Hampshire - Suffolk - Rutland - Herefordshire Tree

RL 16/7/07: For some time we thought we had quite possibly located Henry's marriage, children and two grandchildren, although the whole line of descent turned on whether the Henry initially identified in 1871 and 1881 (see below) was in fact the son of George and Martha, the main problem being discrepancies between possible birth registration data and places of birth cited in various census entries. But we have been forced to conclude that the Henry L whose marriage and descendants we had traced is not this Henry L. More detail follows, since the data collected may be relevant later in another context.

The following note was transferred from the previous HTML version of the tree: "Possibly George Henry Lovelock born in 4Q 1847 in Kensington RD, ref 3 291."

Graham had also located the following two entries (see attachment to email 16/7/06) as possibly including George and Martha's son Henry:

(1871) Islington, London 78 Copenhagen Street RG10 261 F88 P49 Henry Lovelock;Head;M;23;Carpenter & Joiner;Middx, London Lizzie Lovelock;Wife;M;22;;Middx, London

(1881) Islington, London 25 Bemerton Street RG11 235 F44 P7 James Smith;Head;W;68;Cabinet Maker;Middx, Marylebone Andrew Smith;Son;U;27;Pianoforte Maker;Middx, Islington William Smith;Son;U;24;Pianoforte Maker;Middx, Islington Henry Lovelock;Son-in-law (Head);M;32;Carpenter;Middx, Clerkenwell Elizabeth Lovelock;Wife;M;32;;Middx, Islington Elizabeth Lovelock;Daur;;10;;Middx, Islington Henry Lovelock;Son;;4;;Middx, Islington

However, Graham was uncertain whether Henry L in either or both entries was in fact George and Martha's son. From Graham's GRO (FreeBMD) searches at the time, and mine (incl. BMDIndex) more recently, we have the following births of Henry Lovelocks (the first two are clearly not strong contenders):

Andover RD 2Q 1847, ref 7 43 Hungerford RD 4Q 1847, ref 6 191 Clerkenwell RD 3Q 1847, ref 3 115 plus the previously identified birth entry for a George Henry Lovelock in Kensington RD 4Q 1847, ref 3 291. We've found no births of a Henry Lovelock in 1848.

The key difficulty is that the 1851 entry for George, Martha and family has Henry born Westminster, Middlesex (likewise William; Sarah's stated birthplace was Kensington, Middlesex); the 1861 entry has "Henry G" [sic] and all 3 siblings born London, Middlesex. Ages are consistent and imply Henry was born 1847/48. (See equivalent general and birth notes to other children for further detail re. each.) Both the Kensington and the Clerkenwell birth entries could apply - except for the stated place of birth being 'Westminster' in the 1851.

Renewed discussion July '07; R located Henry, Elizabeth and family (see above) in 1891:

Islington, London 25 Bemerton Street RG12 156 F121 P6 Henry Lovelock;Head;M;43;Carpenter;London, Pentonville Elizabeth Lovelock;Wife;M;42;;London, Islington Henry Lovelock;Son;S [sic];13;Mercantile Clerk;London, Islington Elizabeth Lovelock;Daur;S [sic];19;Dressmaker;London, Islington Andrew Smith;Lodger;S [sic];38;Pianoforte Maker;London, Islington Jeremiah Shepherd;Lodger;S [sic];19 [??];Butcher; Bedford [sic], Stotfold

and James found them (see 2/7/08 mail) in 1901 [transcription below RL's - the entry is split across 2 pages. {ref. James's query}; in a separate household at the same address are Arthur Giles and family, his occupation being something indecipherable concerning piano strings]:

Islington, London 40 Offord Road RG13 181 F8 P7/8 Henry Lovelock;Head;M;54;Carpenter;London, Pentonville Elizabeth Lovelock;Wife;M;53;;London, Barnsbury Henry Lovelock;Son;S [sic];24;Pianoforte Maker;London, Barnsbury Andrew Smith;B in Law [sic];S [sic];48;Pianoforte Maker;London, Barnsbury

'Pentonville' (Henry's stated birthplace in both these entries) supports the Clerkenwell birth registration. (There is a slight inconsistency re. dob in the 1901.)

This appears to be the relevant marriage entry (from FreeBMD and BMDIndex): Marriage in 3Q 1869 in Islington RD, ref 1b 410 Lovelock, Henry Smith, Elizabeth

and the following the births of the two children: Birth in 2Q 1871 in Islington RD, ref 1b 251 Lovelock, Elizabeth Birth in 4Q 1877 in Islington RD, ref 1b 224 Lovelock Harry [sic]

Possible birth reg'ns for Elizabeth née Smith: Elizabeth Anne - Islington RD 1Q 1848, ref 3 250 Elizabeth - Islington RD 3Q 1848, ref 3 235 Elizabeth Emma - Islington RD 1Q 1849, ref 3 323 We have no indication of her having had a second given name, perhaps encouraging us to go for the only 'plain' Elizabeth - although in fact none of our census entries for the family include any second names.

Elizabeth jnr could well have married between 1891 and 1901 (or simply moved out) - I can find no Elizabeth Lovelock death of the right age in the period). A marriage in Islington RD 3Q 1893, ref 1b 563 seems a possibility; the 4 people on the page were: Barrett, Emily; Lovelock, Elizabeth; Smith, George William; Staines Alfred. Can find no Elizabeth Staines in 1901 aged about 29 and born Islington. No Elizabeth Lovelocks with those characteristics either - in case our girl hadn't married. Two 29-year-old Mrs Elizabeth Smiths born in Islington and both still living there in 1901; one with spouse Henry E, the other married to a George W. Transcription of latter/possibly relevant entry as follows:

Islington, London 5 Stanmore Street RG13 180 F14 P 19 George W Smith;Head;M;32;Coal Depot Manager;London, Islington Elizabeth Smith;Wife;M;29;;London, Islington Ernest G Smith;Son;S [sic];6;;London, Islington Doris B Smith;Daur;S [sic];4;;London, Islington John H Golding;Boarder;S [sic];Carpenter;London, Islington

Most likely birth reg'ns for the 2 children: Smith, Ernest George - Islington RD 3Q 1894, ref 1b 329 Smith, Doris Blanche - Islington RD 1Q 1897, ref 1b 353 (There's a Doris Smith b Islington 1Q 1894, suggesting a possible infant death - as well as a possible 'reason' for a hasty marriage. However, no Doris Smith deaths in the RD 1894-98 incl.)

But of course the above data is only relevant here (i.e. to the H-to-H tree) if Henry L therein is the son of George and Martha. And with all the other data fitting together rather well, we were coming round to opting for the Clerkenwell birth registration - and 'bracketing' 'Westminster' in the 1851 as 'aberrant'; perhaps the family were "on the move" at the time of Henry's birth and registration (see also below). But then I located the following 1861 entry on the website, which seems pretty certain to include the Henry L b Clerkenwell 3Q 1847, ref 3 115, and evidently still resident in the parish:

Clerkenwell, Middx 37() Wellington St RG9 196 F23 P47 Thomas Lovelock;Head;50;Painter & Glazier;Middx, Holloway Islington Sarah Lovelock;Wife;49;Laundress;Surrey, Richmond Sarah Lovelock;Daur;19;Middx, Clerkenwell Thomas Lovelock;Son;17;Goldsmith;Middx, Clerkenwell Henry Lovelock;Son;13;Middx, Clerkenwell Charles Lovelock;Son;11;Middx, Clerkenwell George Lovelock;Son;8;Middx, Clerkenwell () Address in 1851 entry (below) suggested a possible transcription error re. the 1861 on the website; Graham agreed (16/7/07).

The above entry seems not to be indexed among "The Genealogist's" 1861 London or Middlesex Lovelocks; quite possibly there is a mistranscription of the surname. The following 1851 entry (initially supplied by Graham) is both on the website and among "The Genealogist's" indexed transcriptions. The minor transcription errors suggested via bold/underlined items in the following RL reading have been agreed to by Graham (16/7/07):

Clerkenwell, Middlesex 37 Wellington Street HO107 1518 F207 <b>P38

Thomas Lovelock;Head;M;40;Painter;Middx, Holloway Sarah Lovelock;Wife;M;39;;Surrey, Richmond Sarah Lovelock;Dau;;9;;Middx, Pentonville Thomas Lovelock;Son;;7;;Middx, Pentonville Henry Lovelock;Son;;4;;Middx, Pentonville Charles Lovelock;Son;;1;;Middx, Pentonville

And Graham (see 16/7 mail) found Thomas and Sarah in 1841 (albeit that Thomas is stated to have been born in Middlesex) [Clarification added 3/10/07 (RL) in the context of an email exchange ref. Graham's proposed Burghfield tree, or rather, branch of the Hungerford - Shalbourne tree: 'albeit' referred to G having been looking for a Thomas b 'Burvil' [sic] and his wife Mary Ann, my having turned up an 1851 entry for them in Wrights Lane, Kensington with their daughter being yet another Sarah b Middx who [miscalculating her dob!] I'd at first thought might be the Sarah L who married Henry Cottle - see general note to this Henry G L's sister Sarah.]

(St James) Clerkenwell, Middlesex Wellington Street HO107 662/4 F44 P39

Thomas Lovelock;30;Plumber J[ourneyman];Middlesex Sarah Lovelock;30;;Not Middlesex

(These 3 Wellington St entries arose from my search for Henry G's sister Sarah; see general note to her for related explorations.)

This 'forces' us back to the George Henry Lovelock birth in 4Q 1847 in Kensington RD, ref 3 291, as our only possibility for George and Martha's son, notwithstanding the name order (and see above re. Westminster/Kensington.)

I found this 'possible'(*) marriage entry:

Hackney 3Q 1893, ref 1b 806 Almond, Alice Beatrice Lovelock, George Henry Ward, James Josiah Yetton, Sarah Jane

(*) our Henry would, of course, have been 46 by 1893.

There are several marriages of 'plain' George Ls in the London area: East London 3Q 1867; Kensington 4Q 1871; Wandsworth 1Q 1875; Whitechapel 2Q 1880; West Ham 3Q 1880; Fulham 2Q 1881; Greenwich 3Q 1883; Poplar 1Q 1884; Pancras 4Q 1885; though why should we assume he'd be in London? - and/or going under the name of George? There are also 'plain' George L marriages in Andover 4Q 1864; in Hungerford 4Q 1886 and 3Q 1890; and elsewhere.

There are also several marriages of 'plain' Henry Ls in the London area: Pancras 4Q 1866; Islington 1869; Holborn 1Q 1874; Hackney 3Q 1889; and elsewhere, including Reading 3Q 1887; and:

Basingstoke 4Q 1883, ref 2c 353 Alford, Mary Ann Cox, Fred Lovelock, Henry George Simpson, Martha

It's possible of course that we have this Henry George in another tree ... ... and in fact (15/8/07) it appears he's this chap in the 'Ropley-Crondall-Dogmersfield (Hants) tree': - 6-Henry George Lovelock b. 1Q 1860, Hartley Wintney RD, Hampshire +Unknown , m. 4Q 1883, Hartley Wintney RD, Hampshire