I'm pleased that the post-Xmas Web update stimulated Robert to dig a little further into this fragment! I should have mentioned that when Graham sent the fragment he included the following note concerning Kathleen Pearson's conjecture about the parents of James L: "Kath is the one who has pointed out the glaring error in the Marlborough data we have: the Marlborough Fragment 4 has descendants of James L bap 1816, but we have the burial entry for that James when he was but 5 weeks old! Kath believes "her" James may have been the son of James L and Ann Angel, for whom we have the marriage and two baptisms, but has not found an entry to substantiate that." The "Marlborough Fragment 4" that Graham refers to is in the collection of "Fragments by Parish" at the bottom of the page on "Wiltshire Family Trees & Fragments" (-> Trees and Fragments -> Wilts Trees & Fragments). Robert and I produced these fragments quite a long time ago and they have never been updated in the light of more recent data, so they should be treated with caution! Regards, James Robert Sterry wrote: >Thanks James. I couldn't resist seeing if I could find anything further on >this new line. I believe I found an additional child of Henry L, the >bricklayer, and Sophia Hilliard, also bp at Reading St Mary: 1880 Jul 4 >Charles s. Henry Lovelock & Sophia. > >There appear to be two contenders given data available for the baptism of >James L, the Whitesmith, who married Susan Hunt: > >Easton Royal >1812 James s. William & Susanna > >and > >Reading Independent >1813 James s. Francis L. & Ann > >The former would seem likely. This would be a great link as it would connect >James straight into the main Lieflock tree. However, we have this James >married to a Harriet Culley at Easton Royal in 1839 (Source: IGI). So I >decided to double check this source. I see that the info was submitted by a >member of the LDS church - not from a parish register or census - and >therefore should certainly be checked. Marriages in Easton Royal have not >been checked beyond 1837. > >However, I note that there is a likely James L marriage in 1839 in the GRO: >Event Year Surname Forenames Reg District Vol >Page Qtr/Mo >Marriage 1839 Lovelock James Pewsey >VIII 645 4 > >Easton Royal was of course in the registration district of Pewsey. > >And I found this in 1841 census for Easton: >Pewsey Registration District** >Address: Easton > >Surname Forenames Relationship Age Occupation Born in County >CULLEY John Head 60 Ag Lab >LOVELOCK James Son-in-Law 25 Labourer >LOVELOCK Harriett Daur 25 >CULLEY Robert Son 15 Labourer > >Allowing for the normal 'rounding down' in the 1841, the age matches. > >And again in the 1851: >Pewsey Registration District >Address Easton Street, Easton >James Lovelock, Head, 38, Ag Lab, born Easton >Harriett Lovelock, Wife, 37, born Easton > >So that effectively eliminates James bp 1812 > >So I searched for James and Susan (Hunt) in census. > >This family group from 1851 looks right: >Marlb. Mary LOVELOCK Emily da 5 Marlborough Wil >Marlb. Mary LOVELOCK Henry so 10 Marlborough Wil >Marlb. Mary LOVELOCK Jane da 12 Marlborough Wil >Marlb. Mary LOVELOCK John so 14 Marlborough Wil >Marlb. Mary LOVELOCK Susan hd 40 Swindon Wil > >Was James dead by then? It would be interesting to try and find them in the >1841 census for Marlborough. We haven't searched in that Registration >District. > >A very Happy New Year to all > >Robert > >PS I noticed that there is a James Lovelock (who married a Love Eliza), also >a Whitesmith, who was baptising children in Reading St Giles about the same >time as James who married Susan Hunt. I guess this is just a coincidence? > > > >>I've added a new fragment to the Collected Lovelock >>fragments. This is >>Fragment 19 and was provided by Graham Lovelock following >>exchanges with >>Kathleen Pearson (Née Lovelock). It is particularly >>interesting because >>it links Marlborough (Wilts), Reading (Berks) and Surrey. >> >> > > > > > >