Hampshire - Suffolk - Rutland - Herefordshire Tree

Birth and baptism details contained in 'British Armed Forces, Roman Catholic Registers' data at Findmypast website.

Located RL c. 28/2/07. Added 13/3 after James agreed - and we didn't have the second forename previously.

Birth and baptism details contained in 'British Armed Forces, Roman Catholic Registers' data at Findmypast website.

Note: Frederick Lovelock was not present, since he was at the Army Hospital Corps Depot Aldershot (see individual entry for Frederick Lovelock).

Aldershot, Hampshire North Lane Green Gr Shop RG11 782 F101 P21

Mary Ann Russell;Other (Head);W;70;Green Grocer;Wilts, Marlborough Mary Ann Lovelock;Other (Head);M;27;Soldiers wife;Gibraltar John Lovelock;Daur [sic];;2;;Malta Charles Lovelock;Son;;3m;;Hants, Aldershot Mary E Graham;Wife;M;18;Soldier wife;Ireland, .??... Sarah Page;Wife (Head);M;29;Soldier wife;Essex, Marlow Florance [sic] E Page;Daur;;1;Hants, Aldershot

RL 27/6/06: The above is a <u>revised transcription, following extensive discussion</u> with Graham 20/25 Feb 2007 of aspects of the image and LDS/Ancestry transcriptions.

(i) James's rendering in the 5/3/07 gedcom - also currently [22/6/07] appearing (same data/slightly different layout) in the Lovelock website collection of Hampshire 1881 Lovelock entries - was as follows:

Dwelling: North Lane Green Gr Shop Census Place: Aldershot, Hampshire, England Source: FHL Film 1341184 PRO Ref RG11 Piece 0782 Folio 101 Page 21 Marr Age Sex Birthplace Mary Ann LOVELOCK M 27 F Gibraltar Rel: Other (Head) Occ: Soldiers Wife Ann LOVELOCK 2 F ... Rel: Daur Charles LOVELOCK 3 m M Aldershot, Hampshire, England Rel: Son Mary H. GRAHAM M 18 F ..., Ireland Rel: Wife Occ: Soldier Wife

(ii) Graham's previous transcription in the collection compiled to support this tree:

North Lane Green Gr Shop, Aldershot, Hants RG11 782 F101 P21 Mary Ann Russell W (sic) 70 Green Grocer Marlborough, Wilts Mary Ann Lovelock Head 27 Soldiers wife Gibraltar John Lovelock Daur(sic) 2 Malta Charles Lovelock Son 3m Aldershot, Hants Mary E Graham Wife 18 Soldiers wife Ireland ...(?) Sarah Page Wife 29 Soldiers wife Marlow, Essex Florance E Page Daur 1 Aldershot, Hants

(iii) Additional material extracted by RL from the LDS CD-ROM, where 3 'separate' 'households'(?) are shown, each with the same address and other reference details cited:

[preceding the 3 Lovelocks and Mary Graham] Mary Ann RUSSELL W 70 F Marlborough, Wiltshire, England Rel: Other (Head) Occ: Green Grocer

....... 3 Lovelocks and Mary Graham as per James's transcription above ........

[following the 3 Lovelocks and Mary Graham] Sarah PAGE M 29 F Marlow, Essex, England Rel: Wife (Head) Occ: Soldier Wife Florence E. PAGE 1 F Aldershot, Hampshire, England Rel: Daur

<u>Discussion</u>: G 20/2: "The 2 year old child may well have been Ann, and is certainly indicated as 'Daur'. However, I am adamant that the Enumerator has written 'John' as the name. There are, of course, two examples of 'Ann' written immediately above it, and whilst they are identical in form to each other (one being slightly smaller) they are nothing like the child's name. I have included the details of everyone who was living in the Greengrocer's shop, as indicated by 'do' entries in the address column, whilst diagonal strokes from the Enumerator to the left of the names indicate members of 4 'families' as you would expect from the surnames. The last child recorded might have had the name Florence, but the Enumerator has written it as Florance. HOWEVER, a further lengthy pondering over the script does lead to one change. The Enumerator has not recorded anybody as being the Head of the household. What I and the LDS transcribers took to be 'Head' against Mary Ann Lovelock is actually 'Mar', although in that column has been added a 'W' to both Mary Ann entries. In the 'Relation to Head of Family' column there is against both Mary Anns a letter which might be a 'U' a 'W' or an 'M'. Since Mary Ann Lovelock, who's the only adult here we're really interested in, is clearly listed as a Soldier's Wife the two W's, or even the one if the other is an M, make no sense at all."

R 21/2: "(i) Re. John/Ann, Daur etc: the 1901 Sholing entry would suggest that 'Daur' rather than 'John' is the more likely error in the 1881 would it not? (I mean that to be a judgement on balance with regard to other data we have, rather than simply a 'preferential' reading of one entry vs another!) Ages given seem to fit rather well as between the two years - or am I missing something? I note Malta/Gibraltar variation re. Mary Ann's birthplace and that the H-to-H tree 'as is' has the latter. ........... (ii) James ...... seems: (a) to've taken the LDS transcription pretty much at face value - especially as regards 3 rather than 4 households/families, although that could be a slip on the transcriber's part given your observation re. the 'diagonal strokes'; (b) only to've included the Lovelock household (taken, rightly or wrongly, to include Mary E (or H!) Graham). (Malta as Ann/John's birthplace is also missing from the LDS version.) (iii) I think the Enumerator may've been trying to make sense of a complicated multi-family/multi-'household' (as defined for enumeration purposes) set-up, and to render sensibly and at the same time marital status, <i>de facto</i> HofH status (with absentee soldier husbands/fathers), and 'real' HofH (i.e. Head of Family as and when present) status. In that context and with other possible 'issues' involved, s/he understandably perhaps used 'W' for Wife in places as well as (maybe) for Widow - which (lacking other data that I'm aware of) Mary Ann Russell and even Mary E (or H) Graham could have been." <i>{This interpretation implicitly/broadly agreed by GL.} </i> R 23/2: "...... could you kindly recheck the image you have access to re. 'Mary E'/'Mary H' ........" G 23/2: "As it happens there are three other capital aitches on the page, which are differently formed from the letter in Mary Graham's name. There are also seven capital eees which are similar to, but different to that mysterious letter. However, there are more similarities in the letter to one of the eees, in the form of two loops, that this possibly over-rides the existence of a third loop, and an additional vertical stroke to the left which is what led me to think it was an aitch. Suggest in summary that we go with an eeee."

RL 27/6/07: Replaced a previous transcription - small additions/differences. Discussed, in particular, during exchange 20/23 Feb 2007, leading to revised transcription - see note.

RL 21/6/07: (i) 'Fragment 6' has a note (presumably ref'ce the marriag e) that "Charles jumped ship".

(ii) The following appeared among notes to the previous HTML version of this tree:

"Data from the NZ BMDs which could be related to the family of Charles LOVELOCK (b 1881/82) and Elizabeth Cathleen [sic] WALKER:

This death could be that of son Frederick b. 1907, but there's no age to confirm this: 1985 LOVELOCK Frederick Charles 8744 Death Dunedin

This birth could be another child of Charles and Elizabeth Cathleen: 1904 LOVELOCK Charles William 1146 Birth Dunedin March"

26/6/07: James, in response to my raising various queries/changes concerning Catherine/Cathleen and family, cited an earlier email he'd sent to Nigel, Graham and Robert "a few months after Nigel had proposed the connection between the (then embryonic) Hants-to-Hereford tree and the Wesmill tree" [I assume, therefore, c. Jan 2006]; the two BMDs above were mentioned in the message as not having been entered in the data "since they're somewhat uncertain".

RL 16/6/07: RL 16/6/06: above text taken from website entry rather than being put in 'usual' (GRO) format. NZ BMDs on Lovelock website only include Charles; we have specific date and name of spouse (albeit as Elizabeth <u>Cathleen</u>) from 'Fragment 6'.