LOVELOCK-L ArchivesArchiver > LOVELOCK > 2013-01 > 1357645456
From: Yann Lovelock <>
Subject: Re: [LOVELOCK] THE MYSTERY OF EDWARD LORENZO RUSSELL LOVELOCK
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 11:44:16 +0000 (GMT)
Previously I knew of only two other Lorenzo Lovelocks. One was in one of the southern US states in the second half of the 19thC, the other was a member of the unique Jamaican family that descended from a marriage or liaison there in the mid 19C. The Jamaican is a former Manchester boxer (also called Muhammad) whose father Irwin was in the RAF and married a Birmingham Jewess after WW2. I speculated that the name Lorenzo might have been connected with the anonymous forefather, who disappeared from Jamaica without returning. If that was our itinerant soldier, maybe the court martial could have been connected with his going native, AWOL or entering a bigamous relationship.
I'll look forward to further developments. Dahlia Harris, the Jamaican actress, had a Lovelock mother and more information would help her trace the marriage. Incidentally, I seem to remember that we discussed earlier another Lovelock line connected with St Anne's Soho. Can a connection be established?
From: graham lovelock <>
Sent: Tuesday, 8 January 2013, 9:56
Subject: [LOVELOCK] THE MYSTERY OF EDWARD LORENZO RUSSELL LOVELOCK
*THE MYSTERY OF EDWARD LORENZO RUSSELL LOVELOCK*
I recently came into possession of a Certified Copy of the Entry of Death
for *Edward Lorenzo Russell Lovelock*, who died at 17 Grosvenor Square,
Broughton, Salford, Lancashire, England on 11 December 1883.
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 on the 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 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 the
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. So the question is, 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. The assumption arises out of the death of an Ann Lovelock
in the Colchester Registration District (RD), probably in early June 1857
as 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, Free BMD has no record of the birth of their daughter Annie, born in
Colchester in 1857 according to the 1861 Census for Walmer, Kent. 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. Annie seems to have been the
servant in a household in Lewisham, Kent in 1871, recorded as Anne Lovelock
aged 13, born Colchester. Although the age of 21 given in 1881 (by which
time she had married to become Annie Hearnden) does not agree with the
earlier Census Returns that include her, 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.
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
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, that man 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 Elizabeth Keys there, but
that was in 1785, meaning Elizabeth would have been at least 51 by 1820,
and therefore is most unlikely to be 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.
I have constructed a Descendant Tree for Edward, but there are only two
succeeding generations in it. The last of his Lovelock descendants seems to
have died in 1973, so we will get no help from that quarter.
So will we ever solve the mystery of Edward Lorenzo Russell Lovelock?
Lovelock family history Web pages:
Browse Lovelock trees on the PhpGedView portal:
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
|Re: [LOVELOCK] THE MYSTERY OF EDWARD LORENZO RUSSELL LOVELOCK by Yann Lovelock <>|