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 >