The above chart proposes a scheme for linking contributed genealogies of the USA Lousadas to the earliest known USA Lousadas (see note 1), and thence to the other Baruch Lousadas. Echoing our linking of the Surinam and Curacao Baruch Lousadas to those of Barbados, London and Amsterdam - we again look back to Portugal and the 1590 and 1658 trials by the Coimbra Inquisition of Amador de Lousada and members of his family. In particular Amador's grandson Henrique had 7 children - 5 boys and 2 girls - and it is in his family that we look to locate Abraham #435 and Jacob #740. Our working hypothesis (for the reasons we give in note 2 below) is that they were the oldest and youngest sons of Henrique.

We know something of the way the first Baruch Lousadas left Iberia. They reached Livorno in 1640, Amsterdam in 1645, Rouen by 1649 and London in 1660 and their international links have been studied - for such international links were essential (see note 5 below). How Abraham #435 and Jacob #740 in the 1690s were able to make their escape to London is unknown (see note 6 below), but in London it is possible that Jacob #740 learnt of Daniel's Boston New England presence from London community leader Moses #46, as Moses did not die until 1699 - after the arrival in London of Abraham #435 and Jacob #740. Thus Moses and Daniel may have had an influence on Jacob #740 being attracted to the 13 colonies. Of course, by 1698 Daniel had probably left Boston, for the Jewish presence there was not permanent, but whether he left descendants is unknown and likewise any direct connection with Jacob #740. Jacob #740 left London for New York after 1707 (see note 13 below).

 In examining the USA data, we found that there were a number of widely-propagated errors and difficulties, particularly concerning Aaron #1226 (see note 4 below). We conclude that the 2 sons of Jacob #740 cannot have accounted for all the local Lousadas (see also note 8 below). The chart above includes members of the Michael and Myers families whose role in linking the Leuzarders and Luzarders with the Midwest Lousadas (see note 7 below) is being explored. The data allows many inferences to be drawn (see notes 3 and 9 below) and these are shown in the chart. We have of course resorted to DNA technology to reduce the uncertainties (see here and also note 10 below).


1. The first USA Lousadas we discovered were Jacob the NY chocolate merchant (on this see ref 329), shown above as Jacob #740 plus his sons Aaron #53 and Moses #54 (see Stern's Lousada chart in ref 324 which we presume draws upon ref 370 which notes both sons as born in London - but though we can point out that the evidence of his mother's London marriage and death supports the idea that Moses #54 was born in London, this does not apply to Aaron who could well have been born before Jacob #740 and Abraham #436 reached London since the earliest date we have for them there is 1698). Then we encountered Daniel of Boston in ref 175 #4 which reveals his partners in a trade deal recorded in Amsterdam and these partners include Jacob and David Baruch Lousada. In the chart we show Daniel was a son of Abraham #2149 and that the partners were Jacob #1388 of London and then d1681 Amsterdam, and David #44 1640-99 of Barbados and Amsterdam, who were sons of Isaac #42 and hence cousins of Daniel. However, Daniel #1420 could have been a brother or half-brother of Moses #46 of London. He, Moses #46 and Jacob #1388 perhaps were recruited as young men for a trading life through family connections in Madrid.

2. Their birthdates were separated by 6 years. Abraham #435 and Jacob #740 died 7 years apart, and were probably of the same generation. We suggest that Abraham and Jacob were brothers, and since marriage to a niece was not prohibited under Jewish law, we think Rachel was Jacob's niece. This is not the only fine point of Jewish marriage law manifested in the simultaneous 9 Nov 1698 marriages at Bevis Marks of Abraham and Jacob (BMR2 #64 & 65 respectively). Abraham had been circumcised and admitted as a member of the London community on 10 Sep 1698 (BMR4 #250). On 9 Nov 1698 Abraham's marriage had the effect of ratifying an earlier non-Jewish marriage, and making Abraham's daughter Rachel a member of the community. Completing a delicate manoeuvre, Jacob was circumcised (BMR4 #253) on the same day as the marriages. A previous non-Jewish marriage was not being ratified in Jacob's case. From the name of his 1st daughter Sarah #2602 we deduce that (see note 3) that Aaron's mother was Sarah not Rachel, that is Rachel was Aaron's stepmother (see note 14 below). See ref 226 for an account of the regulations around circumcision in Amsterdam, London and other places. A 2 month period of grace was allowed for circumcision, and it seems Jacob #740 used this period fully. Abraham's death is ref 98 #642, his wife Sarah's is ref 98 #350 and his daughter Rachel's is ref 98 #300. Some further detail of Abraham #435 and Jacob #740 in London may be found in our account of the London Baruch Lousadas.

3. Though the sons of Moses #54 were at least 4 years younger than Sarah the first daughter of Aaron #53, and David #542 was even younger than his cousin Abigail #1228 who was perhaps born around 1750 when her father died, a cousin-cousin marriage is suggested (by her name and the poverty of her widowed mother) in the latter case. It is possible that Sarah also married a younger cousin Benjamin #2609 though there is no evidence of the identity of Benjamin's spouse or whether Sarah ever married. As Catherine is the name of the maternal grandmother, the daughter in Stern's Louzada chart in ref 324 named Catherine was the 2nd daughter. She became Catherine Loxley (see ref 324) and was born late in the marriage of Aaron and Blume but before David #542 born in 1760. Sarah was born in 1739 and was therefore the first daughter so we can deduce Aaron's mother was named Sarah (making him and Moses #54 half-brothers; see also note 14 below). Blume and Aaron #53 had a son Jacob #2570 1737-44 (he appears in ref 345) and was thus born even earlier than Sarah. (A son named Moses presumably existed at some stage but died early - but no record of him has been found). Blume's very large gestational span shows that she was very young - perhaps around 12 or 13 - when she married Aaron and thus there is no doubt that this marriage was her first. The name Elkaley appears in the name of Esther #2439 and also among the children of Samuel Myers who married Blume's sister Rachel (his 2nd marriage). This suggests that Samuel's mother was named Elkaley and that Esther Elkaley was her grand-daughter. That is, Moses #54 married a Myers (but see note 11 below) for as Moses was quite young when Esther Elkaley was born, she was a step-child (and of course Rachel could not have been born before her when Moses was even younger, as this would have made Rachel implausibly old at marriage in 1751 and perhaps at death in 1790). Rachel was no doubt born in the late 1730s, and thus quite young when she married the impecunious Haim Myers presumably another Myers relative! Of this 1751 marriage, a collector's item has survived! Jacob #2497 who died young in 1738 (see ref 345) may have been a twin of Rachel and thus we suggest her birthdate was 1738. After some years came the birth of Jacob #683 who had 2 marriages, and the second was Christian, but perhaps in his first marriage there was a first son named Moses who was lost young. Jacob #683 had to overcome an attempt by his step-sister Esther to alter his inheritance; this attempt is recorded in ref 324 where the assertion that Jacob #683 'was a lunatic' may be found. However, as pointed out by ref 333, Jacob's later life denied this suggestion. We point out in note 11 below the possibility that the absence of a ketubot covering the marriage of Moses #54 and Hannah may have triggered this struggle over Jacob's inheritance.

4. Thus for example Aaron #1226 who was born in 1731 could not have been the product of the 2nd marriage of Aaron #53, for his long-term Jewish marriage was current in 1740 as shown by the will of the father-in-law Moses Michael of Curacao in ref 326; and Blume Michael was alive when Aaron died in 1764. However it is commonly but erroneously stated that Aaron #1226 is the son of the second marriage of Aaron #53! But even if Aaron #1226 was the product of an unknown earlier marriage of Aaron #53, then he was a boy of less than 10 when Aaron #53 married Blume Michael. Aaron's Jewish marriage would not have prevented him from acknowledging a son but Stern does not include him as a child of Aaron #53 (see Stern's chart in ref 324). We suggest that the only way out of this dilemma is that Aaron #53 must have had some form of indirect but supportive relationship with his mother who is referred online as Sophia Barnes but who may have been a relative of Mary Griffin #1292 (see note 10 below). The chart suggests she was a sister-in-law or servant of Blume Michael the very young wife of Aaron #53, perhaps as a Myers in-law but not as a widow of Michael Michael who died in 1736, the year his sister Blume married Aaron #53 (Michael's will in ref 326 shows no wife or son). It is unlikely that she was a Baruch Lousada descendant (see note 10 below). Aaron #1226 seems to have been raised as a Christian, but possibly a debt to Aaron #53 was acknowledged when Aaron #1226 was named after him. That Aaron #53 was not the father of Aaron #1226 is consistent with Y DNA evidence - see note 10 below. It is of course possible that there was a brother Edward #2054 as shown in the chart (if so presumably from a short 2nd marriage) but Aaron #53 was unlikely to have been the father in this case either since Stern's chart again does not include him.

5. For a time an essential element in the transitions of New Christians from small-town Portugal into the Jewish Atlantic trading theatre was an international link (ref 297). Fernando Montezinos was a prominent merchant with whom the Baruch Lousadas, because of their Madrid 1638 link by marriage to the Rodrigues Pereiras, found themselves linked. But though the (second) wife of Fernando Montezinos was an Almeida (ref 145 p10), we have not established any connection with the Almeida shown above. Montezinos needed help from the Rodrigues Pereiras, by then in Amsterdam, to escape from Spain in 1657. He had business links with the Lamegos of Rouen. The Lamegos became close to the Baruch Lousadas around 1710 in Jamaica. There, Rachel Baruch Lousada #131 married Moses Almeida around 1730. Again, we have established no link with the Almeida shown in the chart.

6. The Baruch Lousadas of the 1640 exodus probably left Madrid, but probably Abraham #435 and Jacob #740 left Portugal another way. The evidence of the Spanish marriage of Jacob #740 as captured in the name of Aaron #53 - see note 14 below - suggests Jacob #740 may have moved from Vinhais to live in Spain for a period before finding a way to escape to London. The packet boats first operated between Falmouth and Corunna during 1694-1701 before they connected Falmouth to Lisbon and Porto (see ref 371 for the impact of the 1701-14 War of the Spanish Succession on the Corunna service - see also ref 193 for an explanation of the significance of the 1703 Methuen treaty in this regard).

7. See ref 332 for a link to some of the available information on the Midwestern Lousadas and their descent from Aaron #1226 (see note 4 above). Our correspondent Karen Harkness has built a large family tree of the Midwest Lousadas on We note ref 363 comprising 1890 correspondence between Benjamin True Leuzarder #2950 and one of the Midwest Lousadas in which it is suggested that the latter descend from Huguenots from Alsace Lorraine; of course while there can be little argument that some Huguenots appeared in Alsace Lorraine, there is nothing to confirm a Lousada presence there. Other possibilities include descent from a female Alsace Lorraine line or hiding Jewishness behind an assumed Alsace Lorraine identity. In any event our own thinking about the origins of Aaron #1226 are considered in note 10 below, and ref 332 includes a link to our summary chart of descendants of Aaron #1226 which arose from these deliberations.

8. The military service in 1777 of the probable half-brothers Aaron and Edward Luzader is cited by ref 325, but neither appears to be a son of Jacob #740 being of the same generation. Aaron is probably Aaron #1226, and Edward is perhaps the father of David #1994. Other material in ref 325 also implies that there were early originators of the USA Baruch Lousadas other than Jacob #740 and his sons, but its account is somewhat unreliable for as will be noted here (go to #325) we have identified at least 3 errors in this reference. Many online sources also imply that there were other early originators but the underlying evidence is rarely if ever cited!

9. There are 7 Lousadas in the '2nd generation' in ref 324, and these we show in the chart as Samuel #2434, Mary #400, Isaac #415, Jacob #416, Rachel #1526, Abigail #1525 and Benjamin #1177. Adherence to Jewish customs was waning in the family with marriages outside the faith. Of the 4 sons, we can place Jacob #416 with high certainty, and then Samuel #2434 and also Isaac #415. The latter 2 sons and Mary #400 were born close together. Benjamin #1177 appears to be in a different category and we suggest he was an illegitimate son of the teenaged Mary, and to facilitate her marriageability was perhaps was sent to the household of Benjamin #2609 in New York for raising (see note 10). Samuel was born in 1772, and there may have been a son Moses before him. Jacob was a ship's captain (see ref 324), and Mary #400 seems likely to have been present with Jacob his wife and 2 brothers (the one less than 10 being Isaac) in a Digby (Nova Scotia) militia muster in 1784 but in 1787 was married in Trinity Church NY to Michael Grant. Abigail (see note 15 below) and Rachel married local NY businessmen and appear to have been daughters of Benjamin #2609. Rachel remained Jewish but was baptized late in life. The Census data of 1790 suggests that Benjamin had 1 son and 3 daughters - but the 'son' was likely to have been Benjamin #1177. In 1790 Jacob and his new wife were perhaps in the house of William Grant for the 1790 NY Census entry shows an extra head of household and a woman (perhaps Jacob and Tryphosey Craigh just before Jacob #416 was born). The Michael Grant entry shows a woman and 2 daughters presumably Mary #400 and 2 children. Once Jacob #683 died in 1791, there seems to have been a further influx of his dependants, and Isaac according to ref 331 gained employment with Rachel's husband. But Samuel #2434 appeared also for his son was baptized in NY in 1799 (see note 12 for details of Samuel's life). Jacob #683 was buried in the NY Jewish cemetery, while Benjamin does not appear in the 1800 Census. The last record of Benjamin #2609 is the NY City Directory, but the labourer of 1794 seems not to fit very well with the 9 years old Benjamin #1177 or the 39 year old Benjamin #2609, but perhaps the former was a fast learner - at any rate one of them was a silversmith in 1796. Benjamin #2609 lived near the Synagogue which is shown in the map at the end of ref 324.

10. Adam Brown advised on 23 Aug 2020 that Bob Leuzarder's Y-DNA does not match male-line Lousada Y-DNA thus providing confirmation of our suggested origin of Benjamin #1177 in note 9 above. However our examination of autosomal DNA connections links the Leuzarders and Luzarders to the Baruch Lousadas and to each other. Thus we have no reason to doubt that Jacob #683 was the father of Mary #400. But as Mary #400 would have been born after the date of the 28 Jan 1770 marriage between Jacob #683 and Mary Griffin #1292, she was around 16 when married to Michael Grant in 1877, and around 14 when Benjamin #1177 was born in 1785 (out-of-wedlock!). Y-DNA shows that a male-line descendant Ernest Lloyd Luzadder of Aaron #1226 has a Y match with Bob Leuzarder - neither being male-line Lousadas. The chart above suggests how this match may have arisen - that is, a son of Aaron #1226 was the biological father of Benjamin #1177. Our 8 by 8 study of Jul 2023 (see here) inclines us to reject the idea of Baruch Lousada ancestry for Ernest Lloyd, a conclusion supported by the matches revealed in note 15 below. Bob advised in July 2023 that (including Ernest Lloyd) he has autosomal matches with 6 descendants of Aaron #1226, none of whom shows Jewish ancestry; this data supports the view that Aaron #1226 himself has an absence of Baruch Lousada ancestry, but how closely this supportive fact approaches statistical significance has not yet been assessed. The identity of Aaron #1226 is of interest to the many USA Lousadas, and the Y DNA evidence certainly helps for it shows Bob Leuzarder is a descendant. With many autosomal DNA matches in mind, it seems that the mother of Aaron #1226 was probably a relative of Mary Griffin #1292, the 1st wife of Jacob #683 -  as shown here.

11. Ref 333 concludes that Hannah spent her early years in Iberia, so she may have been a Myers only by marriage. Ref 333 also suggests that Hannah was born in the late 1690s, making her a few years older than her husband. Hannah and Moses must have married between the birth of the step-child Esther Elkaley (see note 3) in 1722 and the late 1730s when Rachel - their 1st daughter - was born. This suggests the marriage was in the mid 1730s. The dowry arrangements are unknown, but the tussle unleashed when Moses died intestate in 1750 may have something to do with it - for Esther may have felt entitled to her mother's assets in the dowry yet these assets were destined for her much younger half-brother Jacob #683. There is no evidence of a ketubot, and this may have provided some protection for the wife's family's assets in the event of various untoward events.

12. The 1790 NY Census shows Samuel plus 2 in William Grant's house. If this was Samuel #2434 plus wife and child then there was a loss of life because in 1796 he married in Boston. The additional presence of Mary plus 1 in the household probably does not refer to Mary #1292 or Mary #400 even if the 2nd male head of household was Jacob #683 (who was to die soon thereafter in 1791). For Mary #1292 had presumably died, prompting the 2nd marriage of Jacob #683, while Mary #400 was presumably in the household of Michael Grant being his wife! Perhaps Mary was the mother of Tryphosey Craigh with a younger daughter. Data from the 1800 USA Census for Philadelphia shows Samuel, his wife and two young children - but also a male between 10 and 16 and 2 females between 16 and 25. The male could have been Samuel's half-brother Jacob #416 if he was born on 3 or 4 Aug 1790 (for then he would not appear in the 1790 census, but as a 10 year old in the 1800 census), but we have yet to explain the 2 extra females (though the widowed Tryphosey Craigh could have been one of them if she was around 13 when she married Jacob #683 as his 2nd wife; the other perhaps was a much younger sister of Tryphosey). Samuel then returned to Boston where he died in 1802.

13. Jacob's wife Rachel died in London in 1707 (see reference in note 2 above), so Jacob probably left after that date, most likely in 1717 (see ref 370).

14. Rachel was significantly older than Aaron #53 whose mother Sarah could not have been Sarah de Almeida. Clearly Jacob #740 had lost a wife named Sarah soon before arriving in London. A copy of the will of Moses Michael #2601 the father-in-law or Aaron #53 shows Aaron #53 to have been named Aaron Louzada y Zulex. From this we deduce Aaron's mother Sarah #3192 was Sarah Zulex. This bears on how Jacob #740 left Portugal - see note 6 above.

15. Abigail Papacin Louzada #1525 appears in the NY record of her 25 Jan 1794 marriage as Abigail Lazador. In total Bob has found 6 autosomal DNA matches from descendants of that marriage, all with some Jewish ancestry. One of these descendants has a GEDmatch kit number A789340 and, as does Bob, she Q-matches Julian at the Cr21 probable Lousada segment 37-38m - but she does not match Bob here (at the Q-match settings selected). However she Q-matches both Bob and Jeannine who Q-match each other at the Cr2 probable Lousada segment 218-220m (she does not Q-match Julian here though Jeannine and Bob do). Finally, A789340 matches Ed Barrow and Mike Dugdale at the Cr8 probable Lousada segment 52-54m. GEDmatch will not currently (24 Jan 2024) allow Q-match inspection under 3cM though it has in the recent past (as during Julian's 8 by 8 study referred to in note 10 above when smaller segments could be used to validate otherwise uncertain overlapping matches). While it is no surprise that among the many matches of A789340 one can find Ernest Lloyd Luzadder (see note 10 above), none of their matches occur on our diagnostic Lousada segments on Cr2, 8, and 21. Of course, persuasive as this may seem, our diagnostic Lousada segments do not provide conclusive proof, for they are small and require analytic precision not yet generally available as just discussed.