rootsweb.com > Subject: [LOVELOCK] Spam > > Hello all, > > You will have noticed a couple of spam messages which were sent to the list recently - seemingly innocuous. > > Normally, Rootsweb filters spam messages, and indeed any messages from people who are not subscribed to the list. However, Rootsweb has problems with its servers at the moment (for example, the list archives have not been available for several weeks), and it seems as if the spam filter is not working. > > Hopefully, the problems will be resolved soon, but in the meantime beware of any suspicious messages, and do not click on any links unless you are sure they are related to Lovelock family history. > > 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

Thanks James Hope you are ok Malcolm -----Original Message----- From: "James Loveluck" <james.loveluck@gmail.com> Sent: ‎13/‎08/‎2016 17:32 To: "Lovelock mailing list" <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Subject: [LOVELOCK] Spam Hello all, You will have noticed a couple of spam messages which were sent to the list recently - seemingly innocuous. Normally, Rootsweb filters spam messages, and indeed any messages from people who are not subscribed to the list. However, Rootsweb has problems with its servers at the moment (for example, the list archives have not been available for several weeks), and it seems as if the spam filter is not working. Hopefully, the problems will be resolved soon, but in the meantime beware of any suspicious messages, and do not click on any links unless you are sure they are related to Lovelock family history. 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 will have noticed a couple of spam messages which were sent to the list recently - seemingly innocuous. Normally, Rootsweb filters spam messages, and indeed any messages from people who are not subscribed to the list. However, Rootsweb has problems with its servers at the moment (for example, the list archives have not been available for several weeks), and it seems as if the spam filter is not working. Hopefully, the problems will be resolved soon, but in the meantime beware of any suspicious messages, and do not click on any links unless you are sure they are related to Lovelock family history. Regards, James

Hello all, Do we have anyone on the List who is a member of the Bray - USA Tree? If so I can put you in touch with an American member of the tree. Regards Graham

HI Graham There is a Lizzie Lovelock, niece, living with William & Emma Lovelock at 20 Dennis Street Islington in 1901 Census. William Lovelock is the son of William & Mary Ann Lovelock. William, the father, is the older brother of Betsey Lovelock. Rather than niece, Lizzie would be "cousin", but I guess their difference in age might account for the term. I note that Elizabeth Frances Alice was born before her parents married. Also found her in 1939 Register at 1 Hoel Disgwylfa, Carmarthen with Daniel McCarthy and 3 hidden members of the household. Her date of birth is given as 18 Apr 1894 (which may possibly be mistaken for 1895) Regards Vicki On 3 August 2016 at 05:52, Graham Lovelock via <lovelock@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Hello all, > > This story is not a complete mystery tale, but there are nonetheless a > couple of unanswered questions. > > We start with the baptism of Elizabeth Frances Alice on 5 June 1895 at All > Saints, Islington in London. Her parents were William and Betsey Lovelock - > one of those rare marriages where both parties were a Lovelock, cousins in > fact, and all members of the Tangley Tree - aptly named in this instance! > > But after that baptismal record Elizabeth disappears. In 1901 her mother > and brother William Stephen were in Clerkenwell, London. Father William > meanwhile was a Hospital Attendant at the Haslar Military Hospital in > Alverstoke, Hampshire. Of Elizabeth no trace. > > By 1911 Betsey had died, and William and son George were in Holborn in > London. Helpfully, if strictly speaking incorrectly, William recorded on > the Return that he had had 6 children of whom 3 were still living. We have > managed to establish that the three who had died were Henry Thomas, Emily > Rose and John Joseph, meaning that, as well as George, William Stephen and > Elizabeth Frances Alice were still alive somewhere. > > Search as you will, you will not find another reference to Elizabeth > Frances Alice in the on-line records of Marriages and Deaths. So how was > she traced after that? Through Google. > > If you try that you will come across a photograph of a headstone inscribed > 'In Loving Memory of our dear parents Daniel McCarthy ... and Elizabeth > McCarthy ...'. The photograph has been posted by a Nigel Patience, of whom > I know nothing at present, but helpfully he has added the information that > the parents mentioned are Daniel Joseph McCarthy and Elizabeth Frances > Alice Lovelock. > > >From there we get to a 1911 Census entry in St Peters, Carmarthen in > Wales, where the 15 year old Elizabeth was working as a general farm > servant. And thence to the marriage in Jul-Sep 1914 in the Carmarthen RD of > Lizzie Lovelock and George Wilby. There seem to have been no children of > the marriage, and George died at Gallipoli on 10 Aug 1915. In Apr-Jun 1918, > again in the Carmarthen RD, Elizabeth Wilby married Daniel McCarthy, and > they eventually had 5 children. > > According to the photograph of the headstone Elizabeth died on 31 May > 1962, Daniel having preceded her on 28 Oct 1944. > > Thank goodness once more for Google, or Elizabeth's fate might have > remained hidden for much longer. > > But there are those lingering questions: where was Elizabeth in 1901, and > why was she not with either parent? > > 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 >

Vicki does it again! I never thought of checking for a Lizzie, although that's how she was recorded when she married George Wilby. I'm interested to know how you found her, and I wonder how we found the entry for the website as Ancestry have it indexed as 'Truelove'. Perhaps it came up correctly on the original 1901 Census website. Curiously we had the address as No 17 not 20. 17 was the first household on the page, so perhaps it does stem back to the early on-line site. Findmypast have it indexed correctly. I've made appropriate changes to the entries. Thanks, as ever, Graham From: vicki@houlbrooke.co.nz Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 16:21:56 +1200 Subject: Re: [LOVELOCK] Elizabeth Frances Alice Lovelock To: lovelockgraham@hotmail.com; lovelock@rootsweb.com HI Graham There is a Lizzie Lovelock, niece, living with William & Emma Lovelock at 20 Dennis Street Islington in 1901 Census. William Lovelock is the son of William & Mary Ann Lovelock. William, the father, is the older brother of Betsey Lovelock. Rather than niece, Lizzie would be "cousin", but I guess their difference in age might account for the term. I note that Elizabeth Frances Alice was born before her parents married. Also found her in 1939 Register at 1 Hoel Disgwylfa, Carmarthen with Daniel McCarthy and 3 hidden members of the household. Her date of birth is given as 18 Apr 1894 (which may possibly be mistaken for 1895) Regards Vicki On 3 August 2016 at 05:52, Graham Lovelock via <lovelock@rootsweb.com> wrote: Hello all, This story is not a complete mystery tale, but there are nonetheless a couple of unanswered questions. We start with the baptism of Elizabeth Frances Alice on 5 June 1895 at All Saints, Islington in London. Her parents were William and Betsey Lovelock - one of those rare marriages where both parties were a Lovelock, cousins in fact, and all members of the Tangley Tree - aptly named in this instance! But after that baptismal record Elizabeth disappears. In 1901 her mother and brother William Stephen were in Clerkenwell, London. Father William meanwhile was a Hospital Attendant at the Haslar Military Hospital in Alverstoke, Hampshire. Of Elizabeth no trace. By 1911 Betsey had died, and William and son George were in Holborn in London. Helpfully, if strictly speaking incorrectly, William recorded on the Return that he had had 6 children of whom 3 were still living. We have managed to establish that the three who had died were Henry Thomas, Emily Rose and John Joseph, meaning that, as well as George, William Stephen and Elizabeth Frances Alice were still alive somewhere. Search as you will, you will not find another reference to Elizabeth Frances Alice in the on-line records of Marriages and Deaths. So how was she traced after that? Through Google. If you try that you will come across a photograph of a headstone inscribed 'In Loving Memory of our dear parents Daniel McCarthy ... and Elizabeth McCarthy ...'. The photograph has been posted by a Nigel Patience, of whom I know nothing at present, but helpfully he has added the information that the parents mentioned are Daniel Joseph McCarthy and Elizabeth Frances Alice Lovelock. >From there we get to a 1911 Census entry in St Peters, Carmarthen in Wales, where the 15 year old Elizabeth was working as a general farm servant. And thence to the marriage in Jul-Sep 1914 in the Carmarthen RD of Lizzie Lovelock and George Wilby. There seem to have been no children of the marriage, and George died at Gallipoli on 10 Aug 1915. In Apr-Jun 1918, again in the Carmarthen RD, Elizabeth Wilby married Daniel McCarthy, and they eventually had 5 children. According to the photograph of the headstone Elizabeth died on 31 May 1962, Daniel having preceded her on 28 Oct 1944. Thank goodness once more for Google, or Elizabeth's fate might have remained hidden for much longer. But there are those lingering questions: where was Elizabeth in 1901, and why was she not with either parent? 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

Fantastic finds Graham....some mothers do 'ave 'em.... ---- Graham Lovelock via <lovelock@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Hello all, > > This story is not a complete mystery tale, but there are nonetheless a couple of unanswered questions. > > We start with the baptism of Elizabeth Frances Alice on 5 June 1895 at All Saints, Islington in London. Her parents were William and Betsey Lovelock - one of those rare marriages where both parties were a Lovelock, cousins in fact, and all members of the Tangley Tree - aptly named in this instance! > > But after that baptismal record Elizabeth disappears. In 1901 her mother and brother William Stephen were in Clerkenwell, London. Father William meanwhile was a Hospital Attendant at the Haslar Military Hospital in Alverstoke, Hampshire. Of Elizabeth no trace. > > By 1911 Betsey had died, and William and son George were in Holborn in London. Helpfully, if strictly speaking incorrectly, William recorded on the Return that he had had 6 children of whom 3 were still living. We have managed to establish that the three who had died were Henry Thomas, Emily Rose and John Joseph, meaning that, as well as George, William Stephen and Elizabeth Frances Alice were still alive somewhere. > > Search as you will, you will not find another reference to Elizabeth Frances Alice in the on-line records of Marriages and Deaths. So how was she traced after that? Through Google. > > If you try that you will come across a photograph of a headstone inscribed 'In Loving Memory of our dear parents Daniel McCarthy ... and Elizabeth McCarthy ...'. The photograph has been posted by a Nigel Patience, of whom I know nothing at present, but helpfully he has added the information that the parents mentioned are Daniel Joseph McCarthy and Elizabeth Frances Alice Lovelock. > > >From there we get to a 1911 Census entry in St Peters, Carmarthen in Wales, where the 15 year old Elizabeth was working as a general farm servant. And thence to the marriage in Jul-Sep 1914 in the Carmarthen RD of Lizzie Lovelock and George Wilby. There seem to have been no children of the marriage, and George died at Gallipoli on 10 Aug 1915. In Apr-Jun 1918, again in the Carmarthen RD, Elizabeth Wilby married Daniel McCarthy, and they eventually had 5 children. > > According to the photograph of the headstone Elizabeth died on 31 May 1962, Daniel having preceded her on 28 Oct 1944. > > Thank goodness once more for Google, or Elizabeth's fate might have remained hidden for much longer. > > But there are those lingering questions: where was Elizabeth in 1901, and why was she not with either parent? > > 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

Thanks, Liz, for pointing out the error. I have no idea at this remove why we came to the conclusion that William George had died in 1913, and I'm desperately hunting around to discover how one accesses on-line the GRO Marine Death Indices. Findmypast however do have some imagery of a ledger containing records of Deaths at Sea, and the 1913 entry in the ledger is, I think (and so do FMP's transcribers), of W J Lovelock, not W G. Regarding William George's ultimate fate, the only death that seems relevant is that in the Barnet RD in Apr-Jun 1964 (ref 5a 609) at the age of 76. He seems to have avoided being recorded in the 1939 Register, and although there are 8 marriages between 1921 and 1951 that MIGHT be him there's no other clue that I have found yet which would definitely link him to any of them. There is only one female Lovelock death in the Barnet RD - Elsie Florence (nee Preston), the wife of Alexander George - so no help there. Other contributions gratefully received! Regards Graham > Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 11:51:31 +0200 > To: lovelock@rootsweb.com > CC: summerson40@hotmail.co.uk > Subject: [LOVELOCK] Lovelock corrected information > From: lovelock@rootsweb.com > > Hello all, > > I’m forwarding this message from Liz Summerson, who isn’t subscribed to the mailing list. Please copy her (summerson40@hotmail.co.uk) on any replies. > > On the Webtrees site we have the GRO marine deaths indices, 1903 - 1965 as the source of the information concerning the death at sea of William George Lovelock, so it would seem that this attribution is incorrect. > > Regards, > > James > > From: summerson40@hotmail.co.uk <mailto:summerson40@hotmail.co.uk> > To: lovelock@rootsweb.com <mailto:lovelock@rootsweb.com> > Subject: Lovelock corrected information > Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 20:25:28 +0000 > > Re: William George LOVELOCK b 1887 of the Hants-Suffolk-Rutland-Herefordshire tree. > > You have some incorrect information on line, as follows: > > 5-George John Lovelock b. Abt Mar 1866, Micheldever, Hampshire, > England, d. Abt Sep 1938, Hereford RD, Hereford, Herefordshire, > England > +Louise Unknown b. Between 1861 and 1865, Crawley, Hampshire, > England, d. Abt Sep 1937, Hereford RD, Hereford, Herefordshire, > England > 6-William George Lovelock b. Between Apr 1887 and Jun 1887, > Crawley, Hampshire, England, d. 1913, At sea on the > 'Victorian' > > William George did not die at sea in 1913, but served as a private in the RASC in WW1, having last been a groom in civilian life. > His home address is clearly shown in his army service record as 111 Park Street, Hereford. > The last info is that in 1920 he was applying for a position as a gardener with the Imperial War Graves Commission. > I have not yet been able to find him after that time. The CWGC does not have any staff record for him. > > Hope this helps clear up an error, > > Liz Summerson > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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’m forwarding this message from Liz Summerson, who isn’t subscribed to the mailing list. Please copy her (summerson40@hotmail.co.uk) on any replies. On the Webtrees site we have the GRO marine deaths indices, 1903 - 1965 as the source of the information concerning the death at sea of William George Lovelock, so it would seem that this attribution is incorrect. Regards, James From: summerson40@hotmail.co.uk <mailto:summerson40@hotmail.co.uk> To: lovelock@rootsweb.com <mailto:lovelock@rootsweb.com> Subject: Lovelock corrected information Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 20:25:28 +0000 Re: William George LOVELOCK b 1887 of the Hants-Suffolk-Rutland-Herefordshire tree. You have some incorrect information on line, as follows: 5-George John Lovelock b. Abt Mar 1866, Micheldever, Hampshire, England, d. Abt Sep 1938, Hereford RD, Hereford, Herefordshire, England +Louise Unknown b. Between 1861 and 1865, Crawley, Hampshire, England, d. Abt Sep 1937, Hereford RD, Hereford, Herefordshire, England 6-William George Lovelock b. Between Apr 1887 and Jun 1887, Crawley, Hampshire, England, d. 1913, At sea on the 'Victorian' William George did not die at sea in 1913, but served as a private in the RASC in WW1, having last been a groom in civilian life. His home address is clearly shown in his army service record as 111 Park Street, Hereford. The last info is that in 1920 he was applying for a position as a gardener with the Imperial War Graves Commission. I have not yet been able to find him after that time. The CWGC does not have any staff record for him. Hope this helps clear up an error, Liz Summerson

Graham if you need any research in Carmarthen its very near where I live but unfortunately most of the records are in storage at the moment awaiting the building of a new records office which at the rate they are going may take a very long time so perhaps something for a future project. There are some records in the library and of course the graveyards of which there are a vast number due to all the non conformist chapels as well as the churches. Best wishes Sian colinbm1 via <lovelock@rootsweb.com> wrote: Fantastic finds Graham....some mothers do 'ave 'em.... ---- Graham Lovelock via <lovelock@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Hello all, > > This story is not a complete mystery tale, but there are nonetheless a couple of unanswered questions. > > We start with the baptism of Elizabeth Frances Alice on 5 June 1895 at All Saints, Islington in London. Her parents were William and Betsey Lovelock - one of those rare marriages where both parties were a Lovelock, cousins in fact, and all members of the Tangley Tree - aptly named in this instance! > > But after that baptismal record Elizabeth disappears. In 1901 her mother and brother William Stephen were in Clerkenwell, London. Father William meanwhile was a Hospital Attendant at the Haslar Military Hospital in Alverstoke, Hampshire. Of Elizabeth no trace. > > By 1911 Betsey had died, and William and son George were in Holborn in London. Helpfully, if strictly speaking incorrectly, William recorded on the Return that he had had 6 children of whom 3 were still living. We have managed to establish that the three who had died were Henry Thomas, Emily Rose and John Joseph, meaning that, as well as George, William Stephen and Elizabeth Frances Alice were still alive somewhere. > > Search as you will, you will not find another reference to Elizabeth Frances Alice in the on-line records of Marriages and Deaths. So how was she traced after that? Through Google. > > If you try that you will come across a photograph of a headstone inscribed 'In Loving Memory of our dear parents Daniel McCarthy ... and Elizabeth McCarthy ...'. The photograph has been posted by a Nigel Patience, of whom I know nothing at present, but helpfully he has added the information that the parents mentioned are Daniel Joseph McCarthy and Elizabeth Frances Alice Lovelock. > > >From there we get to a 1911 Census entry in St Peters, Carmarthen in Wales, where the 15 year old Elizabeth was working as a general farm servant. And thence to the marriage in Jul-Sep 1914 in the Carmarthen RD of Lizzie Lovelock and George Wilby. There seem to have been no children of the marriage, and George died at Gallipoli on 10 Aug 1915. In Apr-Jun 1918, again in the Carmarthen RD, Elizabeth Wilby married Daniel McCarthy, and they eventually had 5 children. > > According to the photograph of the headstone Elizabeth died on 31 May 1962, Daniel having preceded her on 28 Oct 1944. > > Thank goodness once more for Google, or Elizabeth's fate might have remained hidden for much longer. > > But there are those lingering questions: where was Elizabeth in 1901, and why was she not with either parent? > > 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

Hello all, This story is not a complete mystery tale, but there are nonetheless a couple of unanswered questions. We start with the baptism of Elizabeth Frances Alice on 5 June 1895 at All Saints, Islington in London. Her parents were William and Betsey Lovelock - one of those rare marriages where both parties were a Lovelock, cousins in fact, and all members of the Tangley Tree - aptly named in this instance! But after that baptismal record Elizabeth disappears. In 1901 her mother and brother William Stephen were in Clerkenwell, London. Father William meanwhile was a Hospital Attendant at the Haslar Military Hospital in Alverstoke, Hampshire. Of Elizabeth no trace. By 1911 Betsey had died, and William and son George were in Holborn in London. Helpfully, if strictly speaking incorrectly, William recorded on the Return that he had had 6 children of whom 3 were still living. We have managed to establish that the three who had died were Henry Thomas, Emily Rose and John Joseph, meaning that, as well as George, William Stephen and Elizabeth Frances Alice were still alive somewhere. Search as you will, you will not find another reference to Elizabeth Frances Alice in the on-line records of Marriages and Deaths. So how was she traced after that? Through Google. If you try that you will come across a photograph of a headstone inscribed 'In Loving Memory of our dear parents Daniel McCarthy ... and Elizabeth McCarthy ...'. The photograph has been posted by a Nigel Patience, of whom I know nothing at present, but helpfully he has added the information that the parents mentioned are Daniel Joseph McCarthy and Elizabeth Frances Alice Lovelock. >From there we get to a 1911 Census entry in St Peters, Carmarthen in Wales, where the 15 year old Elizabeth was working as a general farm servant. And thence to the marriage in Jul-Sep 1914 in the Carmarthen RD of Lizzie Lovelock and George Wilby. There seem to have been no children of the marriage, and George died at Gallipoli on 10 Aug 1915. In Apr-Jun 1918, again in the Carmarthen RD, Elizabeth Wilby married Daniel McCarthy, and they eventually had 5 children. According to the photograph of the headstone Elizabeth died on 31 May 1962, Daniel having preceded her on 28 Oct 1944. Thank goodness once more for Google, or Elizabeth's fate might have remained hidden for much longer. But there are those lingering questions: where was Elizabeth in 1901, and why was she not with either parent? Regards Graham

Hello all, In the 1901 Census one R Lovelock was recorded as '3 Hand', a Fisherman, on board the 'Solon', a Grimsby trawler that at the time was 400 miles North-North-East of the Humber, so a long way from home. R Lovelock was a married man, 39 years old and born in 'London, Middlesex'. By 1911 Robert Lovelock had decided he was single, and aged 48, but still London born. He was in a house of only one or possibly two rooms in Great Grimsby, a house he shared with a Boarder, a Mrs Forkney. There seems to be no trace of him before 1901 - no census entries, and no London birth of a Robert Lovelock in the 1860s. But if he was London born, how ironic that he should end up commemorated on the Tower Hill Memorial, just across the road from the Tower of London. The reason he is remembered there is because he was one of 9 crew members of the Grimsby trawler 'Vanilla' who were lost on Sunday 18 April 1915 when their vessel was torpedoed out in the North Sea off Lowestoft. His entry on the CWGC website records him as the husband of Mrs Lovelock, occupying the address Robert was at in 1911. Regular readers will find it no surprise to read that there is no record of either of his supposed marriages, and no record of the death of anyone named Forkney anywhere between 1911 and 1980, nor of the marriage of a Forkney to match 'Mrs Forkney's' claim in 1911 to have been married for 20 years. A suitable candiddate for our 'Strays' collection, methinks? Regards Graham