Work in Progress

The purpose of this page is to provide a home for material which is somewhat tentative or incomplete.
It may also be used to pose questions about possible connections, or about 'missing persons' or 'strays' who don't seem to fit into any of our current trees.


[Problems and solutions equally welcome.]

Any questions or comments concerning these contributions should be sent by email to the Lovelock Mailing List:

(instructions for how to join the Mailing List can be found on the
Mailing List page)

The 'live' topics for us at the moment are:

Extending established Trees and Fragments back in time

All Family Trees have to start somewhere, and it is often not as far back in time as living members of the trees would like. Lovelock and Loveluck Family Trees are no different in this respect, but sometimes there are tempting glimpses of what 'might have been'.

Please follow
this link to read about the theories and associated research that apply to attempts to extend some of our trees and fragments back in time.

Proposed Trees and Fragments


This section describes projects which helped to fill some of the gaps in our records. Volunteers were sought to help with the work of extracting or transcribing records.

Statistical Analyses

Although on-line sources now provide access to relatively large amounts of genealogical data, we have not embarked on any large scale analyses of any of that data as it affects or refers to Lovelocks. A start has been made, however, and the results of reviews of Adult and Infant Deaths, of Registered Births, and of National Probate Calendar data can be accessed here.

Suggestions for other analyses are most welcome, and these can be submitted through the Lovelock Mailing list:
(instructions for how to join the Mailing List can be found on the Mailing List page).

Arthur Lovelock and the 2nd St Pancras Tree

Bill Lovelock (Wilfred M. Lovelock) provided the following photographs with this note:

James Lovelock and family

"I have 3 photos of an Arthur Lovelock", says Bill. "He does not appear in the "Family Photo" above as being a son of James Lovelock, but perhaps he was a cousin. My Auntie in Essex (who died in 1998) immediately identified him as "Uncle Arthur" in the photo below left, with two of James Lovelock's sons who were actually her true uncles."

The other two photos below are obviously of the same Arthur Lovelock as an older man posing with his new bride.


Who's who?

Bob Hossack provided the following photograph with this note:

"The lady at the far left back row is Jessica Lovelock (b.1890, Bethnal Green) and the lady kneeling in front of her is Minnie Lovelock (b.1880, Haggerstone). They were the sisters of Ellen Lydia Lovelock, who was my great grandmother. Ellen's eldest son Frederick Peter Ingarfield was my grandfather and his wife, Betty (Ellen's posthumous daughter-in-law), is the lady in the middle holding the arm of the young man in the dark jacket (who is Betty's brother). So, I know the names of the three standing on the left and the one kneeling on the left, but the three standing to the right, and the two girls kneeling next to Minnie, are a mystery to me. I'm guessing they are Lovelocks, but can't be sure."

                                                                           If you can identify any of the other five people please let us know.

Jessie plus Minnie plus ...?



This section is for the listing of families or individuals which have not currently been linked to any of the trees on the Web site, but are or appear to be, of particular interest. Please access this material through this link.

A potential addition to the Crime and Punishment page

Marty Lovelock has asked if anyone can help regarding the following potential addition for the Crime and Punishment page for which he has not been able to verify the details of the crime. What he does have is family oral history concerning Thomas Charles Lovelock (of the Dowdeswell, Gloucestershire Tree) born 1868, son of Thomas Charles and Sarah (nee Croucher). He was christened as Thomas Francis Albert but known by family and appeared in census documents as Thomas Charles. He is reputed to have been accused of embezzling, along with a fellow accountant, 250,000 from the Bank of England and running off to Australia to avoid capture, not to be heard of again.

This theft would have occurred after 1901 when he was still listed in the Census as a victualler, presumably in the Tally Ho Public House which his mother had inherited on his father's death. Marty's family know the pub was sold to a brewery some time before 1916, so they assume that Thomas then worked at the Bank in some accounting capacity as he had been schooled in that field.

Here's the dilemma: Marty is unable to identify that such a theft took place. He has searched the British Newspaper Archives from 1900 and found no reference, but wonders if the Bank may not have publicly acknowledged such activities. Thomas does not appear in the 1911 census so it seems quite possible that he had left the country, yet Marty is unable to find him among the passenger lists which he is able to search (but then, as a fugitive, he may have adopted an alias or possibly departed from a port on the Continent). Marty can also not find a record of him entering Australia.

Does anyone have any suggestions on how this family mystery might be solved?