Hi Graham I can see no other refs to Colin T (Thomas) Lovelock.... Except the 26 in the Australian newspapers.... https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/result?q&notWords&requestHandler&anyWords&exactPhrase=colin+lovelock&dateTo&dateFrom&sortby=dateAsc&s=0 & the one marriage. He is not showing in the Australian WWII rolls either. Cheers Col PS I didn't receive the original post....? ------ Original Message ------ From: "Graham Lovelock" <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> To: "Lovelock family history" <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, 20 Mar, 2019 At 6:42 AM Subject: [LOVELOCK] Re: One for our Australian readers especially I should have said 'I can find no reference to the adult Colin Thomas in the online UK data' as there is of course a 1911 Census entry ..... G ________________________________ From: Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> Sent: 19 March 2019 17:36 To: Lovelock family history Subject: One for our Australian readers especially Hello all, The 1901 UK Census includes the following household in Richmond Cottages, Byfleet, Surrey: Elijah Lovelock; Head; 62; born Bramley , Surrey Lucy Lovelock; Wife; 60; born Hickleton, Yorkshire Collin Lovelock; Grandson; 1; born Byfleet, Surrey 'Collin' was actually Colin Thomas Lovelock. We have an entry for Colin T Lovelock marrying Gladys W Glaysher in Wickham, New South Wales in 1927 amongst our collection of NSW records, and I am wondering if this is the same individual? I can find no other reference to Colin Thomas in the online UK data, but there is a reference to 'Colin Thomas Lovelock of Bays water Bond, Kings Cross, NSW, able seaman' in a publication named 'The Advocate' of 26 Jun 1937. Can anyone help? 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, I have been trying to identify the Annie Lovelock who married Edward Freeman in Lingfield, Surrey, England on 3 July 1899, and a tangled web has partly unravelled in so doing. Edward and Annie were both said to be 18 years old at the time of their marriage, and another clue from the entry is that Annie's father was a labourer named William. There were two witnesses to the marriage - Sarah Lovelock and Susan Lovelock - whom we shall return to later. In 1901 Edward and Annie, both 20 years old, were living at 6 Fountain Road, Croydon, Surrey, just a few doors away from William and Ellen Lovelock at number 15, members of the Farnham Tree. I therefore assumed that Annie was the daughter of William and Ellen. Ellen's maiden name was Harflett, sometimes rendered as Harfleet, and now that we have the GRO Online Birth Index to consult I made another assumption that Annie's birth would be easy to identify. Not so. So I turned to the Census entries that we have for the family. Neither the 1881 nor the 1891 entry records an Annie, but the latter does include a Mary A aged 8, born in Croydon. In 1901 Annie Freeman's birthplace was Croydon. The GRO Index confirms that a Mary Ann Emily, mother Harfleet, was registered in the Jul-Sep quarter of 1883, and our 'Lovelocks in Surrey' data shows that she was born on 7 Jun although not baptised at Thornton Heath until 1 Dec 1886. So if 'Annie' was in fact Mary Ann Emily she was barely 16 years old at her marriage. By 1911 the Freeman family, including the surviving 6 of their 7 children, had moved to Upper Norwood, and she 'came clean' being recorded as 28 years old, and having been married for 12 years. Turning again to the Census data we had accumulated for her parents I noticed that the 1881 entry was missing. After some struggle I eventually tracked it down on Ancestry. They have the surname indexed as LAYCOCK, although my reading of it is LAFLOCK, which perhaps explains why it has been overlooked until now. But all is not well. The entry records William and Ellen with three children, although we are led to believe from other data that there should be four. The children present were Thomas, 6, Ellen, 3, and Mary Ann, 2. But hold on, I hear you say, Mary Ann was born in 1883 so how could she be 2 in 1881? Quite so, but setting aside the surname issue the names of the children are very clearly recorded. The GRO Index gives us only Thomas William in 1872 (recorded for some weird reason as Sir Thomas William if you care to check the entry), and James Richard in 1875, but the 1891 Census entry includes Ellen aged 13 and Emily aged 10, for neither of which is there a GRO Birth entry. James seems to have been overlooked in 1881 - at least, I have not found an entry - but he was present in 1891. With respect to the girls, Ellen appears in 1881 and 1891, so it seems that either her birth was not registered or that the entry is lost. She married a plumber named Septimus Perry in 1895, and was one of the witnesses to her sister Caroline's marriage in 1905. I have no idea what happened to Emily - whatever her real name was. Nor have I found anything to explain who the Mary Ann who was 2 in 1881 really was or what became of her. As promised, back to Sarah and Susan Lovelock, the witnesses at the marriage of Annie. Was Susan actually Annie's sister Susannah Florence? She was born on 20 Jun 1885 and baptised with Mary Ann Emily on 1 Dec 1886, but again there is no GRO record of her birth. In completing the 1911 Census Return she named herself as Susan Florence, so she probably was the witness. Interestingly she included her husband on the Return, but he was actually in Westminster Hospital at the time. Somebody has crossed out the entry Susannah made for him, so the mistake was picked up somehow. Susannah had two younger sisters - Caroline and Violet. Astonishingly neither appears in the GRO Birth Index. It is almost as if William and Ellen had decided to cock a snook at officialdom whenever they had the chance. So who was 'Sarah Lovelock' - the other witness at Annie's wedding? I presume she must have been Sarah Ann Elsey who had married Annie's brother James Richard in 1894. If you can make more sense of some of this than I have been able to 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>

I should have said 'I can find no reference to the adult Colin Thomas in the online UK data' as there is of course a 1911 Census entry ..... G ________________________________ From: Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> Sent: 19 March 2019 17:36 To: Lovelock family history Subject: One for our Australian readers especially Hello all, The 1901 UK Census includes the following household in Richmond Cottages, Byfleet, Surrey: Elijah Lovelock; Head; 62; born Bramley , Surrey Lucy Lovelock; Wife; 60; born Hickleton, Yorkshire Collin Lovelock; Grandson; 1; born Byfleet, Surrey 'Collin' was actually Colin Thomas Lovelock. We have an entry for Colin T Lovelock marrying Gladys W Glaysher in Wickham, New South Wales in 1927 amongst our collection of NSW records, and I am wondering if this is the same individual? I can find no other reference to Colin Thomas in the online UK data, but there is a reference to 'Colin Thomas Lovelock of Bays water Bond, Kings Cross, NSW, able seaman' in a publication named 'The Advocate' of 26 Jun 1937. Can anyone help? 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>

I should have said 'I can find no reference to the adult Colin Thomas in the online UK data' as there is of course a 1911 Census entry ..... G ________________________________ From: Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> Sent: 19 March 2019 17:36 To: Lovelock family history Subject: One for our Australian readers especially Hello all, The 1901 UK Census includes the following household in Richmond Cottages, Byfleet, Surrey: Elijah Lovelock; Head; 62; born Bramley , Surrey Lucy Lovelock; Wife; 60; born Hickleton, Yorkshire Collin Lovelock; Grandson; 1; born Byfleet, Surrey 'Collin' was actually Colin Thomas Lovelock. We have an entry for Colin T Lovelock marrying Gladys W Glaysher in Wickham, New South Wales in 1927 amongst our collection of NSW records, and I am wondering if this is the same individual? I can find no other reference to Colin Thomas in the online UK data, but there is a reference to 'Colin Thomas Lovelock of Bays water Bond, Kings Cross, NSW, able seaman' in a publication named 'The Advocate' of 26 Jun 1937. Can anyone help? 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, The 1901 UK Census includes the following household in Richmond Cottages, Byfleet, Surrey: Elijah Lovelock; Head; 62; born Bramley , Surrey Lucy Lovelock; Wife; 60; born Hickleton, Yorkshire Collin Lovelock; Grandson; 1; born Byfleet, Surrey 'Collin' was actually Colin Thomas Lovelock. We have an entry for Colin T Lovelock marrying Gladys W Glaysher in Wickham, New South Wales in 1927 amongst our collection of NSW records, and I am wondering if this is the same individual? I can find no other reference to Colin Thomas in the online UK data, but there is a reference to 'Colin Thomas Lovelock of Bays water Bond, Kings Cross, NSW, able seaman' in a publication named 'The Advocate' of 26 Jun 1937. Can anyone help? 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>

This one has mystery, tragedy and some abrupt endings. On 23 Oct 1794 John Lovelock married Hannah Moody at Leckford. There appear to be no records of the marriage producing issue until their daughter Hannah was born, probably in late 1814, being baptised on 8 Jan 1815, at Leckford. If there really was a gap of 20 years between the marriage and their first-born, Hannah must have come as a bit of a surprise to her parents. If so, imagine their amazement when in 1817 twin girls arrived. However this is where tragedy enters the story. The twins - Elizabeth and Frances - were baptised on 13 Oct 1817, and on the very same day John buried wife Hannah. She was apparently 43 years of age, which for the times was an unusual, not to say probably fairly hazardous, circumstance in which to become a mother. John survived until 1853, being buried at Leckford on 2 Jan at the age of 84. That leads us to an 1851 Census entry for Leckford where a John Lovelock was recorded with a married daughter, Mary Ann Judd and two grandchildren, Priscilla (11) and James (7). John's marital condition and age are unfortunately obscured by extraneous markings, although the latter could well be 80, but he is very clearly recorded as a Chelsea Pensioner and his birthplace appears to be Sparsholt, Hants (not Sparsholt in Berkshire). As it happens we have the baptism of John the son of Richard and Elizabeth at Sparsholt, Hampshire on 8 Jun 1772, so is the slight discrepancy in age at death compared to the baptism date to be ignored? Ancestry has an entry for John, although the imagery is at Fold 3 which I do not have a subscription for. Ancestry though records the following in its extracts from the Royal Hospital Chelsea records: 'Jno Lovelock; Pension Admission age 46; Pension admission date 8 Nov 1816; Birthplace Spraholl (sic), Winchester, Hants, Regiment 9 Garrm (sic) Battn, Rank Sargeant (sic)'. I think that neatly ties up John for us. Turning to John's daughter Mary Ann she was recorded as being 37 years old, indicating a birth in 1813 or 1814. Her birthplace is difficult to decipher but appears to be Buxton in Derbyshire. It rather looks as though she was born in one of her father's Army postings, which could explain why there are no births in Leckford before 1814. Mary Ann's marital condition is also obscured, but could be 'Wid', which would fit with her being recorded as a Pauper and Ag Lab if she had no husband to support her. She looks likely to be the Mary Ann Lovelock who married Thomas Judd in the Droxford RD in Jan-Mar 40, and he in his turn may be the man who died at the age of 39 in the Stockbridge RD in Jan-Mar 1846. In 1861 and later there seems to be no trace of Mary Ann and her children, but neither do there seem to be any deaths. But what of Hannah Lovelock born in 1814 at Leckford? She married Samuel Webb, a Hurdle Maker from Bishopstoke, Hampshire, at Durley, Hampshire on 28 May 1833, and they eventually had 6 children, with all of whom they were living in Bishopstoke in 1851. Hannah died in 1854, the last, possibly, of those born Lovelock in this tale. There is one other little twist though. Hannah and Samuel's third child was named James Lovelock Webb, born in 1841. Alas, he disappears from the records after 1851. 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 think you know that I produced the first tree of the Portsmouth line many years ago after spending a lot of time looking at very confusing evidence. The name Dore crops up more than once. I recently located the Wait Lane End area which is right in the North of what was the large Farlington parish and is now part of Waterlooville. I will have another look at my work in light of your new facts and will get back to you. Regards Roger. On Mon, 18 Mar 2019, 00:25 Graham Lovelock, <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> wrote: > At the moment the Portsmouth Tree file on Webtrees records that Jane Dore > married William Lovelock on 2 Nov 1824: > > http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/individual.php?pid=I95&ged=portsmouth > > Jane would have been about 34 at the time, whereas we currently have > William as being about 20. A somewhat surprising situation for their day, > but that is no reason to discount any of the data. > > However (which must be one of my most used words), we have William's death > occurring in 1862 at the age of 58, and whilst this is consistent with the > baptism we have for him dated 5 Aug 1804 we seem to have overlooked the > fact that in the 1861 Census Jane, recorded with her son William and his > family in Portsea, was described as a widow! > > We have of course seen evidence before of declarations of widowhood when > in fact the spouse was still living, but there are two other pieces of > evidence to take into account in the current situation. Firstly, in 1841 > Jane was recorded at Wait Lane End in Farlington with her children Caroline > and William, but with no husband. Secondly our 'Lovelocks in Hampshire' > data includes a Farlington entry for the burial of William Lovelock OF WAIT > LANE END on 30 Sep 1830, aged 55. > > I suggest that the evidence points to Jane's actual husband being a > William Lovelock born about 1775, and not the man we currently indicate. > > I have been through our Hampshire data looking for a candidate > 'replacement' William but without success. > > We are currently missing an 1851 Census entry for Jane, which would help, > as would the 1841, 1851 and 1861 entries for the man who died in 1862. > > Any comments anyone? > > 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 >

At the moment the Portsmouth Tree file on Webtrees records that Jane Dore married William Lovelock on 2 Nov 1824: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/individual.php?pid=I95&ged=portsmouth Jane would have been about 34 at the time, whereas we currently have William as being about 20. A somewhat surprising situation for their day, but that is no reason to discount any of the data. However (which must be one of my most used words), we have William's death occurring in 1862 at the age of 58, and whilst this is consistent with the baptism we have for him dated 5 Aug 1804 we seem to have overlooked the fact that in the 1861 Census Jane, recorded with her son William and his family in Portsea, was described as a widow! We have of course seen evidence before of declarations of widowhood when in fact the spouse was still living, but there are two other pieces of evidence to take into account in the current situation. Firstly, in 1841 Jane was recorded at Wait Lane End in Farlington with her children Caroline and William, but with no husband. Secondly our 'Lovelocks in Hampshire' data includes a Farlington entry for the burial of William Lovelock OF WAIT LANE END on 30 Sep 1830, aged 55. I suggest that the evidence points to Jane's actual husband being a William Lovelock born about 1775, and not the man we currently indicate. I have been through our Hampshire data looking for a candidate 'replacement' William but without success. We are currently missing an 1851 Census entry for Jane, which would help, as would the 1841, 1851 and 1861 entries for the man who died in 1862. Any comments anyone? 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>

The 1939 Register includes a Marion Muriel Westley in Essex, born 18 Jun 1936. The fact that the entry is visible, whilst those of three siblings are not, is usually an indication that the person died before 1992, or that evidence of a later death has been provided. The entry indicates that Marion Muriel later married a Mr Callow, and later still a Mr Lovelock. Marion married Peter T Callow in Essex South West RD in Jul-Sep 1956. As Marion M Callow she then married Albert Lovelock in Epping RD in Jan-Mar 1973. In Dec 1988 Marion M Lovelock married William F Norman in Epping Forest RD. In Mar 1999 Marion M Norman married Raymond J Paston in Harlow RD. Is it possible that all of these entries concern the same lady? There is no GRO death entry for Marion M born 1936 under the surnames of Lovelock, Norman or Paston. Turning to Albert Lovelock, could he be the Albert Lovelock who died in Epping Forest RD in Jan 1985? That is certainly consistent with having married in 1973, and with Marion marrying again in the same RD some 3, nearly 4, years later. The problem is that if he is that man, the death entry gives his date of birth as 10 Apr 1924, and there is no corresponding GRO birth entry. In the 1939 Register there is no trace of him, nor of any Albert Lovelock born on 10 April. He apparently left no Will either. Does anyone have any other relevant information that will help to identify Albert's origins? Regards, Graham

Brrrrrrrrr! ________________________________ From: John Paul Bradford <johnpaul.bradford@gmail.com> Sent: 28 February 2019 02:28 To: Lovelock family history Subject: [LOVELOCK] Re: Another addition Graham and everyone, In answer to Graham's question as to my location. Here is a hint: I was out shovelling three time today! Yes, I'm from Canada. I've never been to England. Google maps and street view and many hours pouring over histories and documents has proved very successful for our family history. One day I will see the Mother Country. Right now we have three kids at university at the same time and our 10 year old slowly moving in that direction. For now, wonderful, sharing people like those in this group really make a difference. God bless John Paul P.S. Windchill was -20 C this morning in our part of Ontario. On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 14:13, Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> wrote: > Not at all, John Paul, > > All part of trying to gather as much Lovelock information as possible, so > thank YOU for starting off this latest work. > > As a matter of interest where are you? I'm in London. > > Regards, > > Graham > > ________________________________ > From: John Paul Bradford <johnpaul.bradford@gmail.com> > Sent: 27 February 2019 19:03 > To: Lovelock family history > Subject: [LOVELOCK] Re: Another addition > > Graham, > > The revised trees look good. I'll work my way through the new Luckington - > Dowdeswell tree and discover all my new relations! Thank you for all this > work. > > JP Bradford > > > > On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 05:41, Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > Following the recent speculations of John Paul Bradford and Marty > Lovelock > > I have taken the bull by the horns and created a Luckington-Dowdeswell > Tree > > that combines the two separate trees. > > > > Various entries include Notes to indicate where speculation forms the > > basis for the entries or the relationships that are shown. If anyone > spots > > any omissions or errors please let me know. > > > > For the moment the two original trees remain on the Webtrees site, and > > their corresponding Descendant Trees remain on the main website. > > > > The new information can be accessed from either the Wiltshire or > > Gloucestershire Trees pages: > > > > http://lovelock.free.fr/wilts-frags.html > > http://lovelock.free.fr/glos-trees.html > > > > There is also a new Descendant Tree corresponding to the new gedcom file: > > > > http://lovelock.free.fr/fragments/Luckington-Dowdeswell.html > > > > Other information is given in the 'What's New' item: > > > > http://lovelock.free.fr/new.html > > > > > > 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<<http://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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 > > [ > 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<<http://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 > _______________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 [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>

Graham and everyone, In answer to Graham's question as to my location. Here is a hint: I was out shovelling three time today! Yes, I'm from Canada. I've never been to England. Google maps and street view and many hours pouring over histories and documents has proved very successful for our family history. One day I will see the Mother Country. Right now we have three kids at university at the same time and our 10 year old slowly moving in that direction. For now, wonderful, sharing people like those in this group really make a difference. God bless John Paul P.S. Windchill was -20 C this morning in our part of Ontario. On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 14:13, Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> wrote: > Not at all, John Paul, > > All part of trying to gather as much Lovelock information as possible, so > thank YOU for starting off this latest work. > > As a matter of interest where are you? I'm in London. > > Regards, > > Graham > > ________________________________ > From: John Paul Bradford <johnpaul.bradford@gmail.com> > Sent: 27 February 2019 19:03 > To: Lovelock family history > Subject: [LOVELOCK] Re: Another addition > > Graham, > > The revised trees look good. I'll work my way through the new Luckington - > Dowdeswell tree and discover all my new relations! Thank you for all this > work. > > JP Bradford > > > > On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 05:41, Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > Following the recent speculations of John Paul Bradford and Marty > Lovelock > > I have taken the bull by the horns and created a Luckington-Dowdeswell > Tree > > that combines the two separate trees. > > > > Various entries include Notes to indicate where speculation forms the > > basis for the entries or the relationships that are shown. If anyone > spots > > any omissions or errors please let me know. > > > > For the moment the two original trees remain on the Webtrees site, and > > their corresponding Descendant Trees remain on the main website. > > > > The new information can be accessed from either the Wiltshire or > > Gloucestershire Trees pages: > > > > http://lovelock.free.fr/wilts-frags.html > > http://lovelock.free.fr/glos-trees.html > > > > There is also a new Descendant Tree corresponding to the new gedcom file: > > > > http://lovelock.free.fr/fragments/Luckington-Dowdeswell.html > > > > Other information is given in the 'What's New' item: > > > > http://lovelock.free.fr/new.html > > > > > > 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<<http://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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 > > [ > 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 >

Not at all, John Paul, All part of trying to gather as much Lovelock information as possible, so thank YOU for starting off this latest work. As a matter of interest where are you? I'm in London. Regards, Graham ________________________________ From: John Paul Bradford <johnpaul.bradford@gmail.com> Sent: 27 February 2019 19:03 To: Lovelock family history Subject: [LOVELOCK] Re: Another addition Graham, The revised trees look good. I'll work my way through the new Luckington - Dowdeswell tree and discover all my new relations! Thank you for all this work. JP Bradford On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 05:41, Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> wrote: > Following the recent speculations of John Paul Bradford and Marty Lovelock > I have taken the bull by the horns and created a Luckington-Dowdeswell Tree > that combines the two separate trees. > > Various entries include Notes to indicate where speculation forms the > basis for the entries or the relationships that are shown. If anyone spots > any omissions or errors please let me know. > > For the moment the two original trees remain on the Webtrees site, and > their corresponding Descendant Trees remain on the main website. > > The new information can be accessed from either the Wiltshire or > Gloucestershire Trees pages: > > http://lovelock.free.fr/wilts-frags.html > http://lovelock.free.fr/glos-trees.html > > There is also a new Descendant Tree corresponding to the new gedcom file: > > http://lovelock.free.fr/fragments/Luckington-Dowdeswell.html > > Other information is given in the 'What's New' item: > > http://lovelock.free.fr/new.html > > > 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<<http://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 > _______________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 [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>

Graham, The revised trees look good. I'll work my way through the new Luckington - Dowdeswell tree and discover all my new relations! Thank you for all this work. JP Bradford On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 05:41, Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> wrote: > Following the recent speculations of John Paul Bradford and Marty Lovelock > I have taken the bull by the horns and created a Luckington-Dowdeswell Tree > that combines the two separate trees. > > Various entries include Notes to indicate where speculation forms the > basis for the entries or the relationships that are shown. If anyone spots > any omissions or errors please let me know. > > For the moment the two original trees remain on the Webtrees site, and > their corresponding Descendant Trees remain on the main website. > > The new information can be accessed from either the Wiltshire or > Gloucestershire Trees pages: > > http://lovelock.free.fr/wilts-frags.html > http://lovelock.free.fr/glos-trees.html > > There is also a new Descendant Tree corresponding to the new gedcom file: > > http://lovelock.free.fr/fragments/Luckington-Dowdeswell.html > > Other information is given in the 'What's New' item: > > http://lovelock.free.fr/new.html > > > 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 >

Following the recent speculations of John Paul Bradford and Marty Lovelock I have taken the bull by the horns and created a Luckington-Dowdeswell Tree that combines the two separate trees. Various entries include Notes to indicate where speculation forms the basis for the entries or the relationships that are shown. If anyone spots any omissions or errors please let me know. For the moment the two original trees remain on the Webtrees site, and their corresponding Descendant Trees remain on the main website. The new information can be accessed from either the Wiltshire or Gloucestershire Trees pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/wilts-frags.html http://lovelock.free.fr/glos-trees.html There is also a new Descendant Tree corresponding to the new gedcom file: http://lovelock.free.fr/fragments/Luckington-Dowdeswell.html Other information is given in the 'What's New' item: http://lovelock.free.fr/new.html 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>

Just to let you know that John Paul Bradford has very kindly supplied us with a transcription of the Will and Inventory of John Lovelock who died in Luckington in August 1707. The Will is rendered literally with the spelling and idiosyncracies of language of the day, and the Inventory reveals a wealth of possessions. The document can be accessed from the 'Wills and Probate' section of the 'Sources-General' page: http://lovelock.free.fr/gen-records.htm Many thanks to John Paul for this transcription. 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>

[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>

This is just to advise that an addition has been made to the 'Origins of Trees' page following on from John Paul Bradford's suggestion and some further speculation today from Marty Lovelock. Click on the 'The Dowdeswell Tree' link in the table: http://lovelock.free.fr/wip/The-Origins-of-Trees.html GL [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, John Paul Bradford has been in touch to offer some suggestions regarding the origins of George Lovelock (I9) in the Luckington Tree. George is presently shown as a son of John Lovelock and Mary Bristow, although unlike those presently shown as his siblings we do not have any birth or baptism information on him. When you look at the pattern of births of John and Mary's children George would have to have been born in 1733 at the earliest, which would make him no more than 19 when he married Mary Cole, and that would have been unusual for the times. John Paul's suggestion is that George is in fact the son of John's brother Thomas, and that Thomas and his wife Mary had seven children baptised at Oldbury on the Hill, just over the border in Gloucestershire, between 1731 and 1743. George would be the eldest of the seven, baptised on 15 Apr 1731, and therefore about 21 when he married Mary Cole. Apparently the Oldbury Register indicates in George's baptism entry that Thomas and Mary were 'of Alderton', just the other side of Luckington, and the place where John Lovelock and Mary Bristow were married. Something John Paul has not suggested, but I will, is that George's mother was the Mary Baker 'of Alderton' who married Thomas Lovelock at Bremilham, Wiltshire on 13 April 1729. Unless anyone has information to demolish these suggestions I propose to make appropriate amendments to the Luckington Tree forthwith. Many thanks to John Paul for putting his suggestions forward. Regards, Graham

Hello John Paul, I will reply off list if you don't mind as a few of my words might make some uncomfortable, if only just! Thank you so much for making contact - we put the various trees out there as much to stimulate debate about the 'iffy' parts as to record the known facts, but it is very rare for anything to be challenged. My personal view is that you are right about George Lovelock's origins. I can't recall now exactly why we (and there were only 2 of us really doing the work of putting the tree together) decided to plump for him being an un-documented (ie no baptism record) son of John L and Mary Bristow. When you look at the pattern of births of John and Mary's children he would have to have been born in 1733 at the earliest, which would make him no more than 19 when he married Mary Cole, and that would have been most unusual for the times. But a birth in 1731 makes so much sense, and Oldbury is barely half an hour's walk from Luckington, and only a few minutes more to Alderton. Why, I walked seven miles home from my ex-wife's when we were courting on several occasions, and I was never a great walker. I will send a message to the Mailing List to say that I am about to make the changes, unless anyone can show otherwise. I will not expect much if anything by way of a response, which is one of my disappointments - there are about 100 people on the List, but only 3 or 4 apart from myself who do any research or provide any assistance with the projects we try to launch. I wasn't sure from your message whether you have found the main Lovelock website which has all the source material we have gathered over the years, and lots of other bits and pieces besides. If you haven't and you are interested it's at: http://lovelock.free.fr/index.html I can't find a transcript of John's 1707 Will on the website, but we certainly had one else we would not know of his son and daughter. A bit of a challenge to transcribe. I did try to get people to volunteer to do some transcribing, especially when Ancestry took on the imagery, but I suspect that most members of the List do not have Ancestry, or indeed any other, subscriptions. Beef over. Many thanks once again for your suggestions. Kind regards, Graham ________________________________ From: John Paul Bradford <johnpaul.bradford@gmail.com> Sent: 18 February 2019 15:15 To: lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject: [LOVELOCK] Lovelocks Dear Graham, We have been trying to push back our Lovelock line in Wiltshire and soon came bumping up against all the research you have done. I've gone through the rootsweb messages and explored the Lovelock.net website. Excellent work there. What we figured out independently: Our Lovelock connection is up my father's Gingell line and begins for us with the marriage of Jacob Gingell and Mary Lovelock on the 22 July 1789 in Grittleton, Wiltshire. We failed to find a Mary Lovelock of appropriate date of birth/baptism and there is stood for years. I did have a professional researcher working on the Gingells (many years ago) suggest that Mary's baptism might have been missed and that she is indeed part of the family of George Lovelock and Mary Cole. At the time I was uncomfortable with this "guess" but have since come to accept this. I have since gained experience with other families I have reconstructed using parish records only to find a will that shows missing children. Also I gave a good look to the Grittleton register and found that in the period just before 1763 with Rev. Dr. Pollok took over the parish the register was poorly kept with many events written on pieces of paper and some of those lost. So I'm comfortable now with Mary being the daughter of George Lovelock and Mary Cole. I looked around for a George Lovelock to be her father and found a 1731 baptism at Oldbury-on-the-Hill in Gloucestershire. This was George Lovelock baptised 15 April 1731 son of Thomas and Mary Lovelock. The Oldbury register says the family is of Alderton. There are other children baptised up there as well, though nothing in their entries claims a link to Alderton. Looking around for a Thomas Lovelock baptism to fit George's father Thomas I discovered a Thomas Lovelock baptised in Luckington right next door to Alderton in 1707. He was the son of John and Chatherine Lovelock. I then discovered a rootsweb entry from four years ago mentioning this John's will and also the Lovelock.net site last night (just in time for its maintenance cycle!) What you have figured out: The Luckington Tree you have shows something very similar. You have my Mary Lovelock who married Jacob Gingell as the daughter of George Lovelock and Mary Cole. It appears that we diverge slightly at that point. The site tree then has George as a son of John Lovelock and Mary Bristow. This appears to be done without a baptism (in a similar style to what did with my Mary in Grittleton). Then this John is a son of the John Lovelock (d.1707) who married Chatherine (as the register spells it). So I think George is likely the son of Thomas rather than John and that Thomas' other children baptised at Oldbury on the Hill are part of this family. Any thought you have would be appreciated. Did you ever transcribe that 1707 will? It is the first will (and I have seen many) which allows you to hear the voice of the person who wrote it with all the dialectal peculiarities. It is wonderful! God bless John Paul P.S. I signed up for Lovelock.net and am awaiting the confirmation email. 15 Apr 1731 _______________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 [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>

Dear Graham, We have been trying to push back our Lovelock line in Wiltshire and soon came bumping up against all the research you have done. I've gone through the rootsweb messages and explored the Lovelock.net website. Excellent work there. What we figured out independently: Our Lovelock connection is up my father's Gingell line and begins for us with the marriage of Jacob Gingell and Mary Lovelock on the 22 July 1789 in Grittleton, Wiltshire. We failed to find a Mary Lovelock of appropriate date of birth/baptism and there is stood for years. I did have a professional researcher working on the Gingells (many years ago) suggest that Mary's baptism might have been missed and that she is indeed part of the family of George Lovelock and Mary Cole. At the time I was uncomfortable with this "guess" but have since come to accept this. I have since gained experience with other families I have reconstructed using parish records only to find a will that shows missing children. Also I gave a good look to the Grittleton register and found that in the period just before 1763 with Rev. Dr. Pollok took over the parish the register was poorly kept with many events written on pieces of paper and some of those lost. So I'm comfortable now with Mary being the daughter of George Lovelock and Mary Cole. I looked around for a George Lovelock to be her father and found a 1731 baptism at Oldbury-on-the-Hill in Gloucestershire. This was George Lovelock baptised 15 April 1731 son of Thomas and Mary Lovelock. The Oldbury register says the family is of Alderton. There are other children baptised up there as well, though nothing in their entries claims a link to Alderton. Looking around for a Thomas Lovelock baptism to fit George's father Thomas I discovered a Thomas Lovelock baptised in Luckington right next door to Alderton in 1707. He was the son of John and Chatherine Lovelock. I then discovered a rootsweb entry from four years ago mentioning this John's will and also the Lovelock.net site last night (just in time for its maintenance cycle!) What you have figured out: The Luckington Tree you have shows something very similar. You have my Mary Lovelock who married Jacob Gingell as the daughter of George Lovelock and Mary Cole. It appears that we diverge slightly at that point. The site tree then has George as a son of John Lovelock and Mary Bristow. This appears to be done without a baptism (in a similar style to what did with my Mary in Grittleton). Then this John is a son of the John Lovelock (d.1707) who married Chatherine (as the register spells it). So I think George is likely the son of Thomas rather than John and that Thomas' other children baptised at Oldbury on the Hill are part of this family. Any thought you have would be appreciated. Did you ever transcribe that 1707 will? It is the first will (and I have seen many) which allows you to hear the voice of the person who wrote it with all the dialectal peculiarities. It is wonderful! God bless John Paul P.S. I signed up for Lovelock.net and am awaiting the confirmation email. 15 Apr 1731