Hello all, I’ve completed the Webtrees upgrade to version 1.7.12, and the new version is now online at the usual place: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ <http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/> I haven’t done systematic testing of the new version, but everything seems to be working correctly, including the Google Maps module. Please let me know if you find any errors, or if the behaviour is not what you expected. Regards, James

Hello all, This is just to warn you that the Lovelock Webtrees site (http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ <http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/>) will be going offline for a software upgrade. If all goes well the site should not be inaccessible more than a few hours, but one never knows what one is going to encounter where software is concerned. We’ve been running a rather old version of Webtrees (version 1.7.2) so I thought we should upgrade to the latest version (1.7.21). Some of you may have noticed, for example, that the Google Maps module is no longer working correctly, and this should be fixed with the new version. Regards, James

Ethnicity Ethnicity can sometimes be further back than you realise for example my cousin contacted me re her grandson's results saying they could not be right. His grandfather is Maori as is his mother and there was no Maori in his DNA only there was because the Maoris came to New Zealand in the 1600s from Polynesia and he had quite a bit of Polynesian and Melanesian in his DNA. I quite agree that you must be prepared for results to show any family indiscretions which I personally find all the more interesting but then there have been no nasty surprises in my close family apart from an illegitimate great grandmother Sian Davies Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> ________________________________ From: Helen Norton <helmar@bigpond.net.au> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2019 3:46:13 AM To: 'Lovelock family history' Subject: [LOVELOCK] Re: DNA Tests ..... and all that It really depends on why you want to do a DNA test. For me, it was 1) to confirm the known paper trail , and 2) try and break through a brick wall (from around 1900) It was never about ethnicity - looked at that as a bit of fun. DNA is shared with 1st & 2nd Cousins, and roughly 90% of 3rd cousins. Beyond that is random. Have done two tests, one with Ancestry, (which is great for family connections) the other with LivingDNA , this one also did my motherline. Ancestry ethnicity was Europe West 37%, Scandinavia 25%, Ireland and Scotland 21%, Iberian Peninsula 7%, England, Wales & Northwestern Europe 7%, Caucasus <1%. Europe South <1%, European Jewish <1% They did an update late last year and the breakdown changed to 97 % England, Wales & Northwestern Europe, 2% Scotland & Ireland, 1% Norway. "Your DNA shows that you have ancestry from England, Wales & Northwestern Europe and links you to these specific regions: Southern England, South East England" The Living DNA breakdown was interesting, Europe 98.6% - 92.7% Great Britain and Ireland, Europe (South) 5.9%, Asia (South) 1.4% Breaking down the UK into regions, South Central England 50.4% ,South England 19.1% Southeast England 8.2% , Devon 4.5%* Northwest Scotland 3.2%*, Cornwall 3.2%*, North Wales 2.1%*, Lincolnshire 1.9% Those with an * are areas where I have no known ancestors. Currently I have over 250, 4th Cousin or closer matches on ancestry. Some of those have ancestry on paper from Devon/Cornwall. Maybe a peephole through the brickwall. One thing with DNA is don't do a test if you're not prepared to deal with unexpected family/cousin results. Helen -----Original Message----- From: Graham Lovelock [mailto:lovelockgraham@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, 15 February 2019 10:21 PM To: lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject: [LOVELOCK] DNA Tests ..... and all that Hello all, I have been contacted by a Lovelock who took a DNA Test just before Christmas. He is somewhat bemused by the ethnicity results that show he is of roughly 70% North and West European and roughly 30% Scandinavian origin, and 0% English. In consequence he wonders what any other Lovelock ethnicity results look like, and if his result is to be expected. _______________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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

It really depends on why you want to do a DNA test. For me, it was 1) to confirm the known paper trail , and 2) try and break through a brick wall (from around 1900) It was never about ethnicity - looked at that as a bit of fun. DNA is shared with 1st & 2nd Cousins, and roughly 90% of 3rd cousins. Beyond that is random. Have done two tests, one with Ancestry, (which is great for family connections) the other with LivingDNA , this one also did my motherline. Ancestry ethnicity was Europe West 37%, Scandinavia 25%, Ireland and Scotland 21%, Iberian Peninsula 7%, England, Wales & Northwestern Europe 7%, Caucasus <1%. Europe South <1%, European Jewish <1% They did an update late last year and the breakdown changed to 97 % England, Wales & Northwestern Europe, 2% Scotland & Ireland, 1% Norway. "Your DNA shows that you have ancestry from England, Wales & Northwestern Europe and links you to these specific regions: Southern England, South East England" The Living DNA breakdown was interesting, Europe 98.6% - 92.7% Great Britain and Ireland, Europe (South) 5.9%, Asia (South) 1.4% Breaking down the UK into regions, South Central England 50.4% ,South England 19.1% Southeast England 8.2% , Devon 4.5%* Northwest Scotland 3.2%*, Cornwall 3.2%*, North Wales 2.1%*, Lincolnshire 1.9% Those with an * are areas where I have no known ancestors. Currently I have over 250, 4th Cousin or closer matches on ancestry. Some of those have ancestry on paper from Devon/Cornwall. Maybe a peephole through the brickwall. One thing with DNA is don't do a test if you're not prepared to deal with unexpected family/cousin results. Helen -----Original Message----- From: Graham Lovelock [mailto:lovelockgraham@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, 15 February 2019 10:21 PM To: lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject: [LOVELOCK] DNA Tests ..... and all that Hello all, I have been contacted by a Lovelock who took a DNA Test just before Christmas. He is somewhat bemused by the ethnicity results that show he is of roughly 70% North and West European and roughly 30% Scandinavian origin, and 0% English. In consequence he wonders what any other Lovelock ethnicity results look like, and if his result is to be expected.

I agree with Steve. I set up a Y-DNA STERRY group abt 10 years ago using FTDNA [Family Tree DNA] and I'd certainly recommend them. It has been most useful in both confirming documentary evidence but more especially in linking trees where documentary evidence is lacking or uncertain. Because LOVELOCK is a reasonably common name it is currently impossible to link many of the documented trees with any certainty before 1800. I would assume that quite a lot of the current trees are in fact linked but at present we just can't prove it through documentary evidence. It costs nothing to set up a Y-DNA group project through FTDNA and then you can just promote it. Over time people will join and be tested. FTDNA run special deals on a regular basis that reduce the cost and the administrator of the project can buy tests in bulk when they are cheaper and offer them to LOVELOCK males on a priority and needs basis. There is also a facility for people to donate to the group to subsidize testing. I for one would be very happy to subsidize people where DNA testing might prove useful. And I'm sure others would as well. Ideally you need a minimum of at least 2 people for each documented tree - in case the one you tested is descended from a non-paternity event such as an adoption or illegitimacy - possibly several generations ago. I have also had my uncle - who is a SMITH! - tested on the Ancestry test. And I can confirm that it's really only useful for picking up cousins to abt 3rd generation - and none have been SMITHs! So if you're interested in following the LOVELOCK surname, then encourage Y-DNA testing - which Ancestry doesn't offer. Let's set up a LOVELOCK Y-DNA Project! It would be very worthwhile. Robert -----Original Message----- From: tns750--- via LOVELOCK <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, 16 February 2019 12:20 AM To: lovelock@rootsweb.com Cc: tns750@aol.com Subject: [LOVELOCK] Re: DNA Tests ..... and all that Hi Graham What your enthusiastic correspondent has had is one of the currently in vogue autosomal tests , which claims to give an estimate of ethnicity. Recently, they've been extensively marketed, especially in the US, as Christmas presents, for about £50. They are in my opinion, shared by most , of very limited scientific rigour - just a bit of fun, though people take the results literally, which is very misleading. There have even be cases of siblings coming out with widely different pie-charts of ethnicity from different testing companies or even the same company. They also double up as "cousin tests" if you put the results on the database at Ancestry or FTDNA, purporting to throw up matches down to about the 4th cousin level and beyond, but they are really only significant to about the 3rd cousin level. In my opinion, the only kind of dna test worth doing for a one -name study like Lovelock is a Y chromasome test. The only problem is you need at least two participants , so with the cheapest test around £150, that's £300 unless you can persuade the other person to contribute. The results may in some cases show a match among Lovelock branches, but of course if you already have a "paper trail" then it will only confirm what you already know. In fact, you really need a lot more participants from a wide variety of lovelock branches, some of known relationship to serve as controls, and others, which are not yet linked up by a paper trail. What would probably come out is that most , say appear to have a 50% likelihood of a common ancestor within the last 300 years, but that some are closer to certain participants, enabling you to form groups . This is determined by the number of shared STRs (short tandem repeats) at a selection of places on the Y chromosome. The "repeats" refers to the number of times a particular sequence of the 4 bases adenine cytosine guanine and then at certain places where , as it were, the "needle has got stuck" (gramophone analogy). Typically, these places "markers" have repeats between around 8 and 30, and the number of places ("Markers") used by the testing company varies. The cheapest test offered is just 12 markers, but nowadays, 37 markers is considered the minimum for meaningful results. You then end up with a row of numbers that you can put on a spreadsheet against the list of test-takers on the left, and hopefully find that at most of the 37 markers(labelled at the head of the columns) you have identical numbers or numbers differing by only 1. If there is a relationship to a MRCA (most recent common ancestor) within the period of English hereditary surname fixation( say, 600- 700 years) , then one would expect a match at least about 33 of the 37 markers (figures out of my head, but the actual statistics are there if you google the various sites setting this out in detail) , i.e. the odds are that there wont have occurred more than about four mutations in the interim; while if you are testing relationships like brothers or first or second cousins , you're most likely to get a 37 out of 37 match (proving that your parents or grandparents or great grandparents were faithful to each other). For unrelated people, there will still be some matches, but more likely down in the 20 - 30 marker out of 37 marker region. of course there will be some Lovelocks who have acquired the name down female lines (NPA's - non-paternal events , such as infidelity ,illegitimacy or adoption) who show no more matches than two unrelated individuals. I think you've established that LOVELOCK has a single origin, so one would expect there to be some degree of match among at least half of the participants, the others being explicable as the result of non-paternity. An interesting article is https://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/genetics/people/.../surnames-and-the-y-chromosome based on an article : - Founders, Drift and Infidelity: The Relationship between Y chromosome Diversity and Patrilineal Surnames Turi E. King and Mark A. Jobling Molecular Biology and Evolution (2009) 26, 1093-1102 which shows that, the rarer the surname, the more likelihood of them all matching. I'd love to have my y chromosome tested, but sadly I don't have male Lovelock dna, only my own surname Tanner, which is very unlikely to have a single origin. It is hard - at least in the UK to get people to fork out £150 unless they're as heavily into the subject as yourself. Americans are generally more enthusiastic about DNA. Steve Tanner -----Original Message----- From: Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> To: lovelock@rootsweb.com <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Sent: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 11:21 Subject: [LOVELOCK] DNA Tests ..... and all that Hello all, I have been contacted by a Lovelock who took a DNA Test just before Christmas. He is somewhat bemused by the ethnicity results that show he is of roughly 70% North and West European and roughly 30% Scandinavian origin, and 0% English. In consequence he wonders what any other Lovelock ethnicity results look like, and if his result is to be expected. I'm more or less in the dark regarding DNA testing, but looking at the above I am left wondering how one distinguishes between North European and Scandinavian (where is the border?), and who are the English anyway if they are not mostly North and West European and Scandinavian? All very baffling for this bear of little brain. Anyway, the point of this message is to raise the topic of DNA testing once again, to see where, if anywhere, it takes us, and to hear the experiences of any who have indulged. You will have gathered that I have not applied for a test, the main reason being that there is one particular question I would like an answer to and so far nobody has explained to me what would be necessary for DNA testing to provide that answer. Any contributions on the subject will be most welcome. 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

Hello yet again all, James Fisher Lovelock was born on 31 Oct 1918 and died in 1972. I believe he married Elsie M Green in 1939. Does anyone know anything of his parentage as there is no GRO Birth entry to match? Regards, Graham

Hello Graham I have read the letters on DNA testing with much interest as my wife had mine done the Christmas before last. It was done through My Heritage and the breakdown is as follows. British and Irish 81.7% Scandinavian 6.4% Iberian 10.2% East European 10.2% Papuan 0.8% I would be very interested in seeing the ethnicity of other Lovelocks. regards Mike -----Original Message----- From: Graham Lovelock Sent: Friday, February 15, 2019 6:21 AM To: lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject: [LOVELOCK] DNA Tests ..... and all that Hello all, I have been contacted by a Lovelock who took a DNA Test just before Christmas. He is somewhat bemused by the ethnicity results that show he is of roughly 70% North and West European and roughly 30% Scandinavian origin, and 0% English. In consequence he wonders what any other Lovelock ethnicity results look like, and if his result is to be expected. I'm more or less in the dark regarding DNA testing, but looking at the above I am left wondering how one distinguishes between North European and Scandinavian (where is the border?), and who are the English anyway if they are not mostly North and West European and Scandinavian? All very baffling for this bear of little brain. Anyway, the point of this message is to raise the topic of DNA testing once again, to see where, if anywhere, it takes us, and to hear the experiences of any who have indulged. You will have gathered that I have not applied for a test, the main reason being that there is one particular question I would like an answer to and so far nobody has explained to me what would be necessary for DNA testing to provide that answer. Any contributions on the subject will be most welcome. 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

Hi Graham What your enthusiastic correspondent has had is one of the currently in vogue  autosomal tests , which claims to give an estimate of ethnicity. Recently, they've been extensively marketed, especially in the US,  as Christmas presents, for about £50.  They are in my opinion, shared by most , of very limited scientific rigour - just a bit of fun, though people take the results literally, which is very misleading.  There have even be cases of siblings coming out with widely different pie-charts of ethnicity from different testing companies or even the same company. They also double up as "cousin tests" if you put the results on the database at Ancestry or FTDNA, purporting to throw up matches down to about the 4th cousin level and beyond, but they are really only significant to about the 3rd cousin level.  In my opinion, the only kind of dna test worth doing for a one -name study like Lovelock is a Y chromasome test. The only problem is you need at least two participants , so with the cheapest test around £150, that's £300 unless you can persuade the other person to contribute. The results may in some cases show a match among Lovelock branches, but of course if you already have a "paper trail" then it will only confirm what you already know.  In fact, you really need a lot more participants from a wide variety of lovelock branches, some of known relationship to serve as controls, and others, which are not yet linked up by a paper trail. What would probably come out is that most , say appear to have a 50% likelihood of a common ancestor within the last 300 years, but that some are closer to certain participants, enabling you to form groups . This is determined by the number of shared STRs (short tandem repeats) at a selection of places on the Y chromosome. The "repeats" refers to the number of times a particular sequence of the 4 bases  adenine cytosine guanine and then at certain places where , as it were, the "needle has got stuck" (gramophone analogy). Typically, these places "markers" have repeats between around 8 and 30, and the number of places ("Markers") used by the testing company varies. The cheapest test offered is just 12 markers, but nowadays, 37 markers is considered the minimum for meaningful results. You  then end up with a row of numbers that you can put on a spreadsheet against the list of test-takers on the left, and hopefully find that at most of the 37 markers(labelled at the head of the columns) you have identical numbers or numbers differing by only 1. If there is a relationship to a MRCA (most recent common ancestor) within the period of English hereditary surname fixation( say, 600- 700 years) , then one would expect a match at least about 33 of the 37 markers (figures out of my head, but the actual  statistics are there if you google the various sites setting this out in detail) , i.e. the odds are that there wont have occurred  more than about four mutations in the interim;  while if you are testing relationships like brothers or first or second cousins , you're most likely to get a 37 out of 37 match (proving that your parents or grandparents or great grandparents were faithful to each other). For unrelated people, there will still be some matches, but more likely down in the 20 - 30 marker out of 37 marker region. of course there will be some Lovelocks who have acquired the name down female lines (NPA's - non-paternal events , such as infidelity ,illegitimacy or adoption) who show no more matches than two unrelated individuals. I think you've established that LOVELOCK has a single origin, so one would expect there to be some degree of match among  at least half of the participants, the others being explicable as the result of non-paternity. An interesting article is  https://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/genetics/people/.../surnames-and-the-y-chromosome based on an article : - Founders, Drift and Infidelity: The Relationship between Y chromosome Diversity and Patrilineal Surnames Turi E. King and Mark A. Jobling Molecular Biology and Evolution (2009) 26, 1093-1102 which shows that, the rarer the surname, the more likelihood of them all matching.  I'd love to have my y chromosome tested, but sadly I don't have male Lovelock dna, only my own surname Tanner, which is very unlikely to have a single origin. It is hard - at least in the UK to get people to fork out £150 unless they're as heavily into the subject as yourself. Americans are generally more enthusiastic about DNA. Steve Tanner -----Original Message----- From: Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> To: lovelock@rootsweb.com <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Sent: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 11:21 Subject: [LOVELOCK] DNA Tests ..... and all that Hello all, I have been contacted by a Lovelock who took a DNA Test just before Christmas. He is somewhat bemused by the ethnicity results that show he is of roughly 70% North and West European and roughly 30% Scandinavian origin, and 0% English. In consequence he wonders what any other Lovelock ethnicity results look like, and if his result is to be expected. I'm more or less in the dark regarding DNA testing, but looking at the above I am left wondering how one distinguishes between North European and Scandinavian (where is the border?), and who are the English anyway if they are not mostly North and West European and Scandinavian? All very baffling for this bear of little brain. Anyway, the point of this message is to raise the topic of DNA testing once again, to see where, if anywhere, it takes us, and to hear the experiences of any who have indulged. You will have gathered that I have not applied for a test, the main reason being that there is one particular question I would like an answer to and so far nobody has explained to me what would be necessary for DNA testing to provide that answer. Any contributions on the subject will be most welcome. Regards, Graham _______________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lovelock family history Web pages: http://lovelock.free.fr/ Browse Lovelock trees on the Webtrees portal: http://loveluck.net/LovelockTrees/ _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/lovelock@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Hello all, I have been contacted by a Lovelock who took a DNA Test just before Christmas. He is somewhat bemused by the ethnicity results that show he is of roughly 70% North and West European and roughly 30% Scandinavian origin, and 0% English. In consequence he wonders what any other Lovelock ethnicity results look like, and if his result is to be expected. I'm more or less in the dark regarding DNA testing, but looking at the above I am left wondering how one distinguishes between North European and Scandinavian (where is the border?), and who are the English anyway if they are not mostly North and West European and Scandinavian? All very baffling for this bear of little brain. Anyway, the point of this message is to raise the topic of DNA testing once again, to see where, if anywhere, it takes us, and to hear the experiences of any who have indulged. You will have gathered that I have not applied for a test, the main reason being that there is one particular question I would like an answer to and so far nobody has explained to me what would be necessary for DNA testing to provide that answer. Any contributions on the subject will be most welcome. Regards, Graham

Gosh what a lot of hard work you have put in, Graham - well done and many thanks! Regards Sue Lovelock ----Original message---- From : lovelockgraham@hotmail.com Date : 14/02/2019 - 15:12 (GMTST) To : lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject : [LOVELOCK] 50 to go ..... Hello all, Yes, only 50 to go. 50 unsolved attributions in the list of Lovelocks who left a Will from 1996 to 2018: http://lovelock.free.fr/documents/Wills%20from%201996%20onwards.html Any help with placing any of them will be much 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> _______________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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

..... but shall we ever know what it was? The 'Gravestone Photographic Resource' website at https://www.gravestonephotos.com has some details of a grave in the Wickham Road Cemetery in Fareham, Hampshire. It appears that the first person mentioned on the memorial is Mary C Lovelock, who was born Mary C Meade on 27 Dec 1923 and died in the Portsmouth RD in Oct-Dec 1951. Mary had married Henry George Lovelock in the Gosport RD in Jul-Sep 1942. Henry died on 19 Nov 2008 and is also mentioned on the memorial, as, apparently, is a Margaret Aherne. In the 1939 Register Mary was living in a household which also contained a widowed Ellen C Meade born 26 Dec 1897 who I take to be her mother, but interestingly also in the household was a Margaret Ahern (sic) born 22 May 1885, and single. You will not be surprised to learn that there is no GRO Birth entry in Free BMD for Mary C Meade in 1923. There is an entry in Jan-Mar 1922, but that turns out to be the daughter of Patrick Meade and Bridget Dobbins, which does not fit with Ellen being Mary's mother, if indeed she was. I did wonder if Margaret Ahern was Ellen's sister, but there does not seem to be a Meade/Ahern marriage to support that idea. Ellen Christine Meade died in Jul-Sep 1981, although the entry gives her date of birth as 26 Dec 1898. It seems odd that Margaret Ahern should be mentioned on the memorial, but not Ellen. And last but not least of the puzzles here is that there is no record of the birth of the Henry George Lovelock who married Mary Meade, and he does not appear to have been recorded in the 1939 Register. 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, Yes, only 50 to go. 50 unsolved attributions in the list of Lovelocks who left a Will from 1996 to 2018: http://lovelock.free.fr/documents/Wills%20from%201996%20onwards.html Any help with placing any of them will be much 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>

Ooops! Forget the Annie Elizabeth suggestion. We know that she married Ernest Gutteridge in 1923. G ________________________________ From: Graham Lovelock <lovelockgraham@hotmail.com> Sent: 06 February 2019 14:59 To: Lovelock family history Subject: Elizabeth A Lovelock Hello all, Trying to tie up yet another loose-end. An Elizabeth A Lovelock married Charles W Woodbridge in the Staines RD in the Jul-Sep quarter of 1926. By the time of the 1939 Register they had moved into Wandsworth (where yours truly sits penning this). Elizabeth's date of birth is recorded as 1 Aug 1894, making her almost 10 years older than Charles. He died in 1943, but there does not seem to be any re-marriage of Elizabeth. You will all be only too familiar with what comes next: no birth entry for an Elizabeth in 1894, no death entry, and no identifiable presence in the 1901 or 1911 Census Returns. There was an Elizabeth recorded in Staines in 1901, but she was born May Elizabeth in 1896. There was also an Elizabeth A in Northop in North Wales, but she was born in Oct-Dec 1893, and was still in Northop in 1911. She may, of course, have moved to Staines, although there is no obvious reason for such a move. Furthermore, one could understand her taking a year or two off her age so that she was nearer to her husband's age, but to choose a fictional date as well seems a little unnecessary. One possibility that occurs is that she may be the Annie Elizabeth Lovelock, the daughter of Albert William and Catherine (nee Robshaw) from the St Pancras (Main) Tree. Annie's birth was registered in the Oct-Dec quarter of 1894, which would be later than the statutory period allowed, but on the other hand we presently have no information on her after the 1911 Census entry. Any thoughts 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>

Hello all, Trying to tie up yet another loose-end. An Elizabeth A Lovelock married Charles W Woodbridge in the Staines RD in the Jul-Sep quarter of 1926. By the time of the 1939 Register they had moved into Wandsworth (where yours truly sits penning this). Elizabeth's date of birth is recorded as 1 Aug 1894, making her almost 10 years older than Charles. He died in 1943, but there does not seem to be any re-marriage of Elizabeth. You will all be only too familiar with what comes next: no birth entry for an Elizabeth in 1894, no death entry, and no identifiable presence in the 1901 or 1911 Census Returns. There was an Elizabeth recorded in Staines in 1901, but she was born May Elizabeth in 1896. There was also an Elizabeth A in Northop in North Wales, but she was born in Oct-Dec 1893, and was still in Northop in 1911. She may, of course, have moved to Staines, although there is no obvious reason for such a move. Furthermore, one could understand her taking a year or two off her age so that she was nearer to her husband's age, but to choose a fictional date as well seems a little unnecessary. One possibility that occurs is that she may be the Annie Elizabeth Lovelock, the daughter of Albert William and Catherine (nee Robshaw) from the St Pancras (Main) Tree. Annie's birth was registered in the Oct-Dec quarter of 1894, which would be later than the statutory period allowed, but on the other hand we presently have no information on her after the 1911 Census entry. Any thoughts 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>

Does anyone have any information on Gladys Pampling? She married Jesse David Lovelock in 1920, and we know from the birth of their daughter that Pampling was her maiden name. None of the three of them appear in the 1939 Register, although as Jesse was a merchant seaman he was possibly at sea at the time. There does not seem to be a birth entry for Gladys, nor a death entry. Regards, Graham

Hello all, In 1891 a household in Mapledurham, Oxfordshire consisted of James French, his wife Ann, their niece Clara E Lovelock, and a Boarder named Joseph Keep, a shepherd by occupation. Ann French was born Susannah Ann Lovelock in 1853, a member of the Lieflock Line. On 28 Feb 1903 Joseph Keep married a Sarah Ann Lovelock in St Lawrence, Reading, Berkshire. One of the witnesses to the wedding was James French. Sarah Ann Lovelock was born in Oct-Dec 1875, and the GRO Online Birth Index does not give a mother's maiden name which usually indicates an illegitimate birth. The 1911 Census gives her place of birth as Hungerford. But whose daughter would she be? Certainly not Susannah Ann's for she and James French had married in 1871. One possibility seems to be that she could be the daughter of Susannah's sister Sarah who died, unmarried, in the same quarter as Sarah Ann was born. There is a bit of nonsense in the Webtrees file at the moment, for which I will plead guilty, although it is odd that Webtrees does not flag it up. We (I?) have identified Clara Effie Lovelock, the niece of Susannah born in 1895, as the daughter of the Sarah who died in 1875 !!! Dare I suggest that Clara is actually Susannah's great-niece, and is the daughter of the Sarah Ann who married Joseph Keep? There is no mother's maiden name in Clara's birth entry, and by the time she was born Susannah's other sisters could not be the mother as Martha had married in 1886 and Elizabeth had died in 1888. I shall make appropriate amendments to the file, but will be quite happy to amend further should anyone be able to find any evidence of another solution. Regards, Graham

Ah - I see the problem. I used Ancestry and they, bless their cotton socks, have it indexed as Lovell-lynn. Thanks for putting me right, Sue. Regards, Graham ________________________________ From: SUE LOVELOCK via LOVELOCK <lovelock@rootsweb.com> Sent: 25 January 2019 09:37:12 To: Lovelock family history Cc: SUE LOVELOCK Subject: [LOVELOCK] Re: Ethel Lovelock nee Snow Hello Graham, Findmypast has a death record for an Ethel Lovelock in Haringey district Jul-Sep 1973. It gives the date of birth as 8 Jan 1904 so it looks as if that is the Ethel in question. However I can find nothing further about daughter Iris. Regards Sue Lovelock ----Original message---- From : lovelockgraham@hotmail.com Date : 24/01/2019 - 13:14 (GMTST) To : lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject : [LOVELOCK] Ethel Lovelock nee Snow Hello all, Ethel Snow married George Walter Lovelock somewhere in the Edmonton RD in 1926. George died in 1938 but not before he and Ethel had produced a daughter Iris E, in 1928. Ethel appears in the 1939 Register, which gives her date of birth as 8 Jan 1904. That she is entered is normally an indication that she died some time before 1992, but there does not seem to be an appropriate entry in the GRO records. Ethel was living alone in 1939, but Iris is not listed separately, suggesting that she did not die before 1992. As for her mother, there does not seem to be an appropriate death entry in the GRO records, nor one of a marriage. However, the birth of Iris was registered in the Jan-Mar quarter of 1928, and on 6 Jun 1957 an Iris Lovelock born on 8 Jan 1928 left Southampton for New York. Can anyone provide any more details about these two ladies? 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 _______________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Graham, Findmypast has a death record for an Ethel Lovelock in Haringey district Jul-Sep 1973. It gives the date of birth as 8 Jan 1904 so it looks as if that is the Ethel in question. However I can find nothing further about daughter Iris. Regards Sue Lovelock ----Original message---- From : lovelockgraham@hotmail.com Date : 24/01/2019 - 13:14 (GMTST) To : lovelock@rootsweb.com Subject : [LOVELOCK] Ethel Lovelock nee Snow Hello all, Ethel Snow married George Walter Lovelock somewhere in the Edmonton RD in 1926. George died in 1938 but not before he and Ethel had produced a daughter Iris E, in 1928. Ethel appears in the 1939 Register, which gives her date of birth as 8 Jan 1904. That she is entered is normally an indication that she died some time before 1992, but there does not seem to be an appropriate entry in the GRO records. Ethel was living alone in 1939, but Iris is not listed separately, suggesting that she did not die before 1992. As for her mother, there does not seem to be an appropriate death entry in the GRO records, nor one of a marriage. However, the birth of Iris was registered in the Jan-Mar quarter of 1928, and on 6 Jun 1957 an Iris Lovelock born on 8 Jan 1928 left Southampton for New York. Can anyone provide any more details about these two ladies? 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, Ethel Snow married George Walter Lovelock somewhere in the Edmonton RD in 1926. George died in 1938 but not before he and Ethel had produced a daughter Iris E, in 1928. Ethel appears in the 1939 Register, which gives her date of birth as 8 Jan 1904. That she is entered is normally an indication that she died some time before 1992, but there does not seem to be an appropriate entry in the GRO records. Ethel was living alone in 1939, but Iris is not listed separately, suggesting that she did not die before 1992. As for her mother, there does not seem to be an appropriate death entry in the GRO records, nor one of a marriage. However, the birth of Iris was registered in the Jan-Mar quarter of 1928, and on 6 Jun 1957 an Iris Lovelock born on 8 Jan 1928 left Southampton for New York. Can anyone provide any more details about these two ladies? 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 'Find A Will' website records that Jean Alice Lovelock died on 15 Aug 2018. I am wondering if she was the Jean A Grimoldby who married Charles W Lovelock in the Watford RD in 1977? Furthermore, I am wondering who that Charles W Lovelock was? Free BMD lists only 4 Charles W's between 1905 and 1961, and perhaps he was one of them. Of the 4, one was born and died in 1905. The second was born on 24 Dec 1916 and died in Apr 1988. The third was born on 19 Jun 1918 and died in 1983. The fourth was born in 1919 and was killed in 1941. It would appear, then, that the man who married in 1977 must be either the one who died in 1988 or the one who died in 1983. Does anyone 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>