Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 13 of 13
  1. #11
    janieg
    Guest

    Default

    Have just picked up on this as changed e-mail address You are quite right Tidos the first Locke was Henry Locke as I understand and he changed his name from Boswell it all starts from him!

  2. #12
    Settling in
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Thornton, Colorado USA
    Posts
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tidos View Post
    Ive done a bit of family history for a friend about the Locke's what i found out is that they changed there name because the police where after them they are in fact part of the Boswell family they got their name because they where good at picking locks the ones I looked at are from North Wales and are related to the Woods hope that will help
    That is an urban myth that was perputated by Robert Dawson and one other book author whom Robert admittedly copied that
    Lock / Boswell myth from another author.

    The Lock / Boswell myth was born out of the the fact that Matthew Lock's children did in fact use the Boswell surname, some of the Lock's I am told are even buried under the Boswell surname. But the surviving children resorted back to their Lock surname at some point. The Lock surname predates Matthew Lock! How else do you account for the many Lock's of Hampshire and Wales, because they continued using the Lock surname.

    Here is a clue that was shared with me. "Isaiah, son of George and Elizabeth Lock, travellers, bur 15.3.1758 at Lampart,
    NTH" If we presume George Lock to be a Romanichal because that death record lists him as a Traveller, that death record predates Matthew Lock by 1 generation! Matthew Lock is presumed to be born around 1771, so if George Lock is in fact a Romanichal, the 1758 date clearly predates Matthew Lock by 1 or more generations depending on how old Isaiah Lock was when he died! But George Lock isn't the only one being over looked, there are others who many folks are not even considering.

    Then take in to account that my direct Lock ancestor was Richard Lock b. estimated about 1670's England and Y DNA testing very clearly proves Richard Lock and Matthew Lock are directly related.
    2 Boswell men in England have also Y DNA tested, and while both the Boswell men are a fairly close genetic match with the Lock's, they are not as close of a genetic match as one might presume.

    Through the Romany DNA project, we know the following to be true.
    Lock(e), Boswell, Burton, Stanley, Lee, Ingram, Bailey, Campbell, Wilson, Nichols all well known Romanichal family surnames, and all share the same Y chromosome, meaning regardless our surnames today, all those male lineages of many surnames all shared a single paternal forefather with one another, with in the last 2000 years since the time the Romany migrated from Asia to Europe.

    So in a weird way Robert Dawson and one other author were correct, Lock and Boswell are related, but many of the Romanies of England, Scotland, Wales are all directly related to one another. But Dawson was in error in his presumption that Lock is an alias surname of Boswell. What should have been written was the fact that Mattew Lock's children did use the Boswell surname, but that is a singular case and does not apply to the rest of the Lock family.

    The 2 Locke men and the 2 Boswell men who have been Y DNA tested are a close genetic match, but not as close of a genetic match as one would presume if the myth were true that Lock is an alias surname of Boswell.
    DNA proves the Lock's and Boswell's are directly related yet, but is a more distant kinship, likely a kinship prior to the use of surnames in the UK.
    I am a 65/67 genetic match to the Matthew Lock descendant, and my direct forefather was Richard Lock b. estimated 1670's England and was in the American Colonies by 1728, possibly here as early as 1715.

    For all we know my Richard Lock could very well be the grand father or great grand father of Matthew Lock! They were certainly directly related that much can be proven through the genetic evidence.
    Many Romany researchers fail to look beyond Matthew Lock, and that is a mistake I think because they ignore George Lock, Solomon Lock and others who appear to be Romanies of England, and George Lock is a name well used in my direct Lock tree.

    The only Lock lineage known in existence to carry Y Haplo Group H1a which is South Asian in origin, mainly from India and Sri Lanka are the Romanichal Lock lineage of England and the USA.
    I got Robert Dawson himself to admit to me his error, he told me when he wrote Lock is an alias surname of Boswell, that he copied that information from another author and did not check his facts before republishing that myth.
    Dawson and the other author were right that Lock and Boswell are related family's, but what those authors failed to tell their readers was the fact that up to 70% of the Romanichal male population regardless our surnames today, are all directly related!
    All the Romanichal Y Haplo Group H1a male lineages shared a single paternal forefather, we all share the same Y chromosome regardless our surnames today.

    Matthew Lock is not the only Romanichal Lock branch of the tree, his is but one branch of much larger Lock tree.
    Everyone researching the Lock tree must ask yourselves, who is George Lock and son Isaiah?
    George could very well be a brother or cousin to Matthew Lock for all we know.

    I am the Admin of the Lock / Locke DNA project and Romany DNA project, and I am well versed on the genetic and genealogical facts more so today then I was even a few years ago. If a George Lock male Lock descendant could be located and Y DNA tested to compare to, we just might be able to prove George Lock also is a genetic match to the Matthew Lock and Richard Lock lineages. Any Lock / Locke of England, Scotland, Wales, Australia, Canada, USA or where ever they may now live, are found carrying Y Haplo Group H1a with the 425 = 0 marker mutation, we would know in an instant that they are directly related to the Romanichal Lock tree.

    Trust me when I tell you all this, there is far more to the Lock family story then the story being told by the historians and Gypsyologists.
    Many folks are so focused on the Matthew Lock tree that they are ignoring many other clues. DNA does not lie and even knowing the genetic evidence that us Lock's have proven, the historians and Gypsyologists are still ignoring the facts of this case.
    We now have 8 Locke men Y DNA tested, 7 from the Richard Lock tree and 1 from the Matthew Lock tree and we are all a genetic match to one another. Many people are ignoring the fact that Richard Lock is easily 2 or 3 generations older then Matthew Lock and that fact alone proves the Lock surname was being used several generations prior to Matthew Lock's birth.

    Donald Locke

  3. #13
    janieg
    Guest

    Default

    Really interesting to hear that Donald I have sent away my DNA sample and will soon have the results should be interesting my grandmother was a Locke

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Select a file: