Hi Robert Thanks for your brilliant response - and for your kind words. The issue recurred because my 2nd cousin David (in Tucson) and I are tying up a version of 'our bit' of the Wootton Rivers line (now part of the Lieflock tree!) which adds more detail from our own and our respective fathers' generations and immediate families. (He'll send it to James to draw on for the website in due course.) Harriett is/was a shared great great aunt. I spotted that David had changed Merriett to Merritt in his latest version and in response to a query on my part he told me he'd done so as a result of checking Free BMD. I repeated that and pursued the matter a bit further as reported. What fun! Re. using a maiden names, I'd just thought that the practice was predominantly a more recent one - doubtless an unfounded assumption! Either way, the first marriage explains the surname at the second. We'll probably never know about the gravestone. I don't know whether there was any particular reason for you not posting reply to the list - too specific/detailed maybe? I hope you don't mind me sending this wider; it seems potentially an interesting little vignette. Best wishes from a gloriously sunny Southampton Robin PS If your reference to 'seeking volunteers' was a hint Robert ........???!! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Sterry" <[email protected]> To: "'ROBIN LOVELOCK'" <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2004 5:40 AM Subject: RE: Harriett M? (Lovelock?) Greetings Robin Delighted to see you're back in action again! On the gravestone we > find 'John William Lovelock ... and his wife Harriett > Merriett' (there's a photo on the website). I've always > wondered if the mason made a mistake, 'Merriett' not being a > first name I've come across elsewhere, and also being so > 'like' 'Harriett'. Given the other references to Harriett Merriett/Merrett/Merritt I think it's unlikely to have been just a mistake. >Free BMD, on the other hand, has 'Merritt', referencing Marriages, > March 1882 - March 1882, Reading, Volume 2c, page 499. Excellent. I hadn't checked for the marriage on Free BMD. And you're quite right. We haven't checked marriages for that year yet for the Lovelocks in the GRO. I believe Malcolm and I were hopefully waiting for some volunteers to help with this project. In the meantime, checking Free BMD is a very good idea. The entry in FreeBMD says that her SURNAME was MERRITT. I'm not sure why you reject the possibility of her retaining her maiden name after she was married? >It seems unlikely > (to me anyway) that Harriett simply retained her single name, > while that from any possible first marriage - like John > William she was 37 when they married - seems even less > likely, although the minimal 'Family' info. available via the > IGI gives Harriett's father as one Joseph Dicker. Now this additional information sent me scurrying. It IS of course very likely that this was indeed Harriett Dicker's second marriage, the first being of course to a Merrett/Merritt/Merriett. So I checked the IGI - and guess what? 1871 Sep 30 Reading St Giles Harriett Dicker, age 27, Father: Joseph Dicker married a George Merritt, age 26, Father: Thomas Merritt A perfect match!! QED. Well done Robin. What a great question! I guess the spelling of her previous married name that she chose to place on her headstone was a personal matter! Or perhaps the stone mason did get it wrong!!?? I have found such errors in my own family on headstones. I'm sure it's not uncommon. Hope this helps Robert