The Lieflock Line, Wootton Rivers and Tangley Trees

Self(James Loveluck): This is somewhat tentative. It assumes Kezia was also Eliza. However, found an Eliza in the 1851 Census (Nimrod Index) aged 52, head, resident at Milton Lillbourne and also born there, who matches together with her son, aged 26 resident and born Milton Lilbourne.

Email exchange between Robin Lovelock and Graham Lovelock 19-25/10/05 Was Kezia/Eliza married briefly? The evidence for this is that on the 1851 census extracts provided by Graham Lovelock and by Gwen Eastment Eliza is recorded as "Widow". However, the W(idow) could have been a misreading of U(nmarried).

Graham Lovelock 26-Oct-05 The 1851 image has been perused, and this one can, I think, be closed out.

Eliza was definitely unmarried in 1851. Although the Enumerator's writing is reasonably clear his or her use of simply 'U' instead of 'Un' is what has caused the problem, for to some modern eyes the 'U' does look very much like a 'W'. It does NOT look anything like an 'M'.

However, reference to other entries in the village shows that the Enumerator wrote 'Wid' or 'Widow' where that applied.

Thus Eliza never married, or if she did never left any evidence of it.

I can not explain why I had Daniel down as a son rather than brother - that part of the entry is exceptionally clear. His age is partly obscured, but is, I can see now, 60 not 20.

One other thing the 1851 furnishes: Daniel was recorded as Deaf and Dumb. That must be the substance of the entry in 1861 that I can not decipher.

Milton

Daniel Lovelock, Head, 50, Ag Labourer Eliza Lovelock, -, 40, Ag Labourer William Lovelock, -, 15, Ag Labourer

Milton Lilbourne, Wiltshire, England

Eliza Lovelock Head 52 Agricultural Labourer (Widow) Milton William Lovelock Son 26 Agricultural Labourer Milton Daniel Lovelock Son 20 Agricultural Labourer Milton

Note: Census entry provided by Graham Lovelock; Eliza Lovelock was noted as W(idow), but could have been U(nmarried). Also, "Daniel Lovelock Son, 20" should presumably read "Daniel Lovelock, brother, 60"

The corresponding Nimrod 1851 census extracts are as follows: Milton LOVELOCK Daniel br 60 Milton Wil O065 Milton LOVELOCK Eliza hd 52 Milton Wil O065 Milton LOVELOCK Wm so 26 Milton Wil O065

Gwen Eastment (via Robert Sterry) also records Eliza as Widow Pewsey Registration District Address: Milton Lilbourne Eliza Lovelock, Head, 52, Ag Lab (Widow), born Milton William Lovelock, Son, 26, Ag Lab, born Milton Daniel Lovelock, Son, 20, Ag Lab, born Milton

Note: email message from Graham Lovelock 26 Oct 05 The 1851 image has been perused, and this one can, I think, be closed out.

Eliza was definitely unmarried in 1851. Although the Enumerator's writing is reasonably clear his or her use of simply 'U' instead of 'Un' is what has caused the problem, for to some modern eyes the 'U' does look very much like a 'W'. It does NOT look anything like an 'M'.

However, reference to other entries in the village shows that the Enumerator wrote 'Wid' or 'Widow' where that applied.

Thus Eliza never married, or if she did never left any evidence of it.

I can not explain why I had Daniel down as a son rather than brother - that part of the entry is exceptionally clear. His age is partly obscured, but is, I can see now, 60 not 20.

One other thing the 1851 furnishes: Daniel was recorded as Deaf and Dumb. That must be the substance of the entry in 1861 that I can not decipher.

Milton Lilbourne, Wiltshire, England RG9 1308 F61 P8

Eliza Lovelock Head, Unm 64 Pauper Milton, Wilts Daniel Lovelock Brother, Unm 71 Pauper Milton, Wilts William Lovelock Son, Unm 36 Agricultural Labourer Milton, Wilts

Milton Lilbourne, Wiltshire, England RG10 1941 F7 P5

Eliza Lovelock;Head;72;Pauper;Milton Lilbourne, Wiltshire William Lovelock;Son;46;Agricultural Labourer;Milton Lilbourne, Wiltshire

Milton Lilbourne RG11 2062 F50 P7

William Lovelock (U) Head, 57, Agricultural Labourer, Milton, Wilts