By a great-great-grand-daughter of Isaac the first Lousada Duke - from the Molyneux-Seel Collection at the Lancashire Record Office (ref 34)


These notes offer a remarkable and moving insight into this branch of the family. We have tentatively identified the author as a daughter of Vera Margaret Sandars nee Molyneux-Seel 1903-95 who was born 5 years after Anna-Marie Lousada 1826-98 died (not the 3 years in the 2nd sentence below). We give an account of her family history in ref 230. Our work has shown that quite a few errors have crept into traditional family accounts - and some are evident here; for instance, in the the first line it can be seen that the author's mother thought the Lousadas were Spanish (they were more Portuguese than they were Spanish) and she includes an oft-repeated error in which one of the 3 Aarons who were grandsons of the Barbados magnate Aaron Baruch Louzada and who all died in 1768 is confused with Isaac's great-grandfather Emanuel #41 (who was born in 1682 and was father of one of the 3 Aarons) and to whom is thus given the wrong name and to his wife Esther Lamego the wrong life history! She also gets the date of death of the original Barbados Aaron wrong - it was 1695 while the date she gives ie 1693 is the date of his will. The author completely misses the Amsterdam, Curacao, Surinam and Livorno dimensions of the Lousada story and thus fails to understand why the family dispersed as it did in the wake of the loss of Dutch Brazil, and the central role of Moses' 'brother' David of Barbados and Amsterdam (who was the step-father of the Barbados Jacob referred to in the text below and a step-brother of the London Moses since a younger full brother Moses of David appears in the records). Though she avoids making the error made in some of our family trees which have Moses Baruh Lousada as the family head, when she asserts that Moses came from Lousada in Portugal she makes a further error in that the Lousadas were in Vinhais and Villaflor after they were in Lousada; that is, Moses could not have come from Lousada but was born somewhere after the family's period in those latter 2 towns in northern Portugal and perhaps he was born in Madrid. Though she correctly accepts Barbados as the origin of most of the Jamaican and English Lousadas, she fails to realize that there were indeed ancestors in Jamaica before 1655 but they were the Lamegos or rather their Curiel in-laws. The author states that Isaac's father Emanuel died in 1807 when Isaac was 14, but the death was in 1797. The author fails to realise not only that Isaac 1784-1857 was born just after the Duque de Losada 1706-83 died, but that a slightly older 2nd cousin Emanuel #142 was born in late 1783 only 2 months after the Duque died, and hence the author fails to note this raises a question of precedence; though her sceptical attitude to the validity of the Dukes' title means that such considerations were for her beside the point! She fails to comment on the fact that the title of the English Dukes (de Losada y Lousada) differs from that of the original Duque (de Losada). She misses the family difficulty that must have arisen when Isaac's father Emanuel #135 sired the second Aaron who was born a mulatto in the year before Isaac's birth and who was adopted out to Grace Lopes Torres a childless cousin of Emanuel #135, though she does advise us of the measures taken in Emanuel's will to protect Aaron. And Baron d'Aguilar did not finance the building of Schonbrunn Palace in Vienna - it was pre-existing but he did finance renovation of its interior. But we agree that Isaac the 1st Duke was the last surviving son of Emanuel #135 as we have evidence for the earlier deaths of the 2 Aarons (1777 and 1808 in Kingston), Jacob (1800 in Kingston) and Daniel (1825 in London) and on many other matters we have no quarrel with the author. She notes that Isaac's title was dubious because his Barbados origin precluded close family relationship with the Duque, and reports that as we have established the title was Italian not Spanish. The notes do record the 2nd Duke's insistence that the title was family property but in a way that suggests this view was expressed to deter his siblings from abandoning the title! She notes that Isaac and his family converted to Christianity by 1831 and so grew apart from relatives who had not converted - and she suggests Isaac felt that a title would help him and his family achieve social acceptance.