Hello all, My previous messages resulting from my exercise of cross-checking my Lovelock database against the "Lovelocks in Wiltshire" file led to a number of email exchanges, some of them off-list, and I believe we have now reached a consensus (at least temporarily!) One point on which we agreed has a significant impact in that it links what was part of an isolated Wootton Rivers tree into the Lieflock Line. This connection depends on the identification of the John Lovelock who married Elizabeth Hillier at Preschute 10 Aug 1813 as the son of John Lovelock and Elizabeth Hancock, bap. 31 Aug 1788 at Wootton Rivers. I have now uploaded an updated gedcom file to the Web site which incorpoates these changes, and I have regenerated descendant trees (in particular the Lieflock Line) from this file. In addition I have reorganised the Web pages containing the "trees and fragments" to eliminate redundant and out of date material. There is now an overview page with a table listing the most extensive trees we have produced. In addition, the Wiltshire Trees page has been revamped to eliminate out of date material and now also includes a table listing the main Wiltshire trees. Full details are available on the "What's New" page. Any feedback is welcome! Regards, James

Dear James, Great work and great news: so my (Wootton Rivers) line has been admitted to the Lieflock tree!! I must especially thank Graham for his imagination and perseverance on this one. And by an amazing (and timely) coincidence, which somehow I don't think I'd spotted before, the John Lovelock whose bride is now believed to have been Elizabeth Hillier (as per your message below) was baptised on my birthday, 31 August. I've already acknowledged (18 August, off-list) all the sterling work yourself, Graham and Robert have been doing over the summer, culminating in these significant updates. I found the Olympics pretty addictive, so it's taken me 'til now to catch up with the detail of your discussions - and I must confess I found it a bit mind-boggling trying to follow all the interweaving emails, some on-list and some off, with their multiple and overlapping topics. I've finally 'got there' - although no doubt I've missed some important points. It might be best to deal with the specifically Wootton Rivers issues in a separate post. Tomorrow or over the weekend maybe! Re. your discussions on the Lieflock line more generally, from cross-checking with 'Lovelocks in Wiltshire by Parish' etc.; I haven't followed all of this through very carefully, given my main interest is in WR, but a few points struck me: 1) There was quite a bit of discussion around the identity of the Mary L who was the mother of Lavinia Henrietta Alice (aka Lily) born 20 July 1876 (Gt Bedwyn PR) and of various (other) illegitimate children born to herself, her mother (I think), and/or another Mary L. The relevant (amended) entry in the updated Lieflock tree (pages [3-]4 and 5 of the pdf version) seems to me to have got a bit scrambled - (i) repeat of Mary+Aldin Mitchell --> Lavinia+unknown --> Ernest Charles (ii) appearance (p. 5) of another '+unknown' (possibly out-of-(vertical)'line'). Given the (new) reference back to 'Richard L on page 3', it's quite likely I've just failed to grasp what was at issue and that the layout is spot on, but just in case, you might like to re-check it. By the way, I was comparing the latest version with that of (I think) March 2003, not the June 2004 update. What may or may not be a slip comes around references to Charles and George Champion, which may itself be significant (quarter-way down p. 5). 2) Re. an off-list email from Robert to me (22 July) involving a paste-in of an earlier one (off-list?; to you and/or Graham?). The key point for me was that it included some further thoughts on the Wootton Rivers fragment (as of then) and the Lieflock line, to which Robert had referred at the Hungerford event, but the broader context was his ongoing cross-checking of various B, M and D entries. In particular, a Shalbourne burial Apr 13 1871 of William L aged 81, probably son of John L and Elizabeth Hancock. W's marriage Jun 15 1847, also at Shalbourne, to Alice Hindley. Robert refers to Alice as buried at Wootton Rivers. I can't find any reference to this in any of the material on the website and I note that she appears (p. 3 latest Lieflock pdf) as buried at Shalbourne. No burial date in 3/03 version. Just checking ...... 3) Discussion (James/Graham I think) of burials of various Mary Lovelocks at Easton Royal, 1745-90, which seemed to 'conclude' (10 Aug) that although Mary (Elford) wife of Stephen, was pretty certainly the Mary buried 7 Aug 1765, burials on 9 Feb 1783, 10 Sept 1790 and 4 March 1751/2 can't be 'allocated' as between Mary (Willmaut) wife of Thomas, Mary (Wilks) wife of Robert, and Mary (Chivers) wife of Richard with any certainty without further data. (4 March 1751/2 being a 'new' burial date, not in our PR listings 'til now - Graham 10 Aug 22:21.) {By the way, I still don't understand these 'old'/'new' dates you've often referred to Graham, e.g. ref. John, ER/WR bap. 2/12 Feb1748/9; could you explain some time please.} I also spotted 2 Mary Ls bap. 1708 and 1780 in the same area of the tree. (As many Marys in Easton Royal as Johns in Wootton Rivers eh?!) Contrasting the March 2003 and August 2004 versions, Mary Willmaut now seems to have been 'given' 1783 and Mary Chivers 1790. Am I missing part of the discussion? Mary bap. 1708 has 'always' appeared as 'd. 1745'; also as 'buried 14 Jan 1746' in the 3/03 version, but not in the latest, which generally seems to have less detail and more 'Abt's (?). One final comment of a different kind is relevant to the further 'tidying up' needed re. the Wootton Rivers fragments, to which Graham and Robert have alluded; and, as I said, I'll get to that in a separate email. Unless I've simply not found them in the combination of overall new layout and recent revisions to 'Wiltshire Trees' etc. James, you seem to have removed the 'Wiltshire Fragments by Parish' (not the listed 'Lovelock Fragments' nos 1-19). I know these were built up from PRs some years ago (by Robert and Gwen Eastment if memory serves) and that all of some and significant parts of others have been gradually combined and/or incorporated into the Lieflock or other larger trees, while the original fragments themselves have not been updated, all of which, as you said earlier, makes a good case for deleting them from the site. You've no doubt checked very carefully for redundancy over the past few weeks; a good example is the incorporation of a large part but not all of what was the Wootton Rivers fragment into the Lieflock line and the 'rediscovery' of another 'lost' Wootton Rivers fragment (the Spicer Lovelocks etc), which ongoing developments are reflected in the new listing of Wiltshire Trees and Fragments. (Interestingly, I did a search on the site for 'fragments by parish' and located the old material - or at least the page on which it was listed, with links; but I can't find same! Maybe the search picked up old stuff on my PC or it's 'hidden' in the version on your server?) My point/concern however - and this is what ties in with the 'loose ends' from incorporating some of the WR Lovelocks into the Lieflock line - is that in e.g. looking for possible births/baptisms of various John Lovelocks who might have featured later in WR I've made use of the older material from various, mostly neighbouring, parishes. I have printed copies - covered with 'notes'! - but have not yet got around to pulling my thoughts together and sharing them with you. From memory I think I identified quite a sprinkling of apparently unresolved 'mysteries'/inclarities/lines of thought which might be worth exploring - although I'm well aware that as a newcomer I've missed lots of relevant discussion and probably my 'leads' could be pretty quickly dismissed; but 'you never know'! To sum that up (!!): as well as asking for clarification of what has in fact now been removed from the site and what has been relocated and/or renamed, is it worth my while listing (perhaps off-list) for discussion/exploration the various points I'm referring to as arising from that old/out-of-date material, 'just in case', even if it has been justifiably deleted? (No doubt you've in fact retained a copy, even if it's not 'on public view'.) From a now dark Southampton - though it was sunny and warm when I started on this, and how sad is that!?! Best wishes to all Robin ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Loveluck" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 9:38 PM Subject: Family trees and gedcom file updated > Hello all, > > My previous messages resulting from my exercise of cross-checking my > Lovelock database against the "Lovelocks in Wiltshire" file led to a > number of email exchanges, some of them off-list, and I believe we have > now reached a consensus (at least temporarily!) One point on which we > agreed has a significant impact in that it links what was part of an > isolated Wootton Rivers tree into the Lieflock Line. This connection > depends on the identification of the John Lovelock who married Elizabeth > Hillier at Preschute 10 Aug 1813 as the son of John Lovelock and > Elizabeth Hancock, bap. 31 Aug 1788 at Wootton Rivers. > > I have now uploaded an updated gedcom file to the Web site which > incorpoates these changes, and I have regenerated descendant trees (in > particular the Lieflock Line) from this file. In addition I have > reorganised the Web pages containing the "trees and fragments" to > eliminate redundant and out of date material. There is now an overview > page with a table listing the most extensive trees we have produced. In > addition, the Wiltshire Trees page has been revamped to eliminate out of > date material and now also includes a table listing the main Wiltshire > trees. > > Full details are available on the "What's New" page. > > Any feedback is welcome! > > Regards, > > James > > > > > > ==== LOVELOCK Mailing List ==== > Lovelock family history Web pages: > http://perso.numericable.fr/~lovjames/family-history/lovelock/ > > ============================== > Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration > Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 >