The Lovelace/Loveless Family in America Part One
description
Transcript of The Lovelace/Loveless Family in America Part One
TThhee LLoovveellaaccee//LLoovveelleessss FFaammiillyy
iinn AAmmeerriiccaa::
Volume One:
Descendants of James Albert “Jim” Loveless [ca.1810-
1867] and his wife Sarah J. Nicholson [ca.1817-1889],
of Pickens District, South Carolina, and
Rabun, Cherokee, Pickens, and Cobb Counties,
Georgia.
by T.J. White
ii
Arms of Lovelace of Hurley, Berkshire.
Arms of Lovelace of Kent
iii
[Copyright page]
iv
Contents
Acknowledgments vii
Preface x
I Origin of the Lovelace/Loveless surname,
and possible English antecedents.
1 The name and family of Lovelace/Loveless 2
2 Ancient British roots? 3
3 Distribution of Lovelace surname in England 8
4 Our possible Dorset connection 10
5 George Loveless, Tolpuddle Martyr 17
6 The possible Hurley connection 19
7 Conclusion 21
II Colonial Maryland Adventurers: The Lovelace/Loveless
Family in Maryland before, during, and after the Revolution.
1 William Loveless, “the Transportee” 23
2 Early Maryland Ancestors, Revised (by Jack D. Lovelace) 24
3 Barton Lovelace and wife Lucy Watson (etc.) 32
4 Samuel Lovelace and his wife Anna “Annie” Byers 43
5 A “Falling Out” Among Brothers? 45
v
6 Further speculation on Samuel and Annie Lovelace 46
III Descendants of James Albert “Jim” Loveless [ca.1810-1867]
and his wife Sarah J. Nicholson [ca.1817-1889],
of Pickens District, South Carolina, and Rabun,
Cherokee, Pickens and Cobb Counties, Georgia.
1 Incipit 54
2 Marriage of James Albert “Jim” Lovelace 57
3 James Lovelace returns to Georgia 60
4 The 1832 Georgia (or Dahlonega) Gold Rush,
and a “falling out” between brothers. 60
5 Life in Cherokee (later Pickens) County 63
6 Onset of the Civil War 66
7 The James Lovelace family moves to Cobb County 67
8 Death, and Estate Administration 68
9 Sarah Nicholson Lovelace, widow of James 70
10 Laban S. Magbee, “son” of Sarah Lovelace? 71
11 The children of James Albert “Jim” Lovelace and
his wife Sarah J. Nicholson. 75
12 The grandchildren of James and Sarah Lovelace 88
13 The great-grandchildren of James and Sarah Lovelace 125
14 The great-great-grandchildren of James and Sarah Lovelace 160
15 The great-great-great-grandchildren of James and Sarah Lovelace 201
16 The great-great-great-great-grandchildren of James and Sarah 253
Lovelace
vi
17 Explicit 300
IV Nicholson/Richardson/Palmour/Bolling excursus:
1 Ira R. Nicholson and his wife Jane Palmour 302
2 William Nicholson, the father of Ira R. 303
3 A Note on Evan Nicholson 305
4 The Troublesome and Elusive Bolin Nicholson 306
5 The Bolling Family of Virginia 307
6 William Nicholson‟s parentage 308
7 The Richardson Family 309
8 Solomon Palmour, and the Palmour/Palmer family 309
Postscript
Notes and references
Bibliography
Index
vii
Acknowledgments
In this book, I depend heavily on the research and ideas of others. I am very
grateful for their diligent efforts, and for their selfless sharing of the same with
the rest of us. If I have here managed to achieve anything of worth, it can only be
because I had such excellent research already prepared for me. I therefore
consider myself predominantly a writer and a compiler, though I have also done
my share of original research here and there.
I am here both pleased and honored to extend my grateful thanks to the following
persons:
Dr. Alton Loveless, Barbara Blanton Perkins, Barbara Kelly Newton, Betty
Loveless Murray, Beverly Magbee Gillis, Bobby Alexander, Catherine Loveless
Kennedy, Crandall J. Kennedy, David Wilson, Dawn Owings, Geri Perkins Allen,
Greg Lovelace, Harry Alexander, Henry F. Alexander, Sr., Jeanelle Loveless
Walker, the late Jeanette Newton Peebles, Jimmie Ryan, Jack D. Lovelace, Jack
L. Alexander, Kath Rumans Cornelius, Drs. Keith and Dianne Byrd, Lou Ann
Murphy, Louise Cheek Magbee, Louise Rooks Young, Margaret White
Sprayberry, Marjorie Brown Morehead, the late Martha Kelly Bunn, Nancy
Lovelace Gooch, Robert Clayton, Ruth B. White, Drs. Stuart and Ellen Nelson,
William Loveless, and all the other relatives, unknown to me personally, who
have contributed information to make this work possible.
Without you and your very kind and selfless help, this present effort would not
have been possible. Any endeavor such as this is, by its very nature—and despite
whoever does the actual „writing‟—very much a “team effort”.
If anyone else has contributed, and I have failed to mention your name, please
forgive me and kindly bring this unfortunate oversight to my attention. I will do
my utmost to correct it.
__________________________________________________________
viii
For Kara, Alex, and Samantha.
Beloved … I had many things to write, but I will not
with pen and ink write unto you: but I trust
I shall shortly see you, and we shall speak face to face.
The Third Epistle of John, verses 11, 13 and 14.
(King James Version, altered)
ix
Ubi sunt qui ante nos fuerunt …?
--popular mediaeval phrase.
Hwer is Paris, and Heleyne,
That weren so bryght and feyre on bleo:
Amadas, Tristam, and Dideyne,
Yseude, and alle theo:
Ector with his scharpe meyne,
And Cesar riche of worldes feo?
Heo beoth i-glyden ut of the reyne,
So the schef is of the cleo. …
--from the Luve Ron [Love Song] of Thomas de Hales, A.D. 1240
x
Preface
The great Greek philosopher Aristotle once said that “before a man dies, he
should build a house, plant a tree, and write a book.” In my lifetime, I have
indeed planted a tree (several, in fact), and now it appears that I am writing a
book. The house may turn out to be a different matter, though. …
A family history is always a serious matter, because one is dealing not only with
one‟s own ancestors, but also the ancestors of a lot of other people as well--people
who may or may not like one‟s own presentation of their part of the „family
history‟. In attempting to put together this history, my one overriding concern has
been that I might produce something which will win the approval of my more
distant relatives who will be impacted in one way or another by what I have
written. I have conscientiously attempted to be fair, just, and—above all,
considerate of everyone‟s feelings. However, I must also say that I wish, in
addition, to be honest, and to not dissemble or prevaricate. Overlooking or hiding
some of the facts of history may be temporarily convenient for some, but it does a
true disservice to honest, real history (in my opinion), for history is--or should be-
-the tangible written record of all of that which actually happened—whether we
like it or not. I believe it was the Roman orator Cicero, after all, who said that the
duty of every true historian is to report the past as it truly happened, with no
partiality or prejudice in his writing. This is the idea which has been my guide.
The James Loveless who is the subject of much of this family history is now
believed to have been a son of Samuel Lovelace (ca.1779-ca.1810) of Rutherford
County, North Carolina and Spartanburg County, South Carolina, and his wife
Anna “Annie” Byers (1782-1850). This Samuel Lovelace would have been a son
of old Barton Lovelace [1756-1805] formerly of Montgomery County Maryland,
the Revolutionary War soldier from Colonial Maryland who had such a
"checkered career," in the words of David Wilson, another descendant and
researcher. “It is now thought” says Greg Lovelace (another researcher and list-
master of the Lovelace web-list)
that, at some point in time along the way, Barton was arrested in
Halifax Co., VA and charged with stealing a horse. It seems that
he fled, leaving his wife Lucy to fend for herself with a brood of
kids. Barton [later] shows up in Tennessee in a marriage record
[1798] after the supposed date of Lucy's death, and he shows up
again in another marriage record [1802] and on a tax list in
Kentucky. Lucy is thought to have taken up with, and possibly
married, a widower named Abraham Cantrell, who settled on the
xi
Pacolet River in Spartanburg Co., SC just across the state line
from Rutherford Co., NC. Three younger sons (Nathan, Asa, and
Benjamin) and one older son (Samuel) appear to have had close
ties, either geographically or personally, with Abraham Cantrell.
It appears that Samuel, after having several sons (notably a
William who moved north into Tennessee and Barton, who moved
south and west into Georgia), died in Spartanburg Co., while the
three younger boys moved north into Rutherford Co. to found the
numerous Lovelace families found there today. (e-mail to web-list
dated 15 March, 2006).
Much will be said about this Barton Lovelace in Chapter Two, so I won't repeat
any more of it here, other than to say that Barton Lovelace is believed to have
been a son of Benjamin Lovelace (1727-1784) of Frederick and Montgomery
Counties, Maryland. In an e-mail of 12 November, 2005 to this writer, the
aforementioned David Wilson said that "there is some evidence [that Benjamin's]
father was John [Lovelace] born 1698, [and that] John's father may have been
Thomas, b.1664." However, according to an e-mail of 11 January, 2005 to the
Lovelace List from researcher Jack D. Lovelace, this Benjamin was most likely a
son of Thomas (born ca. 1700) and his wife Eleanor. This assessment is based on
analysis of the available DNA evidence. The father of this Thomas, Jack D.
Lovelace asserts, was most likely a John born ca.1675, who would have been a
son of William "the Transportee", the earliest person by the name of Lovelace to
appear in the colonial records. In light of this new assessment of the data, David
Wilson, along with Lou Ann Murphy (another reliable researcher), has recently
urged caution in attempting to interpret this early data. I repeat all of this here
only to show the latest thinking in Lovelace family research. “There is now a tiny
amount of evidence” says David Wilson, continuing, “that the group we call the
Maryland Lovelxxxs may be related to the Loveless/Lovelace families of Dorset
in Southern England, but that is as far as our knowledge goes.” (e-mail of 16
March, 2006.) (Note: recent further DNA testing on a Michael Loveless,
currently residing in Wales, but with known and proven ancestry in County
Dorset, England, has verified that the members of the “Main Maryland branch” of
the Lovelace/Loveless family do indeed originate in that area of England.)
Occasionally, when referring to James Loveless (the subject of this paper) I have
used the older spelling of "Lovelace" (as opposed to “Loveless”), based on the
fact that at times his contemporaries, his widow and at least three of his daughters
are known to have spelled the surname that way. In the historical record, where
the name is spelled “Loveless”, I have kept this spelling also.
There is presently an ongoing y-chromosome DNA project (involving male
members of the Lovelace/Loveless family), in an attempt to sort out these very
xii
confusing early Maryland lines. To view the current results of this endeavor, go
to http://dna.satmel.com/index.html
For testing (of your own DNA, should you be a male with the surname Lovelace
or Loveless), go to http://www.familytreedna.com/faq.html
The Lovelace/Loveless family web list is at [email protected] The
searchable archives can be accessed at:
http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/?list=LOVELACE
The threaded archives are at:
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=lovelace
I have tried my utmost to insure that this information is as accurate and
complete as my ability will allow, and to properly credit others from whose work
I have borrowed. Where I wasn't sure of facts or dates, I tried to say so in every
instance. Any additions, corrections (or deletions) should be directed to my
attention at [email protected] , and I will conscientiously try my best to
accommodate any requests.
T. J. White.
13
I
Origin of the Lovelace/Loveless surname,
and possible English antecedents.
14
The name and family of Lovelace/Loveless
The web-site http://www.houseofnames.com/xq/asp.fc/qx/lovelace-family-
crest.htm holds that the surname “Lovelace” ultimately derives from the Old English
word laghles, meaning “lawless”, and that this surname was originally applied to a
person because of his reckless, wild, nonconforming behaviour. This same site says,
moreover, that the surname originated in Ireland with the followers of Strongbow, the
Twelfth-Century Anglo-Norman conqueror of Ireland. There may be some degree of
truth to this idea; after all, Strongbow did originally hail from southern Wales, very close
indeed to the southern England home of so many members of the Lovelace/Loveless
family in later centuries.
In contrast, another such site, gives a very different etymology for the name: here, the
name is said to have originated from a person (or persons) who was a “philanderer”—
basically a lusty, „fancy-free‟ bachelor, i.e, one who was literally “love-less”. Here, the
surname is said to derive from the Mediaeval English word “lufelesse”.
As one of these sites points out,
however, the seductress or
“temptress” figure in the mediaeval
English romance, Sir Gawain and
the Green Knight (probably written
circa 1360), does indeed offer to
Gawain a green silk girdle or “Love
Lace” as a token of her esteem. This
is yet a third possibility for the origin
of the name.
Wendy Loveless Waldron‟s site on
Rootsweb [q.v.], while perhaps more
authoritative than most others,
nonetheless acknowledges that there
are many different and conflicting
ideas on the origin of the Lovelace
and Loveless surnames.
Sir Gawain and the Green Knight
15
Regardless, there can be no doubt that the ancestors of most Americans bearing this
surname probably originated in England—most likely in southwestern England. Some
people bearing this surname (or descended from it) will at least be aware of the famous
Seventeenth-Century English Cavalier Poet, Sir Richard Lovelace (1617-1658), (see
portrait, at left) of the family of Bethersden,
Kent. For a long time, many of us wanted to be
able to claim a relationship with him and his
family (not least because of their many royal
connections). Recent DNA analysis, however,
has proven (almost conclusively) that not only
are most of us not related to him, but that there
are no fewer than four separate, unrelated
families of Lovelaces or Lovelesses now living
in the United States.
The family that is the main focus of this present
book is descended from what researchers are
now calling the “Main Maryland Branch”,
because that state is where the oldest known
representatives of that family lived (back in the
Seventeenth Century and later). These
Maryland Lovelaces will be described in some detail in the next chapter.
For now, we will concern ourselves with the English (or at least British) roots of this
family. And where better to begin than at the beginning?
16
Ancient British Roots?
Lovelace/Loveless family researcher David Wilson (and distant cousin), an absolute
genius when it comes to unraveling and explaining (for the average reader) these early
family members and the DNA efforts to identify and sort them, has recently spoken on
the likely ancient origins of the Y-Chromosome pattern most often associated with the
“Main Maryland Branch”. (The person he refers to at the beginning--named Greg--is
Greg Lovelace, one of the list-masters of the Lovelace web list.)
In an e-mail from David Wilson to the Lovelace web-list, dated 23 November, 2005, he
wrote:
Greg asked me to say a few words about what the new S21 SNP results
mean for the Maryland Group of Lovelxxxs.
As I reported earlier, the MD group is negative for the S21 SNP: that is,
this family group does NOT have the S21 mutation.
This is good information in its own right. But to understand why, we need
to think about the deep history of the British Isles.
During the last ice age, the British Isles were essentially uninhabited by
virtue of being mostly covered with ice. There may have been small tribal
populations living on what are now the southern shores of England and
Ireland, but that's not proven.
It is known that after the LGM (last glacial maximum, whose end we can
date to about 12,000 years ago) humans began to move back into formerly
frozen areas as the ice retreated. By 8,000 years ago there were humans
scattered throughout what we now call the British Isles, which were at
that time still connected by a land bridge to Europe. We don't know what
language they spoke, but there is every reason to believe they were
genetically R1b.
They had probably come up from Spain and Portugal. The Iberian
peninsula was a temperate haven for European humans during the last ice
age.
Between 4,000 and 3,000 years ago, there was probably an expansion into
the British Isles by individuals that we would regard as pre-Celtic.
Between 3,000 and 2,000 years ago, Celtic influence (but not necessarily
Celtic genes) spread up from the Breton Peninsula into Wales and
eventually to Ireland and Scotland. Some 2,000 years ago in the last days
17
of the Roman Republic, Britain was added to Rome's sphere of influence
as a province. It stayed a province during the time of the Roman Empire --
over 400 years.
During this period many immigrants from the Eastern Mediterranean and
Middle East came as troops and traders. Many stayed after retirement and
added their genes to the local mix. The Roman administrative presence
undoubtedly helps explain the presence of such haplogroups as E3b, G
and J in the British Isles today.
After the collapse of Roman authority, which occurred during a time in
which Europe was shaken by huge population movements (Goths,
Vandals, Huns, etc.), the northern German tribes known as Angles and
Saxons invaded England.
Some 300 to 400 years later, the Vikings invaded from Scandinavia and
Denmark, and 200 years after that the Normans invaded from what is now
France.
The Normans (= "North-men") were a mixed group genetically speaking,
including members of R1a, R1b and I1a haplogroups, as well as some
minor subclades of I like I1c and possibly I1b.
As I suggested in an earlier post, the Angles and Saxons were probably
S21+. The Vikings were predominantly from haplogroups R1a and I1a. By
exclusion, then, the ancestors of the Maryland group were NOT Vikings
and were NOT Angles or Saxons. Since they belong to haplogroup R1b,
they are not likely to be descendants of some of the international travelers
who settled in England during the Roman period. Little by little we are
narrowing options to two major groups -- either the Celts, or the pre-
Celtic indigenous population of the British Isles.
It is possible that the Maryland Lovelxxxs have their roots in either the
Picts or the Scots, two Celtic groups. The Scots, despite their name, were
originally an Irish tribe. They got to Scotland when they went in and
savaged the Picts, who for all practical purposes disappeared from history
after this experience, though it is possible (even likely) that their Y-DNA
haplotypes are still in circulation in the modern population. If the MD
group does not have roots in one of these two groups, then they probably
do go all the way back to one of the wandering tribes that re-entered
England during the first few millennia that followed the last ice age.
This kind of analysis won't tell anyone very much about recent family
history, but it represents a form of useful knowledge nonetheless. Use the
analogy of the sculptor who takes a huge mass and chips away the stuff
that doesn't belong there until he ends up with what he wants. With respect
18
to the MD group, we are in a chipping-away process. There are millions
of individuals today who are R1b. By identifying the ones who are S21+,
we can remove about 15 to 20 percent of the total R1b mass from around
the MD group. By removing some of the other Iberian haplogroups, we
can take away several percent more. Statistical analysis of the remainder
suggests family groupings that deserve closer investigation. For example,
the analysis by John McEwan (the geneticist I mentioned in my earlier
post) puts the Lovelxxxs of the MD group into his group 32. Interestingly
enough, many of the surnames in group 32 have associations with
Scotland. That supports family lore that puts the MD family roots in
Scotland. (Remember the early 18th century Abraham Lovelace, who was
said to be "of Scotland.")
I have hopes that continuing statistical and geographical analysis may
eventually point to a region of Scotland, perhaps even a particular shire,
in which the MD group will find its roots. But I'm staying open to possible
surprises. If a DNA match should be found to an individual with surname
Lawless, I would rethink a lot of this in a flash. Lawless is thought to come
from Laighleis, the name of a Norman who entered with William the
Conqueror and put down roots in Ireland (where Lovelaces are found in
the 1600s). If that connection could be demonstrated, then the indigenous
Briton theory is out the window, and we would be looking at origins for
the MD group among a separate continental R1b group of the late first
millennium.
I have included this e-mail here in its entirety because it is so pertinent and informative,
and also because I realize I could not improve on it.
I do have to respectfully take issue with David on one small point, though. Right at the
very end he mentions the possible connection with the “Lawless” surname, asserting that
if a DNA match with individuals from that surname could be demonstrated, he would
have to “rethink” much of his analysis, and that therefore, the “indigenous Briton theory”
would be “out the window”.
Well, some (at least) of Strongbow‟s adherents married into the local Welsh royalty (the
line of Geraldus Cambrensis, the early Welsh historian, was descended from the Welsh
princess Nesta and her Anglo-Norman husband, for example), and it is certainly at least
possible, due to the Anglo-Norman assimilation with the Welsh (rather than attempting to
simply wipe them out), that some native Welsh males (with their R1b haplotypes) could
have been among the knights and retainers who accompanied Strongbow to Ireland (and
who then settled and established Anglo-Norman families there). The simple, bare fact
that nowadays in Ireland surnames beginning with Fitz- are quite common, is ample
testament to this. The patronymic Fitz- surnames are, in fact, Welsh in origin, fitz- (from
19
the French fils and Latin filius) being the Anglo-Norman equivalent of the Welsh words
map and ap, meaning “son of”. The idea of naming a male child after his father (for
example, Walter fitz Gerald, or Walter “son of” Gerald) was an ancient, centuries-old
Welsh practice, which practice the Anglo-Norman conquerors of Wales took up soon
after their arrival there, and their intermarriage with the local populations.
And surely not all of those Anglo-Norman barons ended up solely in Ireland. For many
decades after their conquest of Ireland in 1171, those knights and barons (and their heirs)
continued to hold estates on both sides of the Irish Sea. Surely many of the modern
inhabitants, not only of Wales proper, but also of the entire region of southwestern
England, must have the blood of those Anglo-Normans and their Welsh compatriots
coursing through their veins.
To sum all this up, then: it appears at least possible, and even probable, that the “Main
Maryland Branch” of the Lovelace/Loveless Family in North America may indeed go
back to that genetic and ethnic group which formerly inhabited Spain and Portugal during
the last Ice Age (now identified as the R1b haplotype). This is the group which is
genetically identical to the Basques of southern France and Northern Spain, raising the
intriguing likelihood that at some time in the remote past (that is, long before the Anglo-
Saxon, Roman, or even Celtic conquests of the British Isles) our Lovelace/Loveless
forefathers spoke some language similar to modern Basque (or perhaps—as David
Wilson suggested—a language akin to ancient Pictish).
And for those who may not be familiar with them, the Basques (as were the now-extinct
Picts) are a so-called “aboriginal”
people and language—that is, not
related or connected in any known
way with any of the other
languages surrounding them.
(Though, as alluded to, they are
indeed genetically identical to
most of the rest of the peoples of
the western fringe of Europe—
Spain, Portugal, Western France,
Brittany, and the British Isles.) It
is known from geography and
history that the Basques were once
much more widespread than now:
the Vosges Mountains in central
France, and the prevalence of the
surname “Vasquez” in Spain offer testament to this (the “v” was once a “b”). Gradual
conquest and assimilation over a period of many centuries has reduced them to their
present small corner of Europe (as a distinctly separate people and identity).
20
The next section will focus on the earliest recorded persons in the British Isles who bore
the Lovelace/Loveless surname:
Distribution of Lovelace surname in England
A quick survey of the L.D.S. Church‟s genealogical web site reveals the presence of
Lovelace/Loveless family members in the following English counties (with the
appropriate time periods in parentheses):
Bedford (17th
Century)
Berkshire (Hurley) (16th
and 17th
Centuries)
Buckingham (17th
Century)
Cornwall (19th
Century)
Dorset (18th
and 19th
Centuries)
Hertfordshire (17th
Century)
Kent (15th
Century)
Middlesex (London) (15th
Century)
Oxfordshire (17th
Century)
Somerset (16th
Century)
Surrey (17th
Century)
A comparison with a map of England shows that most of these counties are in
Southwestern England. Additionally, David Wilson mentions a cluster of
Lovelaces/Lovelesses in the East Anglia district (Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, and Cambridge
counties) of England. Other Lovelaces appear scattered here and there in other counties
besides the ones shown above, but the above counties are where the main concentrations
of Lovelaces were.
Below is a currently-available on-line map of the English counties:
21
County Map of England
This map is from the site:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mark1968/images%20Camping/map-england.gif
Notice that Dorset, Somerset, Devon, Wiltshire, Gloucester, and Cornwall are all very
close to each other. The county shown above as “Hants” is actually Hampshire. “Hants”
is simply the abbreviation.
22
Our possible Dorset connection
West Lulworth, a typical small village in the Dorset countryside.
We know from recent DNA analysis that in the United States there are (as mentioned)
no less than four separate, unrelated families with the Lovelace/Loveless surname, and
that all four of them very likely originated in either England, or at least the British Isles.
We can therefore say with reasonable certainty that there were also at least four separate,
unrelated families bearing this surname in England (etc.) during the Seventeenth Century
(when those Lovelaces who ended up in America left England). We also know that we
are almost certainly not connected with the Lovelace family of County Kent. A recent e-
mail from the aforementioned David Wilson indicates (to the contrary) that County
Dorset may be the most likely place of origin in England of our Maryland ancestors:
(Dated 15 December, 2005):
VERY interesting news. We may finally have the evidence that ties one of
the North American Lovelxxx groups to a Lovelxxx group in the British
Isles.
23
Greg alerted me earlier today that 12-marker results have come in for
John Lovelace, whose daughter Mary briefly subscribed to the group
several weeks ago. John's ancestors have been Canadian for the last
several generations.
His immigrant ancestor, William Lovelace, came to Newfoundland about
1820. He is thought to have come from Dorset.
John's 12 marker results are very close to those of what we have called the
"Main" Maryland group. He differs from members of that group in only
one locus: where the "Main" Marylanders have DYS389ii=31, John has
the value 32. It is sometimes risky to propose connections based on 12
markers, but in this case I think we are on solid ground. When you
compare John's haplotype to the closest matches in the VA, RI and NJ
groups, he stands at a genetic distance of at least 6. That means he is
essentially unrelated to them. But to differ by only one step, particularly
when the haplotype you are comparing to has some distinctive values, is
very suggestive.
A single haplotype is not proof, but it is an excellent indicator. It would be
very informative if we could get other Dorset (or adjacent Somerset)
Lovelxxxs to test at least 12 markers.
Dorset is where we find Tolpuddle, home of the Tolpuddle Martyrs who
are regarded as founders of the British Labor movement. If John
Lovelace's ancestors really come from Dorset, we have circumstantial
evidence tying the Maryland group to the Lovelesses of Tolpuddle. We
know that there were Lovelxxxs in Dorset in the mid 1600s. Earlier this
year I posted a 1654 Dorset marriage to the list. It is entirely possible that
a Dorset Lovelxxx emigrated from Dorset to Maryland in the mid 1660s
and founded the Maryland line.
More research and more tests are required to confirm this possible link.
But this is one of the most interesting developments in Lovelxxx research
to have happened in some time.
John is kit 45805 in the table on the Lovelace project's bare-bones web
site: https://www.familytreedna.com/public/lovelace/
As mentioned above, the more recent test results for Michael Loveless of Wales (with
known Dorset ancestry) has made almost certain our connection to Dorset. With this in
mind, perhaps we will concentrate for now on these Dorset Lovelaces.
24
The Index to the Visitation of Dorset, 1623 (also provided by David Wilson)
http://www.british-genealogy.com/acdb/bindexes/8013idor1.htm lists the following
two persons with the name Lovelace:
Lovelace, Elizabeth, 89; Robert, 89.
(This is an index, as David points out, so those are page numbers rather than ages.)
David says that “these would now be the earliest Dorset Lovelxxxs I know of.” David
goes on to add, however, that he found a 1654 Lovelace marriage in Dorset earlier that
year (2005).
The above Elizabeth (says David Wilson) is identified as the daughter of the above
Robert Lovelace, and was the wife of George Style "of Puddle Towne." George was the
third son of his father, whereas the second son, George's older brother, was thirty-five
years old in 1623. George was, therefore, probably then thirty to thirty-three years old,
and his wife, although she might have been the same age, is perhaps more around twenty-
five to twenty-eight. They had three children already, of whom the son and heir was a
year old. “If Elizabeth,” says David, “was born in, say, 1595, we can probably put the
birth of her father in the range of 1560-1570--maybe as late as 1575,” as “Elizabeth is
[likely] in her early 20s.”
http://www.uk-genealogy.org.uk/england/Dorset/visitations/p97.html
The L.D.S. Church‟s International Genealogical Index (or IGI) lists several early
members of the Lovelace/Loveless family in Dorset—many with dates even earlier than
those so far identified by David Wilson. Here I have maintained the exact spelling of the
names as they were transcribed from the original parish registries:
Joane Lovelace, daughter of Richard Lovelace, christened on 14 March,
1563, in Cattistock, Dorset.
Elizabeth Lovelace, daughter of Richard Lovelace, christened on 6 May,
1564, in Cattistock, Dorset.
Agnes Lovelace, daughter of Richard Lovelace, christened on 19 March,
1570, in Cattistock, Dorset.
Vincen Lovelace, son of Richard Lovelace, christened on 1 March, 1573,
in Cattistock, Dorset.
Hillary Lovelace, daughter of Richard Lovelace, christened on 15 July,
1576, in Cattistock, Dorset.
25
Humphrey Lovelace, son of Richard Lovelace, christened on 24 April,
1578, in Cattistock, Dorset.
Phillip Loveless (or Gover), christened on 12 October, 1574, in Sydling,
St. Nicholas, Dorset (no parents named).
Maria Lovelesse, daughter of Richardi Lovelesse, christened on 28 April,
1581, in Halstock, Dorset.
Joice Loveless, married to Thomas Thomas on 15 October, 1593, in
Piddlehinton, Dorset.
Anstice Lovelace, daughter of Thomas Lovelace, christened on 1 May,
1599, in Cattistock, Dorset.
Faith Loveless, daughter of William Loveless, christened on 21 August,
1603, in Cattistock, Dorset. She may be the same person as the “Faith
Loveless” that married Henry Morrice on 24 January, 1628, also in
Cattistock, Dorset.
Edieth Lovelace, daughter of Thomas Lovelace, christened on 14
December, 1606, in Cattistock, Dorset.
Angele Lovelace, daughter of William Lovelace, christened on 1 October,
1609, in Cattistock, Dorset.
Mary Loveless, daughter of Robert Loveless, christened on 11 April, 1630,
in Yetminster, Dorset.
Mgt Loveles, daughter of Humprhy Loveles, christened on 7 October,
1632, in Powerstock with West Milton, Dorset.
Mary Lovelace, married to Walstone Gray on 4 February, 1633, in
Cattistock, Dorset.
Edith Lovelass, married to Ralph Rendall on 8 May, 1634, in Maiden
Newton, Dorset. Edith Lovelass Rendall died on 6 November, 1670 (no
location given).
John Lovelis, son of Robert Lovelis, christened on 23 October, 1642, in
Piddlehinton, Dorset.
Grace Lovelis, daughter of Robert Lovelis, christened on 6 October, 1644,
in Piddlehinton, Dorset.
James Loveliss, married to Ann Angel on 21 October, 1655, in Toller
Porcorum, Dorset.
26
Elizabeth Lovelas, married to Christopher Baker on 1 January, 1665, in
Loders, Dorset.
Martha Lovelace, married to John Bartlett on 9 November, 1678, in
Piddletown, Dorset. (Is this the same place later styled “Puddle Town”?)
Alice Lovelace, daughter of Thomas Lovelace, christened on 26 April,
1668, in Yetminster, Dorset.
William Lovles, son of John Lovles, christened on 10 May, 1680, in All
Saints‟, Dorchester, Dorset.
Sarah Lovelace, daughter of Robert Lovelace, christened on 17
September, 1681, in Yetminster, Dorset.
And finally,
Elizabeth Lovelace, daughter of Edward and Elizabeth Lovelace,
christened on 15 April, 1690, in Folke, Dorset.
I have here arbitrarily restricted myself only to those Lovelaces (etc.) who were recorded
prior to 1700.
Below are some marriages in this same time period from Dorset and neighbouring
Somerset (some of the names will appear familiar in light of the above list):
Maiden Newton
http://www.dorset-opc.com/MaidenNewtonMarriages.htm
Humfrie LOVELACE & Margarett BRITTEN married 09-Nov 1600
Robert LOVELACE & Alice CAMELL married 04-Aug 1623
John FARRETT & Jane LOVELES married 02-Jun 1629
Ralph RENDLE & Eidith LOVELACE married 08-May 1634
John LOVELASSE & Elizabeth BRIDLE married 30-Jan 1655
27
John WATTES & Hester LOVELASSE married 07-Oct 1656
John MOWLAND & Yedith LOVELASSE married 30-Dec 1656
John LOVELASSE & Margery COXE married 05-Feb 1656
Edward WALBRIDGE of Askerswell & Elianora LOVELACE married 24-
Jun 1700
Robert LOVELASS & Sarah BURBIDGE married [ ] Dec 1710
Richard BRIDELL & Mary LOVELASS married 22-Apr 1739
Overstowey
http://www.westcountrygenealogy.com/somerset/overstowey_marriages.ht
m
1724 Aug 21 LOVELICE Francis BURGE Elizabeth
1736 Apr 26 LOVELACE John DYER Mary
1754 Nov 30? LOVELACE Henry WALFORD Mary
1761 Apr 30 BISHOP Stephen LOVELACE Dorothy
1766 Feb 7 HARRIS John LOVELACE Mary
1767 Apr 19 BISHOP Wm. LOVELESS Grace
1780 Aug 25 HILL Robert LOVELESS Mary
The Lovelace/Loveless (etc.) presence in Dorset continues, however, right up through the
Nineteenth Century into modern times.
Here follows an 1885 map of County Dorset:
28
1885 map of County Dorset, England
29
George Loveless, Tolpuddle Martyr
As David Wilson mentioned above, Dorset was the birthplace of the modern Labour
movement in British politics, and it was a George Loveless of Tolpuddle, Dorset (1797-
1874), who was one of its founding fathers. Since we are discussing these Dorset
Lovelaces (etc.), and since George was so well-known and influential, I feel I should at
least mention something here concerning him.
This George Loveless was a local Methodist preacher and laborer from the village of
Tolpuddle in Dorset, who, after the famous Reform Act of 1832 made trade unions legal,
founded a group entitled “The Friendly Society of Agricultural Labourers”. This group,
led by George Loveless, protested against the low wages then paid to laborers (in some
places as low as six shillings per week), and demanded higher wages. George and his
union, which met in the house of one Thomas Standfield (his brother-in-law), insisted
that they would not work for less than ten shillings per week. According to Wikipedia
[q.v.],
In 1834 James Frampton, a local landowner, wrote to the Prime Minister,
Lord Melbourne, to complain about the union, invoking an obscure law
from 1797 prohibiting people from swearing oaths to each other, which
the Friendly Society had done. James Brine, James Hammett, George
Loveless, George‟s brother James Loveless, George‟s brother-in-law
Thomas Standfield, and Thomas‟ son John Standfield were arrested, found
guilty, and transported to Australia [then a penal colony].
For this reason, they gained both immortality, and the nickname “The Tolpuddle
Martyrs” (even though none of them actually lost his life in the process).
They became popular heroes and all, except James Hammett, were
released in 1836, with the support of Lord John Russell who had recently
become Home Secretary. Hammett was released in 1837. Meanwhile the
others moved, first to Essex, then to London, Ontario, Canada, where
there is now a monument in their honour and an affordable housing/ trade
union complex named after them. They are buried in a small London,
Ontario, cemetery on Fanshawe Park Road East. Hammett remained in
Tolpuddle. He died in the Dorchester workhouse in 1891.
There was also a monument erected in their honour in Tolpuddle in 1934,
and a sculpture of the martyrs made in 2001 stands in the village in front
of the Martyrs Museum there.
An annual festival is held in Tolpuddle, organised by the Trades Union
Congress (TUC) featuring a parade of banners from many trade unions, a
memorial service, speeches and music.
30
Though it now seems we are able to prove a genetic link to these Dorset Lovelaces and
Lovelesses (as David Wilson has suggested), our ancestors may not, in fact, have come
directly from Dorset, as yet other possibly relevant facts and “traditions” tend to suggest:
Below is a photo of St. John‟s Church, Tolpuddle, Dorset:
St. John’s Church, Tolpuddle, Dorset
31
The possible Hurley connection
My paternal grandmother Martha Kelly Bunn, from whom I derive my Lovelace
ancestry, informed me some years ago of a tradition in our branch of the Lovelace family
to the effect that we were either descendants of, or related in some way to, a person in
England named or titled “Lord Lovelace”. At the time, I did not give her claim much
thought. I have since learned, however, that there were indeed several such persons by
this name and title living in Hurley, Berkshire, in the Seventeenth Century. And one of
them was rather notorious. He was a descendant of:
Sir Richard Lovelace (1564-1634), who was a son of Richard Lovelace Sr. “of Ladye
Place, Hurley” (see picture, above) and his wife Anne, daughter of Richard Warde of
Hurst, had been MP for Berkshire, and then successively Sheriff there from 1610 to 1611,
and Sheriff for Oxforshire from 1626 to 1627.
On 30 May, 1627, he was elevated to the peerage as “Lord Lovelace of Hurley”, by
Charles I. This Lord Lovelace‟s son and heir was John.
32
Map of
Hurley,
Berk-
shire
John‟s heirs proving deficient, the barony passed eventually to John Lovelace (the Fourth
Lord), who lived from 1672 to 1709. This John was a son of William Lovelace of Hurst
(1650-1676) and his wife Mary, a daughter of Sir Edward Neville, bart., of Grove in
Nottinghamshire.
This William Lovelace (son of Francis “of Culham Court”) was killed in 1676 during a
dispute with two of his servants. It seems that William had murdered a maid who
somehow offended him (perhaps she refused his advances), and the maid‟s lover
murdered William in revenge. This event, which probably occurred in England, was
widely enough reported to be included in a juicy, gossipy letter of the time written by
Mary Isham Randolph, who would later become the great-grandmother of Thomas
Jefferson. Mary Isham Randolph‟s letter was quoted in Professor David Hackett Fisher‟s
influential 1989 tome, Albion‟s Seed.
So just how did the idea get started that any American Lovelaces were related to this
“Lord Lovelace”? A possible clue to the origin of this rumor may lie in colonial New
York‟s history:
Beginning as early as the 1670s, a rumor existed that then-New York (Colonial)
Governor Francis Lovelace was a “brother to Lord Lovelace of Hurley” (a rumor which
was actually quite false and misleading). This false report caused much lasting confusion
and consternation among later generations of Lovelaces in North America—many of
whom wished to claim a relationship with Governor Lovelace because of his noble and
royal connections, and may even have been the source of the “family tradition” (quoted
33
above) which made its way down to my grandmother (and, apparently, many other, more
distant relations as well).
Yet another possible place of origin for our Lovelace/Loveless family was suggested
several months ago by David Wilson, who mentioned that his great-great grandfather
Loveless, who wrote a family history himself, had stated that our Lovelace/Loveless
family was reputed to have come from County Worcester in England. David has also
suggested a possible origin in Scotland for our Maryland Lovelace/Loveless family,
based on a tradition of an Abraham Lovelace in colonial Maryland who was said to have
originated there. Obviously, these and other possible leads need to be further
investigated.
Conclusion
I agree with David Wilson in saying that the best indicator thus far is the recent DNA
evidence which strongly suggests (and indeed, almost proves beyond doubt) a connection
with the Lovelesses of Dorset. Obviously, more Dorset-descended male Lovelesses need
to be contacted to seek their participation in the DNA testing.
With that said, I think the time is finally right to move on to what we know about our
earliest probable ancestors in colonial Maryland. In this, as in everything else, I am
depending heavily on the excellent work of many others. My task has only been to
organize and present in one volume what they have already achieved: