1. Most experts agree that the oft-stated origin of the Lockwood brothers (Edmund and Robert) in Combs, Suffolk, England seems to be based on nothing more than finding the right names at about the right time. Further research is needed before this origin can be accepted. With this in mind, the connection with this set of parents and their ancestors as well as the siblings are based on the unproven Ancestral File.
2. Per book "New England Families, Genealogical and Memorial", comp. William Richard Cutter, Reprinted for Clearfield Co. by Genealogical Publishing Co., Baltimore, Maryland, 1994, p.35: "The name of Lockwood is of ancient origin, and dates back over 800 years, when it is mentioned in Domesday Book. During the reign of Edward III, 1327-77, a John Lockwood was attached to the royal party, fought at Naseby, and was wounded there. There were families of the name in county Essex and county Northampton as early as 1530. At that date Rev. Richard Lockwood, rector of Dingley, in Northamptonshire, had a coat-of-arms granted to him, as follows: Argent, a fesse between three martletts sable."
3. FHL Book 929.273 L814a or FHL film 1321248, item 6, Some Descendants of Edmund Lockwood (1594-1635) of Cambridge, Massachusetts and his son Edmund Lockwood (c. 1625-1693) of Stamford Connecticut, buy Harriet Woodbury Hodge, C.G., 1978:
FOREWORD. EDMUND LOCKWOOD, THE FORGOTTEN ANCESTOR.
In 1630 two Lockwood brothers, Mr. Edmund, aged 36 and Sergeant Robert, aged 36, came to New England with the Winthrop Fleet. Both men were sons of Edmund and Ales (Cowper) Lockwood of Combs, co. Suffolk, England. (See Phi more and Blagg, ˜Suffolk County Registers, Marriages,1:123 and Banks, 'Winthrop Fleet of 1630, pp. 79,80. Both brothers have many American descendants living today, those of Robert far more numerous than those of his brother, Edmund. Unfortunately, few of the Edmund Lockwood family acknowledge him as one of their forefathers, believing erroneously that they are descendants of Robert. The "Edmund Lockwood Family Society" is today an exclusive group with a mere handful of members. How has this situation come about?
James Savage, who published his ˜Genealogical Dictionary of the First Settlers of New England in 1860-2, recognized that Edmund Lockwood had progeny into the third generation. But in 1889, two unbelievably inept compilers, Frederic A. Holden and E. Dunbar Lockwood, threw together a thick tome entitled ˜Descendants of Robert Lockwood, History of the Lockwood Family in America. This book, replete with multiple errors, assumes, as its title suggests, that all early American Lockwoods were descendants of Sgt. Robert Lockwood. His brother, Edmund Lockwood, is consigned to an appendix, which omits any mention of the records of Edmund's surviving son, Edmund Lockwood of Stamford, Connecticut.. Then, confronted with the six surviving children of Edmund Lockwood, the compilers divide them up and add them to the families of two sons of Robert Lockwood: Ephraim of Norwalk and Jonathan of Greenwich. The original errors are compounded in the Lockwood genealogy, tangling inextricably the lines of both Edmund and Robert Lockwood.
In 1930 Donald Lines Jacobus, who called the Holden and Lockwood compilation ˜a genealogical atrocity (˜The American Genealogist), corrected the Connecticut Lockwood families through the first two generations in the ˜History and Genealogy of the Families of Old Fairfield. Unfortunately, this work has only recently become widely available through a reprinted edition, is as yet unknown to many Lockwood researchers and does not ˜come down far enough on Stamford, Norwalk and Greenwich lines to help identify later Lockwoods. Jacobus cautioned, that no one should accept the 1889 Lockwood genealogy without extensive verification.
Jacobus, using carefully studied probate records, showed that no Connecticut Lockwood of suitable age could have been father of Abraham Lockwood (c1670-1747) of Rhode Island (Austin, Genealogical Dictionary of Rhode Island, p. 125) or of Richard Lockwood (1678-1757) of Delaware. The old Lockwood genealogy simply inserts Abraham and Richard into Connecticut families to which they clearly do not belong! The Delaware and Rhode Island L ockwoods are separate lines and must look elsewhere for their ancestry.
Additionally, two English Lockwood pedigrees are shown on preface pages xxiv and xxv of the Holden and Lockwood 1889 genealogy. Caveat! No connection to any American Lockwood has been proved or can be inferred.
The present compilation is limited in scope and does not attempt to correct more than a few of the errors in ˜The Descendants of Robert Lockwood. We have focused on retrieving the descendants of Edmund Lockwood, reworking the lineages. We have carried out all the male lines and a few females' families through five generations, insofar as they can be determined. Some have eluded us and we hope other researchers may provide us with the careers of more fifth generation descendants of Edmund Lockwood, from original material. We have included here a few sixth generation families, whose records have not been published heretofore. This book contains much new material, principally from original deeds.
Harriet W. Hodge, C. G.
Donald Lines Jacobus, ˜History and Genealogy of the Families of Old Fairfield, vol. 1, pp. 380-85, 715-16; vol. 2, p. 1075. (N.B. In this work, Fairfield, CT Lockwood families are carried on, but not those of Stamford, Norwalk and Greenwich.)
Donald Lines Jacobus, ˜An Atrocious Lockwood Blunder,˜The American Genealogist, 31:222-28.
Charles Henry Pope, ˜The Pioneers of Massachusetts, Daniel, and Sarah. There is not one bit of evidence to even make such an assumption. These names are all children of Edmund the III, grandson of this Edmund, as proven by the estate of Edmund III. See his notes for documentation.
SEALING TO PARENTS:
SEALING TO SPOUSE: