TThhee LLoovveellaaccee//LLoovveelleessss FFaammiillyy

iinn AAmmeerriiccaa::

Volume One:

Descendants of James Albert “Jim” Loveless [ca.1810-

1867] and his wife Sarah J. Nicholson [ca.1817-1889],

of Pickens District, South Carolina, and

Rabun, Cherokee, Pickens, and Cobb Counties,

Georgia.

by T.J. White

ii

Arms of Lovelace of Hurley, Berkshire.

Arms of Lovelace of Kent

iii

[Copyright page]

iv

Contents

Acknowledgments vii

Preface x

I Origin of the Lovelace/Loveless surname,

and possible English antecedents.

1 The name and family of Lovelace/Loveless 2

2 Ancient British roots? 3

3 Distribution of Lovelace surname in England 8

4 Our possible Dorset connection 10

5 George Loveless, Tolpuddle Martyr 17

6 The possible Hurley connection 19

7 Conclusion 21

II Colonial Maryland Adventurers: The Lovelace/Loveless

Family in Maryland before, during, and after the Revolution.

1 William Loveless, “the Transportee” 23

2 Early Maryland Ancestors, Revised (by Jack D. Lovelace) 24

3 Barton Lovelace and wife Lucy Watson (etc.) 32

4 Samuel Lovelace and his wife Anna “Annie” Byers 43

5 A “Falling Out” Among Brothers? 45

v

6 Further speculation on Samuel and Annie Lovelace 46

III Descendants of James Albert “Jim” Loveless [ca.1810-1867]

and his wife Sarah J. Nicholson [ca.1817-1889],

of Pickens District, South Carolina, and Rabun,

Cherokee, Pickens and Cobb Counties, Georgia.

1 Incipit 54

2 Marriage of James Albert “Jim” Lovelace 57

3 James Lovelace returns to Georgia 60

4 The 1832 Georgia (or Dahlonega) Gold Rush,

and a “falling out” between brothers. 60

5 Life in Cherokee (later Pickens) County 63

6 Onset of the Civil War 66

7 The James Lovelace family moves to Cobb County 67

8 Death, and Estate Administration 68

9 Sarah Nicholson Lovelace, widow of James 70

10 Laban S. Magbee, “son” of Sarah Lovelace? 71

11 The children of James Albert “Jim” Lovelace and

his wife Sarah J. Nicholson. 75

12 The grandchildren of James and Sarah Lovelace 88

13 The great-grandchildren of James and Sarah Lovelace 125

14 The great-great-grandchildren of James and Sarah Lovelace 160

15 The great-great-great-grandchildren of James and Sarah Lovelace 201

16 The great-great-great-great-grandchildren of James and Sarah 253

Lovelace

vi

17 Explicit 300

IV Nicholson/Richardson/Palmour/Bolling excursus:

1 Ira R. Nicholson and his wife Jane Palmour 302

2 William Nicholson, the father of Ira R. 303

3 A Note on Evan Nicholson 305

4 The Troublesome and Elusive Bolin Nicholson 306

5 The Bolling Family of Virginia 307

6 William Nicholson‟s parentage 308

7 The Richardson Family 309

8 Solomon Palmour, and the Palmour/Palmer family 309

Postscript

Notes and references

Bibliography

Index

vii

Acknowledgments

In this book, I depend heavily on the research and ideas of others. I am very

grateful for their diligent efforts, and for their selfless sharing of the same with

the rest of us. If I have here managed to achieve anything of worth, it can only be

because I had such excellent research already prepared for me. I therefore

consider myself predominantly a writer and a compiler, though I have also done

my share of original research here and there.

I am here both pleased and honored to extend my grateful thanks to the following

persons:

Dr. Alton Loveless, Barbara Blanton Perkins, Barbara Kelly Newton, Betty

Loveless Murray, Beverly Magbee Gillis, Bobby Alexander, Catherine Loveless

Kennedy, Crandall J. Kennedy, David Wilson, Dawn Owings, Geri Perkins Allen,

Greg Lovelace, Harry Alexander, Henry F. Alexander, Sr., Jeanelle Loveless

Walker, the late Jeanette Newton Peebles, Jimmie Ryan, Jack D. Lovelace, Jack

L. Alexander, Kath Rumans Cornelius, Drs. Keith and Dianne Byrd, Lou Ann

Murphy, Louise Cheek Magbee, Louise Rooks Young, Margaret White

Sprayberry, Marjorie Brown Morehead, the late Martha Kelly Bunn, Nancy

Lovelace Gooch, Robert Clayton, Ruth B. White, Drs. Stuart and Ellen Nelson,

William Loveless, and all the other relatives, unknown to me personally, who

have contributed information to make this work possible.

Without you and your very kind and selfless help, this present effort would not

have been possible. Any endeavor such as this is, by its very nature—and despite

whoever does the actual „writing‟—very much a “team effort”.

If anyone else has contributed, and I have failed to mention your name, please

forgive me and kindly bring this unfortunate oversight to my attention. I will do

my utmost to correct it.

__________________________________________________________

viii

For Kara, Alex, and Samantha.

Beloved … I had many things to write, but I will not

with pen and ink write unto you: but I trust

I shall shortly see you, and we shall speak face to face.

The Third Epistle of John, verses 11, 13 and 14.

(King James Version, altered)

ix

Ubi sunt qui ante nos fuerunt …?

--popular mediaeval phrase.

Hwer is Paris, and Heleyne,

That weren so bryght and feyre on bleo:

Amadas, Tristam, and Dideyne,

Yseude, and alle theo:

Ector with his scharpe meyne,

And Cesar riche of worldes feo?

Heo beoth i-glyden ut of the reyne,

So the schef is of the cleo. …

--from the Luve Ron [Love Song] of Thomas de Hales, A.D. 1240

x

Preface

The great Greek philosopher Aristotle once said that “before a man dies, he

should build a house, plant a tree, and write a book.” In my lifetime, I have

indeed planted a tree (several, in fact), and now it appears that I am writing a

book. The house may turn out to be a different matter, though. …

A family history is always a serious matter, because one is dealing not only with

one‟s own ancestors, but also the ancestors of a lot of other people as well--people

who may or may not like one‟s own presentation of their part of the „family

history‟. In attempting to put together this history, my one overriding concern has

been that I might produce something which will win the approval of my more

distant relatives who will be impacted in one way or another by what I have

written. I have conscientiously attempted to be fair, just, and—above all,

considerate of everyone‟s feelings. However, I must also say that I wish, in

addition, to be honest, and to not dissemble or prevaricate. Overlooking or hiding

some of the facts of history may be temporarily convenient for some, but it does a

true disservice to honest, real history (in my opinion), for history is--or should be-

-the tangible written record of all of that which actually happened—whether we

like it or not. I believe it was the Roman orator Cicero, after all, who said that the

duty of every true historian is to report the past as it truly happened, with no

partiality or prejudice in his writing. This is the idea which has been my guide.

The James Loveless who is the subject of much of this family history is now

believed to have been a son of Samuel Lovelace (ca.1779-ca.1810) of Rutherford

County, North Carolina and Spartanburg County, South Carolina, and his wife

Anna “Annie” Byers (1782-1850). This Samuel Lovelace would have been a son

of old Barton Lovelace [1756-1805] formerly of Montgomery County Maryland,

the Revolutionary War soldier from Colonial Maryland who had such a

"checkered career," in the words of David Wilson, another descendant and

researcher. “It is now thought” says Greg Lovelace (another researcher and list-

master of the Lovelace web-list)

that, at some point in time along the way, Barton was arrested in

Halifax Co., VA and charged with stealing a horse. It seems that

he fled, leaving his wife Lucy to fend for herself with a brood of

kids. Barton [later] shows up in Tennessee in a marriage record

[1798] after the supposed date of Lucy's death, and he shows up

again in another marriage record [1802] and on a tax list in

Kentucky. Lucy is thought to have taken up with, and possibly

married, a widower named Abraham Cantrell, who settled on the

xi

Pacolet River in Spartanburg Co., SC just across the state line

from Rutherford Co., NC. Three younger sons (Nathan, Asa, and

Benjamin) and one older son (Samuel) appear to have had close

ties, either geographically or personally, with Abraham Cantrell.

It appears that Samuel, after having several sons (notably a

William who moved north into Tennessee and Barton, who moved

south and west into Georgia), died in Spartanburg Co., while the

three younger boys moved north into Rutherford Co. to found the

numerous Lovelace families found there today. (e-mail to web-list

dated 15 March, 2006).

Much will be said about this Barton Lovelace in Chapter Two, so I won't repeat

any more of it here, other than to say that Barton Lovelace is believed to have

been a son of Benjamin Lovelace (1727-1784) of Frederick and Montgomery

Counties, Maryland. In an e-mail of 12 November, 2005 to this writer, the

aforementioned David Wilson said that "there is some evidence [that Benjamin's]

father was John [Lovelace] born 1698, [and that] John's father may have been

Thomas, b.1664." However, according to an e-mail of 11 January, 2005 to the

Lovelace List from researcher Jack D. Lovelace, this Benjamin was most likely a

son of Thomas (born ca. 1700) and his wife Eleanor. This assessment is based on

analysis of the available DNA evidence. The father of this Thomas, Jack D.

Lovelace asserts, was most likely a John born ca.1675, who would have been a

son of William "the Transportee", the earliest person by the name of Lovelace to

appear in the colonial records. In light of this new assessment of the data, David

Wilson, along with Lou Ann Murphy (another reliable researcher), has recently

urged caution in attempting to interpret this early data. I repeat all of this here

only to show the latest thinking in Lovelace family research. “There is now a tiny

amount of evidence” says David Wilson, continuing, “that the group we call the

Maryland Lovelxxxs may be related to the Loveless/Lovelace families of Dorset

in Southern England, but that is as far as our knowledge goes.” (e-mail of 16

March, 2006.) (Note: recent further DNA testing on a Michael Loveless,

currently residing in Wales, but with known and proven ancestry in County

Dorset, England, has verified that the members of the “Main Maryland branch” of

the Lovelace/Loveless family do indeed originate in that area of England.)

Occasionally, when referring to James Loveless (the subject of this paper) I have

used the older spelling of "Lovelace" (as opposed to “Loveless”), based on the

fact that at times his contemporaries, his widow and at least three of his daughters

are known to have spelled the surname that way. In the historical record, where

the name is spelled “Loveless”, I have kept this spelling also.

There is presently an ongoing y-chromosome DNA project (involving male

members of the Lovelace/Loveless family), in an attempt to sort out these very

xii

confusing early Maryland lines. To view the current results of this endeavor, go

to http://dna.satmel.com/index.html

For testing (of your own DNA, should you be a male with the surname Lovelace

or Loveless), go to http://www.familytreedna.com/faq.html

The Lovelace/Loveless family web list is at 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 revenant1963@yahoo.com , and I will conscientiously try my best to

accommodate any requests.

T. J. White.

13

I

Origin of the Lovelace/Loveless surname,

and possible English antecedents.

14

The name and family of Lovelace/Loveless

The web-site http://www.houseofnames.com/xq/asp.fc/qx/lovelace-family-

crest.htm holds that the surname “Lovelace” ultimately derives from the Old English

word laghles, meaning “lawless”, and that this surname was originally applied to a

person because of his reckless, wild, nonconforming behaviour. This same site says,

moreover, that the surname originated in Ireland with the followers of Strongbow, the

Twelfth-Century Anglo-Norman conqueror of Ireland. There may be some degree of

truth to this idea; after all, Strongbow did originally hail from southern Wales, very close

indeed to the southern England home of so many members of the Lovelace/Loveless

family in later centuries.

In contrast, another such site, gives a very different etymology for the name: here, the

name is said to have originated from a person (or persons) who was a “philanderer”—

basically a lusty, „fancy-free‟ bachelor, i.e, one who was literally “love-less”. Here, the

surname is said to derive from the Mediaeval English word “lufelesse”.

As one of these sites points out,

however, the seductress or

“temptress” figure in the mediaeval

English romance, Sir Gawain and

the Green Knight (probably written

circa 1360), does indeed offer to

Gawain a green silk girdle or “Love

Lace” as a token of her esteem. This

is yet a third possibility for the origin

of the name.

Wendy Loveless Waldron‟s site on

Rootsweb [q.v.], while perhaps more

authoritative than most others,

nonetheless acknowledges that there

are many different and conflicting

ideas on the origin of the Lovelace

and Loveless surnames.

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight

15

Regardless, there can be no doubt that the ancestors of most Americans bearing this

surname probably originated in England—most likely in southwestern England. Some

people bearing this surname (or descended from it) will at least be aware of the famous

Seventeenth-Century English Cavalier Poet, Sir Richard Lovelace (1617-1658), (see

portrait, at left) of the family of Bethersden,

Kent. For a long time, many of us wanted to be

able to claim a relationship with him and his

family (not least because of their many royal

connections). Recent DNA analysis, however,

has proven (almost conclusively) that not only

are most of us not related to him, but that there

are no fewer than four separate, unrelated

families of Lovelaces or Lovelesses now living

in the United States.

The family that is the main focus of this present

book is descended from what researchers are

now calling the “Main Maryland Branch”,

because that state is where the oldest known

representatives of that family lived (back in the

Seventeenth Century and later). These

Maryland Lovelaces will be described in some detail in the next chapter.

For now, we will concern ourselves with the English (or at least British) roots of this

family. And where better to begin than at the beginning?

16

Ancient British Roots?

Lovelace/Loveless family researcher David Wilson (and distant cousin), an absolute

genius when it comes to unraveling and explaining (for the average reader) these early

family members and the DNA efforts to identify and sort them, has recently spoken on

the likely ancient origins of the Y-Chromosome pattern most often associated with the

“Main Maryland Branch”. (The person he refers to at the beginning--named Greg--is

Greg Lovelace, one of the list-masters of the Lovelace web list.)

In an e-mail from David Wilson to the Lovelace web-list, dated 23 November, 2005, he

wrote:

Greg asked me to say a few words about what the new S21 SNP results

mean for the Maryland Group of Lovelxxxs.

As I reported earlier, the MD group is negative for the S21 SNP: that is,

this family group does NOT have the S21 mutation.

This is good information in its own right. But to understand why, we need

to think about the deep history of the British Isles.

During the last ice age, the British Isles were essentially uninhabited by

virtue of being mostly covered with ice. There may have been small tribal

populations living on what are now the southern shores of England and

Ireland, but that's not proven.

It is known that after the LGM (last glacial maximum, whose end we can

date to about 12,000 years ago) humans began to move back into formerly

frozen areas as the ice retreated. By 8,000 years ago there were humans

scattered throughout what we now call the British Isles, which were at

that time still connected by a land bridge to Europe. We don't know what

language they spoke, but there is every reason to believe they were

genetically R1b.

They had probably come up from Spain and Portugal. The Iberian

peninsula was a temperate haven for European humans during the last ice

age.

Between 4,000 and 3,000 years ago, there was probably an expansion into

the British Isles by individuals that we would regard as pre-Celtic.

Between 3,000 and 2,000 years ago, Celtic influence (but not necessarily

Celtic genes) spread up from the Breton Peninsula into Wales and

eventually to Ireland and Scotland. Some 2,000 years ago in the last days

17

of the Roman Republic, Britain was added to Rome's sphere of influence

as a province. It stayed a province during the time of the Roman Empire --

over 400 years.

During this period many immigrants from the Eastern Mediterranean and

Middle East came as troops and traders. Many stayed after retirement and

added their genes to the local mix. The Roman administrative presence

undoubtedly helps explain the presence of such haplogroups as E3b, G

and J in the British Isles today.

After the collapse of Roman authority, which occurred during a time in

which Europe was shaken by huge population movements (Goths,

Vandals, Huns, etc.), the northern German tribes known as Angles and

Saxons invaded England.

Some 300 to 400 years later, the Vikings invaded from Scandinavia and

Denmark, and 200 years after that the Normans invaded from what is now

France.

The Normans (= "North-men") were a mixed group genetically speaking,

including members of R1a, R1b and I1a haplogroups, as well as some

minor subclades of I like I1c and possibly I1b.

As I suggested in an earlier post, the Angles and Saxons were probably

S21+. The Vikings were predominantly from haplogroups R1a and I1a. By

exclusion, then, the ancestors of the Maryland group were NOT Vikings

and were NOT Angles or Saxons. Since they belong to haplogroup R1b,

they are not likely to be descendants of some of the international travelers

who settled in England during the Roman period. Little by little we are

narrowing options to two major groups -- either the Celts, or the pre-

Celtic indigenous population of the British Isles.

It is possible that the Maryland Lovelxxxs have their roots in either the

Picts or the Scots, two Celtic groups. The Scots, despite their name, were

originally an Irish tribe. They got to Scotland when they went in and

savaged the Picts, who for all practical purposes disappeared from history

after this experience, though it is possible (even likely) that their Y-DNA

haplotypes are still in circulation in the modern population. If the MD

group does not have roots in one of these two groups, then they probably

do go all the way back to one of the wandering tribes that re-entered

England during the first few millennia that followed the last ice age.

This kind of analysis won't tell anyone very much about recent family

history, but it represents a form of useful knowledge nonetheless. Use the

analogy of the sculptor who takes a huge mass and chips away the stuff

that doesn't belong there until he ends up with what he wants. With respect

18

to the MD group, we are in a chipping-away process. There are millions

of individuals today who are R1b. By identifying the ones who are S21+,

we can remove about 15 to 20 percent of the total R1b mass from around

the MD group. By removing some of the other Iberian haplogroups, we

can take away several percent more. Statistical analysis of the remainder

suggests family groupings that deserve closer investigation. For example,

the analysis by John McEwan (the geneticist I mentioned in my earlier

post) puts the Lovelxxxs of the MD group into his group 32. Interestingly

enough, many of the surnames in group 32 have associations with

Scotland. That supports family lore that puts the MD family roots in

Scotland. (Remember the early 18th century Abraham Lovelace, who was

said to be "of Scotland.")

I have hopes that continuing statistical and geographical analysis may

eventually point to a region of Scotland, perhaps even a particular shire,

in which the MD group will find its roots. But I'm staying open to possible

surprises. If a DNA match should be found to an individual with surname

Lawless, I would rethink a lot of this in a flash. Lawless is thought to come

from Laighleis, the name of a Norman who entered with William the

Conqueror and put down roots in Ireland (where Lovelaces are found in

the 1600s). If that connection could be demonstrated, then the indigenous

Briton theory is out the window, and we would be looking at origins for

the MD group among a separate continental R1b group of the late first

millennium.

I have included this e-mail here in its entirety because it is so pertinent and informative,

and also because I realize I could not improve on it.

I do have to respectfully take issue with David on one small point, though. Right at the

very end he mentions the possible connection with the “Lawless” surname, asserting that

if a DNA match with individuals from that surname could be demonstrated, he would

have to “rethink” much of his analysis, and that therefore, the “indigenous Briton theory”

would be “out the window”.

Well, some (at least) of Strongbow‟s adherents married into the local Welsh royalty (the

line of Geraldus Cambrensis, the early Welsh historian, was descended from the Welsh

princess Nesta and her Anglo-Norman husband, for example), and it is certainly at least

possible, due to the Anglo-Norman assimilation with the Welsh (rather than attempting to

simply wipe them out), that some native Welsh males (with their R1b haplotypes) could

have been among the knights and retainers who accompanied Strongbow to Ireland (and

who then settled and established Anglo-Norman families there). The simple, bare fact

that nowadays in Ireland surnames beginning with Fitz- are quite common, is ample

testament to this. The patronymic Fitz- surnames are, in fact, Welsh in origin, fitz- (from

19

the French fils and Latin filius) being the Anglo-Norman equivalent of the Welsh words

map and ap, meaning “son of”. The idea of naming a male child after his father (for

example, Walter fitz Gerald, or Walter “son of” Gerald) was an ancient, centuries-old

Welsh practice, which practice the Anglo-Norman conquerors of Wales took up soon

after their arrival there, and their intermarriage with the local populations.

And surely not all of those Anglo-Norman barons ended up solely in Ireland. For many

decades after their conquest of Ireland in 1171, those knights and barons (and their heirs)

continued to hold estates on both sides of the Irish Sea. Surely many of the modern

inhabitants, not only of Wales proper, but also of the entire region of southwestern

England, must have the blood of those Anglo-Normans and their Welsh compatriots

coursing through their veins.

To sum all this up, then: it appears at least possible, and even probable, that the “Main

Maryland Branch” of the Lovelace/Loveless Family in North America may indeed go

back to that genetic and ethnic group which formerly inhabited Spain and Portugal during

the last Ice Age (now identified as the R1b haplotype). This is the group which is

genetically identical to the Basques of southern France and Northern Spain, raising the

intriguing likelihood that at some time in the remote past (that is, long before the Anglo-

Saxon, Roman, or even Celtic conquests of the British Isles) our Lovelace/Loveless

forefathers spoke some language similar to modern Basque (or perhaps—as David

Wilson suggested—a language akin to ancient Pictish).

And for those who may not be familiar with them, the Basques (as were the now-extinct

Picts) are a so-called “aboriginal”

people and language—that is, not

related or connected in any known

way with any of the other

languages surrounding them.

(Though, as alluded to, they are

indeed genetically identical to

most of the rest of the peoples of

the western fringe of Europe—

Spain, Portugal, Western France,

Brittany, and the British Isles.) It

is known from geography and

history that the Basques were once

much more widespread than now:

the Vosges Mountains in central

France, and the prevalence of the

surname “Vasquez” in Spain offer testament to this (the “v” was once a “b”). Gradual

conquest and assimilation over a period of many centuries has reduced them to their

present small corner of Europe (as a distinctly separate people and identity).

20

The next section will focus on the earliest recorded persons in the British Isles who bore

the Lovelace/Loveless surname:

Distribution of Lovelace surname in England

A quick survey of the L.D.S. Church‟s genealogical web site reveals the presence of

Lovelace/Loveless family members in the following English counties (with the

appropriate time periods in parentheses):

Bedford (17th

Century)

Berkshire (Hurley) (16th

and 17th

Centuries)

Buckingham (17th

Century)

Cornwall (19th

Century)

Dorset (18th

and 19th

Centuries)

Hertfordshire (17th

Century)

Kent (15th

Century)

Middlesex (London) (15th

Century)

Oxfordshire (17th

Century)

Somerset (16th

Century)

Surrey (17th

Century)

A comparison with a map of England shows that most of these counties are in

Southwestern England. Additionally, David Wilson mentions a cluster of

Lovelaces/Lovelesses in the East Anglia district (Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, and Cambridge

counties) of England. Other Lovelaces appear scattered here and there in other counties

besides the ones shown above, but the above counties are where the main concentrations

of Lovelaces were.

Below is a currently-available on-line map of the English counties:

21

County Map of England

This map is from the site:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mark1968/images%20Camping/map-england.gif

Notice that Dorset, Somerset, Devon, Wiltshire, Gloucester, and Cornwall are all very

close to each other. The county shown above as “Hants” is actually Hampshire. “Hants”

is simply the abbreviation.

22

Our possible Dorset connection

West Lulworth, a typical small village in the Dorset countryside.

We know from recent DNA analysis that in the United States there are (as mentioned)

no less than four separate, unrelated families with the Lovelace/Loveless surname, and

that all four of them very likely originated in either England, or at least the British Isles.

We can therefore say with reasonable certainty that there were also at least four separate,

unrelated families bearing this surname in England (etc.) during the Seventeenth Century

(when those Lovelaces who ended up in America left England). We also know that we

are almost certainly not connected with the Lovelace family of County Kent. A recent e-

mail from the aforementioned David Wilson indicates (to the contrary) that County

Dorset may be the most likely place of origin in England of our Maryland ancestors:

(Dated 15 December, 2005):

VERY interesting news. We may finally have the evidence that ties one of

the North American Lovelxxx groups to a Lovelxxx group in the British

Isles.

23

Greg alerted me earlier today that 12-marker results have come in for

John Lovelace, whose daughter Mary briefly subscribed to the group

several weeks ago. John's ancestors have been Canadian for the last

several generations.

His immigrant ancestor, William Lovelace, came to Newfoundland about

1820. He is thought to have come from Dorset.

John's 12 marker results are very close to those of what we have called the

"Main" Maryland group. He differs from members of that group in only

one locus: where the "Main" Marylanders have DYS389ii=31, John has

the value 32. It is sometimes risky to propose connections based on 12

markers, but in this case I think we are on solid ground. When you

compare John's haplotype to the closest matches in the VA, RI and NJ

groups, he stands at a genetic distance of at least 6. That means he is

essentially unrelated to them. But to differ by only one step, particularly

when the haplotype you are comparing to has some distinctive values, is

very suggestive.

A single haplotype is not proof, but it is an excellent indicator. It would be

very informative if we could get other Dorset (or adjacent Somerset)

Lovelxxxs to test at least 12 markers.

Dorset is where we find Tolpuddle, home of the Tolpuddle Martyrs who

are regarded as founders of the British Labor movement. If John

Lovelace's ancestors really come from Dorset, we have circumstantial

evidence tying the Maryland group to the Lovelesses of Tolpuddle. We

know that there were Lovelxxxs in Dorset in the mid 1600s. Earlier this

year I posted a 1654 Dorset marriage to the list. It is entirely possible that

a Dorset Lovelxxx emigrated from Dorset to Maryland in the mid 1660s

and founded the Maryland line.

More research and more tests are required to confirm this possible link.

But this is one of the most interesting developments in Lovelxxx research

to have happened in some time.

John is kit 45805 in the table on the Lovelace project's bare-bones web

site: https://www.familytreedna.com/public/lovelace/

As mentioned above, the more recent test results for Michael Loveless of Wales (with

known Dorset ancestry) has made almost certain our connection to Dorset. With this in

mind, perhaps we will concentrate for now on these Dorset Lovelaces.

24

The Index to the Visitation of Dorset, 1623 (also provided by David Wilson)

http://www.british-genealogy.com/acdb/bindexes/8013idor1.htm lists the following

two persons with the name Lovelace:

Lovelace, Elizabeth, 89; Robert, 89.

(This is an index, as David points out, so those are page numbers rather than ages.)

David says that “these would now be the earliest Dorset Lovelxxxs I know of.” David

goes on to add, however, that he found a 1654 Lovelace marriage in Dorset earlier that

year (2005).

The above Elizabeth (says David Wilson) is identified as the daughter of the above

Robert Lovelace, and was the wife of George Style "of Puddle Towne." George was the

third son of his father, whereas the second son, George's older brother, was thirty-five

years old in 1623. George was, therefore, probably then thirty to thirty-three years old,

and his wife, although she might have been the same age, is perhaps more around twenty-

five to twenty-eight. They had three children already, of whom the son and heir was a

year old. “If Elizabeth,” says David, “was born in, say, 1595, we can probably put the

birth of her father in the range of 1560-1570--maybe as late as 1575,” as “Elizabeth is

[likely] in her early 20s.”

http://www.uk-genealogy.org.uk/england/Dorset/visitations/p97.html

The L.D.S. Church‟s International Genealogical Index (or IGI) lists several early

members of the Lovelace/Loveless family in Dorset—many with dates even earlier than

those so far identified by David Wilson. Here I have maintained the exact spelling of the

names as they were transcribed from the original parish registries:

Joane Lovelace, daughter of Richard Lovelace, christened on 14 March,

1563, in Cattistock, Dorset.

Elizabeth Lovelace, daughter of Richard Lovelace, christened on 6 May,

1564, in Cattistock, Dorset.

Agnes Lovelace, daughter of Richard Lovelace, christened on 19 March,

1570, in Cattistock, Dorset.

Vincen Lovelace, son of Richard Lovelace, christened on 1 March, 1573,

in Cattistock, Dorset.

Hillary Lovelace, daughter of Richard Lovelace, christened on 15 July,

1576, in Cattistock, Dorset.

25

Humphrey Lovelace, son of Richard Lovelace, christened on 24 April,

1578, in Cattistock, Dorset.

Phillip Loveless (or Gover), christened on 12 October, 1574, in Sydling,

St. Nicholas, Dorset (no parents named).

Maria Lovelesse, daughter of Richardi Lovelesse, christened on 28 April,

1581, in Halstock, Dorset.

Joice Loveless, married to Thomas Thomas on 15 October, 1593, in

Piddlehinton, Dorset.

Anstice Lovelace, daughter of Thomas Lovelace, christened on 1 May,

1599, in Cattistock, Dorset.

Faith Loveless, daughter of William Loveless, christened on 21 August,

1603, in Cattistock, Dorset. She may be the same person as the “Faith

Loveless” that married Henry Morrice on 24 January, 1628, also in

Cattistock, Dorset.

Edieth Lovelace, daughter of Thomas Lovelace, christened on 14

December, 1606, in Cattistock, Dorset.

Angele Lovelace, daughter of William Lovelace, christened on 1 October,

1609, in Cattistock, Dorset.

Mary Loveless, daughter of Robert Loveless, christened on 11 April, 1630,

in Yetminster, Dorset.

Mgt Loveles, daughter of Humprhy Loveles, christened on 7 October,

1632, in Powerstock with West Milton, Dorset.

Mary Lovelace, married to Walstone Gray on 4 February, 1633, in

Cattistock, Dorset.

Edith Lovelass, married to Ralph Rendall on 8 May, 1634, in Maiden

Newton, Dorset. Edith Lovelass Rendall died on 6 November, 1670 (no

location given).

John Lovelis, son of Robert Lovelis, christened on 23 October, 1642, in

Piddlehinton, Dorset.

Grace Lovelis, daughter of Robert Lovelis, christened on 6 October, 1644,

in Piddlehinton, Dorset.

James Loveliss, married to Ann Angel on 21 October, 1655, in Toller

Porcorum, Dorset.

26

Elizabeth Lovelas, married to Christopher Baker on 1 January, 1665, in

Loders, Dorset.

Martha Lovelace, married to John Bartlett on 9 November, 1678, in

Piddletown, Dorset. (Is this the same place later styled “Puddle Town”?)

Alice Lovelace, daughter of Thomas Lovelace, christened on 26 April,

1668, in Yetminster, Dorset.

William Lovles, son of John Lovles, christened on 10 May, 1680, in All

Saints‟, Dorchester, Dorset.

Sarah Lovelace, daughter of Robert Lovelace, christened on 17

September, 1681, in Yetminster, Dorset.

And finally,

Elizabeth Lovelace, daughter of Edward and Elizabeth Lovelace,

christened on 15 April, 1690, in Folke, Dorset.

I have here arbitrarily restricted myself only to those Lovelaces (etc.) who were recorded

prior to 1700.

Below are some marriages in this same time period from Dorset and neighbouring

Somerset (some of the names will appear familiar in light of the above list):

Maiden Newton

http://www.dorset-opc.com/MaidenNewtonMarriages.htm

Humfrie LOVELACE & Margarett BRITTEN married 09-Nov 1600

Robert LOVELACE & Alice CAMELL married 04-Aug 1623

John FARRETT & Jane LOVELES married 02-Jun 1629

Ralph RENDLE & Eidith LOVELACE married 08-May 1634

John LOVELASSE & Elizabeth BRIDLE married 30-Jan 1655

27

John WATTES & Hester LOVELASSE married 07-Oct 1656

John MOWLAND & Yedith LOVELASSE married 30-Dec 1656

John LOVELASSE & Margery COXE married 05-Feb 1656

Edward WALBRIDGE of Askerswell & Elianora LOVELACE married 24-

Jun 1700

Robert LOVELASS & Sarah BURBIDGE married [ ] Dec 1710

Richard BRIDELL & Mary LOVELASS married 22-Apr 1739

Overstowey

http://www.westcountrygenealogy.com/somerset/overstowey_marriages.ht

m

1724 Aug 21 LOVELICE Francis BURGE Elizabeth

1736 Apr 26 LOVELACE John DYER Mary

1754 Nov 30? LOVELACE Henry WALFORD Mary

1761 Apr 30 BISHOP Stephen LOVELACE Dorothy

1766 Feb 7 HARRIS John LOVELACE Mary

1767 Apr 19 BISHOP Wm. LOVELESS Grace

1780 Aug 25 HILL Robert LOVELESS Mary

The Lovelace/Loveless (etc.) presence in Dorset continues, however, right up through the

Nineteenth Century into modern times.

Here follows an 1885 map of County Dorset:

28

1885 map of County Dorset, England

29

George Loveless, Tolpuddle Martyr

As David Wilson mentioned above, Dorset was the birthplace of the modern Labour

movement in British politics, and it was a George Loveless of Tolpuddle, Dorset (1797-

1874), who was one of its founding fathers. Since we are discussing these Dorset

Lovelaces (etc.), and since George was so well-known and influential, I feel I should at

least mention something here concerning him.

This George Loveless was a local Methodist preacher and laborer from the village of

Tolpuddle in Dorset, who, after the famous Reform Act of 1832 made trade unions legal,

founded a group entitled “The Friendly Society of Agricultural Labourers”. This group,

led by George Loveless, protested against the low wages then paid to laborers (in some

places as low as six shillings per week), and demanded higher wages. George and his

union, which met in the house of one Thomas Standfield (his brother-in-law), insisted

that they would not work for less than ten shillings per week. According to Wikipedia

[q.v.],

In 1834 James Frampton, a local landowner, wrote to the Prime Minister,

Lord Melbourne, to complain about the union, invoking an obscure law

from 1797 prohibiting people from swearing oaths to each other, which

the Friendly Society had done. James Brine, James Hammett, George

Loveless, George‟s brother James Loveless, George‟s brother-in-law

Thomas Standfield, and Thomas‟ son John Standfield were arrested, found

guilty, and transported to Australia [then a penal colony].

For this reason, they gained both immortality, and the nickname “The Tolpuddle

Martyrs” (even though none of them actually lost his life in the process).

They became popular heroes and all, except James Hammett, were

released in 1836, with the support of Lord John Russell who had recently

become Home Secretary. Hammett was released in 1837. Meanwhile the

others moved, first to Essex, then to London, Ontario, Canada, where

there is now a monument in their honour and an affordable housing/ trade

union complex named after them. They are buried in a small London,

Ontario, cemetery on Fanshawe Park Road East. Hammett remained in

Tolpuddle. He died in the Dorchester workhouse in 1891.

There was also a monument erected in their honour in Tolpuddle in 1934,

and a sculpture of the martyrs made in 2001 stands in the village in front

of the Martyrs Museum there.

An annual festival is held in Tolpuddle, organised by the Trades Union

Congress (TUC) featuring a parade of banners from many trade unions, a

memorial service, speeches and music.

30

Though it now seems we are able to prove a genetic link to these Dorset Lovelaces and

Lovelesses (as David Wilson has suggested), our ancestors may not, in fact, have come

directly from Dorset, as yet other possibly relevant facts and “traditions” tend to suggest:

Below is a photo of St. John‟s Church, Tolpuddle, Dorset:

St. John’s Church, Tolpuddle, Dorset

31

The possible Hurley connection

My paternal grandmother Martha Kelly Bunn, from whom I derive my Lovelace

ancestry, informed me some years ago of a tradition in our branch of the Lovelace family

to the effect that we were either descendants of, or related in some way to, a person in

England named or titled “Lord Lovelace”. At the time, I did not give her claim much

thought. I have since learned, however, that there were indeed several such persons by

this name and title living in Hurley, Berkshire, in the Seventeenth Century. And one of

them was rather notorious. He was a descendant of:

Sir Richard Lovelace (1564-1634), who was a son of Richard Lovelace Sr. “of Ladye

Place, Hurley” (see picture, above) and his wife Anne, daughter of Richard Warde of

Hurst, had been MP for Berkshire, and then successively Sheriff there from 1610 to 1611,

and Sheriff for Oxforshire from 1626 to 1627.

On 30 May, 1627, he was elevated to the peerage as “Lord Lovelace of Hurley”, by

Charles I. This Lord Lovelace‟s son and heir was John.

32

Map of

Hurley,

Berk-

shire

John‟s heirs proving deficient, the barony passed eventually to John Lovelace (the Fourth

Lord), who lived from 1672 to 1709. This John was a son of William Lovelace of Hurst

(1650-1676) and his wife Mary, a daughter of Sir Edward Neville, bart., of Grove in

Nottinghamshire.

This William Lovelace (son of Francis “of Culham Court”) was killed in 1676 during a

dispute with two of his servants. It seems that William had murdered a maid who

somehow offended him (perhaps she refused his advances), and the maid‟s lover

murdered William in revenge. This event, which probably occurred in England, was

widely enough reported to be included in a juicy, gossipy letter of the time written by

Mary Isham Randolph, who would later become the great-grandmother of Thomas

Jefferson. Mary Isham Randolph‟s letter was quoted in Professor David Hackett Fisher‟s

influential 1989 tome, Albion‟s Seed.

So just how did the idea get started that any American Lovelaces were related to this

“Lord Lovelace”? A possible clue to the origin of this rumor may lie in colonial New

York‟s history:

Beginning as early as the 1670s, a rumor existed that then-New York (Colonial)

Governor Francis Lovelace was a “brother to Lord Lovelace of Hurley” (a rumor which

was actually quite false and misleading). This false report caused much lasting confusion

and consternation among later generations of Lovelaces in North America—many of

whom wished to claim a relationship with Governor Lovelace because of his noble and

royal connections, and may even have been the source of the “family tradition” (quoted

33

above) which made its way down to my grandmother (and, apparently, many other, more

distant relations as well).

Yet another possible place of origin for our Lovelace/Loveless family was suggested

several months ago by David Wilson, who mentioned that his great-great grandfather

Loveless, who wrote a family history himself, had stated that our Lovelace/Loveless

family was reputed to have come from County Worcester in England. David has also

suggested a possible origin in Scotland for our Maryland Lovelace/Loveless family,

based on a tradition of an Abraham Lovelace in colonial Maryland who was said to have

originated there. Obviously, these and other possible leads need to be further

investigated.

Conclusion

I agree with David Wilson in saying that the best indicator thus far is the recent DNA

evidence which strongly suggests (and indeed, almost proves beyond doubt) a connection

with the Lovelesses of Dorset. Obviously, more Dorset-descended male Lovelesses need

to be contacted to seek their participation in the DNA testing.

With that said, I think the time is finally right to move on to what we know about our

earliest probable ancestors in colonial Maryland. In this, as in everything else, I am

depending heavily on the excellent work of many others. My task has only been to

organize and present in one volume what they have already achieved: