Strays and Unattached Lovelocks

Although we have assembled a large collection of Lovelock family
trees there are still a considerable number of individuals who can not be placed in any one of those trees. These individuals are often the subject of fleeting references in, for instance, parish registers, in newspaper articles, or in Census Returns.

Consider that there are over 700 people with the surname Lovelock (ignoring variations in spelling) who appear in the 1841 Census of England and Wales. So far we have been unable to allocate no less than 185 of them to one tree or another. Part of the reason for that is because the 1841 records rarely indicate where a person was born, other than in the County of the record. Of course, it has often proved possible, by reference to a later Census or to the parish collections of Lovelock births, baptisms, marriages, deaths and burials that have been assembled, to positively identify individuals and families, but there is clearly more to be done.

By 1851 the number of Lovelocks recorded in the Census of England and Wales had risen to over 800. This was the first Census to record place of birth and a relatively accurate age for all, so we would hope to achieve a better allocation of individuals and families to trees, and this is indeed so. However, there are still 116 men, women or children whose birthplace and age details are still apparently insufficient to enable us to place them in any Lovelock tree.

A similar picture can be painted for each of the succeeding Census Returns.

Most of the
Lovelocks who are presently 'unattached' only appear in our data in a single Census entry, but for others a little more information can be assembled. The following entries relate to some of the most puzzling, or perhaps most intriguing, Lovelocks that we have come across. If you can locate any of those mentioned into one of the Lovelock family trees please send an email to the Lovelock Mailing List: (instructions for how to join the Mailing List can be found on the Mailing List page).

Edward Lorenzo Russell Lovelock and his family

A Certified Copy of the Entry of Death for Edward Lorenzo Russell Lovelock shows that he died at 17 Grosvenor Square, Broughton, Salford, Lancashire, England on 11 December 1883. An entry in 'The Manchester Courier and Lancashire General Advertiser' of 15 December 1883 refers to him as 'late captain and adjutant 8th LRV [Lancashire Rifle Volunteers], Bury', but records his name as just Edward Lovelock.

A plain ‘Edward Lovelock’ was recorded with his family living in Broughton in Salford, Lancashire in the 1881 Census. Based on his declaration for that Return, Edward was possibly born in the parish of St Anne's in Soho, Middlesex (the record simply reads 'St Annes, Middx'). If so, our baptism records elsewhere on this website do not include him. Although, as can be seen below, it seems that we can also readily identify this ‘Edward Lovelock’ in the 1861 and 1871 Census Returns, neither of those entries include any other given names or any initials. Our records of Lovelocks who were Chelsea Pensioners also include him, giving his date and place of birth as 1820, St Anne, Middlesex. His discharge papers, which show that he enlisted on 17 Jan 1840 and was discharged on 26 April 1861, also tell us that he had seen service in the East Indies (meaning India), and, revealingly, that ‘After reaching the rank of Sergeant he was tried by Court Martial in 1848, convicted of Disgraceful Conduct, and reduced to Private.’ However, by the time he left the Army he had achieved more promotions and had reached the rank of Sergeant Major.

According to Free BMD there is no death of an Edward Lovelock registered in the Salford area between 1881 and 1891 apart from that of ‘Edward Lorenzo R’ in the Oct-Dec quarter of 1883, nor does there seem to be an entry in the 1891 Census for the Edward so comparatively easily identified in 1861, 1871 and 1881; this suggests that the 1883 death was indeed that of the military man identified in the three Census Returns that preceded it. Unfortunately, the age of Edward Lorenzo Russell at death quoted on his Death Certificate, 63, is not consistent with any of the ages quoted in the Census Returns, although it is consistent with the information in his Army Discharge Papers. Were there really two Edward Lovelocks, one of whom was recorded in three separate Census Returns, but for whom there appears to be no death registration, and another who does not appear in any Census Return, but who died in 1883 in the same area as the first man was recorded living in in 1881?

As a professional soldier it seems likely that the Edward in the Census Returns was serving in Ireland in 1851, and even, perhaps, in 1841, as there appears to be no trace of him in England or Wales. There is also no Free BMD marriage entry for Edward and what is assumed to be his first wife, Ann, so it may have taken place in Ireland, and indeed Ann may also have been Irish. Ann died on 6 June 1857 at St Botolph Camp in Colchester, according to her Death Certificate, at the age of 21, recorded as 'Wife of Edward Lovelock Sergeant Major of First Battln'. She was buried at Colchester on 8 June. As it happens, we do have a record of the marriage of an Edward Lovelock and Anne Evans at Waterford, Ireland, on 10 March 1855, which fits admirably.

Oddly, neither the Free BMD nor the GRO Online databases have any record of the birth of their daughter Annie, born in Colchester in 1857 according to the 1861 Census for Walmer, Kent and the 1881 Census for Brixton Road, Lambeth. Perhaps Edward was being transferred from Colchester to Walmer at the time and the registration of the birth got overlooked, or perhaps he was preoccupied with the consequences of his wife’s death. Nonetheless, Annie was baptised in the Colchester Camp Church on 9 August 1857, recorded as the daughter of Edward and Annie, She seems later to have been the servant in a household in Lewisham, Kent in 1871, recorded as Anne Lovelock aged 13, born Colchester. Although she gave her age as 21 in 1881 (by which time she had married to become Annie Hearnden) she had declared she was 22 when she married in September 1878, so should have been 24 or even 25 in 1881. In any case it might be considered unlikely that there could be two Annie Lovelocks born in Colchester only a couple of years apart with no record of either of the births, and for one of them to then disappear without trace. Unfortunately, when Annie married the details of her father that were recorded named him as Edward Lovelock, Commercial Traveller. That could of course explain why he had ended up in Salford in 1881, but is not consistent with the 1881 Occupation information.

There was an Edward George Lovelock in the Barracks at Stoke Damerel in 1871, following in his father’s military footsteps by the looks of it, but he then disappears from view until 1911, when he and his wife Kate were in Uckfield in Sussex. It looked as though he could be the subject of the Death registration of an Edward in the Salford RD in Jan-Mar 1919 at the age of 64 (ie born 1854/55), but this is countered by the death of an Edward G Lovelock in the Uckfield RD in 1939 at the age of 83, and of Kate in 1956 in the Cuckfield RD, at the age of 91, showing that they did not move north.

Who the Edward was that died in 1919 appears to be another mystery; certainly the 1911 Census does not contain an obvious candidate for him, and although various Edwards come and go in previous Census Returns none of them seems to make a match.

There is only one entry in the 1841 Census of an Edward aged about 20, at Chapman Street, Finsbury, Islington, London. However, this can not be Edward Lorenzo Russell Lovelock for, as mentioned above, Edward Lorenzo had joined the Army over a year beforehand.

So, the data that we have accumulated on the website tells us that Edward was the son of Thomas (from the Waterford marriage entry), and was born about 1820 in the Soho area of London. Our ‘Lovelocks in Middlesex’ data records the marriage of a Thomas Lovelock and an Elizabeth Keys there, but that was in 1785, meaning Elizabeth would have been at least 51 by 1820, and therefore is most unlikely to have been the mother of Edward.

There do not seem to be any clues to indicate why Edward used, or had, the other names of Lorenzo and Russell, or why they only appeared at his death. The death was reported by his daughter Margaret, so could the names have been invented by her? But if so, one can not help but wonder, to what purpose? He apparently left no Will, which would at least have told us whether he himself used all three forenames. The Descendant Tree that can be assembled for Edward is presented here, noting that the last of his Lovelock descendants, Edward John Russell Lovelock, seems to have died in 1973:
1. Thomas Lovelock
    + Unknown Unknown
           2. Edward Lorenzo Russell Lovelock b abt 1820 in Soho, Middlesex, d 11 Dec 1883 in Broughton, Lancashire
              + Anne Evans d Jun 1857, bur 8 Jun 1857 in Colchester, Essex, m 10 Mar 1855 in Waterford, Ireland
                   3. Edward George Lovelock b 1855/6 in Ireland, d in Apr-Jun 1939 in Uckfield RD, ref 2b 179
                      + Kate Tribe b in Jul-Sep 1866 in Byfleet, Surrey (in Chertsey RD), ref 2a 29, d in Oct-Dec 1956 in Cuckfield RD, ref 5h 191, m in Oct-Dec 1892 in St Georges Hanover
                       Square, ref 1a 884
                   3. Annie Lovelock b 1857 in Colchester, Essex, d in Oct-Dec 1921 in East Ashford RD, ref 2a 1102
                      + William Henry Hearnden b in Apr-Jun 1850 in Lambeth, Surrey (in Lambeth RD), ref 4 277, m in Jul-Sep 1878 in St Saviour RD, ref 1d 1
                              4. Constance Hearnden b in Apr-Jun 1881 in Lambeth, London (in Lambeth RD), ref 1d 465
                              4. Harold Hearnden b in Jan-Mar 1886 in Tottenham, Middlesex (in Edmonton RD), ref 3a 342
              + Mary Ellis b 1839/40 in Dinapore, Madras, India, m in Apr-Jun 1860 in Eastry RD, ref 2a 1063
                   3. Margaret Elizabeth Lovelock b in Feb/Mar 1861 in Walmer, Kent
                   3. Russell Ernest Lovelock b in Oct-Dec 1862 in Bury, Lancashire (in Bury RD), ref 8c 372, d in Apr-Jun 1911 in Prestwich RD, ref 8d 169
                   3. Irene Marie Lovelock b in Apr-Jun 1869 in Bury, Lancashire (in Bury RD), ref 8c 439, d in Apr-Jun 1913 in Prestwich RD, ref 8d 343
                   3. Ada Minnie Ashton Lovelock b in Jul-Sep 1870 in Prestwich, Lancashire (in Bury RD), ref 8c 484, d 30 May 1958 in Bucklow RD, ref 10a 159
                   3. John Alexander Lovelock b in Apr-Jun 1875 in Broughton, Lancashire (in Salford RD), ref 8d 41, d in Jul-Sep 1925 in South Manchester RD, ref 8d 21
                      + Florence Annie Hardie b 13 Sep 1881 in Rochdale, Lancashire (in Rochdale RD), ref 8e 49 (in Oct-Dec quarter), d 22 Mar 1943, m in Jan-Mar 1911 in Barton upon
                         Irwell RD, ref
8c 889
                              4. Olive Margaret Lovelock b 23 Jul 1912 in Chorlton RD, ref 8c 1715, d 12 Dec 1957 in Manchester RD, ref 10e 193
                              4. Edward John Russell Lovelock b 20 Jan 1916 in Barton upon Irwell RD, ref 8c 1059, d 11 Nov 1973 in Manchester RD, ref 10e 872
Jane Louisa Lovelock

It is surprising how some people seem to have managed to avoid being 'captured' by governmental bureaucracy's tentacles on more than one occasion. One of those we thought came into this category was Jane Louisa Lovelock. On 6 November 1880 she married Charles Augustus O'Mally in the Oratory of St Philip Neri, Mount Pleasant, Liverpool (in the West Derby Registration District). The fact is recorded in the Free BMD transcriptions, and in the church's register. But by the time of the 1881 Census the couple seem to have disappeared. Furthermore, a search through Free BMD failed to identify the birth of any Jane Louisa (or Louisa Jane) Lovelock. We wondered if it was possible that both Jane and Charles were Irish, that they met in Liverpool, and returned to Ireland once married.

That's how matters stood until late October 2016 when Sue Lovelock was
browsing some Irish records and came across the Catholic baptism of Jane Louisa Lovelock, which took place on 16 July 1852 in Rahoon, Galway. The entry recorded her parents as John and Mary Evans, but this is clearly an error and we may conclude that the parents were in fact John Lovelock and Mary Evans who married in Galway on 7 Dec 1839. So Jane Louisa's origins seem to be established, but the puzzle moves on since we do not know which tree her father belonged to, nor what happened to her and husband Charles after they married.

Margaret A Lovelock

Margaret is another 'one-off'. In 1881 she was recorded as a Domestic Servant aged 18 in the household of George W Perry, Secretary of a Benevolent Society, at 29 Cologne Road, Battersea, London. Her place of birth is given as Camberwell, Surrey. She does not appear in any other Census Return, her birth and death do not feature in the Free BMD or GRO Online Index data, there is no record of a marriage, nor any entry in our 'Lovelocks in Surrey' data of any relevance. It is as if she was the figment of someone's imagination!

Arthur, Louisa and Eva Frances Lovelock

The London Metropolitan Archive imagery at Ancestry includes the baptism on 15 July 1896 at the church of Saint Augustine at Kilburn (in the Paddington area) of Eva Frances Lovelock. She is stated to be the daughter of Arthur and Louisa Lovelock of 3 Boyer Road, Arthur's occupation being recorded as a Painter. In the margin to the right of the entry is written '7 years', which may indicate that she was born in 1888 or 1889. Neither the Free BMD data nor the GRO Online Index include any record of the birth, marriage or death of Eva Frances Lovelock, nor of the marriage of an Arthur Lovelock to a Louisa. The family do not appear in the 1891, 1901 or 1911 Census, nor in our 'Ships Passenger Lists' data. And for good measure there seems to be no trace of 'Boyer' Road, nor of possible variants such as Bryes, Bryen, Bryer, Boyes, Boyen. Can the family really have just put their heads above the bureaucratic parapet on that one occasion in 1896?

Charles Edward Lovelock

Charles Edward makes three appearances in the available on-line data, but still leaves us with a mystery. In 1871 he was recorded at 8 Lascelles Place, Finsbury, London, together with his wife Frances and daughter Madeline. Madeline was recorded as being 6 years old and born in Ireland. The couple recorded as her parents must surely be the Charles Edward Lovelock and Frances Osborn who married in the St Giles Registration District of London in April-June 1867. Madeline's birth or baptism are not included in the small amount of Irish data we have gathered, but a possibility is that Charles was at some point in the Army - the usual reason for Lovelocks to appear in Ireland's records. He is not recorded, however, in the data on Chelsea Pensioners, and in 1871 his occupation was Saddle Tree Maker, which does not give any clue to possible military service. Charles died in July-September 1872, somewhere in the St Giles Registration District, his age being recorded as 33, which is not inconsistent with the 31 years recorded in 1871. On 9 February 1875 his widow married a Charles Simpson in the church of St George the Martyr, Queen Square, Holborn and the couple are easily found in the 1881 Census, although not thereafter.

Madeline was not with Charles and Frances Simpson in 1881, and seems to have escaped being recorded at all at first glance. However, at 102 Piccadilly, St George Hanover Square was a 23 year old Madeline Lovelock, employed as a Domestic Servant and born in Kent. Clearly the age and birthplace do not agree at all with the 1871 entry, but the next fact to emerge, uncovered by Ian Lovelock, casts matters in a rather different light. Moving west we find that on 26 August 1883 a Madeline Lovelock, aged 23, married John William Lord in St George's church in Bristol. The critical information in the marriage entry is that Madeline named her father as Charles Edward Lovelock. Madeline and John can be found in 1891 and 1901 (with her recorded as Madeline F Lord born in Beckenham, Kent in 1862 and 1863 respectively), and again in 1911 as Madeline Frances Agusta Lord born in 1863 in Bromley, Kent. She died in October-December 1933 in the Bristol Registration District, recorded as Madeline F A Lord, aged 70. There is no corresponding birth entry in Free BMD or the GRO Online Index.

But the puzzle we have yet to solve concerns Charles Edward's origins. The 1871 entry gives his age as 31 and his birthplace as Shoreditch, but there does not seem to be any entry in any of the on-line resources that could be him. He does not appear in the 1841, 1851 or 1861 Census Returns.

John Birmingham Lovelock

“A List of the Officers of the Army and Royal Marines on Full, Retired and Half Pay” published in 1839 includes John Birmingham Lovelock as a Lieutenant in the 29th Regiment of Foot. The entry shows that he reached the rank of Lieutenant on 4 July 1811 and was put on half pay on 25 October 1821. An image in Findmypast’s collection of Military information shows that he was appointed Ensign in the 29th of Foot on 3 August 1809.

That image further reveals that he served in the Peninsula from December 1809 to November 1811, and again from April 1813 to February 1814. What appears to be a list of his “personal battle honours” reads ‘Bus, 1st Bad, Alb, Cadiz’. Another line in the entry seems to indicate that he was present at the Battle of Albuhera (sic) on 16 May 1811. In that battle the 29th lost (killed, wounded or missing) 17 of its 31 officers and no less than 363 of its 476 other ranks.

He appears in Captain Hart's 'New Army List' as late as 1845. His entry reads 'Lieut. John B. Lovelock served with the 29th in the Peninsula, from 1809, and was present at the battle of Busaco, first siege of Badajoz, and battle of Albuhera, at which latter engagement he was severely wounded through both thighs and in the head. Served also in America in 1814, and was present at the capture in the Penobscot, Castine, and Macheas.'. All of which confirms the abbreviated data in the Findmypast image.

After the conclusion of the Napoleonic campaigns the 29th Regiment served in a number of countries, including Ireland, so John is probably the groom mentioned in a marriage entry in the Register of Saint Luran's Church, Derryloran, County Tyrone which records the marriage by Licence on 15 January 1820 of 'John Birmingham Lovelock Sr Leut 29th foot reg. and Anabella Sophia Hamilton widow of the late Wm Hamilton of Cookstown'.

His death is not included in the Free BMD data, which suggested he was probably the John B Lovelock who was buried in Castlebar, County Mayo in 1849, 'in the 60th year of his age' according to an item in 'The Wexford Independent' discovered by Helen Norton. In 1839 he was a tenant of the Earl of Lucan, resident in Castlebar and named in an Address to the Earl by his, the Earl's, tenants.

There appears to be no record online of his birth or baptism, however, in the graveyard of St Mary's Dominican church in Claddagh Quay, Galway, County Galway there is the tombstone of an unidentified lady named Lovelock whose epitaph reads '... mercy on the soul of ... Lovelock alias Bermingham ...ed this life on the ... 1833 aged 80 years ... affectionate wife & a ... in the virtuous ... of life a most perfect ... this after having ... and spotless life of meekness she is gone ... the happy completion ... that divine promise ... monument has been erected ... memory as a tribute of respct ... son John B Lovelock Esqr rest in peace Amen'.

Further subsequent research by Helen Norton revealed an item in 'The Dublin Evening Packet' newspaper of 3 September 1833 which reports the death in Galway of 'Mrs Lovelock' and states that she was 'mother to John B Lovelock, esq, barrack master of Castlebar'. She is also said to be the widow of James, and for many years a resident of the island of Dominica.

Robert Lovelock

In the 1901 Census one R Lovelock was recorded as '3 Hand', a Fisherman, on board the 'Solon', a Grimsby trawler that at the time was 400 miles North-North-East of the Humber, so a long way from home. R Lovelock was a married man, 39 years old and born in 'London, Middlesex'. By 1911 Robert Lovelock had decided he was single, and aged 48, but still London born. He was in a house of only one or possibly two rooms in Great Grimsby, a house he shared with a Boarder, a Mrs Forkney.

There seems to be no trace of him before 1901 - no census entries, and no London birth of a Robert Lovelock in the 1860s. But if he was London born, how ironic that he should end up commemorated on the Tower Hill Memorial, just across the road from the Tower of London.

The reason he is remembered there is because he was one of 9 crew members of the Grimsby trawler 'Vanilla' who were lost on Sunday 18 April 1915 when their vessel was torpedoed out in the North Sea off Lowestoft. His entry on the CWGC website records him as the husband of Mrs Lovelock, occupying the address Robert was at in 1911, but there is no record of either of his supposed marriages, and no record of the death of anyone named Forkney anywhere between 1911 and 1980, nor of the marriage of a Forkney to match 'Mrs Forkney's' claim in 1911 to have been married for 20 years.

Alfred George Lovelock has an image of a page from the Baptism Register of Shalbourne "in the Counties of Wilts and Berks" showing that on 3 December 1882 Alfred George, the son of Alfred and Jane Lovelock of Shalbourne, was baptised. The writing is very clear, as can be seen in the extract below. However, neither Free BMD nor the GRO's Online Index have any record of the birth of Alfred George.

Furthermore, there seems to be no record of the marriage of Alfred and Jane, and none of the three of them seem to be identifiable in a Census Return. Alfred senior was recorded as a Labourer in the baptism entry, so one might expect him to be fairly local in his origins, but nobody seems to have any more information on this family.

Walter Henry Lovelock

A 'Record of all Persons Committed, or Bailed to appear for Trial, or Indicted at the General Quarter Sessions of the Peace held at Durham on the Eighteenth day of October 1875, shewing the nature of their Offences, and the result of the Proceedings' lists amongst the miscreants Walter Henry Lovelock, accused of  'Larceny simple after previous Conviction for felony'. He was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment, with police supervision for three years. There is no more information recorded.
There seems to be no record of the birth of a Walter Henry Lovelock (or any variant of the surname) who could be this man. There are no records of a Walter Henry in any Durham Census, and indeed no Walter Henry anywhere in any Census in the UK prior to 1875; nor is there any entry of death in the GRO Index transcriptions at Free BMD.
There is a newspaper article mention of a Walter Lovelock, capitally convicted at Gloucester in 1823 for stealing a heifer, but he could not be the man at Durham obviously, unless he was reprieved. A Walter Henry Lovelock was listed in the Manchester Prison records for 1865, convicted of stealing a piece of beef in Rochdale. The entry indicates that he had 'No Home', and yet he claimed to be married. Perhaps that meant that he had abandoned his wife, but there are no entries in either the 1861 or 1871 Census Returns for Lancashire that could be her. If he truly was married then FreeBMD again has no record of it.