The Hornsey (London) and Yorkshire Fragment discussed |
We have the following fragment on the Web Site:
|
Hornsey (London) and Yorkshire fragment 1 Amos Lovelock b.abt 1835 |
Observations (as the Fragment is worked through):
1. Ancestry lists only one Amos Lovelock in 1861: aged 24, single, born at East Farleigh (‘Eastfarley’) in Kent. He was a Gunner in the Royal Marines, stationed at Portsea, and is presumably the son of Levi in the Kent Tree.
2. Ancestry has no Amos Lovelock in 1871, 1881 or 1891 nor any Amos born at East Farleigh at or about the right time.
3. Ancestry lists only one Arthur James Lovelock in 1861: born 1854 in St Pancras.
4. The 1861 household of Levi Lovelock includes a 2 year old grandson named Arthur, but it is not apparent from the entry who the child’s parents might be. This child does not appear in the 1871 Returns; Free BMD has no corresponding death.
5. There is another 2 year old Arthur in the 1861 Returns: the son of Charles and Mary, born in St Pancras.
6. Free BMD has no marriages of an Amos Lovelock between 1840 and 1890.
7. The apparent 25 year gap between the birth of Arthur James and his sister Emma is a cause for concern and possibly of doubt.
8. Free BMD has two marriages of an Arthur James Lovelock before 1900: one in 1875 in Marylebone (too early for someone born in 1860), and one in East Grinstead in 1898 (too late for the birth of a son in 1882). Neither in any case involves a spouse named Mary.
9. Free BMD has no marriage of an Arthur Lovelock to a spouse named Mary between 1875 and 1900.
10. The GRO Index images for deaths in 1922 have been viewed and there is no death of an Arthur James recorded.
11. How can an address for Arthur James in 1921 be known if there is no associated birth, marriage or death?
12. Free BMD has no birth of an Albert Percy Lovelock between 1875 and 1900. The only Albert births recorded in 1882 are Albert Harry in Lewisham and Albert George in Newport.
13. Free BMD has no marriage of Albert Percy at any date from 1875 onwards.
14. Free BMD has no birth of an Emma Lovelock in 1885, although there was one born in the West Ashford RD in Kent in 1887. Free BMD has no marriage of an Emma Lovelock to a spouse named Duke from 1885 onwards.
15. Free BMD has no birth of an Edith Annie Lovelock in 1886, the closest being a birth in Islington RD in 1884.
16. The GRO Index images for deaths in 1980 have been viewed and there is no death of an Edith Annie recorded.
17. Free BMD has no birth of a Walter Ernest Lovelock in 1887, the closest being a birth in Pancras RD in 1890.
18. The 1901 Census Return includes the following family (indexed by Ancestry as ‘Lonelich’):
25 Rectory Road, Hornsey, Middx
RG13 1241 F122 P36
Arthur J Lovelock;Head;47;Cheesemongers Assistant;St Pancras, London
Emily Lovelock;Wife;48;;Reading, Berks
Herbert E Lovelock;Son;22;Auctioneers Clerk;Holborn, London
Emily C Lovelock;Daur;19;Dressmaker;St Pancras, London
Edith A Lovelock;Daur;16;Toyshop Assistant;Islington, London
Walter E Lovelock;Son;11;;St Pancras, London
19. Apart from the 11 year old above there is no other Walter E captured in the 1901 Returns.
20. Free BMD has no marriage of a Walter Ernest Lovelock in 1920, although since they have only 82% coverage of the first quarter of that year a check of the GRO Index images reveals that Walter E Lovelock married Irene C Stanbridge in the Wandsworth RD in the Jul-Sep quarter, ref 1d 1593.
21. A check of the GRO Index images reveals that no Barbara Lovelock was registered in 1921 or 1922.
Conclusions:
The Fragment appears to be a combination of ‘known family details’ together with some conjecture, some misreading of source data, and some entirely erratic details.
The combination in one family grouping of an Arthur J(ames), Edith A(nnie) and Walter E(rnest) suggests that this is not a ‘new’ family tree at all, but a piece of what is labelled on the website as ‘A Second London Tree (mainly St Pancras)’, with the progenitor of the fragment shown above actually being James Benjamin Lovelock and not Amos.
One piece of information which supports this suggestion is that Emily Clara Lovelock married Louis Augustus Duke in the Holborn RD in the Jan-Mar quarter of 1905 (ref 1b 860), apparently confirming that the ‘Emma’ of the Fragment is the ‘Emily C’ of the 1901 entry. Emily Clara was born in the Jul-Sep quarter of 1881 in the Pancras RD, ref 1b 154.
A Marguerite J Duke, mother Lovelock, was born in the Apr-Jun quarter of 1912 in the Edmonton RD, ref 3a 936.