Hi Everyone John Lovelock and myself have for some time been working on trying to establish family connections at the beginning of our Berkshire Lovelock line. I thought I'd share this little exchange with the Lovelock 'list', not only because it's exciting, but because it might hopefully give other Lovelock researchers some ideas on new lines of research that they had perhaps not previously considered. They are certainly new for me, anyway! Best wishes Robert ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- Hi John Still pondering your excellent recent research at Berkshire RO. The Edward Lovelock whose Settlement Certificate you found in the index for 1704 is intriguing. Who was this Edward L? He was presumeably a young man who had left Reading to find work in Newbury, so presumeably aged at least 14 and therefore born 1690 or earlier. The only suitable Edward I could find was in Aldermaston bp 1685 son of John and Hester Lovelock. A possibility I guess. Could he be a brother to John Lovelock who married Elizabeth Woolfe? He did have a brother John. Maybe. The examination certificate for John Lovelock dated 1739 at Reading is certainly very exciting. John and Elizabeth had at least one child before they were married: '1739 Jul 2 John the Base born child of John Lovelock & Elizabeth Woolfe'. The examination may have been a bastardy examination and may well have coincided with their marriage. Otherwise it's a mighty big coincidence. I tried to find out more about such examinations, but haven't found out much of use so far. Usually (at this time) I believe they were conducted by the local JP in an effort to establish who the natural father was. Perhaps he was just giving himself up to justice!? As hoped, he states his birthplace. Since he was hired out to Thomas James abt 1733, he was presumeably of working age and therefore probably at least 14. That would make him born abt 1719 or earlier. The connection to South Stoke is also most interesting, as he presumeably returned there for work in 1743. You say you searched Burghfield and adjoining parishes for his baptism. That's fantastic! We also need to check whether there are any baptism years missing in the parish register. The Burghfield baptisms you found are in the IGI and the burials in the National Burial Index. I assume you have the latest Lovelock in Berkshire file. The wedding you found is new information. Excellent! He may of course have been born in Burghfield but baptised elsewhere. The family you noted in Burghfield may well be John's as indeed his baptism entry could have been lost. I have always assumed John was about 20 when he married Elizabeth Woolfe - but may have been younger - and it may well have been a forced marriage. Let's say 18. That means he was born abt 1721 or earlier. That date fits in rather nicely with the Burghfield family. If the baptism was indeed lost, we need something to establish that his father was indeed Richard. There just might be a written record of his being hired to Thomas James. I assume it wasn't an apprenticeship or this would have been stated. There may be such a record in Burghfield parish records. Parishes were always keen to send elsewhere children of pauper parents - if indeed that is what they were - so they didn't become a burden on the parish. Apprenticeships could be organised when children were as young as seven years! Such children were of course a cheap source of labour as they only had to be clothed and fed. As you say, further research is needed. But this is the very best lead we have found so far. In fact, it's so exciting, would you mind if I shared it with the Lovelock list? This is major breakthrough stuff!! Well done! Very best wishes Robert