Hello all, Some time ago I added to the Web site a page concerning the distribution of Lovelocks, which includes charts and maps showing how Lovelocks were distributed throughout the UK in 1881 and 1901, based on the census data for those years. You'll find the page at: http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/documents/lovelock-distribution.htm I just found out that there is a new Web site which displays results from a project at UCL on surname distributions, and which provides data for 1881 and 1901. The analysis of the data also includes ethnicity indications based on forenames (? 0.1 % of Lovelocks have Indian forenames!) and more information about geographical distribution, including countries other than the UK In particular AUS & NZ). You'll find the Web site at: http://www.spatial-literacy.org/UCLnames/Surnames.aspx The good news is that there were more Lovelocks in 1998 (1899) than in 1881 (1281), which confirms the figures I had comparing 1901 (1763) and 1881 (1391, slightly different than above). Also, the spread of Lovelocks away from the core Lovelock country (Wilts, Berks, Hants, Oxon, ...) is confirmed, and very easy to see by alternately clicking on the 1881 map and 1998 map. The database also provides some interesting statistics, for example: Reading was the GB top area in 1881, Swindon in 1998; Thatcham is the top postal town; the name is relatively more common in Aus & NZ than in GB; etc. I'll probably include some of this information (or pointers to it) on the above mentioned Web page when I get around to it. James

But whereas there was almost a 38% increase in numbers between 1881 and 1901, there was less than an 8% increase between 1901 and 1998. So what slowed things down I wonder? Also, according to the data at: http://www.ancestry.com/learn/facts/Fact.aspx?fid=6&ln=lovelock there were 1452 Lovelocks in the UK in 1891, making a 13.3% increase over 1881, with 1901 representing a 21.4% increase over 1891. I suppose the most obvious reasons for the slow-down would be World War 1 and, a very topical matter, the 1918 influenza epidemic. Part of the increases between 1881 and 1901 would undoubtedly have been older Lovelocks living longer on average, and of course they were the ones not adding further to the numbers. The men who died in the war were by definition the younger ones who might have created the families to keep the numbers swelling, and I believe the Influenza also took significantly more younger people than old. Emigration might also have been a significant factor - there are certainly plenty of Lovelocks in AUS and NZ, although not so many from what I've seen in Canada. Any other thoughts, anyone? Graham ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Loveluck" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 1:50 PM > Hello all, > > Some time ago I added to the Web site a page concerning the distribution > of Lovelocks, which includes charts and maps showing how Lovelocks were > distributed throughout the UK in 1881 and 1901, based on the census data > for those years. You'll find the page at: > http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/documents/love lock-distribution.htm > > I just found out that there is a new Web site which displays results > from a project at UCL on surname distributions, and which provides data > for 1881 and 1901. The analysis of the data also includes ethnicity > indications based on forenames (? 0.1 % of Lovelocks have Indian > forenames!) and more information about geographical distribution, > including countries other than the UK In particular AUS & NZ). > > You'll find the Web site at: > http://www.spatial-literacy.org/UCLnames/Surnames.aspx > > The good news is that there were more Lovelocks in 1998 (1899) than in > 1881 (1281), which confirms the figures I had comparing 1901 (1763) and > 1881 (1391, slightly different than above). Also, the spread of > Lovelocks away from the core Lovelock country (Wilts, Berks, Hants, > Oxon, ...) is confirmed, and very easy to see by alternately clicking on > the 1881 map and 1998 map. > > The database also provides some interesting statistics, for example: > Reading was the GB top area in 1881, Swindon in 1998; Thatcham is the > top postal town; the name is relatively more common in Aus & NZ than in > GB; etc. > > I'll probably include some of this information (or pointers to it) on > the above mentioned Web page when I get around to it. > > James > > > ==== LOVELOCK Mailing List ==== > Lovelock family history Web pages: > http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/ > > ============================== > Find your ancestors in the Birth, Marriage and Death Records. > New content added every business day. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13964/rd.ashx > >