Hampshire - Suffolk - Rutland - Herefordshire Tree

RL 9/3/07: Have so far found no Micheldever PR record at HR O of baptism abt 1865/6 of a George J L, grandson of Thomas and Olive.

RL 20/6/07: Graham and I had an exchange 1/4 Feb 2007 concerning the marriage and family of Walter L who we had as b 1867/8 Stockbridge [presumably from the 1871 and 1881 entries]. As a result of our explorations {more details below**} we believe the following birth entry is in fact our man: John Thomas L, Stockbridge RD 1Q 1868, 2c 86. He's entered as 'Walter Thomas' in the GRO record of his 1889 marriage [see also 1891 and 1901 census extracts - although he's just 'Walter' in both].

** Walter's stated place of birth in the 1891 and 1901 census extracts (with his wife and [in 1901] daughter), which Graham located, was Micheldever (like his brother George); whereas in the 1871 (Romsey) and 1881 (Annel Lane, Micheldever) entries (with his parents and his [widowed and remarried] mother respectively), he's recorded as born Stockbridge. Apart from this everything else we have is consistent with the 1Q 1868 John Thomas birth registration being our Walter (Thomas). Given the familiar difficulties around 'actual' birthplaces where we have GRO and census (especially 'varying' census) data but no PR record, I decided to re-check BMDIndex for Walter and his siblings. In addition, doubting from local knowledge that Micheldever and Stockbridge would be in the same RD, I turned to Genuki. Stockbridge, somewhat to my surprise, turns out to have been 'its own' RD until 1932; Micheldever, as one would expect, was in Winchester RD all the while. Perhaps the family moved when Walter was a babe-in-arms, in which case as far as he would have been concerned Micheldever was where he'd 'always' lived as a boy ...... Regarding the 'variation' in his names, perhaps the parents changed their minds about what to call him after registering the child. It doesn't seem to have been simply his own later preference to be 'Walter', since he was entered as 'Walter' both in the 1871 (aged 3) and the 1881 (aged 13) - so neither was it probably just his mother's idea.

RL 17/6/07: 4Q registration, which James would normally show as "abt Dec", but age cited in 1871 (2 April) census entry ("4 months") suggests born Nov/Dec 1870.

RL 25/6/07: Place and approx. date of birth from 1881 censu s. GRO entry gives quarter and yields second given name. FreeBMD suggests no alternative Rose, b Winchester RD.

RL 25/6/07: Place of birth from 1881 census. Stated age d 6 months in census (3 April), implying born Sept/Oct 1880; GRO entry supports "abt Sep" and yields second given name. FreeBMD suggests no alternative Elizabeth, b Winchester RD.

FreeBMD has no marriage for George J Lovelock and Louise (or Louisa).

RL 9/3/07:

Have so far found no Crawley marriage record for George J L and Louise/a?? at HRO. However, there are no Crawley Marriage Records there as yet later than 1836 - probably still held by the Church (?).

The following three notes [Graham's?] appeared in the previous HTML version - [minor additions by RL 3/07 are in square brackets]: (i) A George James Lovelock married either Annie Curtis or Edethea Robinson in the Lincoln RD in 2Q 1886, ref 7a 971, but there are no clues as to what happened to him then. (ii) A George James Lovelock also married in the Caistor RD [Lincolnshire] in 2Q 1902 [ref 7a 1471 - Annie Elizabeth Starkey or Lilian Wilkinson; the other male on the page is John James A Bamford], and this (of course it may be coincidentally) was followed by the births in the Caistor RD of Frances Mary and George Edward in 3Q 1903, ref 7a 644, and of Ruth in 1Q 1907, ref 7a 640. George Edward died in 3Q 1906, still in the Caistor RD, ref 7a 398. (iii) The only other entries from the general area are the birth and death [age 0] of Editha H Lovelock in 3Q 1910, refs 7a 489 and 7a 252, in the Lincoln RD.

I [RL] noted at some stage [see my email 2/7/06] the lack of a Louise or Louisa in any of the FreeBMD George L marriage records 1882/86, including that of a George James L married in Lincoln RD 2Q 1886 [see above]; searched again today (9/3/07) 1881/1892 with the same result.

However, searching (2/7/06) for a birth of a Louise ..???.. in Winchester RD 1859/62 threw up one 'possibility' in Louise Pauline Heller born 3Q 1860, 2c 81. [17/6/07: See also note to Louise/a's birth]. [22/8/07: Search repeated for 1857/66 {age variation 1891/1901 census entries} with same result; FreeBMD coverage is now virtually 100% for these years (except 1857).]

{Must peruse Crawley PRs some time. However (NB) some relevant ones not at HRO (e.g. no marriages post 1836) - contact the vicar?! This ref. Graham 27/6/06: "We know [RL: presumably from 1891 and/or 1901 census entries then GRO data] that George J (a grandson of Thomas and Olive) and Louise (or Louisa)'s son William was born in 2Q 1887 in Crawley ... ... There is no Free BMD record of their marriage, but since she was born in the village herself I would hope the records might contain something to help us."} In 1911 George declared that he and Louisa (sic) had been married for 24 years, ie since 1886 or 1887.