The Lieflock Line, Wootton Rivers and Tangley Trees

Robert Sterry email message 7 Nov 2004:

However, regarding the visitor Ann Brewer, I checked FreeBMD to see if an Ann Lovelock had in fact ever married a BREWER and found one match:

Surname First name(s) District Vol Page

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marriages Dec 1871

Brewer Henry Reading 2c 814 Gould George Reading 2c 814 Lovelock Ann Reading 2c 814 Wright Martha Reading 2c 814

What do you think? Ann's age and place of birth is right in the 1881 census extract and the date is spot on for a 'shotgun' marriage as Ann has her illegitimate son William abt June of the same year! And Reading's far enough away from home to save any family embarrassment.

Notes by Graham Lovelock: I did eventually find Daniel and Martha in 1901 - under the name of Lobelock! They were somewhere in the St John enumeration district in London, ages 38 and 37 respectively, together with Hurbert aged 4. Places of birth WG, Burbage, and Lavender Hill, with Daniel's occupation recorded as Brewer's Assistant.

Graham Lovelock 20-Nov-06: Ancestry has them correctly listed as Lovelocks, although I can see how the 1901 transcribers could read the v as a b. The important facts that emerge from the image are not only confirmation that this child is Herbert G not Herbert D (so he isn't a Herbert Daniel), but also that he is the nephew and not the son of Daniel and Martha.

The question that then of course occurs is, if he was Daniel's nephew, whose son was he? Setting aside the possibility of the lad being illegitimate, Daniel had four brothers, any of which might perhaps be the father: George (his half-brother) b 1841, for whom we have no more details in the Lieflock Line; Thomas - the father of Herbert Daniel, and therefore ruled out as being in the wrong place at the right time; Charles b 1868, for whom we also have no more details; and Elijah b 1871, of whom yet again we have no more details.

We can rule out Elijah as he was still single and living with his mother at West Grafton in 1901.

We can possibly rule out George, who does not appear in the 1871 or 1881 Returns. Free BMD has no death entry that looks remotely possible, so perhaps he emigrated? There is a worrying 1891 entry, though. I refer to the entry for George Lovelock and family at Marten St, Great Bedwyn. We have this George recorded as the son of William L and Lucy (Hillman) in the Lieflock Line. But the entry actually records him as George F Lovelock, aged 54, born Grafton. No difficulty reading the entry. William and Lucy's son was baptised (as George only) on 27 Dec 1835, so he should have been 55 in 1891. I think we have assumed correctly that George got his age wrong by a year, rather than by 4 years if he was in fact the son of George and Eliza, but I've no explanation for the 'F'.

Which just leaves Charles. As it happens Charles was a lodger in Battersea with his sister Charlotte and her husband Phillip Winder and family. Battersea is in the Wandsworth RD. In 4Q 1895 a Charles L married in Wandsworth - ref 1d 1038. The bride was either Alice Jane Harris or Bertha I Merryweather, but I haven't been able to identify which. However, an Alice Lovelock was born and died in 2Q 1896 in Wandsworth, refs 1d 575 and 1d 312 respectively, which might be the daughter of Charles and Alice.

According to Ancestry there was no Lovelock family presence in Wandsworth in 1891 (only a single person), so no justifiable speculation possible on whose child Alice might have been if not Charles'. Alas, I can't find Charles and Alice in 1901, either. Free BMD has no relevant deaths. There was the death of an Alice Jane in Southwark in 1Q 1905, but she was aged 11, and is probably the one born in 3Q 1893 in Lambeth, and was born before Charles probably married anyway. There was in 1901 an Alice 'Visiting' a house in Southfields (again in Wandsworth), aged 37, but, alas, single.

There was a Charles/Bertha L family in 1901, but he was from Shipton Moyne, and they were the family in Derby.

So the best I can offer is that Charles, the son of George L and Eliza Fisher (2) may have married in Wandsworth and may have been the father of Hubert George who was with his uncle Daniel in 1901 (but disguised as Hurbert G)!

I ought not to sign off without picking up the illegitimacy possibility. Hubert could have been the son of Daniel's sister Susannah, I suppose, as she had made her way to Kensington by 1881, but she would have been 40 years old in 1895 so an unlikely, although clearly not impossible, candidate for unmarried motherhood.

James Loveluck 19-Jan-07: As to who were his parents, I agree that Charles is a likely candidate. However, another possible explanation is that, at time of the 1901 census, the Herbert Lovelock who was with Thomas & Kate L in Battersea and the one who was with Daniel & Martha L in St John (?) enumeration district were one and the same person! Did it not happen occasionally that a person was recorded at two different addresses, because they changed houses between two subsequent days of the census? Both families were living in London, although I'm not sure how close they were (St John's enumeration district could be in several places - there was a St Margaret & St John sub-registration district in the St George Hannover Square district, where Daniel and Martha were married). I realise that there is a slight difference in the recorded ages (3 and 4) and birthplace (Lavender Hill, Wandsworth versus Hammersmith) but these are not outside the usual error bounds.

You mention the 1891 census entry for George L and family at Marten St, Gt Bedwyn, and the possibility that this George is the son of George & Eliza (1). This family also appears in the 1881 census, and George is recorded without the 'F' and age 44, consistent with the 1891 record and the fact that he was born around 1835 rather than 1841. So I feel fairly confident about identifying this George as the son of William & Lucy.

Graham Lovelock 23-Jan-07: I don't think anyone who has spent a bit of time living in London, especially when it wasn't the ghastly sprawl it is now, would confuse Lavender Hill with Hammersmith, or indeed think the former was located in the latter. For one thing they are on opposite sides of the river, and that was a much more significant matter over 100 years ago. Thus I don't think the two 1901 boys are one and the same.

Re-examining the St John entry, the full address is Orchard St, Peabody Buildings, 1, K Block, St John Parish, St Matthews Ecclesiastical Parish, No 2 Horseferry Ward, City of Westminster, which is a fairly accurate location for you!

I have one confession to make here though - the name of Daniel's nephew is actually written as Hurbert G Lovelock. It doesn't help to dispel confusion absolutely, but I'm still sure that Daniel's nephew is the Hubert G b 1897 in Wandsworth RD.

Graham Lovelock email 6 Nov 2004 I suspect that Charlotte and Philip married in the Lambeth RD in the March quarter of 1874. Certainly a Charlotte did, as you will find on FreeBMD, but for once there are only three names recorded for the Register page. The 1874 images are not available yet, so can't get any further with that.

Graham Lovelock note 13 May 2009: 1874 data now available shows that the Lambeth marriage was not of Charlotte Lovelock and Philip Winder.

Robert Sterry email message 7 Nov 2004 I decided to also check FreeBMD for that Lovelock-Winder marriage and came across this unexpected find:

Marriages Jun 1896

Curtis Alfred Kensington 1a 210Lovelock Lovelock Charlotte Kensington 1a 210 Treble Kate Kensington 1a 210 Winder Philip Kensington 1a 210

What do you make of that? I wondered if in fact they had married previously in perhaps some non-conformist church and then later married in the C of E for some reason. I checked Ancestral Trails for any such precedents at this time. But the requirement for Catholics and Protestant dissenters to be married in the Anglican church (as well as their own if they wished to be legal) ended in 1837. If they weren't legally married, this might of course affect inheritance rights. Perhaps they really didn't marry until 1896?

Graham L on 23 April 2014: Marriage Register imagery at Ancestry confirms the 1896 marriage, but provides no explanation for why they married then.