Hi Mike Sorry it's taken a while to get back to you. However, I must admit I was a bit puzzled as to why you found further IGI entries for Lovelocks in Hampshire. I believed I had extracted them all ages ago. So I had to recheck. The additional entries you found are births not baptisms. Now I certainly did not extract all IGI entries in Hampshire. I excluded any entries - and there are a great many - that appeared to be just guesses. As you know, the IGI is made up of direct extractions from parish registers by LDS volunteers plus personal submissions by members of the Mormon Church. The parish extractions are usually extremely reliable - at least within the dates searched and excluding of course burials. But the personal submissions are only as good as that person's research and are often just wild guesses. As you would imagine, it is extremely unusual for parish registers - at least in the Anglican Church - to include births without baptisms. So any births without baptisms - especially before civil registration in 1837 - are rather dubious. Personal submissions from the civil register after 1837 could of course show as births not baptisms - either by reference to the GRO or from the birth certificate itself. However, I apparently decided to include births from the IGI where the information looked more than just a complete guess because there are some births included. But it appears I was not completely consistent in this. When I rechecked all the IGI entries I found some births which logically should have been included. Not many - but it just so happened that it included the ones you located. So I have updated the Lovelocks in Hampshire file accordingly. However, I would still treat these entries with caution. The LDS itself recommends that the IGI be treated as a 'finding aid' and that original registers need to be checked. The Hampshire Lovelock file also includes any published transcriptions of parish registers that are held by the Society of Australian Genealogists in Sydney, plus all Boyd's marriages plus the LDS Vital Records for the British Isles. I believe I also cross referenced the LDS Ancestral File and Pedigree Resource File - but these are both completely made up of personal submissions and need to be particularly treated with caution. You have certainly come a long way in a short time! You appear to have been able to access some excellent resources to help you construct quite a bit of at least a tentative family tree. In fact I am quite intrigued how you have been able to access so much so quickly. I assume you are accessing resources at one of the county record offices in Yorkshire - or are you? You are obviously able to readily acquire certificates from the Family Records Office, access substantial parts of the 1851, 1871 and 1881 census for Hampshire, the IGI, the GRO indexes and several other very useful indexes. Wonderful!! It's most unusual to find someone so keen and so thorough in their research. I gather you are by no means new to genealogy? You have already pursued your Lovelock connection back to the mid 1700s! Pretty impressive! I must admit I was very curious about your detective work using the Hants. Gen. Soc. Index of Surnames for the 1851 that established that Caroline Lovelock married Thomas Hooker in Mar Q 1840. Perhaps you might care to share your methodology here? You can of course double check this by looking up Thomas Hooker in the GRO Index for 1Q, 1840, Hartley Wintney and see if the GRO reference number matches that of Caroline Lovelock. But I expect I may be suggesting the obvious here. If she did, then I agree with you that Caroline is very probably the sister of Jane who married Michael Turner. I also agree with you that the Richard Lovelock you found in the 1881 census is probably a brother of Jane. I am amazed how you are finding all these GRO entries. It takes so long to go through the GRO indexes! Yet you seem to have managed to locate relevant marriages and deaths all over the place. Amazing. By the way, when you're going through all those wonderful resources, all members of the Lovelock list would be very grateful - I'm sure- if you also manage to jot down any other Lovelocks you come across - even if they don't appear to be relevant to your own family line. The information will be bound to help someone, sometime. Since you seem to be so successful at tracking this line down in the 1881, I thoguht I'd have a go too. I have the LDS 1881 here at home - so it's pretty easy to check. I looked for the following: James Lovelock bn abt 1858 in Crondall. There was only one entry that matched - but I don't think it's him: Dwelling: Lower Wootton Census Place: Wootton St Lawrence, Hampshire, England Source: FHL Film 1341307 PRO Ref RG11 Piece 1257 Folio 23 Page 37 Marr Age Sex Birthplace James LOVELOCK M 25 M Hannington, Hampshire, England Rel: Head Occ: Thatcher Elizabeth LOVELOCK M 23 F Wootton St Lawrence, Hampshire, England Rel: Wife Henry Lovelock bn abt 1837 in Dogmersfield: No match. William Lovelock bn abt 1839 in Winchfield: The closest was this entry but doesn't look like a match: Dwelling: No 24 B St Census Place: Chelsea, London, Middlesex, England Source: FHL Film 1341020 PRO Ref RG11 Piece 0089 Folio 105 Page 31 Marr Age Sex Birthplace William LOVELOCK M 44 M Kingsclere, Hampshire, England Rel: Hd Occ: Ry Gd Eliza J. LOVELOCK M 39 F Penzance, Cornwall, England Rel: Wife Martha J. LOVELOCK U 12 F Teddington, Middlesex, England Rel: Daur Occ: Scholar William E. LOVELOCK U 10 M Kensington, Middlesex, England Rel: Son Occ: Scholar Sarah L. LOVELOCK U 9 F Kensington, Middlesex, England Rel: Daur Occ: Scholar Albert LOVELOCK U 8 M Kensington, Middlesex, England Rel: Son Occ: Scholar Walter H. LOVELOCK U 5 M Kensington, Middlesex, England Rel: Son Occ: Scholar Frederick G. LOVELOCK U 4 M Chelsea, Middlesex, England Rel: Son Occ: Inft Arthur LOVELOCK U 3 M Chelsea, Middlesex, England Rel: Son Occ: Inft Henry E. LOVELOCK U 2 M Chelsea, Middlesex, England Rel: Son Occ: Inft Oh well!!! My concern at this stage is that we're relying overmuch on the IGI. It would be wonderful, Mike, if you had the time to check the parish registers for Crondall, Winchfield and Dogmerfield say between 1750 and 1900. Is that possible? If the Mormons have filmed them, I could probably access them from here. But it sounds like your access to relevant resources is far superior to mine. Keep up the great work!! Best wishes Robert PS If anyone on the list wants to have a copy of the correspondence Mike sent through so that you can better join in the discussion, please email me separately.