Hello all, In Jul-Sep 1918 Edward A H Wall married Lucy E Budd in the Fulham RD. In Oct-Dec 1920 Frederick Lovelock married Lucy M Budd, also in the Fulham RD. In 1939 the Register shows that all four were apparently living at 31 Epirus Road, Fulham. I say apparently as whoever completed the page recorded Mr and Mrs Wall at No 31, then recorded the inhabitants of No 33, and then recorded Mr and Mrs Lovelock at No 31, followed by the inhabitants of No 35, which does seem a little odd. When Frederick died in 1959 he was still living at No 31. His wife had died in 1946, and Administration of his estate was granted to Lucy Ethel Wall, so there clearly was a sustained relationship. But what of the coincidence of two Lucy Budds living at the same address? Lucy Ethel was born on 4 Jun 1898 according to the 1939 Register, although a '2' is written above the '4' and when she died in 1964 the death entry includes 2 Jun 1898 as the birthdate. In that case she was the daughter of Arthur Edgar Budd and Lucy Maude Fairhead who married in Jan-Mar 1898. Lucy M Budd was born on 24 Jul 1880 according to the 1939 Register, but there is no GRO record of such a birth. I expect you are galloping ahead of me here, and if so you will not be surprised to learn that Lucy Maud Fairhead was born in Jul-Sep 1879. Arthur Edgar Budd was born in 1878, but I have not found a death entry that fits. However, i suggest that Frederick Lovelock married Lucy Maude Budd (nee Lucy Maud Fairhead), and was therefore the step-father-in-law of Mr and Mrs Wall, with whom he and his wife were living in 1939, and that it thus makes perfect sense for the Administration of his estate to be granted to Lucy Ethel Wall. But of Arthur Edgar Budd .....? Regards, Graham [https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free. www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>

..... will possibly have noticed that a review of the Webtrees gedcom that contains this tree has resulted in a number of amendments. Details are on the 'What's New' page: http://lovelock.free.fr/new.html Notwithstanding this review, if you are have information which should have found its way into the file but has been missed please let me know and I will add it forthwith. Regards, Graham [https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free. www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>

Family History research stalled? Ennui setting in? Well here's a challenge to, perhaps, test the best: One member of the Lieflock Line is John Comley who claimed in 1891 to have been born about 1851 in Bushton in Wiltshire, and in 1901 to have been born about 1849 in Cleeve in Wiltshire: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/individual.php?pid=I3819&ged=wilts-trees1 I personally suspect he is the son of Jasper and Mary Comley who was recorded in 1851 as being 2 years of age and born in Clyffe Pypard in Wiltshire. One member of the Lyneham Line is Mary Comley who was baptised at Clyffe Pypard on 12 July 1840 as the daughter of William and Martha Comley: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/individual.php?pid=I1631&ged=wilts-trees2 So the challenge is can you establish a relationship between John and Mary? In case you are wondering, I have not reached a conclusion - it just seems to be a distinct possibility. Meanwhile I'm off on a WGC ..... Regards, Graham [https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free. www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>

Hello all, Ivy Gwendoline Burrows married William James Lovelock from the Lieflock Line in 1940. I have been contacted by her granddaughter to ask whether we have any other information on Ivy, in particular anything post-1944. Does anyone know what became of her? Regards, Graham [https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free. www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>

Hello all, I have added a couple of entries to the 'Lovelock and Loveluck Centenarians' page. The first concerns Mabel Grace Lovelock: http://lovelock.free.fr/wip/Lovelock%20Centenarians.html The second new entry is at the bottom of the page. Any comments welcome! Regards, Graham [https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free. www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>

Hi Graham There was some discussion about this man beginning on 21 October 2018 - Dianne Snowden purchased his marriage certificate :- "Henry Lovelock, a bachelor and fencer aged 21, married Lucy Emma McVicker, aged 17, 'of private life', on 4 July 1881 in Blayney Wesleyan Parsonage. Henry was the son of James Lovelock, a wheelwright, and Rosy (Bell). He was born in Windsor NSW." Sorry, I couldn't find anything else to add. Regards Vicki Houlbrooke On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 01:40, Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> wrote: > Hello all, > > One of the Public Member Trees at Ancestry begins with a William Henry > Lovelock who was apparently born in 1860 in Windsor, New South Wales. > > His birth is not mentioned in our NSW data, and is not recorded at the NSW > online index. > > According to the Public Member Tree he married Lucy Emma Mcvicker Thompson > in 1881 in Carcoar, NSW, which is also not in our data, and had 5 children, > the births of the middle 3 being included in our data. > > His wife died in 1916 at the age of 52 in Coledale, NSW which is in our > data, but the online Tree has no death date for William Henry. > > Does anyone know any more about this family, particularly of course who > William Henry's parents were? > > Regards, > > Graham > > _______________________________________________ > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Lovelock family history Web pages: > http://lovelock.free.fr/ > Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: > http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe > https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/lovelock@rootsweb.com > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: > https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb > community >

You may not have been enamoured of the music of an Australian group - The Celibate Rifles - about which Yann wrote in Issue 5 of 'Lovelock Lines' - but you will no doubt be saddened to hear that their frontman - Damien Lovelock - died of cancer at the age of 65 on 3 August.

Hello all, One of the Public Member Trees at Ancestry begins with a William Henry Lovelock who was apparently born in 1860 in Windsor, New South Wales. His birth is not mentioned in our NSW data, and is not recorded at the NSW online index. According to the Public Member Tree he married Lucy Emma Mcvicker Thompson in 1881 in Carcoar, NSW, which is also not in our data, and had 5 children, the births of the middle 3 being included in our data. His wife died in 1916 at the age of 52 in Coledale, NSW which is in our data, but the online Tree has no death date for William Henry. Does anyone know any more about this family, particularly of course who William Henry's parents were? Regards, Graham

Hello all, All those who like to see the identification of links between some of our Trees will be pleased to learn that another, albeit non-Lovelock, link has been found between the Lieflock Line and the Tangley Tree. It came about when John Edward Gilbert of the Lieflock Line married Ruth Mason of the Tangley Tree in Jan-Mar 1875. Regards, Graham

Not so much a puzzle as a set of puzzles it seems ... If we turn to our Lovelocks in Middlesex collection we find a birth entry in Haggerston culled from the old IGI that identifies John Stephen, born on 5 March 1846 and died on 15 February 1847, as the son of James Brockwell and Caroline Lovelock. How the submitter got precise dates I don't know and we don't know which parish's Register the entry apparently appeared in. We know that James and Caroline married in St Leonard's in Shoreditch on 4 March 1848, for they are members of the Farnham Tree. So is that the end of it all? Not a bit of it for also in the Lovelocks in Middlesex collection we find that on 24 May 1846 John Stephen the son of George and Caroline Lovelock was baptised in St Mary's, Haggerston. What on earth are we to make of all this? For a start I think we have to assume that there was only ever one John Stephen Lovelock, who was the illegitimate son of Caroline Lovelock. Either his birth was registered by a Mr Riggs, which might have been an alias, or there were two John Stephen births registered in the same quarter and the GRO has mistakenly omitted that of JSL from its online index. There are several bits of the puzzle I can't solve. Why was JSL baptised as the son of George and Caroline, unless Caroline claimed George had died? But then she was a spinster at her marriage so could not have been married to a George. And if a register does state thatl JSL was the son of James and Caroline as the IGI entry claims how could he not be baptised as such? And where is that register because the images at Ancestry that show his baptism and burial do not include dates of birth and death? Did someone purchase birth and death certificates for JSL and fabricate a fictional register entry, and if so why? Any thoughts anyone? Regards, Graham ________________________________ From: Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> Sent: 29 July 2019 11:21:36 To: Lovelock family history <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Subject: Re: A puzzle never to be solved? Hello all, Peter Calver has used the recent exchange I have had with him on the subject of John Stephen Lovelock to provide a research tip in his latest newsletter. If you call up the birth entry at Free BMD the details are: Jan-Mar 1846, Shoreditch RD, ref Volume 2 Page 395. The next step is to click on the Page number, which will reveal a list of 11 births. And one of those births is for a John Stephen Riggs. Presumably a Mr Riggs reported the birth and declared himself the father, or was present when the mother reported it, and so his name must appear on the birth certificate. When the GRO prepared their Online Index, which they have done from the certificates, John Stephen was shown to be illegitimate, which is why no mother's maiden name is shown. When the Index that Free BMD has was prepared the scribe followed custom and practice back then, which was to record the birth under both surnames, but of course the mother's maiden name was never included in those early indexes. Alas there is no record of a Riggs/Lovelock marriage, so we still do not know who John Stephen's mother was. Regards, Graham ________________________________ From: Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> Sent: 26 July 2019 16:43 To: Lovelock family history <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Subject: A puzzle never to be solved? Hello all, The reason for the question mark will eventually become clear. Both Free BMD and Findmypast have images of a Birth Index page which shows an entry for John Stephen Lovelock in the Jan-Mar quarter of 1846 in the Shoreditch Registration District. The images are not copies of each other so are presumably the result of two separate visits to the GRO for the purposes of obtaining the photographs. Alas, the Index which appears in the images does not of course record the mother's maiden name. Fortunately, I thought, the GRO Online Index of Births and Deaths includes the mother's maiden name for all births, so I have consulted appropriately. Alas once more, the GRO Online Index does not contain the Shoreditch entry. I have flagged this up to the GRO as either an error in their Index, or a missing entry. Their response is to advise that the indexed information (ie their index as opposed to what appears on Free BMD or Findmypast) is correct and that no amendment is required. The conclusion one then inevitably draws is that although the entry was included in the Index drawn up in, presumably, 1847 or shortly thereafter it should not have been, and is some kind of fabrication on the part either of the index scribe, or those persons who presented to the scribe what were ostensibly copies of the information received from the Shoreditch Register Office. Why that should be we can only speculate. But the matter does not end there. If you visit our 'Lovelocks in Surrey' data you will see that we have a transcript from the Burial Register of All Saints in Kingston upon Thames that records the burial on 15 Feb 1847 of John Stephen Lovelock, aged 11 months. So the situation seems to be, crazy as it may seem, that a John Stephen Lovelock, buried on 15 Feb 1847 at the age of 11 months was not registered at birth, and yet mysteriously and miraculously a birth entry for a John Stephen Lovelock was added to the Birth Index for the Jan-Mar quarter of 1846 that was prepared in or about 1847. The reason I got into this mess was to determine whether a suspicion of mine is true. That is, that considering that a Caroline Lovelock, the daughter of Stephen Lovelock from the Farnham Tree, married a James Brockwell in Shoreditch on 4 Mar 1848, it seemed entirely possible that she was the mother of John Stephen. If she was she seems not to have had her son baptised, something which would have meant I would never have started down this road in the first place. There seems no point in applying to the GRO for a copy of the Birth Certificate since, when they consult their own Index they will advise that the entry does not exist, and will charge £3.50 in order to so advise. I have been discussing the matter with Peter Calver of Lost Cousins, whom some of you may be aware of, and he has indicated that his next newsletter will include a solution to the problem. Any ideas what that might be? Regards, Graham

Hello all, Peter Calver has used the recent exchange I have had with him on the subject of John Stephen Lovelock to provide a research tip in his latest newsletter. If you call up the birth entry at Free BMD the details are: Jan-Mar 1846, Shoreditch RD, ref Volume 2 Page 395. The next step is to click on the Page number, which will reveal a list of 11 births. And one of those births is for a John Stephen Riggs. Presumably a Mr Riggs reported the birth and declared himself the father, or was present when the mother reported it, and so his name must appear on the birth certificate. When the GRO prepared their Online Index, which they have done from the certificates, John Stephen was shown to be illegitimate, which is why no mother's maiden name is shown. When the Index that Free BMD has was prepared the scribe followed custom and practice back then, which was to record the birth under both surnames, but of course the mother's maiden name was never included in those early indexes. Alas there is no record of a Riggs/Lovelock marriage, so we still do not know who John Stephen's mother was. Regards, Graham ________________________________ From: Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> Sent: 26 July 2019 16:43 To: Lovelock family history <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Subject: A puzzle never to be solved? Hello all, The reason for the question mark will eventually become clear. Both Free BMD and Findmypast have images of a Birth Index page which shows an entry for John Stephen Lovelock in the Jan-Mar quarter of 1846 in the Shoreditch Registration District. The images are not copies of each other so are presumably the result of two separate visits to the GRO for the purposes of obtaining the photographs. Alas, the Index which appears in the images does not of course record the mother's maiden name. Fortunately, I thought, the GRO Online Index of Births and Deaths includes the mother's maiden name for all births, so I have consulted appropriately. Alas once more, the GRO Online Index does not contain the Shoreditch entry. I have flagged this up to the GRO as either an error in their Index, or a missing entry. Their response is to advise that the indexed information (ie their index as opposed to what appears on Free BMD or Findmypast) is correct and that no amendment is required. The conclusion one then inevitably draws is that although the entry was included in the Index drawn up in, presumably, 1847 or shortly thereafter it should not have been, and is some kind of fabrication on the part either of the index scribe, or those persons who presented to the scribe what were ostensibly copies of the information received from the Shoreditch Register Office. Why that should be we can only speculate. But the matter does not end there. If you visit our 'Lovelocks in Surrey' data you will see that we have a transcript from the Burial Register of All Saints in Kingston upon Thames that records the burial on 15 Feb 1847 of John Stephen Lovelock, aged 11 months. So the situation seems to be, crazy as it may seem, that a John Stephen Lovelock, buried on 15 Feb 1847 at the age of 11 months was not registered at birth, and yet mysteriously and miraculously a birth entry for a John Stephen Lovelock was added to the Birth Index for the Jan-Mar quarter of 1846 that was prepared in or about 1847. The reason I got into this mess was to determine whether a suspicion of mine is true. That is, that considering that a Caroline Lovelock, the daughter of Stephen Lovelock from the Farnham Tree, married a James Brockwell in Shoreditch on 4 Mar 1848, it seemed entirely possible that she was the mother of John Stephen. If she was she seems not to have had her son baptised, something which would have meant I would never have started down this road in the first place. There seems no point in applying to the GRO for a copy of the Birth Certificate since, when they consult their own Index they will advise that the entry does not exist, and will charge £3.50 in order to so advise. I have been discussing the matter with Peter Calver of Lost Cousins, whom some of you may be aware of, and he has indicated that his next newsletter will include a solution to the problem. Any ideas what that might be? Regards, Graham

Hello all, If in a quiet moment (!!) you have browsed our 'Lovelocks in Kent' collection of data your attention may have been grabbed by the entry for 12 Oct 1908 at Boughton under Blean which records the marriage of Emma Lovelock, daughter of Frank, to Mark Marley. I believe the entry is not quite what it seems. I believe there never was an Emma daughter of Frank Lovelock, but that the young lady in question was the 14 year old Emma Lovelock recorded in 1901 as the adopted daughter of Frank and Charlotte Boulding. Emma's birth was registered in Jan-Mar 1887 in the West Ashford RD in Kent, and the GRO Online Index has no mother's name, suggesting that Emma was illegitimate. West Ashford RD includes Bethersden, which was given as Emma's birthplace in 1901. Turning again to the 'Lovelocks in Kent' data you will find the baptism on 9 Oct 1887 of Emma the daughter of Harriett at St Bartholomew in Waltham. Emma does not seem to be included in the 1891 Census, and there is no obvious candidate for the Harriett who might be her mother. The 1881 Census does not unequivocally help to identify Harriett either, although it does lead us to a curious entry. At 3 Silver Street in the St James area of Bristol in Gloucestershire we find Hy T L (sic) Lovelock, an out of employ Paper Maker, and his wife Harriet (nee Capeling), from the Tonbridge Tree. He declared he had been born in Maidstone and she in Ashford, both in Kent of course. They had married In Jan-Mar 1880 in the Barnstaple RD in Somerset. Just why they were in the West Country will always be a mystery I suppose, but more to the point Henry died in Jan-Mar 1885 in the Bristol RD, and Harriet in Apr-Jun 1889, in the Canterbury RD. The 1861 Census reveals that Harriet was born in Bethersden, so speculation - or is it? - leads me to conclude that after Henry's death Harriet returned to Kent, fell pregnant with Emma, and died whilst the child was only just 2 years old. Harriet's mother had died in 1883, her father was 74 years old and probably in no position to take on a 2 year old, and presumably her siblings declined to take the child on either. Although Emma was recorded as an adopted daughter in 1901 there was at the time no legal process of adoption, which may be why she retained the name Lovelock until her marriage. Emma had a daughter before she married who took the name Marley, and Mark Marley and Emma had at least 7 children. Emma eventually died in early 1968. Speculation? I'm inclined after all to think not. Comments welcome, of course. Regards, Graham

Thanks, Malcolm, and apologies to all. Hilda Jane Lovelock was actually born Jane Hildreth Comley, and she was a member of the Beckenham Tree. I had forgotten that Findmypast (still) have her indexed as Hilda (Florence) F Lovelock, despite my submission of a correction some time ago. The number of centenarians now stands at 12 Lovelocks, of whom 5 were born Lovelocks, and there are 2 ladies who married Lovelucks. I have added a page to the 'Work in Progress' section of the website which you can access through the 'Lovelock and Loveluck Centenarians' link in the yellow box on the 'Work in Progress' page: http://lovelock.free.fr/wip/wip.html Regards, Graham ________________________________ From: Malcolm Lovelock via LOVELOCK <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Sent: 27 July 2019 17:43 To: Lovelock family history <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Cc: Malcolm Lovelock <malcolm.lovelock@btinternet.com> Subject: [LOVELOCK] Re: Lovelock and Loveluck Centenarians Well done Graham, they did very well and nice to know. My Mum was nearly 98, but sadly never reached 100. Regards Malcolm "L" -----Original Message----- From: "Graham Lovelock" <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> Sent: ‎27/‎07/‎2019 16:09 To: "Lovelock family history" <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Subject: [LOVELOCK] Lovelock and Loveluck Centenarians Hello all, I have been trying to collect together details of Lovelock and Loveluck Centenarians. So far I have identified 5 who were born Lovelocks, 3 who marrried Lovelocks and one who married a Loveluck. One lady I have not identified is the Hilda Jane Lovelock who was born on 1 December 1889 and died in the Canterbury RD in Kent in 1991. I can not find a birth entry or a marriage, and she does not appear as Hilda Lovelock in the 1911 Census or the 1939 Register. Can anyone identify her? Regards, Graham _______________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/lovelock@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community _______________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/lovelock@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Well done Graham, they did very well and nice to know. My Mum was nearly 98, but sadly never reached 100. Regards Malcolm "L" -----Original Message----- From: "Graham Lovelock" <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> Sent: ‎27/‎07/‎2019 16:09 To: "Lovelock family history" <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Subject: [LOVELOCK] Lovelock and Loveluck Centenarians Hello all, I have been trying to collect together details of Lovelock and Loveluck Centenarians. So far I have identified 5 who were born Lovelocks, 3 who marrried Lovelocks and one who married a Loveluck. One lady I have not identified is the Hilda Jane Lovelock who was born on 1 December 1889 and died in the Canterbury RD in Kent in 1991. I can not find a birth entry or a marriage, and she does not appear as Hilda Lovelock in the 1911 Census or the 1939 Register. Can anyone identify her? Regards, Graham _______________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/lovelock@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Hello all, I have been trying to collect together details of Lovelock and Loveluck Centenarians. So far I have identified 5 who were born Lovelocks, 3 who marrried Lovelocks and one who married a Loveluck. One lady I have not identified is the Hilda Jane Lovelock who was born on 1 December 1889 and died in the Canterbury RD in Kent in 1991. I can not find a birth entry or a marriage, and she does not appear as Hilda Lovelock in the 1911 Census or the 1939 Register. Can anyone identify her? Regards, Graham

Fabulous, Rose! Many (belated) happy returns to Great Uncle Max. And absolutely entitled to be living it up. Kind regards, Graham ________________________________ From: rtj7@optusnet.com.au <rtj7@optusnet.com.au> Sent: 27 July 2019 09:44 To: 'Lovelock family history' <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Subject: [LOVELOCK] Re: Another one joins the club ! Hi Graham Another one for you- my great uncle Max Lovelock born 27/5/13- 106 years! Still living it up in Yeppoon, Queensland, Australia. Wallingford Berks Line. Regards Rose Adams Ipswich Queensland Australia -----Original Message----- From: Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> Sent: Saturday, 27 July 2019 4:53 AM To: Lovelock family history <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Subject: [LOVELOCK] Another one joins the club ! Hello all, I am referring to the '100 Plus club'. Kate Lovelock from the Lyneham Line was born on 23 Feb 1894 according to the 1939 Register. She married Frederick Simmonds in 1927 and died as Kate Simmonds in Mar 1995: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/individual.php?pid=I3856&ged=wilts-trees2 A bit late in Kate's case to offer congratulations, but it's nice to find yet another example of the longevity of some of those Lovelock genes. Regards, Graham _______________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/lovelock@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community _______________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/lovelock@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Whoooo Hooo Congratulations to Max ------ Original Message ------ From: rtj7@optusnet.com.au To: "'Lovelock family history'" <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, 27 Jul, 2019 At 6:44 PM Subject: [LOVELOCK] Re: Another one joins the club ! Hi Graham Another one for you- my great uncle Max Lovelock born 27/5/13- 106 years! Still living it up in Yeppoon, Queensland, Australia. Wallingford Berks Line. Regards Rose Adams Ipswich Queensland Australia -----Original Message----- From: Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> Sent: Saturday, 27 July 2019 4:53 AM To: Lovelock family history <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Subject: [LOVELOCK] Another one joins the club ! Hello all, I am referring to the '100 Plus club'. Kate Lovelock from the Lyneham Line was born on 23 Feb 1894 according to the 1939 Register. She married Frederick Simmonds in 1927 and died as Kate Simmonds in Mar 1995: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/individual.php?pid=I3856&ged=wilts-trees2 A bit late in Kate's case to offer congratulations, but it's nice to find yet another example of the longevity of some of those Lovelock genes. Regards, Graham _______________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/lovelock@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community _______________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/lovelock@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Hi Graham Another one for you- my great uncle Max Lovelock born 27/5/13- 106 years! Still living it up in Yeppoon, Queensland, Australia. Wallingford Berks Line. Regards Rose Adams Ipswich Queensland Australia -----Original Message----- From: Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> Sent: Saturday, 27 July 2019 4:53 AM To: Lovelock family history <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Subject: [LOVELOCK] Another one joins the club ! Hello all, I am referring to the '100 Plus club'. Kate Lovelock from the Lyneham Line was born on 23 Feb 1894 according to the 1939 Register. She married Frederick Simmonds in 1927 and died as Kate Simmonds in Mar 1995: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/individual.php?pid=I3856&ged=wilts-trees2 A bit late in Kate's case to offer congratulations, but it's nice to find yet another example of the longevity of some of those Lovelock genes. Regards, Graham _______________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/lovelock@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Hello all, I am referring to the '100 Plus club'. Kate Lovelock from the Lyneham Line was born on 23 Feb 1894 according to the 1939 Register. She married Frederick Simmonds in 1927 and died as Kate Simmonds in Mar 1995: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/individual.php?pid=I3856&ged=wilts-trees2 A bit late in Kate's case to offer congratulations, but it's nice to find yet another example of the longevity of some of those Lovelock genes. Regards, Graham

Hello all, The reason for the question mark will eventually become clear. Both Free BMD and Findmypast have images of a Birth Index page which shows an entry for John Stephen Lovelock in the Jan-Mar quarter of 1846 in the Shoreditch Registration District. The images are not copies of each other so are presumably the result of two separate visits to the GRO for the purposes of obtaining the photographs. Alas, the Index which appears in the images does not of course record the mother's maiden name. Fortunately, I thought, the GRO Online Index of Births and Deaths includes the mother's maiden name for all births, so I have consulted appropriately. Alas once more, the GRO Online Index does not contain the Shoreditch entry. I have flagged this up to the GRO as either an error in their Index, or a missing entry. Their response is to advise that the indexed information (ie their index as opposed to what appears on Free BMD or Findmypast) is correct and that no amendment is required. The conclusion one then inevitably draws is that although the entry was included in the Index drawn up in, presumably, 1847 or shortly thereafter it should not have been, and is some kind of fabrication on the part either of the index scribe, or those persons who presented to the scribe what were ostensibly copies of the information received from the Shoreditch Register Office. Why that should be we can only speculate. But the matter does not end there. If you visit our 'Lovelocks in Surrey' data you will see that we have a transcript from the Burial Register of All Saints in Kingston upon Thames that records the burial on 15 Feb 1847 of John Stephen Lovelock, aged 11 months. So the situation seems to be, crazy as it may seem, that a John Stephen Lovelock, buried on 15 Feb 1847 at the age of 11 months was not registered at birth, and yet mysteriously and miraculously a birth entry for a John Stephen Lovelock was added to the Birth Index for the Jan-Mar quarter of 1846 that was prepared in or about 1847. The reason I got into this mess was to determine whether a suspicion of mine is true. That is, that considering that a Caroline Lovelock, the daughter of Stephen Lovelock from the Farnham Tree, married a James Brockwell in Shoreditch on 4 Mar 1848, it seemed entirely possible that she was the mother of John Stephen. If she was she seems not to have had her son baptised, something which would have meant I would never have started down this road in the first place. There seems no point in applying to the GRO for a copy of the Birth Certificate since, when they consult their own Index they will advise that the entry does not exist, and will charge £3.50 in order to so advise. I have been discussing the matter with Peter Calver of Lost Cousins, whom some of you may be aware of, and he has indicated that his next newsletter will include a solution to the problem. Any ideas what that might be? Regards, Graham