Note from Graham Lovelock, 24-Jul-07.
Graham proposed a fragment beginning with James Lovelock and Lucy Doer, who marr at Burghfield 2 Nov 1812, together with the descendants of their son Thomas, bap Burghfield 27 June 1813. In his note Graham explains that he then realised that the James Lovelock in question was thae same as the one appearing in the Hungerford-Shalbourn tree, whch did not at the time include son Thomas, or the surname of spouse Lucy. Following is the relevant text in Graham's note:
There is nothing in our Burghfield records to directly indicate the origins of James L the potential progenitor of the above, although both he and Lucy were 'of this parish' at the time of their marriage. Noting that some of their grandchildren were born in Wroughton I have previously observed that a James and Lucy had several children baptised in Wroughton from 1815 onwards. However, that couple are already fully accounted for as part of the Wroughton-Tidcombe tree. There are, though, three baptisms at Hungerford of interest in the current 'investigation':
1816 Apr 14 John LOVELOCK, Father: James LOVELOCK Mother: Lucy
1818 Aug 22 Joseph LOVELOCK, Father: James LOVELOCK Mother: Lucy
1821 Sep 23 LOVELOCK, Father: James LOVELOCK Mother: Lucy
The James in those entries might seem unlikely to be from Hungerford - the nearest baptism of a James there in time was in 1771 - and there is no relevant entry in the marriage records. However, the Hungerford marriage records do include the following:
1825 Jan 3 Thomas Spicer and Lucy Lovelock, wid
There are no Lovelock burials in Hungerford between 1812 and 1904 recorded on the Website, so it would seem that we can not be certain that the widowed Lucy had been the wife of James, but I present as supporting evidence the following entry from the 1841 Census:
Layland Greene (sic), Kintbury, Berks
HO107 21/12 F8 P10
Thomas Spicer 35 Ag Lab
Lousia (sic) Spicer 45
Stephen Spicer 15
William Spicer 14 All were born in Berkshire
Henry Spicer 11
Rosa Spicer 9
John Lovelock 25
The linking of John L with Mrs Spicer I think justifies another small tree as a result (picking up on some 1851 and 1861 data along the way regarding John L):
+ Lucy (Lousia) UNKNOWN b abt 1796
John LOVELOCK bap 14 Apr 1816 in Hungerford, Berks
+ Mary WATTS (b 1800/01 in Wooten, Oxon) m in 2Q 1845 in Hungerford RD, ref 6 283
Joseph LOVELOCK bap 22 Aug 1818 in Hungerford, Berks
Unknown LOVELOCK bap 23 Sep 1821 in Hungerford, Berks
But it gets a little better, when we consider the following entry from 1851:
1 Mt Pleasant, St Giles, Reading, Berks
HO107 1692 F602 P30
Thomas Spicer Head 48 Ag Lab Hungerford, Berks
Lucy Spicer Wife 58 Burghfield, Berks
Stephen Spicer Son 26 Ag Lab Hungerford, Berks
Ann Spicer Daur 24 Hungerford, Berks
Henry Spicer Son 21 Ag Lab Hungerford, Berks
Rosanna Spicer Daur 19 Needlewoman Hungerford, Berks
H Griffin Lodger (Male) 21 Ag Lab Reading, Berks
Infant Son 10mos Reading, Berks
Sarah Stevens Visitor 45 Ag Lab Farnham, Surrey
I think there's sufficient evidence there, with Lucy being from Burghfield, to link the Burghfield baptism of Thomas in 1813 with the 3 baptisms in Hungerford.
But of course, the Hungerford baptisms are part of the Hungerford-Shalbourne Tree that you posted on the website on 12 Sep 06 James.
So this seems to me to be the story: the James baptised in 1771 in Hungerford is the one who married Lucy DOER (or DORE?) in Burghfield in 1812, he having apparently taken up residence there. When they married he was 41 and she was about 19. Clearly Lucy was already pregnant, for their son Thomas was baptised in Burghfield only 7 months later, which would be a good enough reason to explain the otherwise most unusual, for the times, difference in their ages. (I am always minded in these cases to remember that when my parents married my father was 44 and my mother 22.) Sometime in the next 3 years the couple moved to Hungerford, where 3 more children were born. Not too long after the third arrived James died, and Lucy remarried to Thomas Spicer in Jan 1825. Presuming that James died sometime in 1824 he would have been aged about 53. We might eventually find that entry in the Hungerford Burial Register. Lucy would have been left with 4 children under the age of 12, which would have been a pretty good reason to marry again. Of James' and Lucy's 4 children we can now establish a trail for 3: Thomas, John (both as above, although regrettably John apparently had no children) and Joseph (as in the Hungerford-Shalbourne Tree).
In a reply to Graham 3-Oct-07 I noted that:
I had in fact already included the re-marriage of Lucy (UNKNOWN at the time) to Thomas Spicer in my Hungerford - Shalbourne database. It doesn't show up in the descendant tree generated by Legacy, which only follows the Lovelock line. However you will find it on the PhpGedView site, although it's somewhat obscured by the fact that I hadn't marked Thomas Spicer as 'Non Living', so the marriage details are not included, but they are in my database. However, I hadn't followed up on the Spicer family, because I didn't have access to the 1841 and 1851 census records.