For many, many years the origin of the Whitlock line that I belong to ended with a "Thomas Whitlock" who had settled in colonial Virginia sometime in the mid-1600s. The origin of this man in England or elsewhere in Europe eluded not only me, but other more knowledgeable researchers. Now, the mystery has been solved and my family's origins in England are known.
For several years I have belonged to the Whitlock Family Association. This association is a repository of the genealogical information about the many lines of Whitlocks in North America, Europe, Africa, and Australia. I'm sure there are also lines in South America and Asia, but I haven't looked at that data. This information is superbly managed by Peter Whitlock. If you care to visit the website, browse on over to http://www.whitlockfamilyassociation.com/. You may also wish to subscribe to a digital or print version of his newsletters, which are chock-full of information and is where I finally found the information that links our line of Whitlocks back to jolly old England.
As mentioned at the beginning of this blog post, I had been looking for the connection of a "Thomas" Whitlock back to Europe across the Atlantic. However, a big question mark had always been associated with his name. His "son," James Whitlock (1650s to 1716), is well-documented in colonial Virginia and it is from his line that our particular branch of the Whitlock family have been able to trace our descent. He had married a woman with the last name of Herne, and it is probable that her first name was Dorothy. No definitive proof of her name has yet been found. During many hours of research I was always looking for a "Thomas" Whitlock, father of James, when I should have been looking for other names and connections. It turns out that "Richard" Whitlock is James' father, and he never emigrated to Virginia. It was his son James that made the trans-Atlantic voyage and settled in Virginia. However, this knowledge opens up the connection of the Whitlock family back to Wokingham, England and a John Whitloke in the fifteenth century.
Wokingham is located in Berkshire County. This was the ancestral home of James, Richard, and their Whitlock ancestors. Berkshire County is located west of London, and Wokingham is about 33 miles west of London. Here are links to the Wikipedia pages about Wokingham and Berkshire. Below is a map of the area from Wikipedia:
The line from James the Immigrant (1650s-1716) back to John Whitloke (1400s-?) is as follows:
7. James WHITLOCK (1650s-1716) married Dorothy? HERNE (??-??)
6. Richard WHITLOCK (1616-1666) married Joane?? (??-??)
5. Richard WHITLOCK (1593?-1642) married 1615 at Katherine BURCHETT (1595-1649)
St. Andrews, Holborn, London
4. John WHITLOCK (1515?-1589) married 1560s Agnes PLANNER (1543?-1630)
3. Richard WHITLOCK (??-1556) married Jane GROVE (??-??)
2. William WHITLOCK (??-1510?) married ?? Cowdrey (??-??)
1. John WHITLOKE (??-??) married in 1454? Agnes de la BECHE (??-1492)
My line going back to James (#7above) is as follows:
18. Harry WHITLOCK II (1961-) married Tammy SMITH (1957-)
17. Burton WHITLOCK (1928-1992) married Shirley JAMES (1929-2011)
16. Harry WHITLOCK (1906-1980) married Glenna SEYMOUR (1906-1991)
15. George WHITLOCK (1868-1917) married Francis JOLLY (1871-1948)
14. Alexander WHITLOCK (1840-1919) married Mary BOWYER (1850-1934)
13. Jonathan Johnson WHITLOCK (1820-1888) married Rebecca WHEELER (1822-1899)
12. John WHITLOCK (1792-1849) married Rebecca McCRARY (bef. 1792-??)
11. Alexander WHITLOCK (1760-1826) married Jennet ?? (1771-1825)
10. Charles WHITLOCK (1739?-1814) married Esther ?? (1742-1811)
9. James WHITLOCK (1710s-bef. 1749) married Agness CHRISTMAS (1720?-bef. 1768)
8. James WHITLOCK (1680s-1736) married Frances JONES?
It is a great feeling to finally make a connection back to England. I had felt for years that a connection would eventually be made, but I never expected it so soon. I want to extend my thanks to those unknown researchers who uncovered this information, and more importantly, were kind enough to share this information. It is troubling to me that there are so many people out there researching their family history who do not share the information they discover. Whether that failure to share is an act of omission or commission, it is selfish of them to think that such information belongs solely to whomever discovers it. Certainly the claim and the glory of discovery is theirs, but the information belongs to all of us.
I hope to post more information about this discovery soon. Other information I have recently found about a new interpretation of what the name "Whitlock" means, as well as the information about the de la Beche family that old John WHITLOKE married into in 1454 bears sharing.
