Table of Contents |
Diana, Goddess
of the Hunt — for Ancestors!
|
Every-Name Index |
Thomas LOVING
Mary STROOP Rosamond (__?__) WILKES Nancy (__?__) McCARTNEY |
Husband: Thomas LOVING
Birth: 1746, Pittsylvania Co., VA, or Powhatan Co., VA Death: 13 Feb 1827, Ashville, St. Clair Co., AL Father: Gabriel LOVING (1725-1790) Mother: Clary BOND (1727-1779) |
Marriage-1 said to be: 1771 |
Wife-1: Mary "Polly" STROOP
Birth: 1757, Pittsylvania Co., VA Death: 1790, St. Clair Co., AL Father: Edmond STROOP It's extremely unlikely that Polly died in Alabama, and I wonder if even Thomas did. |
Marriage-2: |
Wife-2: Rosamond __?__
Other Spouse: m1. Mr. WILKES |
Marriage-3: 12 May 1818 |
Wife-3: Nancy __?__
Birth: bef. 1775 Other Spouse: m1. Mr. McCARTNEY |
Children with Polly STROOP: |
— said to be born in Pittsylvania Co., VA:
1. Edmond LOVING, b. 11 Oct 1773; d. 29 Mar 1831, St. Clair, Lowndes Co., AL 2. James Monroe LOVING, b. 1775; d. 23 May 1825, St. Clair, Lowndes Co., AL — said to be born in SC:
— said to be born in Oglethorpe Co., GA:
Consider all locations tentative and unsupported because, for one thing, there are no LOVINGs in the 1830 census of Alabama. |
Children with Rosamond (__?__) WILKES: |
8. Richard LOVING / LOVIN / LOVONE, b. 1790 or 1791/2,
NC; d. 1868, Newton Co., GA — 1850/60 censuses of Newton Co., GA
9. Elijah LOVING / LAVING, b. 5 Mar 1793, GA; d. 5 Sep 1875, Douglas? Co., GA — 1870 census of Carroll Co., GA |
Children with Nancy (__?__) McCARTNEY: |
none (she was too old to bear children by the time she married Thomas) |
Keywords for search engines: genealogy; USA, Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia |
Sources:
1. Marriage Record: 2. 1790 Census Index/Images (online at Ancestry.com): the entire Georgia census was lost, but the North Carolina census is extant; no Thomas LOVING was found, anywhere. 3. 1800 Census Index/Images (online at Ancestry.com): the entire Georgia census was lost, but the North Carolina census is extant; no Thomas LOVING was found, anywhere. 4. 1810 Census Index/Images (online at Ancestry.com): the entire Georgia census was lost, but the North Carolina census is extant; there was a Thomas LOVING in Caroline Co., VA, and another in Cumberland Co., ME. 5. Alabama Tax Lists Index, 1810-1819 (online at Ancestry.com): there's a James LOVING on the 1818 tax list of Montgomery County and an Abraham LOVING on the 1819 list of Huntsville, Madison County, but no Thomas LOVING. 6. 1820 Census Index/Images (online at Ancestry.com; Image #8 of 11; extracted by Diana Gale Matthiesen):
7. 1830 Census Index/Images (online at Ancestry.com): no LOVINGs, at all, indexed in the entire state of Alabama. 8. 1840 Census Index/Images (online at Ancestry.com): the only LOVING indexed in Alabama is Abraham. 9. 1850 Census Every-Name-Index/Images (online at Ancestry.com): the only LOVINGs indexed in Alabama are Aderliza, Allen Hester, Christopher C., and Noah C. in Bibb County; and Constant, Lucy, Mary, and Reuben in Lauderdale County. 10. LDS. Family Search: Internet Genealogy Service: AF - Ancestral File (online at FamilySearch.org). 11. WorldConnect / Ancestry World Trees (online at RootsWeb.com/Ancestry.com). |
Contact | Home Page |
Table of Contents |
DNA Hub |
Biddle DNA |
Carrico DNA |
Corbin DNA |
Cupp DNA |
Danish DNA |
Ely DNA |
Lyon(s) DNA |
Rasey DNA |
Reason DNA |
Rose DNA |
Straub DNA |
Pedigree Charts |
Census Records |
Every-Name Indices |
Everything I have is online at this web site. I have no further information, so please don't write asking me if I do.
On the other hand, if you feel I've made an error, please don't hesitate to notify me, but in which case, There are over 18,000 pages on this web site, and I simply don't remember every page, much less every person on every page. |
"The Cloud" is double-speak for "dumb terminal
on a main frame." Been there; done that. Never again.
You are giving away not only your privacy, but control of your data, your apps, and your computer to a corporation. Is that really where you want to go? The IT guys on the big iron hated the Personal Computer because it gave users freedom and power; now they've conned you into being back under their control. |
Table of Contents
|
Privacy
Policy ______
|
Every-Name Index
|