Search billions of records on Ancestry.com

Pre-1700 References to the Loveland Family in New England

Official records show that Lovelands have had trading links with the New World since at least 1637. In a case brought before the High Court of Admiralty Examination (London) in that year (Thomas Ledoze and company vs Joseph Saunders) a witness, one Henry Hedley of Limehouse, Co.Middlesex, a sailor aged 40 (sig) testified:

That Jeremy Loveland had an interest in the tobacco he (Hendley) brought home on his own account, which was sold to {...} Norwood. Outward bound there were between 130 and 140 passengers, at a frieght of £6 per head. That he (Hedley) hath made but two voyages to Virginia. On the first, they ballasted stones because they were up in the country where stones were to be had but at Kickotan where the Flower de Luce balasted all the ships used sand (Printed calendar of the High Court of Admiralty Examinations 1637-1638, p152.)

We cannot yet say for certain whether Jeremy Loveland visited the New World himself, but we know from other contemprary records that even as early as 1633 he was certainly a part-owner of ships which travelled to Virginia to collect tobacco.

For more than 100 years, researchers have attempted with varying success to discover the English origins of the Lovelands who settled in New England around the middle of the 17th century. In 1892 two gentlemen of that name made prodigious efforts to solve the mystery, and their work is available to later generations in the form of the The Genealogy of the Loveland Family (Loveland, JB and Loveland, George, Vol 1, Fremont, Ohio, IM Keeler & Son, 1892) (hereinafter the Loveland Genealogy). These dedicated Victorians located many distant 'cousins', painstakingly collated and compared 'family traditions' and searched all the available published works of reference. They concluded that there were probably two early Loveland settlers in Connecticut; 1) the Widow of an unknown Loveland who came over as supercargo on a merchant ship somewhere between 1635 and 1649, and 2) Robert Loveland, also a supercargo, whose name appears in official records between 1645 and 1668, when he is believed to have died, a resident of New London, CT. Although the fact that both were connected with maritime trade suggested they might be have been related, no proof was identified at that time. Tradition said that the Widow arrived with three sons, one drowning in the Connecticut River soon after arrival while one of the others went on to found the line from which so many present day Lovelands descend. The Widow's name was not known.

Later works add to this fund of knowledge, showing that the Widow appears to have had two or three children living between 1657 and 1660; two sons (John and Thomas) and possibly one daughter (Mary). It appears that John died 2 September, 1670 in Glastonbury, CT., married but without issue while Thomas was still living in 1716. Furthermore there is evidence that the Widow remarried around 1650-1, marrying Thomas Edwards of Wethersfield, CT. by whom she had a daughter, Ruth in 1651. This information is provided by Hale, House and Related Families, Mainly in the Connecticut River Valley,(Donald Lines Jacobus and Edgar Francis Waterman. The Connecticut Historical Society, Hartford, CT, 1952, pp 691-164) (hereinafter Hale. House & Related.) and John Edwards of Wethersfield, Connecticut (The New England Historical & Genealogical Register, October 1991, pp 317-324) (Hereinafter NEHGR).

Only the Loveland Genealogy theorises on the English roots for the family, siting Norwich, Co.Norfolk as a possibility. No specific evidence is offered other than noting from various Victorian works of reference the occurence of the name in the city at that particular time. It should be noted that there are a number of factual errors in these sections of the Loveland Genealogy which are commented on elsewhere in these pages. The Loveland name is not common in England. Mainly concentrated in Co.Surrey at that time, it occurs in Norwich only between about 1582 and 1650; an isolated family which just happens to be the 'right' one.

There is another lesser known body of relevant material produced by a professional researcher in England in the 1932s. Miss M.A. Farrow appears to have been working for a Mr Paddock. While Miss Farrow's reasoning is unfortunately not included in the English Records of the Loveland Family (National Society of Daughters of American Revolution Library, 1776 D Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. 20006.) (hereinafter the Farrow Papers) she evidently concluded (correctly) that the family originated from Norwich. Even more intreging, she appears to have made a connection with the Leaveland (Leveland) family of Co.Kent, England and thence back to the Norman Conquest (1066). While we do not at present know the reasoning for this, the fact that she was a professional researcher who occasionally helped the College of Arms in London suggests that the theory should not be discounted entirely.

Finally, work conducted since 1995 by researchers in the UK and US has now established beyond reasonable doubt the connection between Robert Loveland of New London and Widow Loveland of Wethersfield. We can now say with some certainty that Robert and John Loveland (the Widow's husband) were both the sons of John Loveland of Norwich whose Will was proved in Co.Norfolk in 1641.

Information has recently come to light which allows us to pin-point more closely a probable date for the arrival of Widow Loveland in Connecticut. A Grant of Letters of Admistration exists in the Calander of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, England which appears to set the date of the death of John Loveland, the Widow's husband at some time before 3 February 1639; somewhat earlier than the date implied by other evidence. This date is also more in keeping with the suggested 1631 date for the marriage of John Loveland to Elizabeth Busfield.

In addition we can say that Widow Loveland raised two, rather than three Loveland children in Wethersfield; John and Thomas. Since the Widow's husband died before 1639, he clearly cannot be the father of Mary, born about 1651. This information is discussed in more detail under the section Summary of Loveland Early Settlers later in this file.

This file and its extension, Pre-1700 References to the Loveland Family in New England (continued) deals with all known 17th century US references while a separate file discusses references to the family in Norwich. Please note that at this writing, no attempt has been made by the author to validate any of the original US source material.


References Noted by the Loveland Genealogy

There is clear evidence that by 1649 at least two adults of that name were resident in present day New England. The Loveland Genealogy (pp 32-33) quotes from Savage's Genealogical Dictionary:

"LOVELAND, LOVEMAN, OR LOVENAM

Robert, Boston, 1645, a witness to a deed; may have moved to Connecticut; was taxed at New London 1666; had four years before a law suit with Bigot Eggleston, of Windsor, about hides to be tanned.

John, Hartford, died 1670; had a wife and probably children, but no more is known; perhaps the family was perpetuated at Glastonbury.

Widow Loveland, pursued a remedial action for trespass, 1649. Samuel Gardiner for himself. Thomas Edwards and Widow Loveman against Osman, defendant, in an action of trespass. Damages, 4 pounds (Colonial Records, Sept 16, 1649.)

Thomas, Wethersfield, 1670, proposed for Freeman that year; had grant of land 1674; perhaps ten years later was in Hertford."

The authors continue:

The quotation above, no doubt, includes all the first Lovelands in this country. The work was very searching and claims to be a complete record of the first settlers in New England. We assume the above to be the Widow Loveland and her two sons, Robert and John. Tradition says: The husband and father died on the passage, and one other son was drowned in the Connecticut river. We further assume Thomas to be the son of Robert or John. The preponderance of testimony favors his being the son of Robert. Robert died in 1669 and John in 1670, both quite old men. We believe Thomas was made a Freeman as soon as the law would allow, and that in 1670 he was twenty-one. It is quite certain that at this date, Thomas was the only one in America bearing the name Loveland. He is the progenitor of the Loveland family in this country, and doubtless born here.

Tradition says that two young men, Kimberly and Smith, had their passage paid by our ancestor. In 1635 we find a young couple, Thomas Kimberley, living in Dorchester, where the ship would naturally land. They were not in affluent circumstances. We find them again at New Haven in 1640. Our idea is that Kimberly and Smith, the Widow Loveland and her family, left Dorchester for the Connecticut River in 1635, or soon after; that Robert found occupation as a sailor, Dorchester being just the place to find such employment. We now quote from the Public records, form which Savage drew his information:


Robert Loveland, Mariner, Merchant and Inhabitant of New London, CT

The Loveland Genealogy carries these notes:

ROBERT LOVELAND, BOSTON, 1645.

NEW LONDON, 1666

The deed that he signed in Boston does not show him to be a resident of the town. We now quote from Calkins' History of New London, Connecticut: "Before quitting this period it will be proper to gather up names, not yet mentioned, of the residents that came in during the interval, for which Mr. Bruen's minutes were lost (Mr. Bruen was Recorder of the town.)

Among these was Robert Loveland, mariner and trader from Boston, 1658 (see page 93). On page 133 we find Mr. Loveland's request (Sept, 1661,) in writing for three poles of land by the water side. On page 151, Lieut. Samuel Smith, by his wife Rebecca Smith, (March 28, 1661,) conveys his farm at Upper Alwise Cove to Robert Loveland, in payment of debts. On pages 233-234: In May, 1660, the ship Hope, from Maliga, in Spain, with a cargo of wine, raisins and almonds, came into harbor, storm-beaten and in want of provisions; the master was Robert Warner, and the supercargo Robert Loveland, who had chartered the vessel for Virginia, there to take in fresh cargo and return to Spain, discharging at Alicant. The voyage had been long and tempestuous, the cargo was damaged, the ship leaky. Information being received on their arrival, of the state of affairs in Virginia, induced them to relinquish the intended voyage thither. The supercargo then proposed to discharge the freight, and have the vessel sheathed and trimmed in New London, and after this to take in provisions for New Foundland, and there obtain a cargo of fish for Alicant, Spain, the original destination. The commander refusing imperatively to concur in these measures, Mr. Loveland entered a protest charging him with having violated his engagements in various particulars. The difficulty was finally settled by arbitration, the cargo was landed and sold at New London. [Captain James Oliver, Mr. Robert Gibbs, and Mr. Lake, of Boston, appear to have had an interest in the cargo]. Among the lading was a quantity of wine lees and molasses for distillation. These commodities were purchased and distilled into liquors by persons who had recently set up a "still" and "worm" in the place. Captain Warner was paid and his ship dismissed. From this period Mr. Loveland became a resident of the town, entering so fully into commercial concerns as to make a sketch of his subsequent history appropriate in this chapter. In 1661 he presents himself as prosecuting a voyage to New Foundland, and enters a protest against George Tongue, ordinary keeper, that being indebted to him a considerable amount which he had promised to pay in such articles as were proper for the intended voyage, which says the protest are only wheat, peas and pork. When the time arrived and the protestor demanded his due, he was told he must take horses and pipe staves or he would pay him nothing, and these articles were not marketable in New Foundland. Mr. Loveland appears often to have been disquieted, and to find repeated occasions for protests and manifestoes. He purchased of Daniel Lane a considerable (-) of land at Green Harbor, with the idea of building wharves and warehouses, and making it a port of entry for the town. When he found it unsuitable for the purpose, he entered a protest against Mr. Lane for selling it to him under false pretenses, charging the said Lane with asserting that it was a good harbor for shipping to enter and ride, by reason that it is defended by a ledge of rocks, lying off, and that there is twelve feet at low water betwixt the said ledge and the shore and within two and one-half rods of the shore; whereas, he, said Loveland, had sounded and found only shoal water. [Note:--This land was received back by Mr. Lane]. The title of "Mr." accorded to Mr. Loveland probably indicates that he had been made a Freeman. October 27, 1662, the magistrates have freed Mr. Loveland from watching, warding and training. As this immunity was not often granted before sixty years of age, it may be inferred that he was advanced in life. A few years more we find him on the brink of the grave. Nov. 27, 1668, he assigned all his estate, whether lands, houses, horses, cattle, debts due by book account, bill or bond, either in New England, Virginia or elsewhere, to Alexander Pygan. This bequest was of the same nature as a will, and probably indicates the period of his death. It is signed with a mark instead of his name. Mr. Bradstreet was one of the witnesses, testified that Mr. Loveland was sound in mind and judgment, but unable, through great weakness, to sign his name. This is all Calkins' History contains on the subject. As examination of the town records reveals further facts concerning purchase and transfer of lands by Mr. Loveland. The above named assignment appears upon the record of deeds, not in the Probate Records, and probably was intended as an assignment to secure his creditor or creditors. He seems to have had a stormy life both upon sea and land. His name appears frequently either as plaintiff or defendant, during these same years upon the Court Records at Hartford. But did he die rich? We think not. There is no evidence that the subject of his assignment ever came before the Probate Court. "He was enterprising and energetic," as Calkins states, but probably unsuccessful. His advanced age at the time of his death would indicate that he was thirty-five or forty years of age when he came to this country. He was a contemporary of John Loveland, a Spanish merchant and his being a trader between Spain and the colonies would give significance to the theory that they were related.

We now know that this Robert Loveland was Widow Loveland's brother-in-law (that is her late husband John's brother) and therefore the uncle of Thomas of Glastonbury.

The above reference to Robert perhaps being about 60 years of age in 1661 is interesting. We now know that he was born 20-Nov-1607, so was in fact about 54.

For many years, the references given above appear to be the only material available to Loveland researchers. Then, in 1952, the following additional information appeared in Hale, House and Related Families, Mainly in the Connecticut River Valley,(Donald Lines Jacobus and Edgar Francis Waterman. The Connecticut Historical Society, Hartford, CT, 1952, pp 691-164) which adds considerably to our knowledge of the family of Widow Loveland and her relationship to Robert Loveland, the merchant. Under the heading "Thomas Loveland, Glastonbury, Connecticut" (son of Widow Loveland):

1. The Widow Loveman, married after 1649, Thomas Edwards of Wethersfield.

The surname in the early records was sometimes spelled Lovenam and Loveman. No mention of the father of Thomas Loveland has been found, although his mother was living as a Widow in Wethersfield, Conn., as early as 1649. Since Thomas named a son Robert, it might be surmised that his father was the "Robert Loveland" who with Thomas Graves witnessed a conveyance from Edward Bendall of Boston, planter, to David Yale of Boston, merchant, on 23 August 1645 [Suffolk County (Mass) Deeds, 2:48]. But this Robert was more likely the merchant who lived at New London, Conn., for a few years in the 1660's. He made a protest in a shipping affair, 1660; was called "Marchant, Resident in New London," 3 May 1661, and "inhabitant of New London" in 1665; in 1668 made a sale, being described as of New London; and on 27 Nov. 1668, signing by mark, sold his "now dwelling house" and all livestock, either in New England, Virginia or elsewhere [New London land records, 8:88-90, 114; 5:24; 4:254; 3:31].

Robert appears also in the Particular Court Records of Hartford. On 6 Mar. 1661/2, Robt.Loueland sued the estate of Davie Abercrombe for detained goods shipped aboard "ye said Crombe" to the value of £150; the jury found for the defendant. Peter Blachfield on 4 Sept. 1662 sued Mr Loueland for slander in accusing him of a false oath; Blachfield withdrew his action against Robt Loueland, but afterwards entered a review. Also, 4 Sept. 1662, George Tongue (of New London) sued the estate of David Abercrombe; Mr Robt Loueland defended the suit, and the court found for the defendant. Mr. Robert Loueland was appointed to administer the estate of "Aber Crombe" and showed the court that the estate was indebted to him for £71.0.6 besides damages. On 28 April 1663, Biggat Eggleston sued Mr Robrt Loveland for money due to him for work and also for not performing a promise in reference to the work, to the value of £100 damages [Conn. Hist. Society Collections, 22:244, 245, 252, 254, 270].

Excepting his name, nothing has been seen to indicate a connection between Robert Loveland, the merchant and the Glastonbury family, and he was certainly not father of Thomas.

As already mentioned, this Robert Loveland was Widow Loveland's brother-in-law. In 1639 he was granted Letters of Administration in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, England in connection with his brother John's estate when the latter died 'in parts beyond the sea'.


Widow Loveland and Her Children

The authors of Hale, House and Related (pp 692-3) provide important information about Widow Loveland and her children:

On 6 Sep. 1649, "Sam: Gardiner plt for himself, Thomas Edwards, and the Widdow Lounam, Contra Thomas Ossmore [Hosmer] defendt in an Action of Trespass to the dammage of £4". (Ibid) That the Widow thereafter married Thomas Edwards of Wethersfield, Conn., is proved by entries in the Medical Journal of the younger John Winthrop. In 1657 he treated Thomas Loveman, 16 years, described as "Tho Edwards wives sonne," the next entry being Ruth Edwards, 6 years, "daughter of Tho: of Hockanum." In July 1663, he treated Mary Loverand, aged 19, at Hockanum, "daughter of Tho: Edwards wife." In December, 1660, he treated an unnamed "Lovenam the Hatters daughter a girle of about 9 1/2 y:" (Medical Journal, pp 316, 511, 223, courtesy of the Massachusetts Historical Society) ((hereinafter JW Med. Rec).

A footnote to this passage says:

A girl of 9 1/2 would have been born 1651, but Edwards' wife was the Widow Lovenam as early as 1649. Ruth Edwards, by the other entry, was born 1651, and since Winthrop failed to record the name of the suppose Lovenam girl, it is possible that he was not sufficiently informed and supposed the girl to be Edwards' stepdaughter whereas she was his own daughter.

NEHGR (pp 323-324 and 322) also refers to Winthrop's Journal:

His (Thomas Edwards') wife, his only child, and his stepson John Loveland appeared with illnesses in November (1664)

while

Thomas's "wife" was living 28 June 1667 when Winthrop treated her for a "hurt on side by fall" (JW Med. Rec, p740)

We know nothing more of Mary. She was certainly not the daughter of the Widow's husband John Loveland who is known to have died before 1639. Further references to John (now presumed to be the elder of the two brother) and Thomas are given below. The Widow's given name, origins and first husband are discussed elsewhere.


John Loveland, son of Widow Loveland

In addition to the references to this son of Widow Loveland found in JW. Med. Rec, information concerning him in later life exist. Hale, House & Related (pp692-693):

The file [Hartford Probate District, No. 3499] contains only two documents. The first is "An Inventory of the Estate of John Loveland deceased September 2nd 1670." It starts with several hog items, which are bracketed as totalling £31.11.00; then items of other livestock are listed. bracketed as totalling £27.10.00; then in the same way some produce amounting to £14.00.00. Then follows "In the hous" - listing clothes and some furnishings, totaling £7.06.06; then "Att the Edwards hous" - items totaling £8.02.00; then "mor at his own house" which included "beed Case & pillow" and later a "bedstead." There are two Bibles. The entire total was £114.15.08. ... On the back of the paper is written, "John Louenams Jnuentory Novr: 1670.

The other document is dated "Nouembr 7th 1670" and lists debts from and to the estate. the first is "It to mr willys and mr haines for rent of the farm £12:00:00." The names of the other creditors were: Capt Samll Wells, mr James Richards, William Worner, mr John Hollister, William Mortton, William Hills Jur, William Trian [Tryon], Thomas Loueland, John Cheery,Richard Smith Jur, Capt Thomas Attwoodd, mr John Blackleach Senr. Richard Risley, Marshall Gilbert, Thomas Edwards, Goodm Bissell, Nathaniell butler, Samll Rislyes estate, John Sadler. The total owing was £48:00:03. Debts to the estate were £10:13:00 from mr Josiar Willard, 04:00:00 from Thomas Loueland, 02:18:03 from John Edwards and other sums from John Curtis, John Heall Senor, Samuel Hale Junr, John Semer, Andrew Pinson.

In Volume 3 of the Hartford Probate Records, the inventory is recorded at page 81. In a blank space at the right of the last items of the inventory is written "The Widow is to possess the whole estate paying all Just dues from the estate." Underneath the inventory is written: "Inventory exhibited Jn court Nouember: 9th: 1670." At page 103 from the reverse end of the book, where court orders are entered, the following appears under date of 9 Nov.1670: "The Jnventory of the estate of John Loueland was Exhibited in Court proued & ordered to be recorded, & the Court grants Administration to the widdow & shee to possess the whole estate paying all Just dues from the estate."

The conclusion seems to be that John Loveland left a Widow but no children. If there had been children, there should have been a guardian appointed, and the record should have read that the estate being small, it was set to the Widow for the support of herself and the upbringing of the children. However, if there were no children, it is odd that brothers and sisters of John did not have a claim. If there had been real estate, and John childless, his Widow would have had a life interest in the third (her dower), and his closest blood relatives would have had two-thirds and the other third at death of the Widow - sooner if they bought out her dower interest as often happened. Under the legal practice of the time, the Widow would receive a third of the personal estate "for ever" and the legal heirs might claim two-thirds. However, the Courts seem to have had some discretion in ruling, particularly in quite small estates where no realty was involved; and this may be the explanation in this case.


Thomas Loveland of Wethersfield, son of Widow Loveland

Hale, House & Related (pp693-694):

THOMAS LOVELAND was born about 1641 (since Winthrop states his age in 1657 as sixteen years), living in 1716; married Charity Hart.

In Wethersfield the early deads were not recorded. but as in most Connecticut towns the lands owned by each proprietor were listed, and the recorder added from time to time a description of lands purchased, often with a mention of the purchase deed. Thus we find:

"March 9 day 1673(4

Land belonging unto Thomas Loueland his hires & assignes for euer lying in wethersfield on conecticut Riuer which was granted unto him by the Towne

one pece lying on the east side of conecticut Riuer con fore score acres more or less the ends abuts against a high way by the said Riuer side west and lands not diuided east the sids against the lands latly granted unto mr Richard Treat north and lands not diuided south"

The first land owned by Thomas Loveland was therefore in the present Glastonbury, and he sold it to his stepfather, as we learn from a listing of Thomas Edwards's lands:

"one other pece also lying on the east side of conecticot Riuver wch which (sic) the said Edwards had by purchase of Tho Loueland as by his deed dated march 9 1673(74 & acknowledged befor me Samll Talcot --- forescore acres more or less [same description as above]"

On 29 Dec. 1693, William Wickham of Glastonbury conveyed land to Joseph Long, a blacksmith, then residing in Glastonbury; the latter moved to Middletown and assigned the property, 23 Jan. 1699/1700, to Thomas Loveland, Sr., of Glastonbury. He exchanged land, 13 Feb. 1700/1, with John Gains of Glastonbury. On 2 Apr. 1707, Thomas Loveland, Sr., for "the Naturall Love and affection which he Beareth to his Beloved Son John Loveland" conveys to him "all right to ... five acres ... with a Dwelling house ... bounded Highway west of John Hubbard south and east, Lands of Ephraim Goodrich north." He signed by mark, as he did all his deeds, despite his stepfather's ownership of Latin and English books, he had never been taught to write.

The section goes on to list various other kin of Thomas Loveland (page 695 onwards).

Thmas Loveland married Charity Hart b. say 1646, married by 1677. Research by Gale Ion Harris, forthcoming (at 1997) in TAG: Entry for Edmund Hart says origines unknown, migrated 1632 to Dorchester, rem to Weymouth 1636 and Westfield 1664. Wife unidentified; she died Weymouth 20 August 1659; they had nine children. There's a quote about Edmund's death (shortly before) Hampshire County Probate records v. 1, p. 147: "30 September 1672 Edmund Hart of Westfield dying suddenly this sennight past inquiry was made by a jury of 12 men concerning his death who found it to be by the immediate hand of God in thunder & lightening as they conceive; their verdict is on file. And the said Edmund Hart dying intestate..." (The Great Migration Begins Vol 2, pp 866-869 has an entry for Edmund Hart).


Mary Loveland, daughter of Widow Loveland

Apart from the references to her visits to Dr Winthrop as a child, nothing more is known of Mary Loveland. She is certainly not the daughter of John Loveland, died before 1639.


Summary of Loveland Early Settlers

So, taking the evidence which is to be found in the archives of various New England bodies along with evidence from Norwich, Co.Norfolk, England discussed elsewhere, it is now possible to say with some certainty that:

The Widow Loveland arrived in New England sometime before 1639 with at least two children; John (probably the eldest, of unknown birth-date but certainly before 1638) and Thomas (born before 1639 - probably in England). She was the Widow of John Loveland of Norwich, a 'Spanish Merchant' (or supercargo) who died sometime before 1639 presumably, as family tradition states, on the voyage to the New World.

Family tradition suggests that the immigrant family included another son who drowned in the Connecticut River soon after arrival. As yet we have no evidence for this or a name. It now seems more likely that the 'three brothers' referred to in family tradition were actually not the sons of Widow Loveland, but in fact her husband and two of his brothers. It is certainly true that the Widow's brother-in-lawJeremy Loveland - also a supercargo or merchant - died in 1650 in circumstances which necessitated his brother Canon Joseph Loveland of Norwich requesting a Grand of Letters of Administration in that year.

We have seen no references to children of the Widow's son John Loveland (died 2 Sept, 1670) while children of her other son Thomas are well documented, leading most decendants of these Early Settlers to conclude almost certainly correctly that he, Thomas, is their common ancestor.

We know that John Loveland a Merchant living in London married Elizabeth Busfield (Bashfield) in 1631 and it is most likely that he is the husband of Widow Loveland, but we cannot yet be certain that the Widow was definitely Elizabeth Busfield. For reasons discussed elsewhere, there are unfortunately several difficulties with assuming without further evidence that Elizabeth, nee Busfield is the Widow Loveland. It is equally possible that the Widow is a subsequent wife of John Loveland. Work continues (in 1997) to locate this and other candidate marriages along with the batismal records of the Widow's sons John and Thomas Loveland. These would clearly do much to solve this particular problem.

We also know that Widow Loveland remarried around 1651 and bore a daughter Ruth to her new husband Thomas Edwards of Wethersfield, CT.

It is also possible to state with certainty that the Robert Loveland (also a supercargo) who first appeared in Boston in 1645 and eventually died in New London in about 1668 is the Widow Loveland's brother-in-law, that is the brother of her late husband John.

Click here for additional Pre-1700 References to Loveland in New England.

Details of the family's English roots can be found here.


Section Index


Return to the Loveland Home Page


Doug Murphy
Omaha, Nebraska, USA
Last modified: Sunday, 18-Apr-1999 23:59:04 MDT