A great Lovelock to inspire us all.... Yes, Many Happy Returns, James ------ Original Message ------ From: "Graham Lovelock" <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> To: "Lovelock family history" <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, 26 Jul, 2019 At 9:11 AM Subject: [LOVELOCK] A matter for celebration Hello all, There can be little doubt that the most famous living Lovelock is James Ephraim Lovelock, Chemist, Inventor and one of the originators of the 'Gaia Hypothesis', which proposes that Earth and its biosphere are a single, self-regulating organism. He has at times been a prophet of doom, regarding the survival of humans, but in his latest book he has adopted a more positive view that computers, in a form that we would presently label robots, will see the benefits of preserving the human race, and at the same time will unleash marvels that to us are, and will be, unpredictable as the machines learn more and more about how to program themselves and, in turn, their descendants. Whatever your opinion of James Ephraim's opinions is there is no doubt that at the age of 99 he still possesses a remarkably active and fertile mind. And today he is 100 years old. We doubt very much that he will be aware of this particular message, but just in case it is brought to his attention we offer him sincere congratulations for joining that very select band - Lovelocks who have completed a century. We have links on our 'Notable and Noteworthy Lovelocks' page that provide his CV and more information on the Gaia Hypothesis which you may wish to pursue: http://lovelock.free.fr/famous.htm Many Happy Returns, James ! _______________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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, There can be little doubt that the most famous living Lovelock is James Ephraim Lovelock, Chemist, Inventor and one of the originators of the 'Gaia Hypothesis', which proposes that Earth and its biosphere are a single, self-regulating organism. He has at times been a prophet of doom, regarding the survival of humans, but in his latest book he has adopted a more positive view that computers, in a form that we would presently label robots, will see the benefits of preserving the human race, and at the same time will unleash marvels that to us are, and will be, unpredictable as the machines learn more and more about how to program themselves and, in turn, their descendants. Whatever your opinion of James Ephraim's opinions is there is no doubt that at the age of 99 he still possesses a remarkably active and fertile mind. And today he is 100 years old. We doubt very much that he will be aware of this particular message, but just in case it is brought to his attention we offer him sincere congratulations for joining that very select band - Lovelocks who have completed a century. We have links on our 'Notable and Noteworthy Lovelocks' page that provide his CV and more information on the Gaia Hypothesis which you may wish to pursue: http://lovelock.free.fr/famous.htm Many Happy Returns, James !

The last of Sarah Jane's children - Abel Pearcey - would seem to be the gentleman shown in this 1947 photograph: http://www.ryeharbour.net/picture/number374.asp But if it is him he missed the 1939 Register ... and is apparently still living! Regards, Graham ________________________________ From: Alyson Lovelock via LOVELOCK <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Sent: 17 July 2019 23:04 To: Lovelock family history Cc: Alyson Lovelock Subject: [LOVELOCK] Re: More fibs revealed ... I have often wondered about that entry because her brother John Lovelock is also listed at the same work house. However after that there seems to be no records of her, marriages or death. Sarah Jane did marry John Pearcey and they had 6 children. Regards Alyson Sent from my iPad > On 17 Jul 2019, at 13:57, Hilary Smith via LOVELOCK <lovelock@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Hi Graham > > I have found an entry on the 1871 census (ancestry) that has an Emily Lovelock, age 24, born 1847, as an inmate at Union House, Elcot. Could this be her even though it says she was born in London? > > I have found a marriage for Sarah Jane to John Pearcy, Lambeth 22 Dec 1861 and one of the witnesses was her brother Henry. > > Regards > Hilary > > >> On 16 Jul 2019, at 23:44, Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> Good to hear from you again, Alyson. >> >> I have added a note to Emily's entry. >> >> One thought I've just had is that perhaps some time before she died Susan told Emily who her father was and Emily subsequently used his surname. Of course if she did we will never know. I guess it's possible that Emily's sister Sarah Jane knew and it was she who told Emily. A rather unlikely scenario in either case, I agree. >> >> Very odd that there seems to be absolutely no trace of either Emily or her sister after 1851 in Sarah's case or 1861 in Emily's. Remarkable that both just seem to have vanished. >> >> Regards, >> >> Graham >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Alyson Lovelock via LOVELOCK <lovelock@rootsweb.com> >> Sent: 16 July 2019 23:01 >> To: Lovelock family history >> Cc: Alyson Lovelock >> Subject: [LOVELOCK] Re: More fibs revealed ... >> >> The fathers name was left Blank ! >> Sadly I have never been able to trace Emily after her mother died. >> >> >> Regards >> >> Alyson >> Sent from my iPad >> >>> On 16 Jul 2019, at 14:10, Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hello all, >>> >>> We know that ladies in some of our data were a little coy about revealing their true age, and another one, from the Second Wootton Rivers Tree, has been revealed. >>> >>> Susan (Sukey) Hunt married James Lovelock on 24 April 1834. James was 48 or 49 years old at the time, so rather a late marriage for him. >>> >>> In 1841 their ages were apparently recorded correctly rather than being rounded down, as the instructions to Enumerators ordained. James was 55 and Susan was 37. >>> >>> James died in 1843, his age in the death registration entry and the Bishop's Transcript of the burial both being given as 58, which is entirely consistent with the 1841 entry if his birthday fell between 1 April and 2 December. We know he was baptised in August, so all seems in order. >>> >>> In 1851 Susan was 40 years old, having miraculously only aged 3 years since 1841. >>> >>> In 1861 Susan was 44 years old, having by another miracle only aged 4 years since 1851. >>> >>> But then sometime between 8 April and 25 August 1861 things caught up with her, with her age recorded in the death registration entry and the Bishop's Transcript of the burial both being given as 60. So for the 1861 Census she had the nerve to take 15 or 16 years off her age! The Enumerator's handwriting is exceptionally clear, so there can be no doubting that she was fibbing. >>> >>> Alas there seems to be no record of her baptism, even with the revised date of birth. >>> >>> But that's not quite the end of it, for Susan has one other 'oddity' to note. Husband James died on 2 Dec 1843 according to his death certificate, a copy of which is in the possession of Alyson Lovelock. And yet Susan's daughter Emily was born on 19 Oct 1845. Alyson has a copy of that certificate, too, so if you are reading this, Alyson, who is named as Emily's father? >>> >>> 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 _______________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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

I have often wondered about that entry because her brother John Lovelock is also listed at the same work house. However after that there seems to be no records of her, marriages or death. Sarah Jane did marry John Pearcey and they had 6 children. Regards Alyson Sent from my iPad > On 17 Jul 2019, at 13:57, Hilary Smith via LOVELOCK <lovelock@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Hi Graham > > I have found an entry on the 1871 census (ancestry) that has an Emily Lovelock, age 24, born 1847, as an inmate at Union House, Elcot. Could this be her even though it says she was born in London? > > I have found a marriage for Sarah Jane to John Pearcy, Lambeth 22 Dec 1861 and one of the witnesses was her brother Henry. > > Regards > Hilary > > >> On 16 Jul 2019, at 23:44, Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> Good to hear from you again, Alyson. >> >> I have added a note to Emily's entry. >> >> One thought I've just had is that perhaps some time before she died Susan told Emily who her father was and Emily subsequently used his surname. Of course if she did we will never know. I guess it's possible that Emily's sister Sarah Jane knew and it was she who told Emily. A rather unlikely scenario in either case, I agree. >> >> Very odd that there seems to be absolutely no trace of either Emily or her sister after 1851 in Sarah's case or 1861 in Emily's. Remarkable that both just seem to have vanished. >> >> Regards, >> >> Graham >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Alyson Lovelock via LOVELOCK <lovelock@rootsweb.com> >> Sent: 16 July 2019 23:01 >> To: Lovelock family history >> Cc: Alyson Lovelock >> Subject: [LOVELOCK] Re: More fibs revealed ... >> >> The fathers name was left Blank ! >> Sadly I have never been able to trace Emily after her mother died. >> >> >> Regards >> >> Alyson >> Sent from my iPad >> >>> On 16 Jul 2019, at 14:10, Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hello all, >>> >>> We know that ladies in some of our data were a little coy about revealing their true age, and another one, from the Second Wootton Rivers Tree, has been revealed. >>> >>> Susan (Sukey) Hunt married James Lovelock on 24 April 1834. James was 48 or 49 years old at the time, so rather a late marriage for him. >>> >>> In 1841 their ages were apparently recorded correctly rather than being rounded down, as the instructions to Enumerators ordained. James was 55 and Susan was 37. >>> >>> James died in 1843, his age in the death registration entry and the Bishop's Transcript of the burial both being given as 58, which is entirely consistent with the 1841 entry if his birthday fell between 1 April and 2 December. We know he was baptised in August, so all seems in order. >>> >>> In 1851 Susan was 40 years old, having miraculously only aged 3 years since 1841. >>> >>> In 1861 Susan was 44 years old, having by another miracle only aged 4 years since 1851. >>> >>> But then sometime between 8 April and 25 August 1861 things caught up with her, with her age recorded in the death registration entry and the Bishop's Transcript of the burial both being given as 60. So for the 1861 Census she had the nerve to take 15 or 16 years off her age! The Enumerator's handwriting is exceptionally clear, so there can be no doubting that she was fibbing. >>> >>> Alas there seems to be no record of her baptism, even with the revised date of birth. >>> >>> But that's not quite the end of it, for Susan has one other 'oddity' to note. Husband James died on 2 Dec 1843 according to his death certificate, a copy of which is in the possession of Alyson Lovelock. And yet Susan's daughter Emily was born on 19 Oct 1845. Alyson has a copy of that certificate, too, so if you are reading this, Alyson, who is named as Emily's father? >>> >>> 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

Some brilliant sleuthing, Hilary! I have added the details of Sarah Jane's marriage, and further investigation has revealed no less than 9 children of the marriage, of whose ultimate fates I have managed to find 7: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/individual.php?pid=I61&ged=wilts-trees2 She and John were a bit wayward in describing their places of birth, but I'm sure we can accept that: In 1861 John claimed to have been born in Whatton, Wiltshire, which I assume means Whaddon. Incidentally, he was visiting the Butcher family, and Charlotte Butcher was the other witness to his marriage. In 1871 John born Salisbury, Wilts, Sarah born Melbourne (which I assume is the Enumerator's version of Marlborough), Wilts In 1881 John born Wiltshire, Sarah (recorded as Jane) born Malborough (sic), Wilts In 1891 John born Malborough (sic), Wilts, Sarah (recorded as Jane again) born Salisbury, Wilts What's really annoying is that Sarah seems to have gone unrecorded in the 1861 Census. Presumably she was somewhere in the Lambeth area, probably in domestic service, and possibly for a while. Obviously in no position to take on her sister and brother when their mother died, and Henry certainly couldn't as he had joined the Army. John had been mentally deficient from birth, so there was no other option than for him to enter the Workhouse, but presumably Emily was in possession of all her faculties, which makes one wonder why her birthplace was recorded as London in 1871, if it is indeed she, when she must have known she was born in Marlborough. Or did her mother tell her she was born in London as part of a cover-up? But that doesn't gel with Susan stating in 1851 and 1861 that Emily was born in Marlborough. Trouble is, of course, that there's apparently no record of an Emily being born anywhere in London in 1847 or thereabouts. However, thanks to you we have solved a significant part of the puzzle. Regards, Graham ________________________________ From: Hilary Smith via LOVELOCK <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Sent: 17 July 2019 13:57 To: Lovelock family history Cc: Hilary Smith Subject: [LOVELOCK] Re: More fibs revealed ... Hi Graham I have found an entry on the 1871 census (ancestry) that has an Emily Lovelock, age 24, born 1847, as an inmate at Union House, Elcot. Could this be her even though it says she was born in London? I have found a marriage for Sarah Jane to John Pearcy, Lambeth 22 Dec 1861 and one of the witnesses was her brother Henry. Regards Hilary > On 16 Jul 2019, at 23:44, Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Good to hear from you again, Alyson. > > I have added a note to Emily's entry. > > One thought I've just had is that perhaps some time before she died Susan told Emily who her father was and Emily subsequently used his surname. Of course if she did we will never know. I guess it's possible that Emily's sister Sarah Jane knew and it was she who told Emily. A rather unlikely scenario in either case, I agree. > > Very odd that there seems to be absolutely no trace of either Emily or her sister after 1851 in Sarah's case or 1861 in Emily's. Remarkable that both just seem to have vanished. > > Regards, > > Graham > > ________________________________ > From: Alyson Lovelock via LOVELOCK <lovelock@rootsweb.com> > Sent: 16 July 2019 23:01 > To: Lovelock family history > Cc: Alyson Lovelock > Subject: [LOVELOCK] Re: More fibs revealed ... > > The fathers name was left Blank ! > Sadly I have never been able to trace Emily after her mother died. > > > Regards > > Alyson > Sent from my iPad > >> On 16 Jul 2019, at 14:10, Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hello all, >> >> We know that ladies in some of our data were a little coy about revealing their true age, and another one, from the Second Wootton Rivers Tree, has been revealed. >> >> Susan (Sukey) Hunt married James Lovelock on 24 April 1834. James was 48 or 49 years old at the time, so rather a late marriage for him. >> >> In 1841 their ages were apparently recorded correctly rather than being rounded down, as the instructions to Enumerators ordained. James was 55 and Susan was 37. >> >> James died in 1843, his age in the death registration entry and the Bishop's Transcript of the burial both being given as 58, which is entirely consistent with the 1841 entry if his birthday fell between 1 April and 2 December. We know he was baptised in August, so all seems in order. >> >> In 1851 Susan was 40 years old, having miraculously only aged 3 years since 1841. >> >> In 1861 Susan was 44 years old, having by another miracle only aged 4 years since 1851. >> >> But then sometime between 8 April and 25 August 1861 things caught up with her, with her age recorded in the death registration entry and the Bishop's Transcript of the burial both being given as 60. So for the 1861 Census she had the nerve to take 15 or 16 years off her age! The Enumerator's handwriting is exceptionally clear, so there can be no doubting that she was fibbing. >> >> Alas there seems to be no record of her baptism, even with the revised date of birth. >> >> But that's not quite the end of it, for Susan has one other 'oddity' to note. Husband James died on 2 Dec 1843 according to his death certificate, a copy of which is in the possession of Alyson Lovelock. And yet Susan's daughter Emily was born on 19 Oct 1845. Alyson has a copy of that certificate, too, so if you are reading this, Alyson, who is named as Emily's father? >> >> 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 I have found an entry on the 1871 census (ancestry) that has an Emily Lovelock, age 24, born 1847, as an inmate at Union House, Elcot. Could this be her even though it says she was born in London? I have found a marriage for Sarah Jane to John Pearcy, Lambeth 22 Dec 1861 and one of the witnesses was her brother Henry. Regards Hilary > On 16 Jul 2019, at 23:44, Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Good to hear from you again, Alyson. > > I have added a note to Emily's entry. > > One thought I've just had is that perhaps some time before she died Susan told Emily who her father was and Emily subsequently used his surname. Of course if she did we will never know. I guess it's possible that Emily's sister Sarah Jane knew and it was she who told Emily. A rather unlikely scenario in either case, I agree. > > Very odd that there seems to be absolutely no trace of either Emily or her sister after 1851 in Sarah's case or 1861 in Emily's. Remarkable that both just seem to have vanished. > > Regards, > > Graham > > ________________________________ > From: Alyson Lovelock via LOVELOCK <lovelock@rootsweb.com> > Sent: 16 July 2019 23:01 > To: Lovelock family history > Cc: Alyson Lovelock > Subject: [LOVELOCK] Re: More fibs revealed ... > > The fathers name was left Blank ! > Sadly I have never been able to trace Emily after her mother died. > > > Regards > > Alyson > Sent from my iPad > >> On 16 Jul 2019, at 14:10, Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hello all, >> >> We know that ladies in some of our data were a little coy about revealing their true age, and another one, from the Second Wootton Rivers Tree, has been revealed. >> >> Susan (Sukey) Hunt married James Lovelock on 24 April 1834. James was 48 or 49 years old at the time, so rather a late marriage for him. >> >> In 1841 their ages were apparently recorded correctly rather than being rounded down, as the instructions to Enumerators ordained. James was 55 and Susan was 37. >> >> James died in 1843, his age in the death registration entry and the Bishop's Transcript of the burial both being given as 58, which is entirely consistent with the 1841 entry if his birthday fell between 1 April and 2 December. We know he was baptised in August, so all seems in order. >> >> In 1851 Susan was 40 years old, having miraculously only aged 3 years since 1841. >> >> In 1861 Susan was 44 years old, having by another miracle only aged 4 years since 1851. >> >> But then sometime between 8 April and 25 August 1861 things caught up with her, with her age recorded in the death registration entry and the Bishop's Transcript of the burial both being given as 60. So for the 1861 Census she had the nerve to take 15 or 16 years off her age! The Enumerator's handwriting is exceptionally clear, so there can be no doubting that she was fibbing. >> >> Alas there seems to be no record of her baptism, even with the revised date of birth. >> >> But that's not quite the end of it, for Susan has one other 'oddity' to note. Husband James died on 2 Dec 1843 according to his death certificate, a copy of which is in the possession of Alyson Lovelock. And yet Susan's daughter Emily was born on 19 Oct 1845. Alyson has a copy of that certificate, too, so if you are reading this, Alyson, who is named as Emily's father? >> >> 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

Good to hear from you again, Alyson. I have added a note to Emily's entry. One thought I've just had is that perhaps some time before she died Susan told Emily who her father was and Emily subsequently used his surname. Of course if she did we will never know. I guess it's possible that Emily's sister Sarah Jane knew and it was she who told Emily. A rather unlikely scenario in either case, I agree. Very odd that there seems to be absolutely no trace of either Emily or her sister after 1851 in Sarah's case or 1861 in Emily's. Remarkable that both just seem to have vanished. Regards, Graham ________________________________ From: Alyson Lovelock via LOVELOCK <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Sent: 16 July 2019 23:01 To: Lovelock family history Cc: Alyson Lovelock Subject: [LOVELOCK] Re: More fibs revealed ... The fathers name was left Blank ! Sadly I have never been able to trace Emily after her mother died. Regards Alyson Sent from my iPad > On 16 Jul 2019, at 14:10, Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Hello all, > > We know that ladies in some of our data were a little coy about revealing their true age, and another one, from the Second Wootton Rivers Tree, has been revealed. > > Susan (Sukey) Hunt married James Lovelock on 24 April 1834. James was 48 or 49 years old at the time, so rather a late marriage for him. > > In 1841 their ages were apparently recorded correctly rather than being rounded down, as the instructions to Enumerators ordained. James was 55 and Susan was 37. > > James died in 1843, his age in the death registration entry and the Bishop's Transcript of the burial both being given as 58, which is entirely consistent with the 1841 entry if his birthday fell between 1 April and 2 December. We know he was baptised in August, so all seems in order. > > In 1851 Susan was 40 years old, having miraculously only aged 3 years since 1841. > > In 1861 Susan was 44 years old, having by another miracle only aged 4 years since 1851. > > But then sometime between 8 April and 25 August 1861 things caught up with her, with her age recorded in the death registration entry and the Bishop's Transcript of the burial both being given as 60. So for the 1861 Census she had the nerve to take 15 or 16 years off her age! The Enumerator's handwriting is exceptionally clear, so there can be no doubting that she was fibbing. > > Alas there seems to be no record of her baptism, even with the revised date of birth. > > But that's not quite the end of it, for Susan has one other 'oddity' to note. Husband James died on 2 Dec 1843 according to his death certificate, a copy of which is in the possession of Alyson Lovelock. And yet Susan's daughter Emily was born on 19 Oct 1845. Alyson has a copy of that certificate, too, so if you are reading this, Alyson, who is named as Emily's father? > > Regards, > > Graham

The fathers name was left Blank ! Sadly I have never been able to trace Emily after her mother died. Regards Alyson Sent from my iPad > On 16 Jul 2019, at 14:10, Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Hello all, > > We know that ladies in some of our data were a little coy about revealing their true age, and another one, from the Second Wootton Rivers Tree, has been revealed. > > Susan (Sukey) Hunt married James Lovelock on 24 April 1834. James was 48 or 49 years old at the time, so rather a late marriage for him. > > In 1841 their ages were apparently recorded correctly rather than being rounded down, as the instructions to Enumerators ordained. James was 55 and Susan was 37. > > James died in 1843, his age in the death registration entry and the Bishop's Transcript of the burial both being given as 58, which is entirely consistent with the 1841 entry if his birthday fell between 1 April and 2 December. We know he was baptised in August, so all seems in order. > > In 1851 Susan was 40 years old, having miraculously only aged 3 years since 1841. > > In 1861 Susan was 44 years old, having by another miracle only aged 4 years since 1851. > > But then sometime between 8 April and 25 August 1861 things caught up with her, with her age recorded in the death registration entry and the Bishop's Transcript of the burial both being given as 60. So for the 1861 Census she had the nerve to take 15 or 16 years off her age! The Enumerator's handwriting is exceptionally clear, so there can be no doubting that she was fibbing. > > Alas there seems to be no record of her baptism, even with the revised date of birth. > > But that's not quite the end of it, for Susan has one other 'oddity' to note. Husband James died on 2 Dec 1843 according to his death certificate, a copy of which is in the possession of Alyson Lovelock. And yet Susan's daughter Emily was born on 19 Oct 1845. Alyson has a copy of that certificate, too, so if you are reading this, Alyson, who is named as Emily's father? > > 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, We know that ladies in some of our data were a little coy about revealing their true age, and another one, from the Second Wootton Rivers Tree, has been revealed. Susan (Sukey) Hunt married James Lovelock on 24 April 1834. James was 48 or 49 years old at the time, so rather a late marriage for him. In 1841 their ages were apparently recorded correctly rather than being rounded down, as the instructions to Enumerators ordained. James was 55 and Susan was 37. James died in 1843, his age in the death registration entry and the Bishop's Transcript of the burial both being given as 58, which is entirely consistent with the 1841 entry if his birthday fell between 1 April and 2 December. We know he was baptised in August, so all seems in order. In 1851 Susan was 40 years old, having miraculously only aged 3 years since 1841. In 1861 Susan was 44 years old, having by another miracle only aged 4 years since 1851. But then sometime between 8 April and 25 August 1861 things caught up with her, with her age recorded in the death registration entry and the Bishop's Transcript of the burial both being given as 60. So for the 1861 Census she had the nerve to take 15 or 16 years off her age! The Enumerator's handwriting is exceptionally clear, so there can be no doubting that she was fibbing. Alas there seems to be no record of her baptism, even with the revised date of birth. But that's not quite the end of it, for Susan has one other 'oddity' to note. Husband James died on 2 Dec 1843 according to his death certificate, a copy of which is in the possession of Alyson Lovelock. And yet Susan's daughter Emily was born on 19 Oct 1845. Alyson has a copy of that certificate, too, so if you are reading this, Alyson, who is named as Emily's father? Regards, Graham

Hello all, Data from the Army Registers of Soldiers' Effects for the years 1901-1929 has been added to the Military and War Records section of the 'General Sources' page: http://lovelock.free.fr/gen-records.htm#military We have details in other records of many of the men listed here, but the majority of the Register entries name a relative to whom gratuities were sent, thereby confirming most of the mens' identities. Despite that there are 6 men for whom I have not managed to identify the tree they belong to. All but two of those listed in the table died in the First World War. The exceptions both died in 1903, one in India, that we already had listed in the modicum of Indian Records we have accumulated, and the other in Cork in Ireland, whose fate we had hitherto been unaware of. Regards, Graham

Hello all, Herbert George Lovelock was killed on 1 July 1916 during the Somme Offensive in France, and is commemorated on the Thiepval Memorial. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission's website has no details of his next of kin. Free BMD records only one Herbert George Lovelock birth - in Apr-Jun 1880 in the Croydon Registration District (RD). But he died in 1947, so is not the man on the Memorial. There was a George Herbert Lovelock - the only one - born in Oct-Dec 1886 in Chertsey RD, but he died in 1953 so is not the man on the Memorial either. The clue to solving the puzzle is an entry in the Register of Soldier's Effects at Ancestry.co.uk which authorises a payment to Herbert's uncle Daniel. To cut a long story short Herbert was actually registered at birth as Hubert George, and is recorded as Hurbert G in the 1901 Census and George in 1911, on both occasions living with his uncle Daniel: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/individual.php?pid=I8238&ged=wilts-trees1 Also, the GRO Online Birth Index confirms that his mother's maiden name was Harris, establishing his parents as Charles Lovelock and Alice Jane Harris. The puzzle we are left with is what happened to Alice Jane, and where was Charles in 1901 and 1911? Any suggestions gratefully received. Regards, Graham

Hello all, Information on 57 Baptisms, 76 Marriages and 10 Burials has been added to our collection of 'Lovelocks in Essex': http://lovelock.free.fr/documents/Lovelocks-in-Essex.html All of the new entries are temporarily rendered in red. Few of the new entries have been linked to one or other of our family trees as yet - any help with doing that would be appreciated. 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, If you are looking for something to do in the lazy, hazy days of (Northern Hemisphere) Summer or the stay-at-home-by-the-fire days of (Southern Hemisphere) Winter you could do worse than to cast your eyes over the list of Lovelock Deaths in the US Social Security Index: http://lovelock.free.fr/documents/Deaths-in-the-US-SSI.html Each entry has the Date of Birth, which should (famous last words) enable us to identify the Lovelock in question. However, a quick scan of a few random entries shows that several of those listed managed to avoid being captured in any US Census and as many others seem to have quoted entirely random ages to the Enumerators. Of course there could be a number of explanations for the anomalies, but it would be good if we could identify once and for all which tree some of those currently unaffiliated belong to. If you can label some please let us know. 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, Here's what we know about Francis Thomas Lovelock from the St Pancras (Main) Tree: Francis sailed from Liverpool on 14 Dec 1929 to Buenos Aires on 'La Rosarina'. His occupation was recorded as Telephone Engineer. He next appears in Jamaica where on Friday 29 June 1945 'The Daily Gleaner' reported that the Rev Francis T Lovelock would be preaching at the Ebenezer Methodist Chapel at 11am on Sunday 1 July, and at the Allman Town Chapel at 7pm. He was on the Elders & Ffyffes' "SS Tetela" which arrived in Liverpool on 15 Jun 1947 from Kingston, Jamaica. His home address was recorded as 204 Lincoln Ave, Twickenham, Middlesex, he was recorded as a Minister of Religion, and was accompanied by his wife Megan G Lovelock, aged 30. In 1950 they appear to have sailed from London to Miami, Florida. However, he is listed as the Minister of Blackville Pastoral Charge in New Brunswick, Canada between 1954 and 1955. Does anyone know what became of him, who his wife was, and whether they had any children? 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, There is a James Lovelock in the Hungerford-Shalbourne Tree, parents Joseph Lovelock and Harriet Martin, whose birth registration had been entered as Jul-Sep 1846. In 1851 he was recorded as being aged 5 when he could only have been 4, but of course we know that ages in the Census Returns are often out by a year, and sometimes considerably more. However, now that we have the GRO Online Index to refer to, that James' mother's maiden name is revealed as Choules. The birth of the son of Joseph and Harriet was actually registered in Apr-Jun 1845, as confirmed by the GRO Index, a correction I have now made. James was with his parents in 1851 and 1861, birthplace Shalbourne, but after that he disappears, and there does not seem to be a relevant death registration. But if we turn to the 1900 US Census we find, living in Ellsworth, Mahoning County, Ohio a James Lovelock who claimed to have been born in March 1845 in England. A remarkable coincidence, because there is only the one birth in the GRO records. More than a coincidence? Alas, no apparently as the 1900 Census entry (image available at the FamilySearch website) quite clearly states that James arrived in the USA in 1850 and had been there for 50 years. Be that as it may, he does not seem to have been recorded in the 1850 or 1860 US Census Returns, but he does appear in the 1870 Return as a Farm Labourer living with Elmer and Harriet Mills in Nelson, Portage County, Ohio. The next question is who were the parents of the James Lovelock born in 1846? We know of only two possible sets of parents: John Lovelock and Jane Choules, or Daniel Lovelock and Ann Chouls. Both sets of parents had sons named James, but John and Jane's son was baptised on 10 Sep 1843 whereas Daniel and Ann's son, baptised in July 1846 was buried on 14 May 1847 at the age of 11 months. So Daniel and Ann's son it must be. My apologies for having misled anyone with the original Hungerford-Shalbourne entry. But there is more, because we currently have Census entries and one or possibly two marriages associated with the James Lovelock born in 1845. But the Census entries contain anomalies. Consider: 1851 James aged 5 born Shalbourne 1861 James aged 16 born Shalbourne 1871 James aged 26 born Hungerford 1881 James aged 37 born Hungerford 1891 James aged 45 born Berkshire 1901 James aged 54 born Bagshot, Berkshire 1911 James aged 64 born Berkshire Does that represent one man or two? The GRO Index gives us births in Hungerford RD in 1845, 1846 and 1848 only, and we know the 1846 birth fits with a burial in 1847. The 1848 birth was of a James whose mother's maiden name was Smith, and we have identified him as the son of Thomas Lovelock and Rebecca Smith from the Wroughton-Tidcombe Tree. But he died in 1866 at the age of 18, so he can not be the man in the 1871 and later Census entries. Once again it comes down to people possibly being economical with the truth. If the man in Ohio was really born in March 1845 in England and really entered the USA in 1850 then his birth was not registered. If the man born in Shalbourne in 1845 did not go to the USA why was he so inconsistent with his age and birthplace in Census entries? If the man from Hungerford (1871 and 1881) was truthful about his age and birthplace then his birth was not registered either. One of the reasons for attaching entries to the Shalbourne man is that when he married Eliza Winn in 1890 he named his father as Joseph Lovelock. Mind you he also claimed to be 43 years old, pointing to a birth in 1846 or 1847, and one of the witnesses was an unidentified-by-us David Lovelock, so there are even more questions seeking answers. Or have I missed something in this tortuous tale? Regards, Graham

Thanks for both messages, Hilary. You have enabled me to home in on the relevant part of the Wroughton-Tidcombe Tree. We had some of the details, having arrived at them through tracking Emily, but we had the daughter down as Louisa May. What's puzzling is why May was baptised in the Everton district of Liverpool when Emily gave her address as 40 Shaftesbury Street, Derby, and why May was baptised as May Louie Lovelock, the daughter of Emily Brown Lovelock when Emily had been married to Joseph Brown for 12 years and May was recorded as Louie Brown in 1911. We must also have seen the mention of 'May Louie Babb' in the 1939 Register, but did not realise the significance of it. So now all we seem to be missing is Emily's death. Thanks again for putting the matter straight. Regards, Graham ________________________________ From: Hilary Smith via LOVELOCK <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Sent: 21 June 2019 14:44 To: Lovelock family history Cc: Hilary Smith Subject: [LOVELOCK] Re: Abducted by Aliens ? Hi Graham I think the following info matches up: Emily Lovelock married Joe Brown, Derby, 1900, last quarter (FreeBMD) I have then found Emily and Joe on the 1911 census living at 57 Yates Street, Derby with children: Louie (presumably May Louie), George, Edith, Annie & Percy. Hope this helps. I’ll let you know if I find anything else. Thanks Hilary > On 21 Jun 2019, at 11:54, Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Hello all, > > Findmypast have just released some additional BMD data for Lancashire. > > One of the entries concerns the baptism in St George, Everton of May Louie Lovelock on 20 Nov 1912, the daughter of Emily Brown Lovelock of Derby. The GRO Online Index of Births identifies the daughter as May Louie Babb Lovelock, born in the Derby RD in the Apr-Jun quarter of 1898. There is no mother's maiden name quoted which often indicates an illegitimate birth. > > I can find no other references to either May or her mother. Does anyone have any other information? > > 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 I have also found that May Louie (Louisa M Lovelock)married William H Presbury, Derby, 1920, third-quarter (FreeBMD) They are found on the 1939 register - 93 Elton Road, Derby- William H Presbury, Louisa M Presbury (May Louie Babb) & Edith M Presbury Thanks Hilary > On 21 Jun 2019, at 11:54, Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Hello all, > > Findmypast have just released some additional BMD data for Lancashire. > > One of the entries concerns the baptism in St George, Everton of May Louie Lovelock on 20 Nov 1912, the daughter of Emily Brown Lovelock of Derby. The GRO Online Index of Births identifies the daughter as May Louie Babb Lovelock, born in the Derby RD in the Apr-Jun quarter of 1898. There is no mother's maiden name quoted which often indicates an illegitimate birth. > > I can find no other references to either May or her mother. Does anyone have any other information? > > 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> > > _______________________________________________ > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 I think the following info matches up: Emily Lovelock married Joe Brown, Derby, 1900, last quarter (FreeBMD) I have then found Emily and Joe on the 1911 census living at 57 Yates Street, Derby with children: Louie (presumably May Louie), George, Edith, Annie & Percy. Hope this helps. I’ll let you know if I find anything else. Thanks Hilary > On 21 Jun 2019, at 11:54, Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Hello all, > > Findmypast have just released some additional BMD data for Lancashire. > > One of the entries concerns the baptism in St George, Everton of May Louie Lovelock on 20 Nov 1912, the daughter of Emily Brown Lovelock of Derby. The GRO Online Index of Births identifies the daughter as May Louie Babb Lovelock, born in the Derby RD in the Apr-Jun quarter of 1898. There is no mother's maiden name quoted which often indicates an illegitimate birth. > > I can find no other references to either May or her mother. Does anyone have any other information? > > 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> > > _______________________________________________ > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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, Findmypast have just released some additional BMD data for Lancashire. One of the entries concerns the baptism in St George, Everton of May Louie Lovelock on 20 Nov 1912, the daughter of Emily Brown Lovelock of Derby. The GRO Online Index of Births identifies the daughter as May Louie Babb Lovelock, born in the Derby RD in the Apr-Jun quarter of 1898. There is no mother's maiden name quoted which often indicates an illegitimate birth. I can find no other references to either May or her mother. Does anyone have any other information? 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, This concerns members of the Ropley, Crondall and Dogmersfield Tree. James Lovelock was baptised at Crondall on 23 December 1823, 2 days short of his first birthday. He appears to have escaped the attentions of the 1841 Census Enumerators, but in 1851 he was living with his uncle John Canderton in Greenford, Middlesex, along with wife Sarah and daughter Mary Ann. The GRO Online Index of Births tells us that Mary Ann's mother's maiden name was Harris. We have no record of the family in 1861, but in 1871 James and Sarah were in Bedfont, Middlesex. Whereas James was (correctly) aged 28 in 1851 he claimed to be 52 in 1871. Sarah had aged from 31 to 54. However, their birthplaces were given as Crondall and Newbury in both instances, so it does seem to be the same couple in each case. So where's the muddle? Well, daughter Mary Ann was not with her parents in 1871. She had married John Lewis in 1865 and they and their family were living 10 doors away from her parents in Bedfont. But James and Sarah had another daughter, Caroline, with them, aged 13 and born in Brasted in Kent. Alas the GRO Online Index of Births tells us that Caroline's mother's maiden name was Crate. You have probably guessed what comes next. Free BMD has no record of the marriage of James Lovelock and Sarah Harris, nor of any Lovelock to someone named Crate. Caroline was also 'invisible' in 1861. But there is worse to come. Also with James and Sarah in 1871 was Elizabeth Hamblen (or Hamblin), a married lady, aged 49, born in Newbury, described as 'Sister', and presumably therefore a sister of James. He did indeed have a sister Elizabeth, but she was only 41 in 1871, had married a Joseph Maynard in 1853, and was born in Winchfield. So was the lady with James and Sarah actually a sister to Sarah, as they had the same birthplace? And yet more. The fifth person in the James and Sarah household was Elizabeth Parsons, aged 3, born in London, described as 'Neice'. None of James' sisters apparently married anyone named Parsons, so is this a niece of Sarah's? An Elizabeth Esther Parsons, mother's maiden name Harris, was born in the Kensington RD in 1869, which might be the one, although the age is obviously incorrect if so. The 1881 Census suggests she was the daughter of Richard Parsons who had married Hannah Harris in the Wallingford RD in 1865. Hannah was not born in Newbury but in Shefford, Berkshire, which is not too far away from Newbury. However she was only 36 in 1881, so possibly unlikely to be a sister of Sarah. Does anyone have any more clues which could help to solve some of the puzzles? Regards, Graham