This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Volume One: Descendants of James Albert “Jim” Loveless [ca.18101867] 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
Arms of Lovelace of Hurley, Berkshire.
Arms of Lovelace of Kent
I Origin of the Lovelace/Loveless surname, and possible English antecedents.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The name and family of Lovelace/Loveless Ancient British roots? Distribution of Lovelace surname in England Our possible Dorset connection George Loveless, Tolpuddle Martyr The possible Hurley connection Conclusion 2 3 8 10 17 19 21
II Colonial Maryland Adventurers: The Lovelace/Loveless Family in Maryland before, during, and after the Revolution.
1 2 3 4 5 William Loveless, “the Transportee” Early Maryland Ancestors, Revised (by Jack D. Lovelace) Barton Lovelace and wife Lucy Watson (etc.) Samuel Lovelace and his wife Anna “Annie” Byers A “Falling Out” Among Brothers? 23 24 32 43 45
Further speculation on Samuel and Annie Lovelace
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 2 3 4
Incipit Marriage of James Albert “Jim” Lovelace James Lovelace returns to Georgia The 1832 Georgia (or Dahlonega) Gold Rush, and a “falling out” between brothers. Life in Cherokee (later Pickens) County Onset of the Civil War The James Lovelace family moves to Cobb County Death, and Estate Administration Sarah Nicholson Lovelace, widow of James
54 57 60
60 63 66 67 68 70 71
5 6 7 8 9
10 Laban S. Magbee, “son” of Sarah Lovelace? 11 The children of James Albert “Jim” Lovelace and his wife Sarah J. Nicholson. 12 The grandchildren of James and Sarah Lovelace 13 The great-grandchildren of James and Sarah Lovelace 14 The great-great-grandchildren of James and Sarah Lovelace
75 88 125 160
15 The great-great-great-grandchildren of James and Sarah Lovelace 201 16 The great-great-great-great-grandchildren of James and Sarah Lovelace 253
IV Nicholson/Richardson/Palmour/Bolling excursus:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ira R. Nicholson and his wife Jane Palmour William Nicholson, the father of Ira R. A Note on Evan Nicholson The Troublesome and Elusive Bolin Nicholson The Bolling Family of Virginia William Nicholson‟s parentage The Richardson Family Solomon Palmour, and the Palmour/Palmer family 302 303 305 306 307 308 309 309
Postscript Notes and references Bibliography Index
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.
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)
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
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 listmaster 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  after the supposed date of Lucy's death, and he shows up again in another marriage record  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
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
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 LOVELACE-L@rootsweb.com 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 firstname.lastname@example.org , and I will conscientiously try my best to accommodate any requests. T. J. White.
I Origin of the Lovelace/Loveless surname, and possible English antecedents.
The name and family of Lovelace/Loveless
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
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?
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 16
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 preCeltic 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 17
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
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 AngloSaxon, 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).
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 Berkshire (Hurley) Buckingham Cornwall Dorset Hertfordshire Kent Middlesex (London) Oxfordshire Somerset Surrey (17th Century) (16th and 17th Centuries) (17th Century) (19th Century) (18th and 19th Centuries) (17th Century) (15th Century) (15th Century) (17th Century) (16th Century) (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:
County Map of England
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.
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 email 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. 22
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.
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 twentyfive 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.
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. 25
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
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 24Jun 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 1754 Nov 30? LOVELACE Henry 1761 Apr 30 BISHOP Stephen 1766 Feb 7 HARRIS John DYER Mary WALFORD Mary LOVELACE Dorothy LOVELACE Mary LOVELESS Grace LOVELESS Mary
1767 Apr 19 BISHOP Wm. 1780 Aug 25 HILL Robert
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:
1885 map of County Dorset, England
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 (17971874), 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.
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
The possible Hurley connection
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.
Map of Hurley, Berkshire
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
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.
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: