In my last blog – Lucas Beginnings – I traced my Lucas family back to 1630 and introduced my direct ancestor James Lucas (1747-?) who presents something of a genealogical mystery. I know he married a Quaker named Mary Delight, but there is no record of his marriage and no census records apart from his birth date. The explanation is that Quakers did not marry in church but often celebrated weddings at their meetings. Although the Quakers kept strict records of their meetings and it is to be hoped that future research may reveal the missing details of his marriage.
It is not known when James became a Quaker, I wonder if he converted to Quakerism in order to win acceptance by his bride and as a result disappeared from the usual town records? He also moved from Leatherhead to Thames Ditton to take advantage of economic opportunity arising from the Royal Palace at Hampton Court and reconstruction of the bridge across the Thames in 1778, so he became separated from the Lucas tribal base in Leatherhead, further obscuring his tracks in the process.
So who were the Quakers? I have fact-checked the following information with Honour Horne Jaruk a practicing Quaker and Facebook friend. Dissenting Christian groups like the Religious Society of Friends, or Quakers as they are better known, emerged following the English Civil War in the late 1640’s.
Their founder George Fox, was dissatisfied by the teachings of the Church of England. He had a revelation which convinced him it was possible to lead a Christian life without the aid of ordained clergy mumbling Latin. He travelled around England and the Netherlands preaching and telling his adherents that they were Christ’s true followers.
In 1650 he was arrested for blasphemy and imprisoned (more than once). According to Fox, the magistrates “were the first that called us Quakers, because I bade them tremble at the word of the Lord”. The name ‘Quaker’ began as a term of ridicule but became widely accepted by the sect, who described themselves as Children of the Light and Friends of the Truth.
Quakerism gained a considerable following in England and Wales, and their numbers increased to a peak of 60,000 by 1680. (1.15% of the population.) However most Protestants viewed the Quakers as blasphemous challengers to social and political order, and official persecution began under the Quaker Act 1662 and the Conventicle Act 1664.
These punitive measures were relaxed by the Declaration of Indulgence (1687–1688) and ended under the Act of Toleration 1689. With the support of Margaret Fell, wife of a prominent judge, Fox developed new ideas of community based on piety, faith, and love. His pioneering restructuring of family and household status brought new roles for Quaker women who were further responsible for the spirituality of the larger community which came together in meetings to regulate marriage and domestic behavior.
In search of economic opportunities and a more tolerant environment a number of Friends immigrated to the American colonies in the early 1680s. While they continued to experience persecution in some areas of New England they established thriving communities where Quakers were the political majority. Rhode Island governors were Quakers for 100 years while Pennsylvania was established in 1682 by the affluent immigrant William Penn as a colony run under Quaker principles.
Penn signed a peace treaty with Tammany, Chief of Chiefs of the Lenni-Lenape nation in Delaware, which was never broken – providing a notable historical exception to most solemn undertakings given to Native Americans.
During the 18th century the English Quakers became more concerned with their existing communities and less active in converting outsiders. Marrying outside the Society was outlawed. Perhaps as a consequence of more restrictive disciplines numbers dwindled, dropping to 19,800 in England and Wales by 1860.
It is uncertain whether James was the first Lucas Quaker, or whether his parents had also been converts; nor if he was the last. His son James Delight was given a Quaker name but may or may not have maintained his faith. It is evident that Quakerism affected our family principles and conduct, for in passing down the name Delight the later members maintained some pride in their former adherence. The religious dissenters of the period played an important role in developing a more enlightened social conscience in Britain, and we shall see that later Lucas generations practiced employment practices which were generous and advanced for their day.
James and Mary Delight were the parents of James Delight Lucas (1770-1803), who married Elizabeth Hughes (1767-1803). They moved to London where he was a ‘victualer’ keeping a tavern and ‘pie-shop’. They had five children: a son James Jonathan Hughes Delight Lucas (1792-1865) who I will call JJHDL, and four daughters: Louisa Ann, Diana Mary, Charlotte Maria, and Susanna.
Tragedy struck when Diana died as a young child and more savagely still in 1803 when James Delight and his wife Elizabeth both died aged 33 and 36 of unknown cause; perhaps the victims one of the frequent epidemics of cholera, tuberculosis and fevers which scourged the unhygienic city. The surviving orphans were left in the care of their grandfather Thomas Hughes. As we shall see in due course, the event was symptomatic of the troubled life of JJHDL.
*****
Three requests! I love hearing from readers so please scroll down and leave me a comment in the box below. Please also register your email to receive notification of new posts. (Either enter your email into the ‘Subscribe’ box in the top right hand corner of this page. Or check the enroll box below the comments section.) And finally, please help me spread the word by recommending Blogetty to your friends. Thanks ever so, Cyril!
This is such an interesting tale, Cyril. I am indeed happy to be included in your mailings.
Katherine Mitchell, Inverness. (Friend of Catherine Lucas)
So glad you enjoyed my post. This website is entirely Catherine’s wonderful work!
Hi Uncle Cyril,
Did you know that Joan’s middle name was Delight? I never knew about the origin that name.
I also enjoyed your Blog about Ancient Turkey. Gobleki Tepe looks amazing! I’ve also been known to watch AA now and then.
(It’s really inexplicable how some of those ancient place could have been constructed without “outside” help.)
xo Susie
Hi Susie. Yes, I knew. Your Mother was very proud of that. It’s a pity AA includes total nonsense like the Moon being a spacecraft because there is so much real mystery in the past. Incidentally the full Moon just past has been wonderfully bright here. It climbs behind my neighbor’s huge Douglas Fir so I can watch its rise through the branches.
I wish that I had thought to talk with her about Delight.
Did you know that my middle name is Constantia?
Yes, there is a lot of interesting stuff on the History channel and they can also go way off the deep end sometimes.
I’m going over to my neighbor’s (whose the AA’s fan) now to watch Oak Island. A modern treasure hunt with all kinds of things like the Knights Templar thrown in…
Did you know Constantia (nee Dickinson 1796/18450) was your great great great grandmother, who married James Mainwaring Brander? He was a Doctor in Scotland before their marriage but he took her to India to join the Indian Army as a surgeon and they founded the Brander Indian dynasty. I have often wondered if she was surprised by her life- change.
I look forward to your blogs Cyril and was interested in this last one as my family lived in Thames Ditton and surrounding areas. X Judith
Good to know you are a regular reader, Judith. You promised me email news ……?
Hello – Excellent reading, thank you. I have not been able to trace any further details on your blog regarding James Jonathan’s daughter Susanna.
I am a volunteer researcher with the Female Convict Research Centre in Tasmania, a not for profit charity, attempting to provide backgrounds to as many of the transported female convicts as possible. I am currently researching a lady using the name Susan/Susanna Wilson who arrived in 1818. She was aged 19 born Marylebone, London, having been convicted at the Old Bailey for currency offences in April 1816. When she married convict Thomas Morley in Hobart in 1821, she used the name Susannah Lucas. The closest match found for a baptism, in April 1799, would make her the daughter of James Delight and Elizabeth Lucas. You mention you have a lot of research for the family. Is it possible that you can confirm that this could not be your Susannah, to enable us to discount her?
Our website is at https://www.femaleconvicts.org.au – registration is free and provides access to our database. My bona fides can be checked by hitting the ‘About Us’ button!
Whilst writing, in this blog you mention that after the death of the parents, James and Elizabeth, the children were placed in the care of grandfather Thomas – in blog 16 you mention they were cared for by Uncle Thomas.
Thank you so much for your blog. It’s a delight!
Regards Eileen Ball
Dear Mr.Lucas O just finished reading your article about the Lucas Quakers etc. I am a Lucas, and, I have some Quakers in my family but not the ones you mentioned. unfortunately, I don’t know, how to find them at the moment, but my Lucas family came from England a few came from Ireland but most immigrated to America and a branch immigrated to Canada. I am from the branch in Canada. i am related to Thomas Lucas Solicitor General of England. I am also related to John, Sir Charles,and Sir Thomas Lucas. who were Roaylist”s. I’m not sure, but I think it was Charles who was executed with 2 other men but was later declared innocent. I wonder if from this description of facts you can tell me if there are any conclusions you can come to regarding your family and mine? By the way your article was quite interesting and that is what made me contact you. Sincerely G. Lucas
General