Hello Graham and All: Thank you for all your hard work on the Lovelock Saga! In my case, the Lovelock/Saunders/White situation is a mystery, and every time we find something new another question arises! A couple of thoughts arose from your email ~ mostly on my Saunders side, so hopefully something will be of interest to you for the Lovelock website. I have a copy of records that confirm that my Grandad's mother did desert the family. This comes from the collective records of Dr. Barnardos' Homes (which they told me years ago I could not share with anyone or make copies of and distribute.....). Notes in the records say Elizabeth Ann Lovelock Saunders deserted the family for another man and that her whereabouts were unknown. Written proof from 1906. The records also list maternal and paternal aunts and uncles. It mentioned that maternal uncle William Saunders would probably take in the baby, Irene May Saunders, which we know he did. The notes also said that for a time prior to deserting the family, Elizabeth Ann sold off personal possessions and furniture under the reason that it was to "pay off bills". In my opinion, Elizabeth Ann knew her husband was sick/dying and was planning her departure. In addition, she had probably been carrying on with her future husband for a time prior to leaving her husband and children. If I am figuring the math correctly, she was already pregnant with her first child by Alfred Titus Lander before George Saunders died on 29 March 1906. Mabel Florence Lander was listed in the October Quarter births in 1906. Oh what a tangled web she weaved!! I try not to judge because I was not a woman living in 1906, but this is still an awful situation. My Grandad and two of his brothers were turned over to Barnardos on 9 April 1906 by their eldest half-brother Frederick Charles Lovelock (aged 23) and he signed the Canada clause that allowed them to be sent away to Canada. My Grandad was sent to Canada in 1906 as listed in the National Archives of Canada Records. According to the NAC, he departed Liverpool, England, on 11 October 1906, aboard the SS Dominion, and arrived in Quebec on 21 October 1906. He was listed as a Barnardo's child, age 11, and his destination was to be Toronto, Ontario. The National Archives of Canada film number is T-488. FYI the two brothers who were also sent to Canada are John Russell Saunders b: 1893 Greenford Green, Brentford and Thomas Henry Saunders b: 1898 in Sudbury, Hendon. John Russell and Thomas Henry were sent together on a different ship than my granddad. According to Barnardos records, they were both sent as follows: They departed Liverpool, England, on 2 August 1906, aboard the SS Dominion, and arrived in Quebec on 11 August 1906. Thomas was listed as a Barnardos child, age 8, and his destination was to be Toronto, Ontario. Most of what I found out about them comes from their marriage certificates. They both married and lived in Canada the rest of their lives. I have digital copies of those marriage records if you want details -- I found them through Ancestry. According to my Grandad, he asked Barnardos to put him in touch with his brothers, but they were kept apart and my Grandad never saw them again as far as we know. Grandpa was reunited with his oldest sister Alice Elizabeth and baby sister Irene May ("Aunt Renie") and was in frequent contact/visit with them throughout his life. Grandad also made a trip to England in June 1958 and surprised his half-brother Frederick Charles Lovelock by showing up on his doorstep!!! In addition, one of Grandpas' baby sisters, Kate Selina Saunders b: 1901 in Sudbury, Hendon, was turned over to the Church of England Waifs and Strays and she was about age 4/5. I found her in the 1901 census at 2 months old and was living with her parents and siblings at 12 Queens Gardens in Harrow. In the 1911 census at age 10, she was living in Dickleburgh, Scole, Norfolk at the Church of England Waifs and Strays, Rose Cottage Home. She was under the care of Millie Simpson, Matron. Registration district Depwade, number 230, sub registration district Harleston, enumeration district 5, household number 16. According to the National Archives of Canada, Kate departed Liverpool, England, on 9 May 1913, aboard the Virginian, and arrived in Quebec on 16 May 1913. She was listed as a Church of England Waifs and Strays Society child, age 12, and her destination was to be Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario. Notations: "26 girls as domestics". Kate Selina married a couple of times, and from what I could find, she had a very difficult life. She died young at about 41 in a car accident. The censuses you mention in your email definitely are intriguing. I agree with you on all your thoughts. I do wonder about the nurse/god child named Mary Josephine Saunders listed in the 1911 census in Ealing. I will be looking into her and see what I can find, if anything. I don't think the Saunders name is a coincidence -- I think the child may have been a relation, but to whom?? The puzzles continue! I will let you know if I find anything of interest. Thank you! Best Regards, Charlotte Huggins On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com > wrote: > Hello again, Charlotte, > > Thank you for putting some of our records straight. I have made > adjustments to the data based on your information. I don't know about > anybody else, but I find it quite intriguing that Elizabeth Ann could > abandon 9 children and then go on to have 3 more with Mr Lander. > > But, we are back with the Lovelock/White puzzle again. Firstly Sarah Ann > White was born in Southampton, which she claimed in 1891 and 1901, and > there is a matching birth entry. Alfred Lander's mother Emma White was born > in Harrow, so it looks unlikely that there was a connection. > > Just to remind everybody, as Charlotte says William Lovelock, aged 48, was > in Ealing with Alice Nutley in 1911, his age, place of birth and occupation > (House Painter) all confirming it was him, and supported by the record of > his marriage to Alice in 1919 in Victoria, British Columbia (which you do > not seem to have found Charlotte) which names his parents as well, > therefore unequivocally identifying him. > > But rather weirdly there is the 1911 entry for 30 Exeter Road, Victoria > Docks, West Ham which records a William Lovelock, aged 38, a Grain Porter > born in Poplar, his wife Sarah Ann Lovelock, aged 47, also born in Poplar, > and amongst the 5 children with them Lilly, aged 16. What's more, the > couple had been married for 19 years. > > The entry is signed by 'William Lovelock' but that proves nothing of > course without another signature to compare it with. The W is quite > distinctively written, so there's a possibility for a comparison if another > example exists. > > The intrigue associated with the Exeter Road entry is that there were 3 > children born after 1901 when William and Sarah Ann seem to have split up, > he being with his brother John in Ealing with son Arthur. Sarah Ann had > just had a son who was recorded as Ernest in 1901, but as George in 1911. > The other two children born after 1901 were registered at birth as Albert > Foster Lovelock and Edith Forster Lovelock, which inevitably leads to > conjecture as in 1901, as Charlotte says, Sarah Ann was living with her > sister Elizabeth and brother-in-law Evans Forster. What's more, the > marriage of an Evans Forster to Sarah Ann Lovelock was recorded in the West > Ham RD in Apr-Jun 1928. > > It does rather look as though the 30 Exeter Road entry in 1911 was a > fabrication to keep up appearances. Curiously, the age of the William in > that entry was originally written as 47, but in the wrong column, then > crossed out and 38 written in the correct column. > > There is another mystery, emanating from the 1911 Ealing entry. Whose > child was Mary Josephine Saunders, the 10 month old? Elizabeth Ann Saunders > (nee Lovelock) had married Alfred Lander in 1906 so could surely not be the > mother. But there does not seem to be any birth entry for the girl, and it > seems she did not go to Canada with William and Alice. > > Some puzzles we shall presumably never solve. > > Thanks again, Charlotte. > > Regards, > > Graham > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 13:53:46 -0700 > > To: lovelock@rootsweb.com > > Subject: [LOVELOCK] Irene May Saunders -- Marriage Record from British > Columbia Canada > > From: lovelock@rootsweb.com > > > > > Hello All! > > > > > > I noticed in the “Lovelock Records from the USA and Canada” that my > > grandaunt is listed. I have some information to share with you that will > > give a slight correction to the information in the records. > > > > > > Irene Mae (or May as we have her) “Lovelock” who married Sidney Jennings > in > > Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada in 1923 is actually Irene May > Saunders, > > the youngest child of George Saunders and Elizabeth Ann Lovelock, rather > > than William Lovelock and Alice Nutley who were actually her maternal > Uncle > > and Aunt. > > > > > > I don’t have Irene and Sidney’s marriage certificate, however, I do know > > that the Irene who married Sidney Jennings is my grandaunt. Irene May, or > > as we called her Aunt Renie, was my Grandfather’s baby sister. She was > > born in 1904 and baptized on 30 Oct 1904 in Roxeth in Greenford Magna. I > > believe she was born in the Hendon/Sudbury England area. > > > > > > Likely she listed herself as Lovelock rather than Saunders because of the > > breakup of her family when she was about 2 years old. Sadly, she wouldn’t > > have remembered her mother or father because she was so young and she > > probably didn’t remember or know her true last name. Her mother deserted > > the family in 1905 and shortly after her father George Saunders died when > > Irene was still a baby. Her mother remarried after George died and > started > > a new family. Irene and her siblings were orphaned. > > > > > > Please see the notes listed below from my files. It appears that her > > maternal Uncle William Lovelock took her in for a time. If not all of the > > notes are of interest to the Lovelock website, just disregard and please > > use what you need. > > > > > > Certainly if you have any questions, please let me know. Thank you!! > > > > > > > > *Irene May Saunders Notes*: > > > > > > *Irene May Saunders* and her siblings were orphaned in 1906 when their > > mother* Elizabeth Ann Lovelock Saunders *deserted them and her husband > > George Saunders. Irene May was about aged 2. * George Saunders *died on > 29 > > March 1906 from an enlarged liver caused by Alcoholism. Her mother ran > off > > with another man and remarried shortly after George Saunders death, > leaving > > her 9 children without parents. She lived with her new husband and had > > three more children while her 9 children with George Saunders were split > > up, some of the younger boys being placed in orphanages, and were then > sent > > to Canada and put to work on farms. The older children either got married > > or worked as domestics until they were old enough to fend for themselves. > > > > > > > > Irene May's maternal Uncle *William Lovelock* (her mother's eldest > brother) > > > stepped up and took her in at that time. Interestingly enough at the same > > time it appears William Lovelock had separated from his wife Sarah Ann > > White and their children in about 1905 or 1906. William had been married > > to Sarah Ann for about 19 years. It is also an interesting note and > > possibly not a coincidence that the mother of the man Elizabeth Ann > > Lovelock Saunders ran off with had the surname White as well. I do not > > know whether Elizabeth's new Mother-In-Law was related in any way to > > William Lovelock's wife Sarah Ann White. > > > > > > > > The 1911 England Census lists William Lovelock, age 48, House Painter; > > Irene May Saunders, age 6, Niece; Alice C Nutley, age 34, housekeeper; > the > > housekeeper's son Walter George Nutley age 13; and a nurse child named > > Mary Josephine Saunders aged 10 months. All were living at 12 Grove Place > > in Ealing, Middlesex. > > > > > > > > It is also of note that the 1901 England Census shows Sarah Ann White > > Lovelock was living with Elizabeth and Evans Forster which was her sister > > and brother-in-law and their family at 263 Victoria Duck Road. Sarah Ann > > was listed as a Domestic Servant so she was living there. Sarah Ann had > > two of her younger children with her, daughter Lilly aged 6, and son > Ernest > > aged 6 months. > > > > > > > > I don't yet know if William Lovelock was divorced from Sarah Ann White > > Lovelock before he packed up his new "wife" Alice C Nutley, her son > Walter > > George, and Irene May Saunders, and emigrated to Canada in 1912. Records > > show that William, Alice, Irene and George -- All under the name Lovelock > > arrived in Montreal on board the Royal Edward from Bristol England on 28 > > August 1912. Nor do I know if William and Alice Nutley were actually > > married when they left England. > > > > > > ~ end notes ~ > > > > > > Many thanks from a grateful and appreciative Lovelock descendant, and > > frequent website user!!! > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Charlotte Huggins > > > > Renton, Washington, USA > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > 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, Charlotte, Thank you for putting some of our records straight. I have made adjustments to the data based on your information. I don't know about anybody else, but I find it quite intriguing that Elizabeth Ann could abandon 9 children and then go on to have 3 more with Mr Lander. But, we are back with the Lovelock/White puzzle again. Firstly Sarah Ann White was born in Southampton, which she claimed in 1891 and 1901, and there is a matching birth entry. Alfred Lander's mother Emma White was born in Harrow, so it looks unlikely that there was a connection. Just to remind everybody, as Charlotte says William Lovelock, aged 48, was in Ealing with Alice Nutley in 1911, his age, place of birth and occupation (House Painter) all confirming it was him, and supported by the record of his marriage to Alice in 1919 in Victoria, British Columbia (which you do not seem to have found Charlotte) which names his parents as well, therefore unequivocally identifying him. But rather weirdly there is the 1911 entry for 30 Exeter Road, Victoria Docks, West Ham which records a William Lovelock, aged 38, a Grain Porter born in Poplar, his wife Sarah Ann Lovelock, aged 47, also born in Poplar, and amongst the 5 children with them Lilly, aged 16. What's more, the couple had been married for 19 years. The entry is signed by 'William Lovelock' but that proves nothing of course without another signature to compare it with. The W is quite distinctively written, so there's a possibility for a comparison if another example exists. The intrigue associated with the Exeter Road entry is that there were 3 children born after 1901 when William and Sarah Ann seem to have split up, he being with his brother John in Ealing with son Arthur. Sarah Ann had just had a son who was recorded as Ernest in 1901, but as George in 1911. The other two children born after 1901 were registered at birth as Albert Foster Lovelock and Edith Forster Lovelock, which inevitably leads to conjecture as in 1901, as Charlotte says, Sarah Ann was living with her sister Elizabeth and brother-in-law Evans Forster. What's more, the marriage of an Evans Forster to Sarah Ann Lovelock was recorded in the West Ham RD in Apr-Jun 1928. It does rather look as though the 30 Exeter Road entry in 1911 was a fabrication to keep up appearances. Curiously, the age of the William in that entry was originally written as 47, but in the wrong column, then crossed out and 38 written in the correct column. There is another mystery, emanating from the 1911 Ealing entry. Whose child was Mary Josephine Saunders, the 10 month old? Elizabeth Ann Saunders (nee Lovelock) had married Alfred Lander in 1906 so could surely not be the mother. But there does not seem to be any birth entry for the girl, and it seems she did not go to Canada with William and Alice. Some puzzles we shall presumably never solve. Thanks again, Charlotte. Regards, Graham ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 13:53:46 -0700 > To: lovelock@rootsweb.com > Subject: [LOVELOCK] Irene May Saunders -- Marriage Record from British Columbia Canada > From: lovelock@rootsweb.com > > Hello All! > > > I noticed in the “Lovelock Records from the USA and Canada” that my > grandaunt is listed. I have some information to share with you that will > give a slight correction to the information in the records. > > > Irene Mae (or May as we have her) “Lovelock” who married Sidney Jennings in > Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada in 1923 is actually Irene May Saunders, > the youngest child of George Saunders and Elizabeth Ann Lovelock, rather > than William Lovelock and Alice Nutley who were actually her maternal Uncle > and Aunt. > > > I don’t have Irene and Sidney’s marriage certificate, however, I do know > that the Irene who married Sidney Jennings is my grandaunt. Irene May, or > as we called her Aunt Renie, was my Grandfather’s baby sister. She was > born in 1904 and baptized on 30 Oct 1904 in Roxeth in Greenford Magna. I > believe she was born in the Hendon/Sudbury England area. > > > Likely she listed herself as Lovelock rather than Saunders because of the > breakup of her family when she was about 2 years old. Sadly, she wouldn’t > have remembered her mother or father because she was so young and she > probably didn’t remember or know her true last name. Her mother deserted > the family in 1905 and shortly after her father George Saunders died when > Irene was still a baby. Her mother remarried after George died and started > a new family. Irene and her siblings were orphaned. > > > Please see the notes listed below from my files. It appears that her > maternal Uncle William Lovelock took her in for a time. If not all of the > notes are of interest to the Lovelock website, just disregard and please > use what you need. > > > Certainly if you have any questions, please let me know. Thank you!! > > > > *Irene May Saunders Notes*: > > > *Irene May Saunders* and her siblings were orphaned in 1906 when their > mother* Elizabeth Ann Lovelock Saunders *deserted them and her husband > George Saunders. Irene May was about aged 2. * George Saunders *died on 29 > March 1906 from an enlarged liver caused by Alcoholism. Her mother ran off > with another man and remarried shortly after George Saunders death, leaving > her 9 children without parents. She lived with her new husband and had > three more children while her 9 children with George Saunders were split > up, some of the younger boys being placed in orphanages, and were then sent > to Canada and put to work on farms. The older children either got married > or worked as domestics until they were old enough to fend for themselves. > > > > Irene May's maternal Uncle *William Lovelock* (her mother's eldest brother) > stepped up and took her in at that time. Interestingly enough at the same > time it appears William Lovelock had separated from his wife Sarah Ann > White and their children in about 1905 or 1906. William had been married > to Sarah Ann for about 19 years. It is also an interesting note and > possibly not a coincidence that the mother of the man Elizabeth Ann > Lovelock Saunders ran off with had the surname White as well. I do not > know whether Elizabeth's new Mother-In-Law was related in any way to > William Lovelock's wife Sarah Ann White. > > > > The 1911 England Census lists William Lovelock, age 48, House Painter; > Irene May Saunders, age 6, Niece; Alice C Nutley, age 34, housekeeper; the > housekeeper's son Walter George Nutley age 13; and a nurse child named > Mary Josephine Saunders aged 10 months. All were living at 12 Grove Place > in Ealing, Middlesex. > > > > It is also of note that the 1901 England Census shows Sarah Ann White > Lovelock was living with Elizabeth and Evans Forster which was her sister > and brother-in-law and their family at 263 Victoria Duck Road. Sarah Ann > was listed as a Domestic Servant so she was living there. Sarah Ann had > two of her younger children with her, daughter Lilly aged 6, and son Ernest > aged 6 months. > > > > I don't yet know if William Lovelock was divorced from Sarah Ann White > Lovelock before he packed up his new "wife" Alice C Nutley, her son Walter > George, and Irene May Saunders, and emigrated to Canada in 1912. Records > show that William, Alice, Irene and George -- All under the name Lovelock > arrived in Montreal on board the Royal Edward from Bristol England on 28 > August 1912. Nor do I know if William and Alice Nutley were actually > married when they left England. > > > ~ end notes ~ > > > Many thanks from a grateful and appreciative Lovelock descendant, and > frequent website user!!! > > > Best Regards, > > Charlotte Huggins > > Renton, Washington, USA > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 noticed in the “Lovelock Records from the USA and Canada” that my grandaunt is listed. I have some information to share with you that will give a slight correction to the information in the records. Irene Mae (or May as we have her) “Lovelock” who married Sidney Jennings in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada in 1923 is actually Irene May Saunders, the youngest child of George Saunders and Elizabeth Ann Lovelock, rather than William Lovelock and Alice Nutley who were actually her maternal Uncle and Aunt. I don’t have Irene and Sidney’s marriage certificate, however, I do know that the Irene who married Sidney Jennings is my grandaunt. Irene May, or as we called her Aunt Renie, was my Grandfather’s baby sister. She was born in 1904 and baptized on 30 Oct 1904 in Roxeth in Greenford Magna. I believe she was born in the Hendon/Sudbury England area. Likely she listed herself as Lovelock rather than Saunders because of the breakup of her family when she was about 2 years old. Sadly, she wouldn’t have remembered her mother or father because she was so young and she probably didn’t remember or know her true last name. Her mother deserted the family in 1905 and shortly after her father George Saunders died when Irene was still a baby. Her mother remarried after George died and started a new family. Irene and her siblings were orphaned. Please see the notes listed below from my files. It appears that her maternal Uncle William Lovelock took her in for a time. If not all of the notes are of interest to the Lovelock website, just disregard and please use what you need. Certainly if you have any questions, please let me know. Thank you!! *Irene May Saunders Notes*: *Irene May Saunders* and her siblings were orphaned in 1906 when their mother* Elizabeth Ann Lovelock Saunders *deserted them and her husband George Saunders. Irene May was about aged 2. * George Saunders *died on 29 March 1906 from an enlarged liver caused by Alcoholism. Her mother ran off with another man and remarried shortly after George Saunders death, leaving her 9 children without parents. She lived with her new husband and had three more children while her 9 children with George Saunders were split up, some of the younger boys being placed in orphanages, and were then sent to Canada and put to work on farms. The older children either got married or worked as domestics until they were old enough to fend for themselves. Irene May's maternal Uncle *William Lovelock* (her mother's eldest brother) stepped up and took her in at that time. Interestingly enough at the same time it appears William Lovelock had separated from his wife Sarah Ann White and their children in about 1905 or 1906. William had been married to Sarah Ann for about 19 years. It is also an interesting note and possibly not a coincidence that the mother of the man Elizabeth Ann Lovelock Saunders ran off with had the surname White as well. I do not know whether Elizabeth's new Mother-In-Law was related in any way to William Lovelock's wife Sarah Ann White. The 1911 England Census lists William Lovelock, age 48, House Painter; Irene May Saunders, age 6, Niece; Alice C Nutley, age 34, housekeeper; the housekeeper's son Walter George Nutley age 13; and a nurse child named Mary Josephine Saunders aged 10 months. All were living at 12 Grove Place in Ealing, Middlesex. It is also of note that the 1901 England Census shows Sarah Ann White Lovelock was living with Elizabeth and Evans Forster which was her sister and brother-in-law and their family at 263 Victoria Duck Road. Sarah Ann was listed as a Domestic Servant so she was living there. Sarah Ann had two of her younger children with her, daughter Lilly aged 6, and son Ernest aged 6 months. I don't yet know if William Lovelock was divorced from Sarah Ann White Lovelock before he packed up his new "wife" Alice C Nutley, her son Walter George, and Irene May Saunders, and emigrated to Canada in 1912. Records show that William, Alice, Irene and George -- All under the name Lovelock arrived in Montreal on board the Royal Edward from Bristol England on 28 August 1912. Nor do I know if William and Alice Nutley were actually married when they left England. ~ end notes ~ Many thanks from a grateful and appreciative Lovelock descendant, and frequent website user!!! Best Regards, Charlotte Huggins Renton, Washington, USA

Hello Graham, Findmypast has a 1911 census record for Frederick George John Lovelock - he was with his family living in Llanwono, Glamorganshire! It gives his date of birth as 1906, but it states he was born in Woolwich, so I think we can live with being one year out, especially given all the correct forenames. According to the census, his father was William born 1868 in Peckham Rye and his mother was Eliza born 1874 in Tipton, Staffordshire. He had brothers Albert Edward born 1903 in Colchester and Willie born 1900 in "Cost House London". In 1901 they were visitors to the household of Thomas & Elizabeth Westwood in West Bromwich, Staffordshire. William was a soldier with the 4th Liverpool, and it is recorded that young Willie was born at East Ham Northamptonshire. Does that help to identify them or (as so often happens) does it raise more questions? Best wishes Sue ----Original message---- >From : lovelock@rootsweb.com Date : 07/07/2016 - 18:08 (GMTST) To : lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject : [LOVELOCK] Frederick George John Lovelock Hello all, Frederick George John Lovelock was born in the Oct-Dec quarter of 1905 in the Woolwich Registration District (RD). Can anybody identify his parents? He seems to have escaped being recorded in 1911, and we have no record of a baptism. He next turns up in Plymouth, where on 4 Apr 1931 he married Alfreda May Victoria Wills. He was one of the 1519 men who perished when HMS Glorious, HMS Ardent and HMS Acasta were sunk on 8 Jun 1940: http://www.historytoday.com/philip-weir/hms-glorious-history-controversy Alfreda died in 1966. He does not appear in the 1939 Register, as members of the Armed Forces were not included, although Alfreda does. Help! 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, You will have seen the message from Rose Adams on ........ which identified problems with the free.fr mailbox that was established some years ago for enquiries, additions and corrections relating to our data. We have amended the Home page of the main Lovelock website so that now anyone wishing to make contact is encouraged to use the Mailing List, or to contact James or I through the links in Webtrees: http://lovelock.free.fr/index.html We have also amended the roll-down menu under the 'Home' topic in the menu bar at the top of each page so that wherever one is on the website it will be possible to get immediately to the 'Additions and Corrections' section if there is something to report. We hope this will avoid contact problems for the foreseeable future. [Ironically, as I write the appropriate Rootsweb server that archives all our messages is unavailable, but our fall backs will still work!] Regards Graham

Hello all, Frederick George John Lovelock was born in the Oct-Dec quarter of 1905 in the Woolwich Registration District (RD). Can anybody identify his parents? He seems to have escaped being recorded in 1911, and we have no record of a baptism. He next turns up in Plymouth, where on 4 Apr 1931 he married Alfreda May Victoria Wills. He was one of the 1519 men who perished when HMS Glorious, HMS Ardent and HMS Acasta were sunk on 8 Jun 1940: http://www.historytoday.com/philip-weir/hms-glorious-history-controversy Alfreda died in 1966. He does not appear in the 1939 Register, as members of the Armed Forces were not included, although Alfreda does. Help! Regards Graham

Hi Graham, I am wondering if you can give me the correct email address to send updates to the Lovelock History Web Site. The email address on the website does not seem to be current. Thanks Rosalie Adams Wallingford Berks Line -----Original Message----- From: lovelock-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:lovelock-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Graham Lovelock via Sent: Saturday, 2 July 2016 4:44 AM To: lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject: [LOVELOCK] An easy one, for a change Easy in that the answer is either yes or no. Where that might lead us if the answer is yes is another matter. The National Probate Calendars contain an entry for Annie Emily Lovelock of 6 Daintry Close, Papworth, Everard, Cambridgeshire who died on 19 May 1989. Neither Ancestry nor Findmypast have an entry which matches that death. The 1939 Register has an Annie E King, born 28 Dec 1918, as a Patient in the Papworth Village Settlement Institution for the Treatment of Tuberculosis, and the name Lovelock has been inserted above her name, which usually indicates that the lady concerned later married a Lovelock. Unfortunately the left hand column, which often contains the date of the marriage, has been obscured. I have not been able to find any record of a Lovelock/King marriage that fits. There is one birth entry of an Annie E King in Free BMD which could be her. Does anyone know anything more of this lady? 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

Easy in that the answer is either yes or no. Where that might lead us if the answer is yes is another matter. The National Probate Calendars contain an entry for Annie Emily Lovelock of 6 Daintry Close, Papworth, Everard, Cambridgeshire who died on 19 May 1989. Neither Ancestry nor Findmypast have an entry which matches that death. The 1939 Register has an Annie E King, born 28 Dec 1918, as a Patient in the Papworth Village Settlement Institution for the Treatment of Tuberculosis, and the name Lovelock has been inserted above her name, which usually indicates that the lady concerned later married a Lovelock. Unfortunately the left hand column, which often contains the date of the marriage, has been obscured. I have not been able to find any record of a Lovelock/King marriage that fits. There is one birth entry of an Annie E King in Free BMD which could be her. Does anyone know anything more of this lady? Regards Graham

Hello all, There's a bit more to report on this one. James Kenward married Harriet Mullis on 17 Oct 1897 in St Paul's, Clekenwell. He was 38, she was 26. The death of a Harriet Kenward aged 28 was registered in the Pancras RD in Oct-Dec 1900, which rather looks like James' wife. She certainly does not appear in the 1901 Census. It would seem likely that Henry and Harriet Lovelock had taken Ernest James in, but whether through some kind of fostering agency or through a family connection we will probably never know. Either officially or unofficially Ernest became a Lovelock, and so I will add some appropriate information to the Lambeth-Australia tree. Regards Graham ---------------------------------------------------------------------------From: Vicki Houlbrooke <vicki@houlbrooke.co.nz> Subject: Re: [LOVELOCK] Ernest Lovelock Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 11:19:44 +1200 Hi Graham Not sure if this helps, but... 1901 Census there is an Ernest KENWARD (3 months old) living with Henry W LOVELOCK, Harriet & family (Lambeth-Australia Tree). Relationship to Head is stated as "cousin". Ernest's birth recorded as 1901 St Lukes Middlesex. Being so very young, maybe he was adopted by this family?? There is an earlier KENWARD - LOVELOCK marriage, which may or may not have any relevance. Eliza KENWARD married Thomas LOVELOCK (Berkshire Aldermaston Tree) Dec 1864 Marylebone. They can be found in Battersea in 1871, 1881, 1891 censuses, but no evidence of a James Kenward. Just thinking that maybe James was born before the marriage and he or his son later took up the Lovelock name - rather a long shot though. Regards Vicki Houlbrooke New Zealand --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 1 June 2016 at 06:44, Graham Lovelock via <lovelock@rootsweb.com> wrote: Hello all, Here's another puzzling individual. Free BMD records that Ernest J K Lovelock married Edith Louisa Wright in the Bromley RD in Oct-Dec 1925. The 1939 Register gives his date of birth as 3 Feb 1900. His death as Ernest James Kenward Lovelock occurred on 22 Dec 1983 in Bexley RD. The death registration also quotes a birthdate of 3 Feb 1900. We know the precise date of death from the Probate Calendars data on the website. Free BMD has no record of the birth of an Ernest James K Lovelock, or even of an Ernest James. The only Ernest J appearing in the 1901 Census was Ernest John born in 1899 who was killed in France in 1917. He also appears in the 1911 Census. There is an Ernest James in the 1911 Census but he was born in Kildare, Ireland in 1904. Fortunately the 'Geni' website provides some helpful information. This suggests that the man in question was actually born Ernest James Kenward, the son of James and Harriet (nee Mullis), and such a birth was indeed registered in the Holborn RD in 1900. Alas what the 'Geni' website does not reveal is why he assumed the surname of Lovelock. The 'obvious' answer would be that his mother married again to a Lovelock and her son carried both surnames forward. However, there is no record in Free BMD of such a marriage. Any ideas anyone? Regards Graham

Here's another one for the sleuths. The 1939 Register records two Richard G Lovelocks: one born on 7 Oct 1875, the other on 11 Sep 1901. They are father and son (both Richard George), members of the Ropley, Crondall and Dogmersfield (RCD) Tree. The former died in Apr-Jun 1941, his age being declared as 65, and the latter apparently in Jan-Mar 1962 at the age of 60. Both deaths occurred in the Wandsworth RD. I say 'apparently' in the case of the son because there was another death of a Richard George on 14 Feb 1981 (as recorded in the National Probate Calendars data) whose date of birth is declared in the death registration entry as 26 Nov 1902. Turning to Free BMD there is but the one birth entry for a Richard George between 1900 and 1910 - in Oct-Dec 1901, which fits with the RCD man above (remember that you got up to 6 weeks to register the birth). Just in case names got reversed I have checked Free BMD for a George R birth entry between 1900 and 1910 and there isn't one. So where did the man who died in 1981 come from? There's an intriguing situation with respect to marriages of a Richard G Lovelock as well. There was one to Margaret A Allen in Oct-Dec 1922, another to Phyllis Grigg in Jan-Mar 1947, and a rather strange record of a third in Apr-Jun 1952, which is to an Edith B Saunders ..... or perhaps to an Edith B Lovelock. What's so strange about that last entry is that in 1939 the Richard G Lovelock born on 11 Sep 1901 was apparently married to an Edith A, a marriage for which there is no Free BMD entry. There are other amendments to that 1939 entry, suggesting that Richard's wife was actually Edith B A ...., and that she later married a Saunders, and later still married another Lovelock. The fact is that there is only the one record of a Saunders marrying a Lovelock in the appropriate timeframe, and that is the marriage of Edith B A Saunders to Richard G lovelock, although the bride seems also to have claimed her name was Edith Lovelock. She seems to be the Edith Beatrice A Saunders whose birth was recorded in the Wandsworth RD in Jan-Mar 1908 - not incompatible with a birth on 15 Dec 1907 as captured in the 1939 Register. It rather looks as though Richard and Edith were living 'over the brush' as the saying goes from at least 1939 to 1952, he being the RCD 'son' as above. But if that was the case, what about Margaret A Lovelock from1922 onwards and Phyllis from 1947 onwards? Can anone provide any clarity? Regards Graham

Hello again all, In the St Pancras (Main) Tree is one Alfred Robert Lovelock, the only man with that combination of names that Free BMD records between 1838 and 1910: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/individual.php?pid=I152&ged=middlesex On 30 June 1884 - 132 years ago to the day - he married Jane Emily Willson in St Philip's, Bethnal Green, and in 1891 they were in St Pancras with son Alfred William and daughter Florence Emily. In Jul-Sep 1896 he married Caroline Elizabeth Westwood, and in 1901 the couple, with a son Alfred Joseph Herbert, were at a different address from 1891, but still in St Pancras. Alfred was a Carman by occupation in 1891, aged 26, and a Hackney Carriage Driver aged 36 in 1901. Free BMD has no record of the death of Jane Emily between 1891 and 1896. She may be the Jane Lovelock whose death occurred in Oct-Dec 1922 in the Pancras RD, at the age of 56; no other entry seems to fit. But now we move south of the Thames, to Lambeth. In the church of St Philip on 22 May 1898 there was a host of baptisms of children from the Lambeth Workhouse. Amongst them were Alfreda Wilson Lovelock, born 25 Feb 1894, and William Lawrence Lovelock, born 24 Apr 1897, the children of Francis and Jane Emily Lovelock. Francis was recorded as a Cabman. Can anybody suggest a plausible (and legal) explanation for this set of facts? Regards Graham

Hmmm! Still something that doesn't fit, Vicki. If the Albert who died in Kettering in 1978 was born on 21 Oct 1910 his birth could not have been registered in the Jul-Sep quarter. Similarly if the Albert who died in London in 1978 was born on 14 Oct 1910 his birth could not have been registered in the Jul-Sep quarter either. Which is why I came to the conclusion that the Albert born in the Amersham RD had to be the man who died in 1932. If that is the case then we are looking for two Albert J births in 1910, but there was only the one. And that's how I came to the conclusion that the man who died in London was the man in the 1939 Register, and that the Register has his true date of birth - 14 Oct 1911 - whilst the mistake was actually made by whoever reported the death when they gave the date of birth as 14 Oct 1910. I agree the 1939 Register has plenty of discrepancies with respect to birth dates, but on the other hand Albert James MAY have provided the date in the Register, whilst we know he certainly did not IN PERSON provide the date in the death registration. Regards Graham > Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 14:06:57 +1200 > To: adkins@dircon.co.uk; lovelock@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [LOVELOCK] Confusing Alberts > From: lovelock@rootsweb.com > > Hi Graham > > I believe the date of birth in the 1939 Register might be wrong. > I have found at least 2 relatives who have put the wrong year of birth in > the register, while retaining the correct day and month. > > So, I believe: > the Albert LOVELOCK whose birth was registered in Sep 1910 Amersham, > Buckingham, > is with Charles & Eva Lily LOVELOCK in Chesham, Buckinghamshire in 1911 > Census, > not in the 1939 register, > died Sep quarter 1978 DOB 21 Oct 1910, Kettering > and with probate record Albert James, Kettering > > The other Albert James LOVELOCK, birth was registered Kingston, Middlesex > Dec 1910, > with Charles & Mabel Eva Lovelock Hampton, Middlesex in 1911 census, > in 1939 register at 50 Linden road, Hampton, Middlesex (with YOB 1911), > died Jun quarter 1978 DOB 14 Oct 1910, London City > and with probate record "otherwise Albert", Administration > > That leaves Albert J LOVELOCK, birth registered Dec 1911, mother's maiden > name Stringle > died Jun 1932 age 21, Hendon, Middlesex > (a Henry William LOVELOCK married Ada STRINGLE in Mar 1902, in Islington, > and were living 133 Barnsbury road, Islington in 1911 Census) > > Regards > Vicki > > On 27 June 2016 at 09:09, Eileen Adkins via <lovelock@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > Graham, > > > > the 1939 list is not a census as such. Any man already in the armed forces > > is not included as the government already knew of him. Also people already > > working on government work are excluded for the same reason. > > > > I'm not sure what this does to your argument but thought you'd like to > > consider it. > > > > I lurk on this list but it turns out that my mother's cousin who used the > > surname Lovelock was not, Mr Lovelock married her mother. > > > > Eileen > > > > > > On 26 Jun 2016, at 13:55, Graham Lovelock via wrote: > > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > Here's a situation calling for some clear thinking and a logical > > approach, which I hope I have applied, but .... > > > > > > Free BMD records the death in the Hendon RD in Apr-Jun 1932 of Albert > > Lovelock at the age of 21, suggesting a birth in 1910 or 1911. > > > > > > Ancestry and Findmypast have the death of Albert James Lovelock born 14 > > Oct 1910, which death occurred on 29 May 1978 according to the National > > Probate Calendars data. > > > Ancestry and Findmypast also have the death of Albert James Lovelock > > born 21 Oct 1910, which death occurred on 9 July 1978 according to the > > National Probate Calendars data. > > > > > > Free BMD has only three Albert births in 1910: Albert in Amersham RD, > > Albert H in Bedwellty RD, and Albert J in Kingston RD. There are no births > > of an Albert recorded in Jan-Mar, Apr-Jun or Jul-Sep 1911. > > > > > > Fortunately there is a little help available to sort out which was > > which, or so you might think. The Probate entry for the Albert James who > > died on 29 May 1978 refers to him as 'Albert James Lovelock otherwise > > Albert' suggesting that James was an additional name he had adopted for > > reasons unknown. But if he was just plain Albert he should be the subject > > of the 1932 death. > > > > > > So the situation seems to be that there was but one birth of an Albert, > > but possibly two deaths, or that there was but one birth of an Albert > > James, but possibly two deaths. > > > > > > The 1939 Register might be thought a good place to look next, but that > > doesn't identify a single Albert born in 1910. It does, however, include > > Albert born 14 Oct 1911, who must be the Albert J born in the Islington RD > > in Oct-Dec 1911. > > > > > > But would it not be a remarkable coincidence that an Albert J apparently > > born 14 Oct 1910 should not appear in the 1939 Register whilst an Albert J > > born precisely one year later does? > > > > > > I suggest, therefore, that the 1932 death is of the man born in the > > Amersham RD, that the man born 21 Oct 1910 is the man who died in Jul-Sep > > 1978, and that the man born on 14 Oct 1911 died in Apr-Jun 1978, recorded > > at his death as Albert James, and with the birthdate of 14 Oct 1910, but > > noted in the Probate entry as 'otherwise Albert', which precise epithet he > > was recorded under in 1939, and that there never was an Albert James > > Lovelock born 14 Oct 1910. > > > > > > Any arguments to the contrary gladly received! > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > 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 I believe the date of birth in the 1939 Register might be wrong. I have found at least 2 relatives who have put the wrong year of birth in the register, while retaining the correct day and month. So, I believe: the Albert LOVELOCK whose birth was registered in Sep 1910 Amersham, Buckingham, is with Charles & Eva Lily LOVELOCK in Chesham, Buckinghamshire in 1911 Census, not in the 1939 register, died Sep quarter 1978 DOB 21 Oct 1910, Kettering and with probate record Albert James, Kettering The other Albert James LOVELOCK, birth was registered Kingston, Middlesex Dec 1910, with Charles & Mabel Eva Lovelock Hampton, Middlesex in 1911 census, in 1939 register at 50 Linden road, Hampton, Middlesex (with YOB 1911), died Jun quarter 1978 DOB 14 Oct 1910, London City and with probate record "otherwise Albert", Administration That leaves Albert J LOVELOCK, birth registered Dec 1911, mother's maiden name Stringle died Jun 1932 age 21, Hendon, Middlesex (a Henry William LOVELOCK married Ada STRINGLE in Mar 1902, in Islington, and were living 133 Barnsbury road, Islington in 1911 Census) Regards Vicki On 27 June 2016 at 09:09, Eileen Adkins via <lovelock@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Graham, > > the 1939 list is not a census as such. Any man already in the armed forces > is not included as the government already knew of him. Also people already > working on government work are excluded for the same reason. > > I'm not sure what this does to your argument but thought you'd like to > consider it. > > I lurk on this list but it turns out that my mother's cousin who used the > surname Lovelock was not, Mr Lovelock married her mother. > > Eileen > > > On 26 Jun 2016, at 13:55, Graham Lovelock via wrote: > > > Hello all, > > > > Here's a situation calling for some clear thinking and a logical > approach, which I hope I have applied, but .... > > > > Free BMD records the death in the Hendon RD in Apr-Jun 1932 of Albert > Lovelock at the age of 21, suggesting a birth in 1910 or 1911. > > > > Ancestry and Findmypast have the death of Albert James Lovelock born 14 > Oct 1910, which death occurred on 29 May 1978 according to the National > Probate Calendars data. > > Ancestry and Findmypast also have the death of Albert James Lovelock > born 21 Oct 1910, which death occurred on 9 July 1978 according to the > National Probate Calendars data. > > > > Free BMD has only three Albert births in 1910: Albert in Amersham RD, > Albert H in Bedwellty RD, and Albert J in Kingston RD. There are no births > of an Albert recorded in Jan-Mar, Apr-Jun or Jul-Sep 1911. > > > > Fortunately there is a little help available to sort out which was > which, or so you might think. The Probate entry for the Albert James who > died on 29 May 1978 refers to him as 'Albert James Lovelock otherwise > Albert' suggesting that James was an additional name he had adopted for > reasons unknown. But if he was just plain Albert he should be the subject > of the 1932 death. > > > > So the situation seems to be that there was but one birth of an Albert, > but possibly two deaths, or that there was but one birth of an Albert > James, but possibly two deaths. > > > > The 1939 Register might be thought a good place to look next, but that > doesn't identify a single Albert born in 1910. It does, however, include > Albert born 14 Oct 1911, who must be the Albert J born in the Islington RD > in Oct-Dec 1911. > > > > But would it not be a remarkable coincidence that an Albert J apparently > born 14 Oct 1910 should not appear in the 1939 Register whilst an Albert J > born precisely one year later does? > > > > I suggest, therefore, that the 1932 death is of the man born in the > Amersham RD, that the man born 21 Oct 1910 is the man who died in Jul-Sep > 1978, and that the man born on 14 Oct 1911 died in Apr-Jun 1978, recorded > at his death as Albert James, and with the birthdate of 14 Oct 1910, but > noted in the Probate entry as 'otherwise Albert', which precise epithet he > was recorded under in 1939, and that there never was an Albert James > Lovelock born 14 Oct 1910. > > > > Any arguments to the contrary gladly received! > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 >

Graham, the 1939 list is not a census as such. Any man already in the armed forces is not included as the government already knew of him. Also people already working on government work are excluded for the same reason. I'm not sure what this does to your argument but thought you'd like to consider it. I lurk on this list but it turns out that my mother's cousin who used the surname Lovelock was not, Mr Lovelock married her mother. Eileen On 26 Jun 2016, at 13:55, Graham Lovelock via wrote: > Hello all, > > Here's a situation calling for some clear thinking and a logical approach, which I hope I have applied, but .... > > Free BMD records the death in the Hendon RD in Apr-Jun 1932 of Albert Lovelock at the age of 21, suggesting a birth in 1910 or 1911. > > Ancestry and Findmypast have the death of Albert James Lovelock born 14 Oct 1910, which death occurred on 29 May 1978 according to the National Probate Calendars data. > Ancestry and Findmypast also have the death of Albert James Lovelock born 21 Oct 1910, which death occurred on 9 July 1978 according to the National Probate Calendars data. > > Free BMD has only three Albert births in 1910: Albert in Amersham RD, Albert H in Bedwellty RD, and Albert J in Kingston RD. There are no births of an Albert recorded in Jan-Mar, Apr-Jun or Jul-Sep 1911. > > Fortunately there is a little help available to sort out which was which, or so you might think. The Probate entry for the Albert James who died on 29 May 1978 refers to him as 'Albert James Lovelock otherwise Albert' suggesting that James was an additional name he had adopted for reasons unknown. But if he was just plain Albert he should be the subject of the 1932 death. > > So the situation seems to be that there was but one birth of an Albert, but possibly two deaths, or that there was but one birth of an Albert James, but possibly two deaths. > > The 1939 Register might be thought a good place to look next, but that doesn't identify a single Albert born in 1910. It does, however, include Albert born 14 Oct 1911, who must be the Albert J born in the Islington RD in Oct-Dec 1911. > > But would it not be a remarkable coincidence that an Albert J apparently born 14 Oct 1910 should not appear in the 1939 Register whilst an Albert J born precisely one year later does? > > I suggest, therefore, that the 1932 death is of the man born in the Amersham RD, that the man born 21 Oct 1910 is the man who died in Jul-Sep 1978, and that the man born on 14 Oct 1911 died in Apr-Jun 1978, recorded at his death as Albert James, and with the birthdate of 14 Oct 1910, but noted in the Probate entry as 'otherwise Albert', which precise epithet he was recorded under in 1939, and that there never was an Albert James Lovelock born 14 Oct 1910. > > Any arguments to the contrary gladly received!

Hello all, Here's a situation calling for some clear thinking and a logical approach, which I hope I have applied, but .... Free BMD records the death in the Hendon RD in Apr-Jun 1932 of Albert Lovelock at the age of 21, suggesting a birth in 1910 or 1911. Ancestry and Findmypast have the death of Albert James Lovelock born 14 Oct 1910, which death occurred on 29 May 1978 according to the National Probate Calendars data. Ancestry and Findmypast also have the death of Albert James Lovelock born 21 Oct 1910, which death occurred on 9 July 1978 according to the National Probate Calendars data. Free BMD has only three Albert births in 1910: Albert in Amersham RD, Albert H in Bedwellty RD, and Albert J in Kingston RD. There are no births of an Albert recorded in Jan-Mar, Apr-Jun or Jul-Sep 1911. Fortunately there is a little help available to sort out which was which, or so you might think. The Probate entry for the Albert James who died on 29 May 1978 refers to him as 'Albert James Lovelock otherwise Albert' suggesting that James was an additional name he had adopted for reasons unknown. But if he was just plain Albert he should be the subject of the 1932 death. So the situation seems to be that there was but one birth of an Albert, but possibly two deaths, or that there was but one birth of an Albert James, but possibly two deaths. The 1939 Register might be thought a good place to look next, but that doesn't identify a single Albert born in 1910. It does, however, include Albert born 14 Oct 1911, who must be the Albert J born in the Islington RD in Oct-Dec 1911. But would it not be a remarkable coincidence that an Albert J apparently born 14 Oct 1910 should not appear in the 1939 Register whilst an Albert J born precisely one year later does? I suggest, therefore, that the 1932 death is of the man born in the Amersham RD, that the man born 21 Oct 1910 is the man who died in Jul-Sep 1978, and that the man born on 14 Oct 1911 died in Apr-Jun 1978, recorded at his death as Albert James, and with the birthdate of 14 Oct 1910, but noted in the Probate entry as 'otherwise Albert', which precise epithet he was recorded under in 1939, and that there never was an Albert James Lovelock born 14 Oct 1910. Any arguments to the contrary gladly received! Regards Graham

Hi Graham, I may have an answer for Ethel Lovelock of 10 Kinsey House, Kingswood Estate, London d. 29 Mar 1963. There is a memorial record for her on Findmypast from Radnor Street, Swindon, although her death was registered in Camberwell. The memorial indicates that she was the second wife of Arthur Lovelock, which ties in with the detail on the Probate Calendar. His first wife wife Kate (nee Gregory) died in 1936 and also has a very similar memorial in Radnor Street. In the 1939 Register Arthur is shown as living alone as a widower at 223 Kingshill Road, Swindon, working as a railway shunter. Findmypast comes up with 2 entries for a marriage between Arthur Lovelock and an Ethel between 1939 & 1963 - one is to Ethel Hawker in Aldershot RD, Q3 1941, the other is to Ethel Davis in Bermondsey, Q1 1957. I'm inclined to believe it was the latter, given the address shown in the Probate Calendar, but at least we can be pretty certain of the identity of Arthur (I502 on Webtrees) and hence which line Ethel is on. Unless you (or anyone else) think otherwise? Best wishes Sue

Hi Graham Re: Walter LOVELOCK of 2 Church-street, Alton, Hant, 7 Jan 1945 Anna Maria Fishlock, widow I believe this is Walter LOVELOCK from the Lieflock Line His death on freebmd says he was 84 years old, which would means a birth of 1861, however... 1939 Register has his date of birth as 25 Jul 1856, a carpenter wheelwright widowed, living with Anna Fishlock (later Gould) his housekeeper and also widowed; also a child named John White at school. For some reason I believe he was estranged from his wife Matilda Sophie Lovelock, who is in the 1939 register in Pewsey Rural, married. When the family was together (1881, 1891, 1901, and 1911 censuses), Walter was a Wheelwright. His relationship with his housekeeper must have been significant for him to leave her £257. Anna Maria Fishlock was the wife of Edward Fishlock from Wiltshire. He died in Sep 1936, she was presumably with Walter Lovelock from 1939 to 1945. She married William Gould in 1946, and died 1948 Alton. Regards Vicki On 16 June 2016 at 01:37, Graham Lovelock via <lovelock@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Hello all, > > I have been working through the file which contains National Probate > Calendars Data from 1850 - 1995, trying to determine which of our family > trees each entry is connected with. > > There are still over 100 entries that I have been unable to allocate, but > I am sure there must be some on the Mailing List who can do better than me > at tracking down the affiliations. > > Please have a look - the problem ones (from my point of view!) are > obviously those with a question mark (?) in the right-hand column: > > http://lovelock.free.fr/documents/national-probate-wills-2.html > > Any contributions, as always, gratefully received. > > Regards > > Graham > > > > Virus-free. www.avast.com > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 >

That takes some of us back! Whilst there are probably nowhere near 8 million Lovelock stories there are still quite a few, and many without an ending, happy or otherwise. This is one of them. According to the Family Search website Arthur Lovelock, the son of Henry and Mary, was baptised in North Wingfield, Derbyshire on 11 Aug 1867. There is nothing to indicate that this was an adult baptism and yet, a familiar tale, Free BMD has no birth of an Arthur in Derbyshire in the 20 years from 1847 onwards. So if Arthur was not born there, how to track him down? The obvious approach is to look for marriages of a Henry Lovelock to a Mary. Doing such a search in Free BMD over the period 1838 to 1867 only provides 3 possibles. However, the marriage in 1849 was actually to Sophia Payne, and that couple are in the Dowdeswell Tree. The marriage in 1866 was to Louisa Howard, and I wrote about that the other day. Which leaves the marriage of Henry Lovelock in the Calne RD in Jul-Sep 1863, which might have been to Mary Reeves. In fact it was, and they appear in the Lyneham Line. Alas, Mary died in Jan-Mar 1865 so seems most unlikely to have been the mother of Arthur. She was married and died in Wiltshire so there is no obvious link to Derbyshire, and you will not be surprised to learn that there was no Arthur born in Wiltshire who could have been Mary's son according to Free BMD. Arthur does not appear in the 1871 Census, but there is no death between 1867 and 1871 that could be him. What's more, there is no Henry in 1871 with a wife Mary, nor in 1881 or 1891. In the apparent absence of any evidence to the contrary the FamilySearch baptism entry appears to be a work of pure fiction, just like so many of the stories from the naked city. Surely not? Regards Graham Virus-free. www.avast.com

Hello all, Please pardon the adaptation of Mr Shakespeare's immortal words. You will understand shortly. Amongst its many Lovelocks the Lieflock Line contains an Alfred Lovelock, the youngest of the 8 Lovelock children of Thomas Lovelock and Ann Nutley: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/individual.php?pid=I2291&ged=wilts-trees1 He appears in the 1871 Census aged 2, in 1881 aged 13, in 1891 aged 22, in 1901 aged 31, and in 1911 aged 40, with in each case his birthplace stated to be Lambourn. He was buried at Ashampstead, Berkshire on 29 Oct 1915. Lambourn is of course in the Hungerford RD, but no birth of an Alfred was registered there in 1868 - 1870. There was one in Jul-Sep 1866, but Alfred's sister Charlotte was born in the same quarter so that could not be Thomas and Ann's son. Curiously they had registered the births of the 7 children that preceded Alfred. In 1892 Alfred married Hannah Johnson, and in 1911 the next-youngest of their 6 children was Rose aged 8, born in Ashampstead. The birth was registered in Oct-Dec 1902, and she was baptised on 26 Oct in that year. At present that is where the story of Rose ends in the Lieflock Line. However, if we turn to our collection of 'Lovelocks in Kent' we find there the marriage in Southfleet on 1 Feb 1924 of Philip William Percy Coombes and Rose Lovelock, spinster. The 1939 Register contains the couple and Rose's birthdate is quoted as 1 Oct 1902. The entry also reveals that Rose later married Jonathan R C Day in Jan-Mar 1953; she died in the Reading and Wokingham RD in Mar 1990, the entry also quoting a birth date of 1 Oct 1902. That seems to be reasonable evidence that Mrs Coombes/Day was the daughter of Alfred and Hannah. But there a couple of flies in the ointment: at her first marriage Rose gave her father's name as Albert. Going back then to the Hungerford RD births for 1868 - 1870 to find Albert ..... and there isn't one. So did Rose know something we apparently don't? Did she or the incumbent/registrar make a genuine mistake? Have the FreeReg transcribers (from whence we drew the marriage detail) erred? The other possibility is of course that this was another Rose and not Alfred's daughter at all, but if so then her birth is not included in the Free BMD data. All of this mixture of fact and surmise is rather complicated by a note which appears in the current Free Reg entry which states that the Groom's father was deceased at the time of the marriage. The Bride's was presumably not so stated, which clearly implies that the Rose in the marriage was not Alfred's daughter. So who was she? Regards Graham Virus-free. www.avast.com

Graham, I reckon it must be the same person - Madeline is a pretty unusual name anyway, and given the facts which we do have (and indeed the same missing facts!), it's a perfectly reasonable theory. Well done yet again! Best wishes Sue ----Original message---- >From : lovelock@rootsweb.com Date : 17/06/2016 - 17:27 (GMTST) To : lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject : [LOVELOCK] One Madeline or Two? Hello all, One of the entries on our 'Strays' page concerns Madeline Lovelock, who makes just one appearance in the various on-line data sources: http://lovelock.free.fr/wip/Strays.html However, I have just noticed that in our 'Lovelocks in Gloucestershire' collection we have the marriage on 26 Aug 1883 of Madeline Lovelock and John William Lord. Madeline was declared to be 23 years old, and her father was Charles Edward Lovelock. It will come as no surprise to learn that Free BMD has no birth entry for a Madeline Lovelock in 1859 or 1860. In fact the first birth of a Madeline was not registered until 1886. The Lord family are easy enough to find in the 1891, 1901 and 1911 Census Returns, in which Madeline's details are as follows: 1891: Madeline F, age 29, born Beckenham, Kent 1901: Madeline F, age 38, born Beckenham, Kent 1911: Madeline Francis Agusta, age 48, born Bromley, Kent This leads us to an 1881 entry for Madeline Lovelock, aged 23, born in Kent. She eventually died at the declared age of 70 in 1933. The question therefore is were there two Madeline Lovelocks or one? If there were two it would be a remarkable coincidence for there to be no available record for the birth of either, and for both to have a father Charles Edward for whom Free BMD has no birth entry. Any comments, anyone? Regards Graham Virus-free. www.avast.com ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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