In a message dated 6/27/16 8:09:48 PM, lovelace@rootsweb.com writes: Jack says: > > To make your life more interesting, I have eleven (11) John Lovelxxx's > in Charles County, Maryland, before the 1800s. > > Lovelace, John (#67139) (c1664-xxxx) (son of William, the transportee) >     father of Thomas (#67156) (c1685-xxxx) who married Eleanor c1709. >     father of John (#43584) (c1690-b1780) who married Anne > > Lovelace, John (#43584) (s1690-b1780) (son of John (#67139) son of > William, the transportee) >     married Anne (c1695-xxxx) c1720 >     father of John Baptist (#43583) (1721-1765) > > Lovelace, John (#71827) (1698-xxxx) (parents not known) >     wife is unknown >     father of 1) Philip (1725-xxxx) >                   2) Samuel (1732-c1799) d: in Prince William Co., VA >             wife is unknown >                   3) Luke (1736-b1800) d: in Prince Georges Co, MD >             married Mary Ann > > Lovelace, John (#67144) c1710-1775 (son of Thomas & Eleanor) >     married Jane (c1720-xxxx) c1741 >     probate by Samuel Hanson 02 Jul 1775 >     father of: >         1) Ignatius (1742-c1798) d: in Prince George's Co., MD >         2) John (#63155) (1745-b1790) d: in Charles Co., MD > __________________ Based on records I've found,I think there are too many Johns and Thomases named above. One of the problems we run into is that various reseaerchers insert their own opinions into documents they transcribe and that throws us off. I'll explain more on this as I go. First I'm going to deal with Thomas the Orphan then I'll get to the Johns. I think Thomas b 1709 (as proven by records) is the last child of John (the son of the immigrant) who would have died between the 1711 document and 1721 when Thomas is declared an orphan. I think John b ca 1698 is the oldest son of John, son of the immigrant. A lot of people have a John b ca 1689. I don't think there was such a John. Records don't back him up. And I don;'t think there was a Thomas b 1685. I don't find records that back him up. I think Thomas the Orphan was the one who married Eleanor and who had a son John b ca 1729. As for John b 1698, I think he's the one who married Anne and had JBL, Samuel, Luke & Phillip as mentioned previously and as backed up by records. His age is proven by a 1768 tax list which give his age as 70. It also gives the ages of Samuel, Luke and Phillip. JBL has died by 1768. He had moved to Frederick Co where he's on tax lisrs from 1762-1765 and his will is in Frederick in 1765 The following, is an example of what I was talking about earlier about researchers inserting their own opinions into documents. A vicki Knarr early on was one of the main Lovelace researchers. She posted a document: that read: On the message to Hal from Vickki Knarr 4-10-1997 It states Dec 21, 1768 brothers , of each other and Jbl , LUke, and Thomas borrowed money from Samuel Hanson of Charles County Md. When John Died the administration of the estate was given to Samuel Hanson , whom he owed the most money to. The date of that administration is 7-7-1775. Sons of the deceased , John and Ignatius Lovelace approved Inventory . Then: >From Jack regarding the above: The bill of sale mentioned by Vicki was posted to the archives by Donna Price on 15 Nov 1996. This bill of sale says "We, John Lovelace, >Thomas Lovelace, and Luke Lovelace did, on Dec 21, 1768, pass our >bond to Samuel Hanson..." (We need to identify this Thomas, but John is probably the father and Luke his son, and Thomas? maybe a cousin?. Thomas is never mentioned on any documents as a son of this John. As for "sons" John and ignatious approving the inventory, sons didm't necessarily have to do that. I think those were grandsons and once again Vicki's opinion was inserted as fact. John's son Luke had a son Ignatious and it appears that Samuel had a son John Baptist. By the time John the grandfather died in 1775 JBL's kids had gone to Frederick Co and/or Rowan Co NC. I think the actual records are pretty clear on this John, his kids and his wife Anne. Going back to Thomas the Orphan, he did not buy Bathelor's Forest until 1745. It isn't likely that a man born 1685 would be making his first land purchase in 1745 and it's a more likely time for a man born 1709. The Thomas with Batchelor's Forest is the one who married Eleanor, had a son John with a wife Jane. Thomas died by 1753 when Eleanor appears on the tax roll with Batchelor's Forest. Then she and son John with his wife jane sell the property in 1763. We know that from the land transfer record, I'm convinced that this is Jack's John who went to Culpeper Co VA. There is confusion over the name of his wife. Supposedly John in VA had a wife Nancy. That's possible. Jane could have died and he remarried. Or Nancy might not be right. That name came from Vicki Kanarr (per Jack) and I don't know what proves her. John who sold Batchelor's Forest disappears from MD records after that land sale. He is definitely not the John who died i n 1775 in MD with the wife Anne. John who went to VA was there at least by 1782 when I first found them on a tax list. Reportedly his youngest child was born in MD in 1765, but I don't have proof of that birthplace, but census records pretty much confirm he was born around 1765. I haven't searched VA records to find out more about when he arrived there and any land transactions he might have had. His birthdate, his kids birthdates, etc fit better with him being a son of Thomas b 1709 than with anyone else. To summarize the Johns and Thomases I think this is what we have A. William (the immigrant) B. John b ca 1670 C. John b 1698 m Anne d ca 1775 D. sons JBL, Samuel, Luke & Phillip E. grandfather of John & Ignatious C. Thomas b 1709 m Eleanor D. son John b ca 1729/30 m Jane & (Nancy?) went to VA E. sons John, Noah & James C. (Benjamin, Abraham & Samuel I dealt with in other messages) Okay, now we have one more Thomas who I'll deal with in a separate message. Lou Ann