Greetings Jack How's Spring in New Zealand? Hope your getting some of this recent rain. We certainly need it here! Great to have your comments on recent Nevada-Lyneham connection. However, I wouldn't place too much weight on Ancestry.com. Best wishes Robert > -----Original Message----- > From: Jack Lovelock [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, 3 November 2004 2:31 AM > To: Robert Sterry > Subject: Re: Daniel Lovelock Wolverhampton > > > Hi Robert and the research team. > Of the "Nevada Line", Richard Dowd had pencilled in Jane > Roberts as the wife of Daniel (married 1816). This note is on > Richard's copy of the 1847 marriage cert of George L. to Mary > Forrest. However Ancestry.com has the wife's name as Jane > Rees b abt 1790 d 22/4/1846 in Wolverhampton, Staffordshire. > I will email Richard and see if he can shed any further light > on this. Again according to Ancestry .com, Daniel's parents > were John b ? d 1832 m Sarah Batt 4/11/1783. Thay had 4 > children Mary, Kezia, Wiliam and Daniel. To confuse matters, > John married a second Sarah (according to Ancestry.com) and > had one further child - another Daniel! But checking back on > these two Daniels, they appear to be the same person!! So > perhaps there was only one marriage? John's (d 1832) parents > were another John b 1724 m Anne Giles 28/4/1751 d 13/11/1799 > They had 5 children - William, Ann, Jony, John and Mary. > John's (b1724) parents were Richard b 1686 m to Mary Head > 7/7/1706 d 24/11/1760. They had 7 children Thomas, Ann, > Joane, Mary, Joanna, Richard and John. > > I have possibly erased recent emails on the Lyneham line > before appreciating the possible link to the Nevada Line was > under discussion - must take more care! Obviously there are > no Daniels listed on the web page as children to Thomas & > Jane Bratfield, so what have I missed? Just how much can one > rely on the Ancestry.com information? Also Ancestry.com have > Daniel's (b 1770) parents as John & Sarah Batt, not Thomas & > Jane Bratfield? Regards to all, Jack Lovelock