Glamorgan Lovelucks

email exchange with Ron Davies 13 Sep 2004:

James: I've been checking my database against various sources, and I came across the following event in the Glam. FHS booklet of Pyle & Kenfig BMDs:

Baptism, 26 Jun 1859 Richard, son of Thomas Loveluck & Jennette Powell, abode Maudlam

I assume this is the same Thomas Loveluck bap 11 Oct 1823 who later married Sarah Bowen and had 8 children between 1859 and 1879.

Since the surname of the mother is given, this is probably an illegitimate child, although there is no "!" after the name - the usual discrete way of flagging illegintimate children by the Glam FHS.

I noticed Ron that you have this baptism as a son of Jennet Powell (bap 30 May Margam, dau of 1836 Edward Powell & Mary Shaftesbury Morgan).

It seems that this is yet another Loveluck - Powell link.

It looks as though Jennet had another illegitimate child, because I found this entry in the "baptismal index based on mother's surname"

Mother Child Father Occuptn/ Mother Bapt date Address Surname Forenames For/Surnm Forename

Powell Ann ! Thomas Morgan Railway Lab Jennet 16 Mar 1851 Heol Las (Jenet would have been only 15 years old)

Ron: I no longer have that link in my files, James, because I discovered the following entry in the 1861 census:

4079 1861 CENSUS OF PYLE (PART) & KENFIG PARISH. REF.R.G.9/4079, E.D.14.

Piece: 4079 Folio: 068 Schedule: 115

Address: BLEW STREET 18

POWELL JENNET HD U 38 WASHERWOMAN GLA LALESTON (c1823) POWELL ANN DA - 10 - GLA LALESTON (c1851) POWELL RICHARD SO - 4 - GLA KENFIG (c1857)

This indicates that both the Richard baptised as LOVELUCK and Ann, the previous illegitimate child of Jennet POWELL are living in Blew Street [Blue Street], Kenfig, with their mother, still unmarried; the children both shown as POWELL. Although giving her place of birth as Laleston, my guess is that this Jennet is probably one of the Heol Las POWELL family - descended from Lewis POWELL, carpenter, and Anne MORGAN, who were still living in Blue Street, aged 70 and 85 respectively, in 1841. I have traced this family fairly thoroughly in various attempts to link them with the other three local POWELL lines, all of which are inter-connected, but have so far found no connection with this line.