The remarkable set of 5 Lamego/Lousada marriages 1700-50 - what does this tell us?
Perhaps there is an underlying reason (eg as discussed in notes 5 and 10 below) for the remarkable cluster of Lamego/Lousada marriages shown in the chart. For the moment we note that the first pair of marriages around 1705 in Jamaica (there is a minor qualification to this in note 3 below) was associated with the Lousadas establishing a firm foothold in Jamaica from Barbados around 1705, and that the last pair of Lamego/Lousada marriages enabled offspring of these Jamaican Lousadas to make a successful transition to England in the 1736-43 period (see note 12 below). The chart above also shows an intermediate Lamego/Lousada marriage around 1720 (see note 14 below). The key ancestor from these perspectives is Aaron Lamego (see note 6 below), and Edgar Samuel advised us that it is likely that both Aaron Lamego and the Bordeaux Lamegos (ref 114) derive from the Rouen Lamegos. In the Southwest of France the position of the Sephardic Jews was relatively secure (but see note 11 below) and the rise of Bordeaux as a trading port was partly due to their presence and their trade with the Caribbean (ref 198).
There was a prominent French presence in the Caribbean in the 1600s (see ref 129 and ref 21) and Jews were present in Guadeloupe, Martinique and Cayenne/Remire. Many of the Jews were from Dutch Brazil but in the case of Cayenne some were from Livorno. But their presence did not last long. In Cayenne the Jews departed either displaced across the border into Surinam upon the French attack of 1664 or taken to Surinam or Barbados by the English in 1667, and they left Martinique and Guadeloupe in the 1683-85 expulsions from French colonies. But Saint-Domingue (now Haiti) then unofficially absorbed Jewish settlers and by 1713 it had developed a vigorous trade with Jamaica and Curacao (ref 197) and by 1764 when French authorities eventually took notice there were 50 Jewish families not the expected 3 (ref 197). One can imagine that Aaron Lamego left France for a French colony (most likely Guadeloupe or Martinique). Perhaps the 1683-5 expulsions took him to nearby Barbados (certainly it would have been after 1680 - see note 17 below) where he had a Curiel relative (see note 1 below). But an alternative path to Jamaica may have been via Saint-Domingue at the time when its trading link with Jamaica was being forged. Aaron's son Isaac was born in 1685 (see note 9 below). Aaron was probably a grandson of Antonio Rodrigues Lamego though we have no indications as to his father except that his Jewish name may have been Isaac - for it seems likely that Isaac was first-born (given that Aaron died around 1747 and must have been quite young when Isaac was born in 1685).
We cannot yet conclusively link the early Lamegos with those in the above chart, but without much doubt the wealth they generated was that which enabled their participation in the d'Olivares refinancing (see notes 2, 7, 8 and 13 below). The Rodrigues Lamegos of Rouen drew upon this capital and history, for they (as shown in ref 120 table 25) operated an Atlantic trading business from Rouen for several generations (see also notes 1 and 11). The marriage in Portugal of Antonio Rodrigues Lamego to Beatriz Henriques aka Sarah Curiel (see note 4 below) brought many Curiel/Acosta connections (see notes 1 and 5 below) and yielded 3 sons (ref 115) but ref 142 shows one more. In any event it seems likely that the Curiel/Acostas were the ancestors that it is claimed the Lousadas had in Jamaica many generations before the English acquired it from Spain in 1655.
1. From ref 30 it appears that in the 1620s whilst the Lamego representatives in Cartegena and Veracruz were linked to the family, the Jamaican representative was not - unlike the others his relationship was not stated. The Cartegena representative was Antonio de Acosta a brother-in-law of Antonio Rodrigues Lamego clearly a brother of Sarah Curiel. She had other close relatives with this surname which was variously spelt as da Costa, d'Acosta or de Acosta eg in ref 142 one appears as Duarte Nunez de Acosta of Hamburg aka Jacob Curiel. The eminent Moses Curiel, also known as Jeronimo Nunes da Costa, merchant and diplomat extraordinaire, was the son of Jacob. Antonio de Acosta does not appear in ref 142 - perhaps because his name was prudently withheld from the Inquisitional hearing which shed light on the other family members. In ref 14 can be found reference to a 'converted Jew d'Acosta (who) was superintendent of the commissary of the English troops and was one of the chief negotiators of the Spanish surrender. (He may have known Spanish).' This Acosta may have been a son of Antonio and thus perhaps also a nephew of Sarah Curiel. Also, ref 5 p9 teaches us that a David de Acosta who had arrived from Spain had an important plantation in the centre of Barbados by 1680, while ref 142 indicates that Sarah Curiel had a nephew David aka George de Acosta and it seems likely that he was the Barbados David de Acosta. He however died around 1685 the year his will was written and in this will (see ref 5) there is no indication of contact with Lamego relatives.
2. Luis de Oliveira Lisboa was an uncle of Bartolome Febos (ref 23) but it is not clear whether this relationship arose though the Lamego, Curiel or Febos families. We show above the first possibility without any certainty and our chart of the early Lamegos explores his link with the Rodrigues Lamegos. Then in ref 142 we find Antonio Luis Morais shown as the son of Luis de Oliveira de Lisboa. Perhaps Antonio Luis Morais was Antonio Rodrigues de Morais, the Rouen merchant who was a partner of Duarte Rodrigues Lamego. The 1697 Oliveira/Morais London marriage was between cousins (ref 11) and thus it seems that Antonio Rodrigues de Morais became Abraham Isaiah de Morais.
3. The marriage of Jacob #380 to Abigail Lamego the elder seems to have been the second for Jacob as he seems to have first married in Barbados and perhaps his first wife Leah was an earlier daughter of Aaron Lamego.
4. Antonio Rodrigues Lamego and his (second or later) wife Beatriz Henriques aka Sarah Curiel came to Rouen from Portugal in 1618 (ref 150).Through the work of Edgar Samuel we can see that Sarah Curiel descends from the last Visigothic kings of Leon and Asturias (see ref 35 Table 6 and preceding material) and is related to the entire Portuguese ruling family!
5. The Lamego/Curiel influence on the Baruh Lousadas may have gone well beyond the 5 marriages we show above. For the Barbados wife of Aaron Baruh Lousada was Rachel Gomez Henriques and she seems to have been French (she spelt her brother's name Isaque) and her surnames (admittedly very common Portuguese names) are present in the early Lamego names and thus point to a link with the Lamegos of Rouen. The 2nd Amsterdam marriage of David Baruch Louzada #44 to Rachel Levi Gomes in 1677 may also point to an early Lamego influence; for before Fernando (Levi) Montezinos left Madrid around 1656 he was a representative of the Rouen Lamegos. His marriage connections could have generated the Levi Gomes name, for Rachel Levi Gomes was born in Madrid in 1652, and in 1623 Fernando Levi Montezinos married Catalina Rodrigues Gomez though she died soon thereafter, but the Gomez name was as already noted present among the early Lamegos. Finally, the 1st Amsterdam marriage in 1673 of David #44 to Esther Rodrigues da Costa who was born in Paris around 1649 even more strongly points to a Lamego influence - for her name suggests that she was a granddaughter of Antonio Rodrigues Lamego and Sarah Curiel - and the Curiels frequently used the da Costa/d'Acosta name. Perhaps the Baruch Lousadas left Livorno via Rouen (Moses Baruch Lousada or more probably his older namesake Moses Baruh Lousada #1419 appears to have travelled to London via France). The early death of Aaron Baruch Lousada of Barbados in 1695 left the oldest of his children aged 15, and no doubt in line with economic trends it was realised that the future for most of them was in Jamaica, and perhaps following Aaron Lamego (see note 6 below) 4 out of 6 of them indeed went there including the 2 brothers Emanuel #41 and Jacob #380 shown in the chart. Finally the main London business associate of Moses Baruch Lousada was Jacob Gomes Serra whose surnames suggest a Lamego connection, for Serra was a name used by the Montezinos family (see ref 153).
6. Aaron Lamego of Jamaica is shown in the chart to have had a close relative in Barbados in 1680 - his (probable) grandmother's nephew David aka George de Acosta - a first cousin once removed. Perhaps he also had a similar cousin in Jamaica as also indicated above. From a family of French crypto-Jews in Rouen and then Bordeaux for 2 generations, it seems likely that he first went to French territory (Guadeloupe or Martinique). The French colonial expulsion of Jews of 1683 and 1685 perhaps forced his departure to nearby Barbados where he could have stayed for 2 decades and become used to the English world - no doubt maintaining trading links with Amsterdam. In Barbados he would no doubt have linked with the Baruch Lousadas there and it might be that the Barbados first wife of Jacob #380 ie Leah (not shown above) was a daughter. He probably joined the exodus to Jamaica a little before his Barbados future sons-in-law did around 1705. Probably his stay in Jamaica was only a decade or so for he appears as a Bank of England stockholder in 1714-39 (ref 127) and in Bevis Marks (ref 6) in 1716. His son Moses appears in Bevis Marks in 1731 (ref 6), his son Isaac in 1744 (ref 6), and his grandson Jacob Lousada (a grand-nephew of Moses Baruh Lousada) in 1748 (ref 6) having married there in 1743. Regrettably, Aaron Lamego had an involvement in 1708 with the slave trade (ref 44 p97 - this reference does not tell us where Aaron Lamego was in 1708 though the title of the source - American Jewish Archives Korn Papers Box 31 Folder 6 'Notes on Jamaica slave traders from Kingston Journal and Royal Gazette' - seems to confirm it was Jamaica) though on a scale dwarfed by that of his ancestor Manuel Rodrigues Lamego a century earlier who for 7 years held the official Spanish slave contract.
7. Ref 23 p108 informs us of the banking and tax farming role of Diogo Rodrigues da Costa whose name suggests early Lamego and Curiel links. Perhaps he was a grandson of Diogo Rodrigues and Guiomar da Costa (see ref 35 p52) with a complication that the older Diogo migrated to Lyons in 1574.
8. Bartoleme Febos was a product of an earlier marriage - to Joana Febos (ref 30) - and came to Rouen aged 12 (ref 150). He became his father's Madrid representative, and provided specialist bill and credit support to many banking asentistas. His trial in Madrid in 1634 has become well-known for giving insights into the impact that the Inquisition had on commercial and other life in Madrid (ref 37 p45). An investigator was sent to Rouen to clear the Fonseca family, but while there he discovered much about the Lamegos who had become less secretive about their Jewishness, whilst the Fonsecas appeared to be faultless Catholics. The investigator's report led to a number of Portuguese merchants in Madrid being compromised including Febos, whose high-profile celebrity friend Fernando (later) Isaac Cardoso testified for him (ref 41). Cardoso by doing so could have endangered himself but seems not to have, whilst Febos was fortunate that whilst tried and convicted, this was apparently without serious consequences as he was active in Atlantic trade in 1644 (ref 30). An uncle of Bartoleme Febos ie Luis de Oliveira Lisboa, was also a bill specialist, and a grandson of Luis (ie Abraham de Jacob de Oliveira whose uncle was Polycarp de Oliveira who arrived in London before him) appeared in London in 1685, married his cousin Rebecca de Abraham Isaiah de Morais in London (ref 11) on 15 Heshvan 5458 ie 30 Oct 1697, and was a member of Bevis Marks with Moses Baruh Lousada (see ref 6 p422 where they both appear as signatories to the 1677 Code of Ascamot). The above chart shows a plausible link between the de Oliveira and the Morais families (ref 142), whilst a link between the Rodrigues Lamego family and the Morais family is also shown.
9. The birthdate of Isaac Lamego appears erroneously as 1710 in Bevis Marks Records Part 6 Appendix C. This error arose because his age at death was not 57 (the figure from which 1710 was calculated from the 1767 death date) but probably 82 (which gives the 1685 birthdate shown in ref 91). It would have taken 2 transcription errors for 82 to be read as 57 ie 8 as 5 and 2 as 7 (both of course quite plausible). On 22 Oct 2013 by email Edgar Samuel reported that he had found from inspection of an image of the grave in Bevis Marks Archives that age at death was 80 plus thereby confirming the first of the transcription errors. The gravestone was lost when the burial remains were relocated to Brentwood, Essex and Edgar Samuel suggested it may have suffered damage from chemical pollution in the time between its initial observation (leading to the date in ref 91 p38) and the observation made just before the relocation (leading to the data in Bevis Marks Records Part 6 Appendix C).
10. Lamego in the Duoro River valley is close to the Lousada towns and villages of northern Portugal. The 2 families seem to have a similar palette of forenames.
11. The family was in Rouen in the 1650s - Antonio Rodrigues Lamego was in Rouen in 1632 (ref 41) and 1633 (ref 51), and in 1655 the family was represented by his sons Jeronimo and Raphael Rodrigues Lamego (ref 37). But from ref 123 pp255-6 it seems that Royal pressure made Rouen less favoured as a home for crypto-Jews compared to Bordeaux. Louis XIV and his Chief Minister Colbert had planned to expel Jews and while in 1683 their attention was focussed on the Southwest this did not lead to decisive expulsion there.
12. Once in England, the Lousadas, with the Lamegos, formed multiple marriage links with the Lopes Pereira and Mocatta families and re-established their position at the heart of Anglo-Jewry first taken by Jacob's grand-uncle Moses Baruh Lousada.
13. Antonio Mendes Lamego participated in the d'Olivares refinancing (ref 23) with the bill specialists Bartolome Febos and his uncle Luis de Oliveira Lisboa (see note 8) but their relationship is unknown. (A Diogo Rodrigues da Costa who may or may not have been related - see note 7 - also participated). In Madrid their representative, until about 1656 when trouble with the Cuenca Inquisition arose and he left for Antwerp, was Fernando de Montezinos a man linked to the Baruch Lousadas. Antonio's brother (ref 30) Manuel Rodrigues Lamego of Rouen had paid a very large sum for the contract to supply slaves to the Spanish colonies in 1623-30 (ref 116). Duarte Rodrigues Lamego became a powerful merchant of Rouen and substantial creditor (with Antonio Rodrigues de Morais) of Michael de Spinoza, the father of the excommunicated philosopher Baruch Spinoza (ref 90). These two Rouen merchants were themselves in debt to Antonio Fernandez Carvajal of London and were his factors in Rouen around 1655 (ref 37). Duarte Rodrigues Lamego, like his more eminent cousin Jeronimo Nunes da Costa (see note 1 below), provided intelligence to the Portuguese government.
14. There are many references in the literature to a marriage between Isaac Lamego and Rachel Baruh Lousada eg http://www.dutchjewry.org/genealogy/duparc/10351.shtml while the old Lousada family tree even suggests she was the daughter of Emanuel #41 (in chart above) but it can readily be shown that neither she nor the daughter named Rachel of Jacob #380 (also in chart above) can have been her. It seems that Rachel was a daughter of David Baruh Lousada #612 - oldest brother of Jacob #380 and Emanuel #41 for the alternative possibility is unlikely (see note 16). From the will of Rachel Gomez Henriques we see that David had a daughter Rebecca (Ribca) but this is likely to have been a mistranscription of Rachel in the original Portuguese script for Rachel is what David's first-born daughter would have been called - certainly there is no evidence of the Barbados death of Rachel if Rebecca really was the correct transcription. Barbados will transcriptions are somewhat unreliable (ref 192), and in any case this is not our first encounter with this particular transcription error (see note 15 below). From his father's will David #612 was to go to London, but if so was back in Barbados in 1703 when he signed his mother's will, and was buried in Barbados in 1741. Before his death he signed a deed in 1738 in which his Surinam assets are placed in the hands of the 'church wardens' (see ref 112). In 1705 a deed was prepared for him and Rebecca Lopes Mirandella (ref 194) whose surname can be found in Surinam in 1695. 'Ribca' was a young child in Barbados in 1703, so it seems Isaac Lamego came to Barbados to marry her (the marriage does not appear in Bevis Marks Records 2 whilst early Barbados marriage records have been lost - in ref 132 the first entry is for 1778). The marriage of Isaac and Rachel must have been before the birth of Abigail #37 on 12 Nov 1723 and probably before the birth of Haim in 1722. Rachel could hardly have been Isaac's first wife, for his daughter Sarah was born in 1715. Thus the marriage was probably in 1721 when Rachel was not much older than 18. The marriage of Isaac's sisters Esther and Abigail to Emanuel #41 and Jacob #380 respectively could have been amongst cousins if Rachel Gomez Henriques, as seems possible in the light of note 5 above, was a close relative of Aaron Lamego - perhaps a sister. In this latter event Isaac Lamego would have been a cousin once-removed of his wife Rachel, rather like his brother Moses who was uncle to his own wife Esther when he married his sister Abigail's first daughter (see lower right of the above chart).
15. The transcription we have of the will of Emanuel #135 (in English not Portuguese) showed 2 daughters of his brother Daniel named Rebecca, but inspection of the will itself showed that one of them was Rachel.
16. We doubt that Rachel was the 1st daughter of Solomon #712 (the brother of Jacob #380, Emanuel #41 and David #612), for there is no evidence that Solomon had a daughter along with his 3 sons Aaron, Jeremiah and David.
17. Ref 5 which was based on a 1680 census does not show him.