Lou Ann, Thanks for laying out the early MD Lovelaces. It's a great help. Also, in a message last year to my Loveless cousin, Barbara Rendina, you speculated that our James H. and Thomas Henderson Loveless may have been sons of Elisha b ca 1764 who may have been a son of Luke. In addition to the marriage connection to two Jones women, James H. Loveless named his first son Elisha, again adding to the (circumstantial) evidence of the connection to the earlier Elisha. Just a thought. Heber On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 1:58 AM, Brondak via <lovelace@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Lenny, > Before I get started on this I want to give you some background on our MD > group. Twenty years ago or so (my how time flies when you're having fun) > we > had a huge mish mash of misinformarion and a whole lot of that is still > roaming around on trees that are posted on the internet. Through some > intensely concentrated research by a lot of us who are members of the MD > group, we > broke down a lot of walls and stomped on a lot of myths. Some of the > misinformation came from one researcher who compiled a huge amount of > misinformation that had been widely accepted as fact. As we started > digging into it, > we couldn't figure out where she came up with most of it. > > One of the things she had was one John who had two wives and about sixteen > or so kids. Well, to make a very long story short that was just plain > wrong. > > Let me tell you what we do know. > > First of all, there were two Lovelace immigrants to MD who arrived in the > state in the 1600's. > William in 1664 to Planters, MD on the ship Hopewell. > Thomas is more complicated. Unless there were two Thomases we've got two > different > people collecting headrights on a Thomas Lovelace in real close to the same > time frame. One > was in MD, the other was in VA. > > These rwo men were probaly born in the 1640's and when they came to the > colonies, they were > probably indentured for 7 years to work off their passage and likely didn't > marry until somerime > in the 1670's, if at all. Actually, we don't know for sure what happened > to either one of them, > but undoubtedly one of them is the progenator of the MD group. > Supposedly, there was an estate > for William in probate in 1698 in MD with a Thomas as executor. However, > nothing has ever been found to prove that. Some think Thomas and William > the immigrants were brothers, and again > nothing has ever been found to prove that or even that they knew one > another. > > Since Thomas is found in VA after MD, I suspect that William is the one who > is our ancestor, but > that's only an educated guess. > > Next, what we do know is that there was a John Lovelace in MD who was > probably born > around 1670 or so, most likely the son of the immigrant. The only other > Lovelace in > MD of that generation was a guy by the name of Faustus. We don't know > what happened > to him, but it appears he died young and without issue (this is based on > some land records). > > Then we have five more Lovelace men of the next generation. These are > John, Samuel, > Benjamin, Abraham, and Thomas. > > Regarding John, based on land and estate records he had a wife named Anne > and they were > the parents of John Baptist, Samuel, Luke and Phillikp. > > Regarding Samuel, nothing more is known of him after he appears as a debtor > on some estate > papers of an Anne Abernathy. He is one of my candidates for a father of > my Benjamin b > 1727 and of Joseph (father of the Newberry 5 and possibly of a William b > 1720. It appears > from his disappearance from the records that he died young. > > Regarding Benjamin and Abraham, some exclude them from our MD group > thinking they > came from a different line. I thnk they are probably brothers and more > sons of John. > They appear on some documents together. Benjamin disappears from records > after 1737, > and he is my second choice as a potential farher for my Benjamin b 1727 and > Joseph the > father of the Newberry 5. > Abraham had a rekatively long life and had at least one son, probably more, > but that's an issue > for a different day. Family lore in that family says he was from Scotland, > but I don't think > so. His wife's family was from Scotland. His one son that we're sure of > was named John > who married a girl whose mother was a Washington, but I haven't yet proven > exactly which > one. Early researchers said Abraham moved the family to LA, but again, I > don't think so. > His son moved to LA, but by the time he got there Abraham would have been > almost 100 > years old. I suspect Abraham died in MD and then John began his trek > westward, spendikng > a few years in MS and then LA. That family seems to have daughtered out, > but I would > love to find someone from theirs who could do DNA. That would sure answer > a bunch of > questions. > > The last one of that generation (and this is a point that Jack and I are > not in agreement on) > is Thomas. He's the one we call Thomas the Orphan. Based on records we > know that he > was born about 1709 and is a perfect fit to be the last son of John b ca > 1670. I think his > father died sometime between 1711 (the last date of a known record for him) > and 1721 > when Thomas is shown by the following record: "March 1721 - LOVELACE, > Thomas:- an Orphan Boy twelve years old next June is by consent of the > Court here > bound unto Thomas Wall > untill he the said Orphan arrive to the age of Eighteen years. Whereupon > the said Thomas Wall obliges himselfe to give him at the expiration of his > time a compleat decent Suite of apparell and a mare bridle and saddle" > (This would make Thomas born June, 1709) > > __________ > Now we'll talk about children of the next generation. > John Baptist, Samuel, Luke and Phillip are sons of John and Anne as proven > by land and > estate records. John Baptist died in MD and most of his kids went to > Rowan Co NC. Samuel > went to Prince William Co VA and probably died there. He had eight > children who went > various places. Luke remained in MD and had a whole bunch of children > based on the 1790 census, but 8 were females and I suspect that some of > those > could have been daughters in law. I haven't been able to identify but one > daughter. The brother Phillip appears to have died young and > probably unmarried. > > I talked about Abraham's son John above. > > I think the son of Thomas the Orphan was the John who married Jane and went > to Culpeper > Co VA. We know for a fact that Thomas and Eleanor had a son John whose > wife was Jane > based on records. And that John disappears from MD records about the time > that John > with the wife Jane went to VA. John and his mother sell Thomas's land > after Thomas > died and after that John also disappears from MD records. It only makes > sense to me > that he's the one who went to VA. I think Jack told you about the kids of > John from > Culpeper and I certainly agree with those. > > Now, we get to the problem areas. We've got five whose fathers we haven't > been able to > prove and by process of elimination I think it comes down to Samuel and > Benjamin as > the probable father of these. > > First, in KY we have a John who married Rachel Van Hook (or that's how he's > known He actually was married twice) DNA has proven him as from the MD > line. Also in KY there is a Joseph Lovelace who was on the land record > that > John ultimately got. Joseph seems to have disappeared and probably died. > These two were likely brothers and probably sons of a father who had died > early. > > Then there are Benjamin (mine) and Joseph of the Newberry 5. Benj, Joseph > and John Baptist > are found in close proximity in the records, but we know JBL was not their > brother. They were, however, close. Perhaps JBL's family had stepped in > to help raise them after an early death > of their father. No records seem to exist to prove this. My speculation > is that Benjamin and > Joseph were possibly brothers, but if not the three were likely all first > cousins. I don't > remember how Benj's kids DNA compares to the Newberry 5, other than proving > the MD roots. > My line from Benj's kids has a very distinct DNA that apparently originated > from a mutation > that Barton had and no other line has it. > > Then there is the William b 1720 who kind of seems to stand alone. I > haven't worked on him a lot and don't know what proves his birthdate. > But, I > think he's probably a > son of one of either Samuel or Benjamin as well, simply again by process of > elimnation. I > think this William might be the father of Benjamin of Edgefield Co SC and > quite possbly > a few more that I have found in records around that Benjamin. But that > another issue > for another time that doesn't reflect on the Newberry 5. > > I hope this is clear. I know how confusing it can be. Just imagine what > we all went > through trying to sort it all out to start with. Feel free to ask > anything you aren't > clear about. > > And Lisa, to answer your querstion, > Samuel > Asa > Nathan > and Benjamin > are sons of Barton who is the son of Benj. b 1727 and very likely first > cousins to the Newberry 5. > Samuel is my line and finding him was a whole other journey that was very > interesting. > > Lou Ann > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > LOVELACE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

I don’t think Nathan and Delma Lovelace are from the James (Loveless) of Tishomingo (1796-1851) line. I’ve followed the James of Tishomingo line (my GGGgrandfather) and volunteered with the Tishomingo County Historical & Genealogical Society, so I follow all of the Lovelesses in the area as their obits are found. When these posts came through last night, I looked for Delma and Nathan and found what Greg has found, but I did not find any link to the James of Tishomingo line. The Nathan/Delma branch seems to come through Tennessee; the James of Tish line comes through Georgia and South Carolina. The James of Tish branch stayed in the area of Tishomingo town and Iuka. Burnsville and Ripley are further west. So, who are the Joseph and Nancy Lovelace in Ripley in 1860? According to the census, Joseph was born ca 1831 in South Carolina. James of Tish had a son born at the right time, Joshua (1831-1863) who married Martha Herridge; they moved to Arkansas. He Joined the 9th Arkansas infantry in the Civil War and died in hospital in Mississippi in 1863. So, how do Joseph and Nancy Lovelace in Ripley in 1860 fit in to the Lovelxxx family? And, still looking to find a. the father of James of Tish - pretty sure it was John Milton Loveless b. the father of John Milton Loveless - after all the exchanges of the past few days, are we now definitely saying it was Joseph (b 1722) m Sarah Robey? Martha in California Genealogy - So many ancestors...so little time! > On Jun 27, 2016, at 8:26 AM, Greg Lovelace via <lovelace@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Well, this got away from me somehow before I finished. I was referring to a > thread that Melissa started back in 1998 which y'all can read beginning > here: > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/lovelace/1998-01/0885353026 > > I don't know how far this line has progressed back. > > Buckette (Susan Spice Buckley) also answered this post back in 1998 with > this post: > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/lovelace/1998-01/0885402395 > She mentions a link back to South Carolina. > > Can anybody help with this line further back? > > Peace, > Part of the Tree, > Greg > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOVELACE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

By the way, my link to Elizabeth Ann Madison is proven through DNA, but I don't know if the DNA is from John Madison or Isabella Minor Todd Madison. They are at the 10th generation from my mother which is the outer reaches of what autosomal DNA can do. On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 8:16 AM, Lenny Darnell <lrdarnell@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks - so my link to the Kent Lovelace clan is disproved. Another way > I am not related to my wife :-) I'll note things in my tree. Thanks. > > On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 11:59 PM, <Brondak@aol.com> wrote: > >> Lenny, >> I need to tell you about Isabella, first I'll give you some background to >> this research. Also, I'll tell you up front that I was disappointed in >> what I found, but I've learned that sometimes facts don't show what we >> like. Isabella and John Madison had a son Roger who was the father of Ann >> Madison who >> married my 5th great grandfather Henry Cox. Since everything I found on >> them online had Ann as the mother of all Henry's kids, that was exciting. >> Not only would it have put me related to the Madisons, but also it would >> give me another Lovelace line. Well, months of extensive research of >> documents and communications with other researchers, Todds in particular, >> put all my expectations to rest. >> Ann was not the mother of Henry's son from whom my line descends (yes, I >> found his mother) >> and not only that, she isn't thought to descend from the Todds. In a >> nutshell, Capt Thomas Todd who married Anna Gorsuch left a will in which he >> named his children. Isabella is not one of them. I haven't found my copy >> ofthe will, but the researcher who provided it was a Todd and he and most >> other serious researchers, contrary to what you will find in the lines >> posted on rootsweb are convinced she was born a MINOR and was a widow of a >> TODD. Thomas Todd and Anna had a daughter Avarilla and some say that >> Avarilla was Isabella, but that's not so. Avarilla is Avarilla and >> Isabella is Isabella. It's been several years since I worked on them and >> don't know what might have been found in the meantime. If anything has, >> it's not on rootsweb, but I've discovered that many researchers don't put >> their info out for everyone to see. >> >> I have several volumes of Colonioal Families of the US which contain >> mostly pretty accurate info >> and they don't have Isabella listed as a daughter of Thomas and Anna. >> One of the resesrchers >> I worked with who has Thomas's will is a guy by the name of Bob Allen. >> He, among others, also says she is not a Todd. I would love to prove her >> Todd husband and her MINOR family, but there are only >> so many days in a year and mine are just too full to find everything I'd >> like to find. >> >> It is possible that the Todd she married was a William Todd and that this >> William was a son of Thomas and Anna since they did have a son William of >> the right age, but that is not proven and it wouldn't >> give her Madison children a link to the Gorsuches. I'm including below >> some of the info that I have >> on William Todd. >> >> I think this came from Bob Allen: [1] A possible candidate for her first >> husband is the “Mr. William Todd, dec.” who died between 1692-1695 and >> whose orphans, Margaret Todd and Frances Todd, received a land patent of >> 500 acres in Stratton Major Parish, King & Queen Co., VA, on 25 October >> 1695. [Patent Book 9, page 10] This patent says that the land was >> originally patented to “Mr. William Todd” (the father) on 29 April 1693 and >> this (1695) patent was necessary to insert a course boundary line omitted >> from the previous patents. This patent suggests that this William Todd did >> not have any sons at the time of his death or otherwise the patent would >> have likely gone to the son(s) instead of to his two daughters. The 29 >> April 1693 land patent to William Todd is located in Patent Book 8, page >> 266 and says that this patent followed an order of the General Court in >> James City, VA, on 24 October 1692. >> It isn’t at all certain that the William Todd who is believed to be the >> first husband of Isabella Minor is the son of Anna Gorsuch and Thomas Todd, >> although they did have a son William of the right age. >> More importantly, this line is so often associated with Anna Gorsuch, >> with many thinking that >> Isabella is her daughter, that it appears likely the Todd in question is >> her son." >> Lou Ann > > >

Wow Lou Ann - thanks so much for this. It helps me understand why there is so much conflicting information in the public trees, as people try to make connections that aren't proven and may not exist. Also it makes it clear why there is no definitive MD LoveL*** tree. Having this background really helps me out. I wish AncestryDNA provided chromosome mapping, in which case we could narrow some of this down without coaxing shoe who have taken the test and Ancestry into porting their DNA data to GEDMatch. Unfortunately, most of the people I write don't respond. What I can say is that for my father-in-law and his cousin, the names that come up most often are James/Linna Isaac/Mary John Milton Hazel Because James and Isaac married sisters, they will show up more often, and we do have a link or two back up one generation on the Hughes side. At this point, based on my DNA data, it would seem that if Hazel isn't a brother of James, Isaac and John, then he would be a cousin. Thanks again for taking the time to write this out. I really appreciated it. I'll get back as I dig deeper and have more questions. Lenny On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:58 PM, <Brondak@aol.com> wrote: > Lenny, > Before I get started on this I want to give you some background on our MD > group. Twenty years ago or so (my how time flies when you're having fun) > we had a huge mish mash of misinformarion and a whole lot of that is still > roaming around on trees that are posted on the internet. Through some > intensely concentrated research by a lot of us who are members of the MD > group, we broke down a lot of walls and stomped on a lot of myths. Some of > the misinformation came from one researcher who compiled a huge amount of > misinformation that had been widely accepted as fact. As we started > digging into it, we couldn't figure out where she came up with most of it. > > One of the things she had was one John who had two wives and about sixteen > or so kids. Well, to make a very long story short that was just plain > wrong. > > Let me tell you what we do know. > > First of all, there were two Lovelace immigrants to MD who arrived in the > state in the 1600's. > William in 1664 to Planters, MD on the ship Hopewell. > Thomas is more complicated. Unless there were two Thomases we've got two > different > people collecting headrights on a Thomas Lovelace in real close to the > same time frame. One > was in MD, the other was in VA. > > These rwo men were probaly born in the 1640's and when they came to the > colonies, they were > probably indentured for 7 years to work off their passage and likely > didn't marry until somerime > in the 1670's, if at all. Actually, we don't know for sure what happened > to either one of them, > but undoubtedly one of them is the progenator of the MD group. > Supposedly, there was an estate > for William in probate in 1698 in MD with a Thomas as executor. However, > nothing has ever been found to prove that. Some think Thomas and William > the immigrants were brothers, and again > nothing has ever been found to prove that or even that they knew one > another. > > Since Thomas is found in VA after MD, I suspect that William is the one > who is our ancestor, but > that's only an educated guess. > > Next, what we do know is that there was a John Lovelace in MD who was > probably born > around 1670 or so, most likely the son of the immigrant. The only other > Lovelace in > MD of that generation was a guy by the name of Faustus. We don't know > what happened > to him, but it appears he died young and without issue (this is based on > some land records). > > Then we have five more Lovelace men of the next generation. These are > John, Samuel, > Benjamin, Abraham, and Thomas. > > Regarding John, based on land and estate records he had a wife named Anne > and they were > the parents of John Baptist, Samuel, Luke and Phillikp. > > Regarding Samuel, nothing more is known of him after he appears as a > debtor on some estate > papers of an Anne Abernathy. He is one of my candidates for a father of > my Benjamin b > 1727 and of Joseph (father of the Newberry 5 and possibly of a William b > 1720. It appears > from his disappearance from the records that he died young. > > Regarding Benjamin and Abraham, some exclude them from our MD group > thinking they > came from a different line. I thnk they are probably brothers and more > sons of John. > They appear on some documents together. Benjamin disappears from records > after 1737, > and he is my second choice as a potential farher for my Benjamin b 1727 > and Joseph the > father of the Newberry 5. > Abraham had a rekatively long life and had at least one son, probably > more, but that's an issue > for a different day. Family lore in that family says he was from Scotland, > but I don't think > so. His wife's family was from Scotland. His one son that we're sure of > was named John > who married a girl whose mother was a Washington, but I haven't yet proven > exactly which > one. Early researchers said Abraham moved the family to LA, but again, I > don't think so. > His son moved to LA, but by the time he got there Abraham would have been > almost 100 > years old. I suspect Abraham died in MD and then John began his trek > westward, spendikng > a few years in MS and then LA. That family seems to have daughtered out, > but I would > love to find someone from theirs who could do DNA. That would sure answer > a bunch of > questions. > > The last one of that generation (and this is a point that Jack and I are > not in agreement on) > is Thomas. He's the one we call Thomas the Orphan. Based on records we > know that he > was born about 1709 and is a perfect fit to be the last son of John b ca > 1670. I think his > father died sometime between 1711 (the last date of a known record for > him) and 1721 > when Thomas is shown by the following record: "March 1721 - LOVELACE, > Thomas:- an Orphan Boy twelve years old next June is by consent of the > Court here bound unto Thomas Wall > untill he the said Orphan arrive to the age of Eighteen years. Whereupon > the said Thomas Wall obliges himselfe to give him at the expiration of his > time a compleat decent Suite of apparell and a mare bridle and saddle" > (This would make Thomas born June, 1709) > > __________ > Now we'll talk about children of the next generation. > John Baptist, Samuel, Luke and Phillip are sons of John and Anne as proven > by land and > estate records. John Baptist died in MD and most of his kids went to > Rowan Co NC. Samuel > went to Prince William Co VA and probably died there. He had eight > children who went > various places. Luke remained in MD and had a whole bunch of children > based on the 1790 census, but 8 were females and I suspect that some of > those could have been daughters in law. I haven't been able to identify > but one daughter. The brother Phillip appears to have died young and > probably unmarried. > > I talked about Abraham's son John above. > > I think the son of Thomas the Orphan was the John who married Jane and > went to Culpeper > Co VA. We know for a fact that Thomas and Eleanor had a son John whose > wife was Jane > based on records. And that John disappears from MD records about the time > that John > with the wife Jane went to VA. John and his mother sell Thomas's land > after Thomas > died and after that John also disappears from MD records. It only makes > sense to me > that he's the one who went to VA. I think Jack told you about the kids of > John from > Culpeper and I certainly agree with those. > > Now, we get to the problem areas. We've got five whose fathers we haven't > been able to > prove and by process of elimination I think it comes down to Samuel and > Benjamin as > the probable father of these. > > First, in KY we have a John who married Rachel Van Hook (or that's how > he's known He actually was married twice) DNA has proven him as from the > MD line. Also in KY there is a Joseph Lovelace who was on the land record > that John ultimately got. Joseph seems to have disappeared and probably > died. These two were likely brothers and probably sons of a father who had > died early. > > Then there are Benjamin (mine) and Joseph of the Newberry 5. Benj, Joseph > and John Baptist > are found in close proximity in the records, but we know JBL was not their > brother. They were, however, close. Perhaps JBL's family had stepped in > to help raise them after an early death > of their father. No records seem to exist to prove this. My speculation > is that Benjamin and > Joseph were possibly brothers, but if not the three were likely all first > cousins. I don't > remember how Benj's kids DNA compares to the Newberry 5, other than > proving the MD roots. > My line from Benj's kids has a very distinct DNA that apparently > originated from a mutation > that Barton had and no other line has it. > > Then there is the William b 1720 who kind of seems to stand alone. I > haven't worked on him a lot and don't know what proves his birthdate. But, > I think he's probably a > son of one of either Samuel or Benjamin as well, simply again by process > of elimnation. I > think this William might be the father of Benjamin of Edgefield Co SC and > quite possbly > a few more that I have found in records around that Benjamin. But that > another issue > for another time that doesn't reflect on the Newberry 5. > > I hope this is clear. I know how confusing it can be. Just imagine what > we all went > through trying to sort it all out to start with. Feel free to ask > anything you aren't > clear about. > > And Lisa, to answer your querstion, > Samuel > Asa > Nathan > and Benjamin > are sons of Barton who is the son of Benj. b 1727 and very likely first > cousins to the Newberry 5. > Samuel is my line and finding him was a whole other journey that was very > interesting. > > Lou Ann > >

Thanks - so my link to the Kent Lovelace clan is disproved. Another way I am not related to my wife :-) I'll note things in my tree. Thanks. On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 11:59 PM, <Brondak@aol.com> wrote: > Lenny, > I need to tell you about Isabella, first I'll give you some background to > this research. Also, I'll tell you up front that I was disappointed in > what I found, but I've learned that sometimes facts don't show what we > like. Isabella and John Madison had a son Roger who was the father of Ann > Madison who > married my 5th great grandfather Henry Cox. Since everything I found on > them online had Ann as the mother of all Henry's kids, that was exciting. > Not only would it have put me related to the Madisons, but also it would > give me another Lovelace line. Well, months of extensive research of > documents and communications with other researchers, Todds in particular, > put all my expectations to rest. > Ann was not the mother of Henry's son from whom my line descends (yes, I > found his mother) > and not only that, she isn't thought to descend from the Todds. In a > nutshell, Capt Thomas Todd who married Anna Gorsuch left a will in which he > named his children. Isabella is not one of them. I haven't found my copy > ofthe will, but the researcher who provided it was a Todd and he and most > other serious researchers, contrary to what you will find in the lines > posted on rootsweb are convinced she was born a MINOR and was a widow of a > TODD. Thomas Todd and Anna had a daughter Avarilla and some say that > Avarilla was Isabella, but that's not so. Avarilla is Avarilla and > Isabella is Isabella. It's been several years since I worked on them and > don't know what might have been found in the meantime. If anything has, > it's not on rootsweb, but I've discovered that many researchers don't put > their info out for everyone to see. > > I have several volumes of Colonioal Families of the US which contain > mostly pretty accurate info > and they don't have Isabella listed as a daughter of Thomas and Anna. One > of the resesrchers > I worked with who has Thomas's will is a guy by the name of Bob Allen. > He, among others, also says she is not a Todd. I would love to prove her > Todd husband and her MINOR family, but there are only > so many days in a year and mine are just too full to find everything I'd > like to find. > > It is possible that the Todd she married was a William Todd and that this > William was a son of Thomas and Anna since they did have a son William of > the right age, but that is not proven and it wouldn't > give her Madison children a link to the Gorsuches. I'm including below > some of the info that I have > on William Todd. > > I think this came from Bob Allen: [1] A possible candidate for her first > husband is the “Mr. William Todd, dec.” who died between 1692-1695 and > whose orphans, Margaret Todd and Frances Todd, received a land patent of > 500 acres in Stratton Major Parish, King & Queen Co., VA, on 25 October > 1695. [Patent Book 9, page 10] This patent says that the land was > originally patented to “Mr. William Todd” (the father) on 29 April 1693 and > this (1695) patent was necessary to insert a course boundary line omitted > from the previous patents. This patent suggests that this William Todd did > not have any sons at the time of his death or otherwise the patent would > have likely gone to the son(s) instead of to his two daughters. The 29 > April 1693 land patent to William Todd is located in Patent Book 8, page > 266 and says that this patent followed an order of the General Court in > James City, VA, on 24 October 1692. > It isn’t at all certain that the William Todd who is believed to be the > first husband of Isabella Minor is the son of Anna Gorsuch and Thomas Todd, > although they did have a son William of the right age. > More importantly, this line is so often associated with Anna Gorsuch, with > many thinking that > Isabella is her daughter, that it appears likely the Todd in question is > her son." > Lou Ann

Lenny, I need to tell you about Isabella, first I'll give you some background to this research. Also, I'll tell you up front that I was disappointed in what I found, but I've learned that sometimes facts don't show what we like. Isabella and John Madison had a son Roger who was the father of Ann Madison who married my 5th great grandfather Henry Cox. Since everything I found on them online had Ann as the mother of all Henry's kids, that was exciting. Not only would it have put me related to the Madisons, but also it would give me another Lovelace line. Well, months of extensive research of documents and communications with other researchers, Todds in particular, put all my expectations to rest. Ann was not the mother of Henry's son from whom my line descends (yes, I found his mother) and not only that, she isn't thought to descend from the Todds. In a nutshell, Capt Thomas Todd who married Anna Gorsuch left a will in which he named his children. Isabella is not one of them. I haven't found my copy ofthe will, but the researcher who provided it was a Todd and he and most other serious researchers, contrary to what you will find in the lines posted on rootsweb are convinced she was born a MINOR and was a widow of a TODD. Thomas Todd and Anna had a daughter Avarilla and some say that Avarilla was Isabella, but that's not so. Avarilla is Avarilla and Isabella is Isabella. It's been several years since I worked on them and don't know what might have been found in the meantime. If anything has, it's not on rootsweb, but I've discovered that many researchers don't put their info out for everyone to see. I have several volumes of Colonioal Families of the US which contain mostly pretty accurate info and they don't have Isabella listed as a daughter of Thomas and Anna. One of the resesrchers I worked with who has Thomas's will is a guy by the name of Bob Allen. He, among others, also says she is not a Todd. I would love to prove her Todd husband and her MINOR family, but there are only so many days in a year and mine are just too full to find everything I'd like to find. It is possible that the Todd she married was a William Todd and that this William was a son of Thomas and Anna since they did have a son William of the right age, but that is not proven and it wouldn't give her Madison children a link to the Gorsuches. I'm including below some of the info that I have on William Todd. I think this came from Bob Allen: [1] A possible candidate for her first husband is the “Mr. William Todd, dec.” who died between 1692-1695 and whose orphans, Margaret Todd and Frances Todd, received a land patent of 500 acres in Stratton Major Parish, King & Queen Co., VA, on 25 October 1695.  [Patent Book 9, page 10]  This patent says that the land was originally patented to “Mr. William Todd” (the father) on 29 April 1693 and this (1695) patent was necessary to insert a course boundary line omitted from the previous patents.  This patent suggests that this William Todd did not have any sons at the time of his death or otherwise the patent would have likely gone to the son(s) instead of to his two daughters.  The 29 April 1693 land patent to William Todd is located in Patent Book 8, page 266 and says that this patent followed an order of the General Court in James City, VA, on 24 October 1692.  It isn’t at all certain that the William Todd who is believed to be the first husband of Isabella Minor is the son of Anna Gorsuch and Thomas Todd, although they did have a son William of the right age. More importantly, this line is so often associated with Anna Gorsuch, with many thinking that Isabella is her daughter, that it appears likely the Todd in question is her son." Lou Ann

Lenny, Before I get started on this I want to give you some background on our MD group. Twenty years ago or so (my how time flies when you're having fun) we had a huge mish mash of misinformarion and a whole lot of that is still roaming around on trees that are posted on the internet. Through some intensely concentrated research by a lot of us who are members of the MD group, we broke down a lot of walls and stomped on a lot of myths. Some of the misinformation came from one researcher who compiled a huge amount of misinformation that had been widely accepted as fact. As we started digging into it, we couldn't figure out where she came up with most of it. One of the things she had was one John who had two wives and about sixteen or so kids. Well, to make a very long story short that was just plain wrong. Let me tell you what we do know. First of all, there were two Lovelace immigrants to MD who arrived in the state in the 1600's. William in 1664 to Planters, MD on the ship Hopewell. Thomas is more complicated. Unless there were two Thomases we've got two different people collecting headrights on a Thomas Lovelace in real close to the same time frame. One was in MD, the other was in VA. These rwo men were probaly born in the 1640's and when they came to the colonies, they were probably indentured for 7 years to work off their passage and likely didn't marry until somerime in the 1670's, if at all. Actually, we don't know for sure what happened to either one of them, but undoubtedly one of them is the progenator of the MD group. Supposedly, there was an estate for William in probate in 1698 in MD with a Thomas as executor. However, nothing has ever been found to prove that. Some think Thomas and William the immigrants were brothers, and again nothing has ever been found to prove that or even that they knew one another. Since Thomas is found in VA after MD, I suspect that William is the one who is our ancestor, but that's only an educated guess. Next, what we do know is that there was a John Lovelace in MD who was probably born around 1670 or so, most likely the son of the immigrant. The only other Lovelace in MD of that generation was a guy by the name of Faustus. We don't know what happened to him, but it appears he died young and without issue (this is based on some land records). Then we have five more Lovelace men of the next generation. These are John, Samuel, Benjamin, Abraham, and Thomas. Regarding John, based on land and estate records he had a wife named Anne and they were the parents of John Baptist, Samuel, Luke and Phillikp. Regarding Samuel, nothing more is known of him after he appears as a debtor on some estate papers of an Anne Abernathy. He is one of my candidates for a father of my Benjamin b 1727 and of Joseph (father of the Newberry 5 and possibly of a William b 1720. It appears from his disappearance from the records that he died young. Regarding Benjamin and Abraham, some exclude them from our MD group thinking they came from a different line. I thnk they are probably brothers and more sons of John. They appear on some documents together. Benjamin disappears from records after 1737, and he is my second choice as a potential farher for my Benjamin b 1727 and Joseph the father of the Newberry 5. Abraham had a rekatively long life and had at least one son, probably more, but that's an issue for a different day. Family lore in that family says he was from Scotland, but I don't think so. His wife's family was from Scotland. His one son that we're sure of was named John who married a girl whose mother was a Washington, but I haven't yet proven exactly which one. Early researchers said Abraham moved the family to LA, but again, I don't think so. His son moved to LA, but by the time he got there Abraham would have been almost 100 years old. I suspect Abraham died in MD and then John began his trek westward, spendikng a few years in MS and then LA. That family seems to have daughtered out, but I would love to find someone from theirs who could do DNA. That would sure answer a bunch of questions. The last one of that generation (and this is a point that Jack and I are not in agreement on) is Thomas. He's the one we call Thomas the Orphan. Based on records we know that he was born about 1709 and is a perfect fit to be the last son of John b ca 1670. I think his father died sometime between 1711 (the last date of a known record for him) and 1721 when Thomas is shown by the following record: "March 1721 - LOVELACE, Thomas:- an Orphan Boy twelve years old next June is by consent of the Court here bound unto Thomas Wall untill he the said Orphan arrive to the age of Eighteen years. Whereupon the said Thomas Wall obliges himselfe to give him at the expiration of his time a compleat decent Suite of apparell and a mare bridle and saddle" (This would make Thomas born June, 1709) __________ Now we'll talk about children of the next generation. John Baptist, Samuel, Luke and Phillip are sons of John and Anne as proven by land and estate records. John Baptist died in MD and most of his kids went to Rowan Co NC. Samuel went to Prince William Co VA and probably died there. He had eight children who went various places. Luke remained in MD and had a whole bunch of children based on the 1790 census, but 8 were females and I suspect that some of those could have been daughters in law. I haven't been able to identify but one daughter. The brother Phillip appears to have died young and probably unmarried. I talked about Abraham's son John above. I think the son of Thomas the Orphan was the John who married Jane and went to Culpeper Co VA. We know for a fact that Thomas and Eleanor had a son John whose wife was Jane based on records. And that John disappears from MD records about the time that John with the wife Jane went to VA. John and his mother sell Thomas's land after Thomas died and after that John also disappears from MD records. It only makes sense to me that he's the one who went to VA. I think Jack told you about the kids of John from Culpeper and I certainly agree with those. Now, we get to the problem areas. We've got five whose fathers we haven't been able to prove and by process of elimination I think it comes down to Samuel and Benjamin as the probable father of these. First, in KY we have a John who married Rachel Van Hook (or that's how he's known He actually was married twice) DNA has proven him as from the MD line. Also in KY there is a Joseph Lovelace who was on the land record that John ultimately got. Joseph seems to have disappeared and probably died. These two were likely brothers and probably sons of a father who had died early. Then there are Benjamin (mine) and Joseph of the Newberry 5. Benj, Joseph and John Baptist are found in close proximity in the records, but we know JBL was not their brother. They were, however, close. Perhaps JBL's family had stepped in to help raise them after an early death of their father. No records seem to exist to prove this. My speculation is that Benjamin and Joseph were possibly brothers, but if not the three were likely all first cousins. I don't remember how Benj's kids DNA compares to the Newberry 5, other than proving the MD roots. My line from Benj's kids has a very distinct DNA that apparently originated from a mutation that Barton had and no other line has it. Then there is the William b 1720 who kind of seems to stand alone. I haven't worked on him a lot and don't know what proves his birthdate. But, I think he's probably a son of one of either Samuel or Benjamin as well, simply again by process of elimnation. I think this William might be the father of Benjamin of Edgefield Co SC and quite possbly a few more that I have found in records around that Benjamin. But that another issue for another time that doesn't reflect on the Newberry 5. I hope this is clear. I know how confusing it can be. Just imagine what we all went through trying to sort it all out to start with. Feel free to ask anything you aren't clear about. And Lisa, to answer your querstion, Samuel Asa Nathan and Benjamin are sons of Barton who is the son of Benj. b 1727 and very likely first cousins to the Newberry 5. Samuel is my line and finding him was a whole other journey that was very interesting. Lou Ann

Yes, these are the dates I have. Lou Ann In a message dated 6/26/16 2:33:01 PM, lrdarnell@gmail.com writes: > > > > > > > What years do you have for the Newberry five?  Are these right? > > > > > Hazzel 1766-1838 > > John 1768-1831 > > William 1769 - ? > > James 1771 - 1846 > > Isaac 1773 - 1827 > > > >

This is interesting. I don't know who her husband Nathan is, but speaking of the Newberry Five, several of Hazel's descendents are buried in this same cemetery, as well as one of his son's in-laws. Lou Ann In a message dated 6/23/16 4:39:09 PM, lovelace@rootsweb.com writes: > Delma Lovelace(1933 - 2016) > IUKA -- Delma Lovelace, 82, passed away Sunday, June 20, 2016, at North > Mississippi Medical Center in Iuka. Services will be on Thursday, June 23, > 2016 at 1:00 pm at Cutshall Funeral Home Chapel in Iuka. Visitation will be > on 4 pm until 8 pm at Cutshall Funeral Home in Iuka. Burial will follow at > Harmony Cemetery. > > Funeral Home > Cutshall Funeral Home - Iuka > 302 North Pearl Street Iuka, MS 38852 > (662) 423-5222 >

Lenny, John Lovelace and Mylla ARE NOT the parents of James Thomas and Isaac On 6/26/2016 8:13 AM, Lenny Darnell via wrote: > That the parents of Jame > Thomas and Isaac are either John Lovelace/Mylla Milley -- Jack D. Lovelace

Andrew, This is what I know (or think I know) about the three individuals you asked about. On 6/26/2016 12:48 PM, Andrew Lovelace via wrote: > > 1. Thomas Lovelace, b. Bet 1664-1665 Talbot, MD, d. before 1753 in Charles > County, MD. m. Eleanor? 1649 - 1674 in Charles Cty, MD. Thomas was born about 1685 in Maryland. The county is not known. Thomas is probably the son of John b: c1664 in Talbot County, MD. John is the son of one of the original transportees, either William or Thomas (I think William). Thomas married Eleanor (b: c1684, d: 1765) about 1709 in Maryland (the county is not known). They are the parents of 1) John b: c1710. d: May-Jun 1775, who m: Jane; and 2) Thomas b: c1714, d: b1794. > > 2. John Lovelace b. 1689 Port Tobacco, Charles County, MD. d. unk., Charles > County, MD. m. 1711 Mary, LNU, b. 1691, d. between 1730 and 1741 in Charles > County, MD (John later m. Nancy Jane Bohanan) I have several John's in Charles County, MD. NONE of them married a Mary. This is definitely NOT the John who married Nancy Bohanan in Culpeper County, Virginia. John Lovelace b: 1698 in Charles County, MD, d: after 1768, was the father of Philip, Samuel and Luke. His wife's name is not known. They were married between 1718 and 1725. His father is not known. > > 3. Joseph Lovelace b. 1722 Port Tobacco, Charles County, MD. d. <1790 in > Newberry Dist., SC. m. Sarah Robey, prob. In Charles County, MD. Joseph Lovelace b: 1722 in Maryland (the county is not known). His father is not known. Joseph m: Sarah Robey about 1765 in Charles County, MD. Joseph and Sarah are definitely the parents of Hazle Lovelace, who was baptised in Frederick County, MD, on 31 Mar 1766. Joseph sold his possession in Charles County, MD on 29 Jun 1767. Joseph and Sarah moved to North Carolina about 1768. Joseph appears on a tax roll in Rowan County, North Carolina, in 1778. On 31 Dec of that same year Joseph appears on a property deed in Rowan County. I assume that Joseph died about 1780 in Rowan County, NC. Joseph does NOT appear on any census record for 1790. > > Joseph is probably the father of the Newberry Five. > -- Jack D. Lovelace

So somewhere along the way I also have as siblings of those Newberry Five.: Samuel b. 1775 with son Samuel b 1795 Benjamin b. 1780 Nathan b. 1782 Asa b. 1785 I have nothing else, and no idea where I got them. Back in the baby genealogy days when I copied stuff without recording where I got it. Lisa Gorrell On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Lenny Darnell via <lovelace@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Lou Ann > > What years do you have for the Newberry five? Are these right? > > Hazzel 1766-1838 > John 1768-1831 > William 1769 - ? > James 1771 - 1846 > Isaac 1773 - 1827 > > Thanks > > Lenny > > On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Lenny Darnell <lrdarnell@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > One last bit on Tom Cates and how he may fit into the Loveless clan. > > > > Tom's grandfather is James Thomas Cates 1852. He was born to Mary Polly > > Cates 1822 who was a "Saloon Girl" south of Atlanta. James and his > > brother Alexander were raised as their mother's brothers though > Grandfather > > Abraham Cates did file bastard reports. > > > > It has long been thought that the father of James and Alexander Cates is > > one James Alexander Walton 1811 who may have been briefly married to Mary > > Cates but was married to a Mary Ann Moody at the time that the Cates boys > > were born. > > > > So, given Tom's Y Chromosome match to the Lovel*** line, either Tom's > > great grandfather was not James Alexander Walton, or James Alexander > Walton > > was a Lovel***, not a Walton. Indeed, it seems possible that he could > be > > a son of James Thomas Loveless rather than Jesse Walton 1786. I am > > looking for a male line descendant of Alexander Cates to see if he and > > James Thomas Cates have the same father or not. > > > > Here is the line of the Waltons in question. > > http://trees.ancestry.com/tree/64993570/person/30129837428/family As > they > > were from Onslow, NC, it seems much more likely that the Loveless Y > > chromosome entered the line in Coweta GA in 1811 or in Clayton Ga in 1842 > > than prior to that, but maybe not. > > > > Tom's connection to his grandfather James Thomas Cates and up to the > > Cates/Berry side is well proven with DNA. > > > > If anyone has other ideas on how to research this I'd be much obliged. > > > > Lenny > > > > On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Brondak via <lovelace@rootsweb.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Lisa, > >> As Lenny said, James and Isaac married the Hughes sisters. We don't > have > >> a name for the wife of Hazel or William. John's wife's name was > Marietta > >> "Mary",. Her surname is not known, but based on the names of her > >> children > >> there are some possibilities. It could have been Vincent, Madison, > >> Wilson > >> or Milton or none of the above, > >> Lou Ann > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> In a message dated 6/26/16 12:39:32 PM, lovelace@rootsweb.com writes: > >> > >> > >> > I'm getting confused by the discussion of the Newberry five. Are there > >> > wives that can be attached to these men? > >> > > >> > Lisa Gorrell > >> > > >> > >> ------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > >> LOVELACE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >> > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > LOVELACE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Amen! Thanks, everybody! Peace, Part of the Tree, Greg -----Original Message----- From: lovelace-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:lovelace-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of bgsroots via Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2016 2:22 PM To: lovelace@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LL] Question... I would like to thank all of your that replied to my note. Goodness, it looks like we are comparing notes, verifying some facts and doing some group research. It's great to see some interactive research activity on the list again. Bob.

I would like to thank all of your that replied to my note. Goodness, it looks like we are comparing notes, verifying some facts and doing some group research. It's great to see some interactive research activity on the list again. Bob. -----Original Message----- From: brondak via Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2016 4:53 PM To: lovelacejackd@verizon.net ; lovelace@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LL] Question... Jack, Remind me why you took all those other SC guys off as sons of Joseph and Sarah. I still have them as brothers of Hazel. Lou Ann -----Original Message----- From: Jack D. Lovelace via <lovelace@rootsweb.com> To: Lenny Darnell <lrdarnell@gmail.com>; lovelace <lovelace@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sat, Jun 25, 2016 3:34 pm Subject: Re: [LL] Question... Lenny, I do not have a Hazzel born in 1770 in my database. Do you have parents? I do have a Hazel Lovelace born 31 Mar 1766 in Rock Creek, MD. He is the son of Joseph Lovelace and Sarah Robey. I do not have any other children for Joseph & Sarah. On 6/25/2016 9:57 AM, Lenny Darnell via wrote: > Hi team > > Is Hazzel 1770 known to be a brother of both James T and Issac? I have > found an autosomal match with him and Robert Cates through > *jpgomillion* > <http://community.ancestry.com/profile.aspx?mba=01304F7D-0001-0000-0000-000000000000> > > Lenny -- Jack D. Lovelace ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOVELACE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOVELACE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Lisa, As Lenny said, James and Isaac married the Hughes sisters. We don't have a name for the wife of Hazel or William. John's wife's name was Marietta "Mary",. Her surname is not known, but based on the names of her children there are some possibilities. It could have been Vincent, Madison, Wilson or Milton or none of the above, Lou Ann In a message dated 6/26/16 12:39:32 PM, lovelace@rootsweb.com writes: > I'm getting confused by the discussion of the Newberry five. Are there > wives that can be attached to these men? > > Lisa Gorrell >

Lenny, John Milton IS one of the Newberry 5. On 6/26/2016 1:36 PM, Lenny Darnell via wrote: > Note that John Milton Loveless 1766 seems to be involved with some of the > Newberry 5 > -- Jack D. Lovelace

John who married Nancy Bohanan was my ancestor. He has no relationship to the Newberry Five. His parents are not known. John was probably born about 1730. He married Nancy Bohanan in Culpeper County, Virginia about 1750. They are the parents of: James Lovelace b: 1751 who married Joanna Smith. They resided in Abbeville District, SC. John Lovelace b: 1753 who married Mylla. They resided in Campbell Co., KY. Noah Lovelace b: 1754 who married Jemima. They resided in Abbeville District, SC. Mary Lovelace b: 1757. Nancy Lovelace b: 1761 who married Reuben Rosson. They resided in Culpeper County, Virginia. On 6/26/2016 1:33 PM, Lenny Darnell via wrote: > Thanks Andrew > > (John later m. Nancy Jane Bohanan) - were these the parents of John 1745? > -- Jack D. Lovelace

I'm getting confused by the discussion of the Newberry five. Are there wives that can be attached to these men? Lisa Gorrell On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Brondak via <lovelace@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Lenny, > For clarification the Newberry five are Hazel, James (who somehow picked up > the name Thomas added to his name, but which probably isn't right), Isaac, > John (who may or may not have the middle name of Milton) and William (about > whom less is known than the others. > > They were all originally in Newberry and four moved out. William to > Laurens Co (where John is also > found for one census year) and the others to Greenville Co. James and > Isaac stayed in Greenville and john went to Alabama after some time in > Greenville also. > > I continue to believe they were all brothers, but if proof can be found > that they were not, I will > concede. > Lou Ann > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > LOVELACE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Note that John Milton Loveless 1766 seems to be involved with some of the Newberry 5 Name: *John Milton LOVELESS*Sex: MBirth: ~1766 in South CarolinaDeath: DEC. 24, 1831 in Jonesboro, Jefferson Cty., Ala.Note: John was a carpenter and a blacksmith. It is not known where in SC he was born. In the 1790 census, he resided in Newberry County, SC, next to William and Hazel Loveless. In the 1800 census, he resided in Greenville Co, next to James Loveless. He sold land in Greenville Co. in 1813 and moved to Jefferson County, Alabama. http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=bcassady&id=I137 On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Andrew Lovelace via <lovelace@rootsweb.com > wrote: > Here are prob. the three generations prior to James (1771) of which I'd > love > to get proof. (If it's for sale, I'll pay.) Info. is from bits and pieces > picked up on the list and elsewhere. > > 1. Thomas Lovelace, b. Bet 1664-1665 Talbot, MD, d. before 1753 in Charles > County, MD. m. Eleanor? 1649 - 1674 in Charles Cty, MD. > > 2. John Lovelace b. 1689 Port Tobacco, Charles County, MD. d. unk., > Charles > County, MD. m. 1711 Mary, LNU, b. 1691, d. between 1730 and 1741 in > Charles > County, MD (John later m. Nancy Jane Bohanan) > > 3. Joseph Lovelace b. 1722 Port Tobacco, Charles County, MD. d. <1790 in > Newberry Dist., SC. m. Sarah Robey, prob. In Charles County, MD. > > Joseph is probably the father of the Newberry Five. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: lovelace-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:lovelace-bounces@rootsweb.com] > On Behalf Of Wade Lovelace via > Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2016 1:29 AM > To: Brondak <Brondak@aol.com>; lovelace <lovelace@rootsweb.com> > Subject: Re: [LL] The Newberry Five > > Yes Lenny, I did have a DNA test done. > > I found a record that Hazel was buried at Lower Dunkin Creek Baptist Church > Cemetery. So one summer day I took my wife and five children to the > Cemetery to see if I could find any Loveless' Graves. > Unfortunatey, we found nothing. The cemetery was very large and the Graves > were broken with tombstones pushed over and weeds all grown up on and > around > them. Many had snakes going in and out of them. My. Kids said it reminded > them of Michael Jackson's Thriller. > > Leaving the cemetery, I drove to Whitmire, South Carolina and stopped at an > old mom and pop store to get a Coke. While I was there I talked to the > owners of the store and told them about our experience at the cemetery and > they told me that the Cemetery had been abandoned when the church moved to > become the First Baptist Church of Whitmire. They also safe time to visit > the Cemetery was in the Winter. They also told about a local man who they > believed knew a lot about the church. As he only lived about six houses > away, I went to.his door. I told him about what I was looking for and he > went into his house and brought out the Original Church Records for Lower > Dunkin Creek He would not let me take them to copy and I probably would not > allowed a total stranger to take them either. He did however, allow me to > sit on his porch and read them for about an hour. > > I, by the way do not believe James was named James Thomas. All records I > have seen list him as James Lovelace or James Loveless. James did have a > son named Thomas and his youngest son was named James T. This was James > Timmons Loveless and in the Gambrell records of his wife's family he is > listed as Timmons Loveless. > > Wade T. Lovelace > On Jun 26, 2016 1:48 AM, "Brondak via" <lovelace@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > Jack (and all)....A little more on the Newberry Five (thanks Wade, for > that > > name. It helps distinguish them from all the other SC Lovelaces really > > well. Why didn't I ever think of calling them that? lol) > > > > Another thing I looked at determining that these five were brothers > > were naming patterns: > > > > Hazel: Six sons, one named Joseph (for his father) one James and one > > William (for his brothers?) > > > > James: Eight sons, one William, one Hazel, (for brothers?) > > > > Isaac: 11 children one son Joseph and one daughter Sarah (for > > parents?) son James (for brother?) > > > > William: I'm not 100% sure of his children, but I think he had a > William > > and a James > > > > John: Six sons, one named James Isaac (for two brothers?) and one > William. > > Note Jamea Isaac or also known as James of Tishomingo is not 100% > > proven as a son of John, but I think he might be. The name James Isaac is > proven. > > > > James might just have been a real popular name OR the brothers may all > > have really liked him above the rest.. > > > > James and Isaac married sisters. > > We don't know the surnames of the wives of Hazel, John or William > > Hazel was the only one who stayed in newberry. > > John, James & Isaac went to Greenville. > > William to Laurens Co where John was also found in 1810. > > > > Of the five, only John left SC and went to AL, however, many of the > > kids and grandkids of the other four, (including Hazel's) can be found > > near one anothr in AL, some staying in AL, some moving on to other > places. > > Lou Ann > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > LOVELACE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > LOVELACE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > LOVELACE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Thanks Andrew (John later m. Nancy Jane Bohanan) - were these the parents of John 1745? On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Andrew Lovelace via <lovelace@rootsweb.com > wrote: > Here are prob. the three generations prior to James (1771) of which I'd > love > to get proof. (If it's for sale, I'll pay.) Info. is from bits and pieces > picked up on the list and elsewhere. > > 1. Thomas Lovelace, b. Bet 1664-1665 Talbot, MD, d. before 1753 in Charles > County, MD. m. Eleanor? 1649 - 1674 in Charles Cty, MD. > > 2. John Lovelace b. 1689 Port Tobacco, Charles County, MD. d. unk., > Charles > County, MD. m. 1711 Mary, LNU, b. 1691, d. between 1730 and 1741 in > Charles > County, MD (John later m. Nancy Jane Bohanan) > > 3. Joseph Lovelace b. 1722 Port Tobacco, Charles County, MD. d. <1790 in > Newberry Dist., SC. m. Sarah Robey, prob. In Charles County, MD. > > Joseph is probably the father of the Newberry Five. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: lovelace-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:lovelace-bounces@rootsweb.com] > On Behalf Of Wade Lovelace via > Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2016 1:29 AM > To: Brondak <Brondak@aol.com>; lovelace <lovelace@rootsweb.com> > Subject: Re: [LL] The Newberry Five > > Yes Lenny, I did have a DNA test done. > > I found a record that Hazel was buried at Lower Dunkin Creek Baptist Church > Cemetery. So one summer day I took my wife and five children to the > Cemetery to see if I could find any Loveless' Graves. > Unfortunatey, we found nothing. The cemetery was very large and the Graves > were broken with tombstones pushed over and weeds all grown up on and > around > them. Many had snakes going in and out of them. My. Kids said it reminded > them of Michael Jackson's Thriller. > > Leaving the cemetery, I drove to Whitmire, South Carolina and stopped at an > old mom and pop store to get a Coke. While I was there I talked to the > owners of the store and told them about our experience at the cemetery and > they told me that the Cemetery had been abandoned when the church moved to > become the First Baptist Church of Whitmire. They also safe time to visit > the Cemetery was in the Winter. They also told about a local man who they > believed knew a lot about the church. As he only lived about six houses > away, I went to.his door. I told him about what I was looking for and he > went into his house and brought out the Original Church Records for Lower > Dunkin Creek He would not let me take them to copy and I probably would not > allowed a total stranger to take them either. He did however, allow me to > sit on his porch and read them for about an hour. > > I, by the way do not believe James was named James Thomas. All records I > have seen list him as James Lovelace or James Loveless. James did have a > son named Thomas and his youngest son was named James T. This was James > Timmons Loveless and in the Gambrell records of his wife's family he is > listed as Timmons Loveless. > > Wade T. Lovelace > On Jun 26, 2016 1:48 AM, "Brondak via" <lovelace@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > Jack (and all)....A little more on the Newberry Five (thanks Wade, for > that > > name. It helps distinguish them from all the other SC Lovelaces really > > well. Why didn't I ever think of calling them that? lol) > > > > Another thing I looked at determining that these five were brothers > > were naming patterns: > > > > Hazel: Six sons, one named Joseph (for his father) one James and one > > William (for his brothers?) > > > > James: Eight sons, one William, one Hazel, (for brothers?) > > > > Isaac: 11 children one son Joseph and one daughter Sarah (for > > parents?) son James (for brother?) > > > > William: I'm not 100% sure of his children, but I think he had a > William > > and a James > > > > John: Six sons, one named James Isaac (for two brothers?) and one > William. > > Note Jamea Isaac or also known as James of Tishomingo is not 100% > > proven as a son of John, but I think he might be. The name James Isaac is > proven. > > > > James might just have been a real popular name OR the brothers may all > > have really liked him above the rest.. > > > > James and Isaac married sisters. > > We don't know the surnames of the wives of Hazel, John or William > > Hazel was the only one who stayed in newberry. > > John, James & Isaac went to Greenville. > > William to Laurens Co where John was also found in 1810. > > > > Of the five, only John left SC and went to AL, however, many of the > > kids and grandkids of the other four, (including Hazel's) can be found > > near one anothr in AL, some staying in AL, some moving on to other > places. > > Lou Ann > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > LOVELACE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > LOVELACE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > LOVELACE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >