Mitochondrial DNA: How Do I Know if I’m a Candidate to Receive a New Haplogroup?

New haplogroups, which are phylogenetic tree branches, are formed with periodic updates to the Mitotree. In the November 2025 Mitotree release, 12,773 new branches were formed, and an amazing 67,000+ people received a new haplogroup. Haplogroups are relevant for both genealogy and more distant information about your direct matrilineal ancestor and their origins.

Are You a Candidate to Receive a New Haplogroup?

Lots of people have asked how one might know if they are a candidate to receive a new haplogroup, or tree branch, or why they didn’t, so let’s talk about the three ways your haplogroup could potentially change.

To follow along, if you have taken the full sequence mitochondrial DNA test, sign in to your FamilyTreeDNA account and click on Discover on the mtDNA Results and Tools page.

After clicking on Discover, you’ll see the mtDNA Discover sidebar menu on the left. Click on Scientific Details

You Have Private Variants

The first reason you might be a candidate to receive a new haplogroup is that you have private variants. Private variants are mutations that have not already been used to form a haplogroup, hence, they are still private to you.

To see if you have private variants, click on Scientific Details on the sidebar, then on the Variants Tab.

Click any image to enlarge

You’ll see a list of haplogroups under the Placement column header. Your assigned haplogroup is noted by the red square, J1c2f in this instance.

At the top is an “F” number, which is your Haplotype. Haplotype numbers are randomly assigned, and everyone with exactly the same mitochondrial sequence will have the same haplotype number.

You can see your haplogroup and haplotype matches on your match list. If you match both, both blue circles will be checked.

In this example, you can see that beside the haplotype number, which I’ve blurred, in the Name column, it says “No private variants.” This means that all of this person’s mutations have been used to assign them to haplogroup J1c2f and the haplogroups upstream of J1c2f.

This tester cannot match anyone any more closely than the exact same haplogroup, J1c2f, and the exact same Haplotype number, which means they match exactly and have no private variants. This means there’s no material available to form a new haplogroup.

I’ve written about mitochondrial haplogroups, haplotypes and haplotype clusters, in two articles.

Let’s look at an example of someone who does have Private Variants.

This tester, who is a member of haplogroup C4c1h has one private variant, T13879g. When another tester in haplogroup C3c1h also has this variant, or mutation, they are candidates to form a new branch in the next Mitotree release.

Keep in mind that not every private variant will become a haplogroup, based on several scientific factors.

So, while our haplogroup J1c2f tester is NOT a candidate to form a new haplogroup branch due to no private variants, our C4c1h person with one high-quality private variant is.

However, private variants are only one way in which a new haplogroup might form. There are others.

The Tree Splits Upstream

Sometimes the tree splits upstream.

Looking further upstream, or back in time from haplogroup J1c2f, we see that two of the foundation haplogroups that formed J1c2f are defined by more than one mutation.

Haplogroup J1 was formed using both C462T and G3010A, bracketed in red.

Haplogroup J was formed using seven different mutations, beginning with C295T and continuing to the bottom of the screen capture, bracketed in purple.

As more people test, eventually a new tester may have C462T, but NOT G3010A, AND their downstream mutations are different too. In other words, we’re not looking at a reversal for 3010, but at a completely different haplogroup with a split at C462T as its defining mutation.

In this case, the new branch would receive the new haplogroup name, and the existing branch would remain the same. But what if this scenario happened far up the tree and changed our understanding of this portion of the tree?

In that case it’s still very unlikely that your haplogroup would change, based on existing naming structures. FamilyTreeDNA makes every effort to NOT rename existing haplogroups when these types of branching situations occur.

The Branch is Renamed

Sometimes the existing tree structure is clarified, prompting branch renaming.

Let’s look at an earlier structure of this portion of haplogroup J1c2f.

In the earlier version of the Mitotree, shown above, you can see that two mutations define haplogroup J1c2, two mutations define J1c, and there’s a haplogroup called J1c’g that is constructed using a reversal at location 152.

In the November 2025 release of the Mitotree, this exact same portion of the tree looks different. The tester is still haplogroup J1c2f, but the upstream structure has changed.

  • J1c2 is now defined by only one mutation, A188G.
  • A new haplogroup has been formed: J1c2+16519. Notice the Weight column at far right. This mutation’s confidence weighting is very low, so this haplogroup is a good candidate for refinement in future trees.

Now look at J1c where we see the same thing occurring.

  • J1c is now comprised of just T14798C.
  • A new haplogroup, J1c+185 has formed. It has a weight of 17, still in the red zone, but more confident than J1c2+16519.

Looking further down the original placement table, we see J1c’g, which is a collapsed haplogroup based on a double reversal at C152T!!. It’s gone in the most current version of the tree. You can see that haplogroup J1c’g only had a weight of 1, so it was a good candidate to be refined, eliminated, or assigned elsewhere in the tree.

None of these changes affect haplogroup J1c2f itself, meaning the tester’s assigned haplogroup. Unless they actually look at their haplogroup mutations, they won’t see any difference. This person was and still is assigned to J1c2f.

However, if someone was assigned to J1 or J1c2 before, they might have a new haplogroup name. If they were assigned to J1c’g, they definitely have a new haplogroup name.

These scenarios are repeated throughout the tree, and may be exactly why you receive a new haplogroup, even without having any private variants.

Older Versus Newer

Haplogroups that form as a result of your private variants tend to be newer, or closer in time, but not always. You never know when just the right person will test to split an upstream branch!

Regardless, all new haplogroups help refine the tree, and all refinements are important. Branches that form in more recent generations are often the most useful for genealogy.

However, that’s not always the case. “Newer” versus “older” is sometimes relative (pardon the pun.) Let’s say that you are trying to figure out which of two sisters, or cousins, born in the 1600s, you descend from.

You may desperately need an “older” haplogroup that will divide the branches of the ancestral tree.

Or maybe you want to know whether your ancestor came from Scotland or Germany, so you may need an older haplogroup yet.

Want to know if they were Celtic or from a different culture? An older haplogroup fills in cultural and genealogical blanks that no other type of testing can reach. Haplogroups pierce the veil of time.

OK, So What Should I Check?

Even if you don’t receive a new haplogroup when a new Mitotree version is released, you’re certainly not out of luck.

Some of your matches may have received a new haplogroup, further refining the genetic tree, causing them to cluster together. This should correlate with the genealogical tree.

For example, I’m desperate to identify the wife of my ancestor, who has been known affectionately for years as H2a1. She is now haplogroup H2a1ay1, but I still don’t know her name.

The haplogroup formation date range extends back to around 1820, which is slightly late, but certainly not far off either. The dates for the genetic Time Tree, and the genealogical tree may not align exactly, but the date ranges generally do. Mutations don’t occur on an exact schedule.

However, matches for the tester who represents H2a1 (now H2a1ay1) have been nicely narrowed down to two other full sequence testers. Both have this exact same haplogroup, and one of them also has the exact same haplotype. The balance of her matches are now in a more distant haplogroup.

Now I can focus on the two matches with the same haplogroup.

Even though the trees of these three testers don’t seem to intersect, some genealogical sleuthing tells me a lot.

The ancestor of one of the haplogroup matches was born in 1741, a Quaker, in Chester, Pennsylvania, and died in 1818.

The ancestor of the haplogroup plus haplotype match lived in the same Virginia County as my ancestor, and they were both Quakers, whose families attended the same church.

So we have:

  • Haplogroup match – Born a Quaker in 1741 in Chester, PA.
  • Haplogroup AND haplotype match – Lived in Frederick Co., VA in the 1780s and attended same Quaker church as the tester’s ancestor

These new haplogroups, both of the tester’s haplogroup matches, and others whose new haplogroup shows they are more distant, are critical to refining my search.

I’m so close to identifying H2a1ay1 and her parents that I can smell it!

Any self-respecting genealogist would end this article right here and get busy!

I’m outta here!!!

Don’t stop with checking your own haplogroup. Review any changes to people on your match list and view the Match Time Tree, even if you didn’t receive a new haplogroup.

While receiving a new haplogroup is exciting, sometimes refinements among people around you can be equally, if not more, important and informative.

_____________________________________________________________

Share the Love!

You’re always welcome to forward articles or links to friends and share on social media.

Subscribe!

If you haven’t already subscribed (it’s free,) you can receive an e-mail whenever I publish by clicking the “follow” button on the main blog page, here.

Help Keep This Blog Free

I receive a small contribution when you click on some of the links to vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase your price but helps me keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the affiliate links in the articles or to the vendors below if you are purchasing products or DNA testing.

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Uploads

Genealogy Products and Services

My Books

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

Michel Richard dit Sansoucy (c1630 – 1686/1689), Carefree Acadian – 52 Ancestors #465

Michel Richard was born about 1630, according to the Acadian census. We know he was born in France, because the first French settlers had not arrived in Acadia by 1630.

What we don’t know is where, or the identity of his parents.

Bona Arsenault, in his 1978 edition of HISTOIRE ET GENEALOGIE DES ACADIENS; 1625-1810, quoted on WikiTree and by Karen Theriot Reader, states that:

Michel Richard dit Sansoucy, born in 1639, originally from the Saintonge [an old province in the west part of France, now largely Charente-Inferieure. Its capital was Saintes]. Michel arrived in Acadia with the expedition of Emmanuel Le Borgne and de Guilbault in 1652 or 1651; he was with sieur de Saint-Mas, representative of Le Borgne. (Footnote cites Bona Arsenault’s own Histoire des Acadiens; and Louis Richard, in the Memoires de la Société Généalogique Canadienne-Francoise, vol. VI, no 1 (Jan 1954).)

Unfortunately, no sources were provided, and we know that the 1639 birth year is incorrect. No evidence has surfaced to confirm this location information, so for now, it remains unproven. As more parish records are transcribed and translated, Michel’s family information may come to light, although Richard is not an uncommon surname in France.

Sansoucy

Michel’s dit name or nickname is interesting. Sansoucy, means carefree, or without cares. It does not seem to be a place name, so it would either be a military nickname or indicative of Michel’s personality.

I like to think of him in this light!

A Brother by the Same Name

Michel probably had a younger brother, by the same name, who also settled in Port Royal, marrying Francoise Boudrot about 1663, and having two children with her before passing away, probably about 1667. Francoise remarried to Etienne Robichaud about 1668.

Francoise’s two children by Richard, Madeleine Richard Robichaud, born about 1664, and Charles Richard dit Cadet Robichaud, born about 1667, were known by the surname of their step-father, Etienne Robichaud. However, Charles used the dit name of “Cadet” signifying “the younger” and Y-DNA testing of several descendants has confirmed that indeed, he is genetically descended from the Richard line, not the Robichaud line.

These Big Y-700 tests from the French Heritage DNA Project show that the Richard and Robichaud men from these genealogy lines descend from the same genetic lineage. The common haplogroup, R-FT137222, formed about 1637, with a range that extends in both directions.

Cadet would indicate that both Richard brothers had the same name – a situation not unheard of and found in other Acadian families too, especially if they are half-siblings. We find this same situation occurring in “our” Michel Richard “dit Sansoucy” line, with two sons being named Alexandre. The older Alexander Richard was born about 1668 to Madeleine (Madelaine) Blanchard, and the younger Alexandre Richard was born about 1686 to second wife, Jeanne Babin.

I think the phrase, “It’s complicated,” could sum up the Richard family.

Port Royal

In the 1671 census, Michel is enumerated with Abraham Dugas on one side, and Charles Melanson on the other. Those two men lived directly across the river from each other.

Here, I’m standing on or near the Melanson land, looking across the Riviere du Port Royal at the Dugas land, at left, which is just west of the fort.

Michel Richard was listed as a 41-year-old laborer, or ploughman, wife Madeleine Blanchard, 28, along with seven children, Rene, 14, Pierre, 10, Catherine, 8, Martin, 6, Alexandre, 3, and twins, Anne and Magdeleine, 5 weeks. They have 15 cattle, 14 sheep, and are farming 14 arpents of land.

Twins, especially twins who both lived, are rare.

The census suggests Michel’s birth in 1630, Madeleine’s in 1643, and their marriage about 1656, so after the initial fall of Acadia in 1654.

Taken together, this tells us that Michel Richard was in Acadia prior to the fall and would have been a witness to and participant in those events.

The 1654 Fall of Acadia

In 1654, Michel would have been about 24 years old. He probably arrived in Acadia as a laborer, craftsman, or perhaps even a soldier. If he arrived with his parents or other family members, other than “Cadet” Richard, there was no trace of them by 1671.

Tensions had been escalating in the North Atlantic between the French, English, and Dutch colonies as extensions of their home countries.

In the summer of 1654, Oliver Cromwell in England was outfitting the English colonists in Boston with ships and soldiers to attack the Dutch in New Netherlands, today’s New York.

By the time they were prepared to attack, Major Robert Sedgwick was informed that the war had been settled, and peace was at hand. The trouble was that Sedgwick was prepared for battle, and had been authorized to take other territories belonging to the French after attacking New Netherlands, if time permitted. Given that he could no longer attack New Netherlands, that’s all the encouragement he needed.

He set out to capture all three Acadian forts: Saint John, Port Royal (now Annapolis Royal, NS), and Pentagouet (now Castine, Maine).

On July 14th, after Fort Saint John surrendered, Sedgwick crossed the Baie Française, now the Bay of Fundy, and attacked Port Royal, which was under the control of Emmanuel Le Borgne. Le Borgne had been at Saint John the day before attacking rival Charles La Tour when Sedgwick arrived there. Le Borgne quickly retreated to Port Royal, which gave him a day to prepare for Sedgwick’s arrival. It wasn’t much time, but better than nothing.

Le Borgne’s men lay in wait and ambushed Sedgwick, killing one and wounding six more. The more experienced professional English soldiers quickly returned fire, ambushed the ambushers, giving them no time to reload, and killed five men. We don’t know if those five men were French soldiers or Acadians.

The French soldiers and Acadians retreated into the fort, where the English laid siege to Port Royal. Knowing that the combined forces of about 200 men in Port Royal stood no chance against the 750 English and colonial soldiers, they surrendered on August 8th.

Le Borgne obtained generous surrender terms, meaning that the Acadians were to remain unharmed, keep their homes and belongings, be allowed to continue to worshiping as Catholics, and the French soldiers were to be transported back to France. Nevertheless, the English captured 113 men, more than 23 cannons, 500 weapons, and more than 50 barrels of gunpowder. In violation of the agreement, the Sedgwick had the Acadians’ livestock slaughtered.

It’s unclear whether all 113 captives were French soldiers, or a mixture of soldiers and Acadians. It’s unlikely that Michel was a French soldier, or he would have been sent back to France at this time, so he must have arrived in a different capacity.

Le Borgne’s own ship had been captured too, laden with a valuable cargo of alcohol. The surrender terms allowed him to keep the ship, AND his alcohol. He, as a French administrator, returned to France, but his sons were allowed to remain in Acadian, and he was allowed to keep his property. These suspiciously generous terms for Le Borgne personally fueled accusations of treason. The fact that Le Borgne had somehow escaped on July 13th from Saint John when the English were attacking, instead of fighting to defend Fort Saint John, furthered those accusations.

Regardless, Acadia was now under English control and would remain so until it was returned to the French in 1667 under the Treaty of Ryswick. In 1670, the transfer was completed, and was followed by the 1671 Acadian census, which provides us with a glimpse of what happened in Acadia between 1654 and 1670.

The next census in Acadia took place seven years later, in 1678.

The 1678 Census

The 1678 census was much less specific than the earlier one. We have the name of the head of household, the wife, the number of children by sex, and how much livestock they owned.

Michel Richard’s neighbors, in order, are shown as:

  • Jean Labat and Renee Gautrot – Labat was a military engineer who was sent to oversee the reconstruction of the fort. He lived in Port Royal, on the waterfront.
  • Rene Landry and Perrine Bourg
  • E(tienne) Pellerin and Jeanne Savoye – the Pellerin family lived in Port Royal and eventually owned Hogg Island.
  • Francois Brossard and Catherine Richard – Michel Richard’s newly married daughter.
  • Michel Richard and Madeleine Blanchard (their names only)
  • Germain Doucet and Marie Landry – lived in Port Royal
  • Michel Richard (no wife’s name, but the balance of his family and livestock are listed). Four boys, five girls, living on 10 arpents of land with 21 cattle.
  • Michael Boudrot at the brook – Michael Boudrot was the neighbor of Abraham Dugas.

This strongly suggests that the couple lived in Port Royal, and not yet upriver.

Additionally, there’s a very interesting note that indicates that Michel had three separate plots of land:

  • Sans Soucy, 29, 1 arpent of high land, bordering at one end of the river, part the other end on the North wood on one side Anthoine Hebert, Denis Godet.
  • 6 arpents at Port Royal, Lyon Rampat? Bordering on Germain then on the meadow and the petite Riviere then on Renee Landry
  • 3 arpents at gros Cap on Claude Terriot, Barnabe Martin at the road then at the river, 260 frontage

What types of information can we extract from this?

  • Michel’s age is not 29, which would place his birth in 1649, an impossibility given his first child’s birth in 1657. He would have been 48 or maybe 49, not 29. Perhaps this was misread or misrecorded.
  • Anthoine Hebert lives upriver beside Daniel LeBlanc at BelleIsle and so does the Godet (Gaudet) family, on the North side of the river.
  • Gros cap, “large cape,” may be the town of Port Royal itself, or the point of land where it sits, given that the Chemin du Cap is the road leading to the south out of Port Royal.
  • Renee Landry lives beside Jean Labat in Port Royal.
  • Germain Doucet lives on the other side of Michel Richard in the 1678 census in Port Royal.
  • We know, based on Nicole Barrieau’s thesis, that Michel Richard’s land was not among that expropriated in 1705 in Port Royal when the new fort was built, so his land was either further east along the waterfront, on the south side of the main road, along the Cape Path, or had already been settled in another way by 1705.

In 1671 and through 1678, based on the neighbors in the census, and the 1678 census notes, we can determine that Michel lived someplace along the waterfront in Port Royal for most of his life. This makes sense, given that we know that he was in Acadia before it fell in 1654.

Acadians in Gray, authored by Steven Cormier, states, in part, that:

First came Michel Richard dit Sansoucy, a young soldier born in the Saintonge region of France in c1630. He appeared at Port-Royal in the early 1650s in the entourage of Emmanuel Le Borgne. When his term of service ended, he remained in the colony, took up farming, obtained two grants of land from Le Borgne “at some ten to fifteen miles from the fort” on the upper Rivière au Dauphin, now the Annapolis River.

I very much wish Mr. Cormier had provided sources for this information.

Researcher Paul LeBlanc, prior to his death, believed that Michel’s dit name was derived from the location of Saintonge, although a male from Saintonge would be known as a “Saintongese.”

One of the pieces of land referenced by Cormier may be the land where Michel Richard’s son, the younger Alexandre Richard, eventually lived, near Bridgetown. Alexandre married Marie Levron about 1711, whose parents lived directly across the River from Port Royal.

Port Royal in 1686

What was Port Royal like in 1686?

We are fortunate that Labat drew a map in 1686 to encourage investment and settlement in Port Royal.

The church and cemetery are shown in this drawing.

The church is shown with the number #2, and above the church, the cemetery is annotated with #4.

The fort where Michel Richard would have served, assuming he did arrive as a soldier with Le Bourg, is shown in ruins, labeled #3, on the water, by the boats.

If Michel lived upriver in 1686, instead of in Port Royal, they lived in the BelleIsle area where 1500 arpents of prime marshland was awarded by a succession of stakeholders over the years.

Madeleine Blanchard Dies

Based on the 1686 census, Madeleine Blanchard died between 1678 and 1683 when Michel Richard remarried to Jeanne Babin. Jeanne was 15 at the time, so born about 1667, and Michel was 52.

In 1667, Michel had 10 living children, ranging in age from 20 down to 3. He needed a wife, even if his new wife was younger than his four eldest children.

In the 1686 census, we find Michel Richard, age 56, Jeanne Babin, 18, with children: Martin, 19, Alexandre, 17, Marie, 12, Cecile, 10, Marguerite, 7, and Michel, 2. Five other children are married. Marguerite was the last child born to Madeleine Blanchard, and Michel, age 2, is Michel’s first child with Jeanne Babin.

In addition to the blended family, they have two guns, 16 cattle, 30 sheep, and eight hogs on 12 arpents of land.

Based on the neighbors, it appears that Michel is probably living upriver by 1686, but that’s anything but certain. The census taker may not have been recording in the order that people lived. He may also have been paddling back and forth across the river.

The 1693 Census

By the 1693 census, Jeanne Babin has remarried to Laurent Doucet, and they have a three-year-old child, suggesting that they married about 1689.

We know that Michel Richard and Jeanne’s second child, Alexandre Richard, was born about 1686, which places Michel’s death sometime between 1686 and 1689.

Michel’s Funeral

Michel died before the Catholic church, which stood beside the fort in Port Royal, was burned in 1690 during another attack by the English.

His funeral would have been held in the church with the priest saying mass. His coffin would have been carried outside, where he was laid to rest in the cemetery in the churchyard, surrounded by his family and fellow Acadians.

Lost beneath the ramparts of the reconstructed fort today, when Michel was buried, a simple little church and adjacent cemetery behind the ramparts served the Acadian population and the French soldiers, all of whom were Catholic.

Michel was laid to rest within view of the garrison where he may have served, and assuredly defended in 1654. All that’s left of his grave today is mist and memories.

Belle-Ile-en-Mer

After the Expulsion of the Acadians in 1755, a decade later, in 1765, a group of 78 refugee Acadian families made their way to the French Island of Belle-Île-en-Mer where each family gave depositions about the origins of their ancestors.

The French were trying to determine how to help settle the refugees and whether they were actually French descendants. Clearly, they were. The French King settled the Acadian families in four regions on the island, providing them with housing and livestock.

The resulting depositions provide a plethora of information about the earliest Acadian ancestors. Of course, a few generations removed, not everything was perfectly accurate.

According to Stephen A. White, Genealogist,Centre d’études acadiennes January 17, 2005:

In four separate depositions, Michel Richard is mentioned by his Sansoucy dit name. He married Madeleine Blanchard at Port Royal, according to Pierre Doucet, the husband of Michel’s great-granddaughter Marie-Blanche Richard. (Doc. inéd., Vol. III, pp. 53-54).

Pierre mistakenly called his wife’s great-grandmother Anne, instead of Madeleine, but the 1671 census shows her true given name (see DGFA-1, pp. 1373-1374).

Three other depositions confirm the French origin of Michel Richard dit Sansoucy, although two of these attribute the given names of René to him and Marie to his wife, one from his great-grandson Pierre Richard (Doc. inéd., Vol. II, p. 191) and the other from Joseph LeBlanc dit Le Maigre, on behalf of his son Joseph, whose wife Angélique Daigre was another great-grandchild of the ancestor (ibid., p. 178).

The last deposition, from Pierre Trahan, whose father-in-law’s first wife was Michel Richard’s daughter, provides no given name for the ancestor and does not mention his spouse at all (ibid., Vol. III, p. 111).

Michel Richard’s Land in Acadia

Alexander Richard, the youngest son of Michel Richard, lived on land upriver, near present-day Bridgetown in 1710, according to the Labat map. This is probably the land granted to his father, Michel, assuming that Steven Cormier is right about Michel being granted land about 15 miles, or so, upriver. It fits that description exactly.

Michel Richard had two sons named Alexandre, the older one by Madeleine Blanchard, and the younger one by Jeanne Babin.

For a long time, I mistakenly assumed that the Alexandre Richard who lived on this land was Michel’s eldest son, Alexandre (c1668-1709), not his youngest, born about 1686. His eldest died in 1709, so it clearly cannot be him living on that land in 1710.

On this reconstructed Acadian map from MapAnnapolis, Alexandre Richard is shown living near present-day Bridgetown. The Gaudet, Petitpas, and Bastarche familes also owned land nearby, settling near Bridgetown and intermarrying.

There’s another possibility to be considered, too.

Based on the 1671 census location of Antoine Babin, this could have been his land before his grandson, the younger Alexandre Richard, farmed it. Antoine died about 1687, leaving 11 children. It’s a stretch to think that his middle daughter, Jeanne, inherited his land, then passed it to her son nearly a quarter century later.

The proximity of the Richard and Babin land to each other is probably more a function of the fact that Michel Richard and Antoine Babin were both granted land, probably by Le Borgne, anout the same time, and may have selected it together. After all, Michel Richard married Antoine’s daughter not long before both men died. Antoine and Michel were about the same age.

Alexandre Richard would have inherited the land from someone. His mother, Jeanne Babin, would have held it after Michel’s death. Her older son, Michel Richard Jr., settled in Beaubassin, so it makes perfect sense for this land to descend to Jeanne Babin, then on to Alexandre, her other son by Michel Richard Sr.. Michel Sr. and Jeanne Babin only had two children.

Perhaps Alexandre’s father, Michel Richard Sr., died before he was able to develop the land, but he was trying to leave something to one of his sons. Maybe specifically the youngest son, whom he knew he would never be able to raise. Michel was 56 when Alexandre was born. For all we know, Michel may have been ill and it’s possible that he died even before Alexandre’s birth.

Of course, the land needed to be dyked and drained for at least three years before it could be farmed, but that could wait until Alexandre was old enough.

I like to think of Michel walking here, selecting the land, imagining his grandchildren playing in the sunshine decades in the future.

This map may be slightly skewed. I used the 1710 original map and landmarks to attempt to locate Alexander’s property more precisely in preparation for a 2024 visit, so let’s see what we have.

Of course, it doesn’t help that some of the geography has been changed in the intervening three centuries. Roads have been laid, rivers have flooded, changing their courses, and, of course, those original maps weren’t 100% accurate.

It was easy to match up both the east bend in the river and the Bridgetown bend, although the Bridgetown bend has changed a bit. I should probably have turned one of these maps upsidedown.

Alexander Richard’s property was probably someplace near or between the two red stars.

Unfortunately, the view from the Harvest Highway and also from 201 is very obscured by trees.

Perhaps the best view of both sides is from the bridge itself.

This is looking south, but keeping in mind that the Acadians specialized in farming reclaimed marshland. The view looking north probably overlooks Alexandre’s fields.

Click to enlarge any image

You can see the river running beneath the bridge on the highway, where that first car is located, just before the sign. The fields between this bridge and the river would have been Alexandre’s.

Alexandre, and possibly Michel before him, would have worked these fields, as seen from the bridge over the Annapolis River.

The fields visible on both the left and right sides of the bridge, on the south side of the river, would probably have been his.

The location of the house and barn today, above the fields, is probably near the same place as it was then.

On the northeast side of the intersection of 101 and 201, there’s a small dirt road that serves one farm and also provides utility road access.

I drove up this road until I reached a fence with a warning sign, and the road began to deteriorate substantially.

This well-manicured field is still farmed.

I can see Alexandre tending the crops and farm animals, remembering his father fondly.

The father he never knew, who died when he was just a toddler.

The father who provided for him, even from the other side of death.

I returned to Highway 201, the road along the south side of the river, and turned towards the east bend.

Based on the river bends and the distance between easily identified landmarks, the Richard land may have been as far east as the red arrow.

These fields are hundreds of years old – drained by Alexander Richard and his neighbors and possibly begun by Michel.

Acadian men worked together on these tasks. Everyone helped everyone.

This model shows Acadian farmland. It takes at least three years after a salt marsh is dyked for the salt to wash out so it can be cultivated, and the dykes must be maintained to keep the fields salt-free.

Notice the stream, which is one of the cornerstone anchor landmarks I used to align this Google map with the 1710 map when searching for Alexandre’s land.

Michel Richard’s Legacy

I drove by, looking towards the river over the reclaimed marshland, thinking about Michel.

Did he ever dream that his descendant would return to find him, some three and a half centuries later? WikiTree, which doesn’t include all of his descendants, shows nearly 200,000. That’s ten times the size of the entire county where Annapolis Royal is located today, half the size of the Halifax, Nova Scotia, metropolitan region and one quarter of the population of all of Nova Scotia. That’s incredible for a humble Acadian farmer.

Everyone wants to leave a legacy. Sansoucy, carefree, is what pops into my mind when I soak in this sun-drenched summertime landscape, picturing Michel walking here.

Indeed, perhaps Michel Richard’s legacy of land enabled his son, Alexandre, to be Sansoucy too.

Perhaps a little of his Sansoucy has been passed down to all of us.

_____________________________________________________________

Share the Love!

You’re always welcome to forward articles or links to friends and share on social media.

Subscribe!

If you haven’t already subscribed (it’s free,) you can receive an e-mail whenever I publish by clicking the “follow” button on the main blog page, here.

Help Keep This Blog Free

I receive a small contribution when you click on some of the links to vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase your price but helps me keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the affiliate links in the articles or to the vendors below if you are purchasing products or DNA testing.

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Uploads

Genealogy Products and Services

My Books

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

Ancestry Reverts ThruLines to the Original View

Just a quick note to let everyone know that Ancestry has reverted ThruLines back to the original, legacy version, and has obsoleted the new pedigree view. I wrote about the new version in the article Ancestry’s ThruLines Has a New Pedigree View just three days ago.

  • If you didn’t yet have the new version of ThruLines, you won’t receive it because it has now been obsoleted.
  • If you DID have the new version, everyone has now been reverted back to the original or legacy version, including the important “Evaluate” feature that was missing in the new version

It’s always a good thing when vendors listen to their customers.

That said, I hope Ancestry is working on a new and truly “improved” version that combines the best features of both views, including Evaluate, as suggested by many customers and blog readers, and provides customers with the option to default to either view.

_____________________________________________________________

Share the Love!

You’re always welcome to forward articles or links to friends and share on social media.

Subscribe!

If you haven’t already subscribed (it’s free,) you can receive an e-mail whenever I publish by clicking the “follow” button on the main blog page, here.

Help Keep This Blog Free

I receive a small contribution when you click on some of the links to vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase your price but helps me keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the affiliate links in the articles or to the vendors below if you are purchasing products or DNA testing.

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Uploads

Genealogy Products and Services

My Books

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

Ancestry’s ThruLines Has a New Pedigree View

Update: Ancestry obsoleted this new feature on December 5, 2025.

Ancestry recently updated ThruLines and introduced a new pedigree view.

I’m not sure that everyone has the new view yet, so here’s what to expect.

If you do have the new feature, let’s take a look, because there’s new functionality you may not have discovered.

When I signed in and clicked on ThruLines on the DNA tab, the first thing I saw certainly looked different. Needless to say, I was surprised because I wasn’t expecting anything new.

Click on any image to enlarge

This doesn’t look anything like what we’re used to, but Ancestry provides navigation buttons.

One person mentioned that the new view was so small they couldn’t really see clearly, but by rolling your mouse button up or clicking on the little “+” button in the upper right-hand corner, it’s easy to enlarge.

That said, on this and especially on subsequent screens, I would very much like for there to be less white space at the top, or have a “full screen” option.

You can navigate up your tree by clicking on the little up arrows above the ancestors in the top row.

The Tile Display is Still There

But perhaps more importantly for people who prefer the previous display, it’s actually right there.

Click on the little tile button to switch from the pedigree to the traditional tile view.

It’s easy to toggle back and forth.

Take a look at the new ThruLines layout. If you don’t like it, select the tiled version

Why Do I Like the Pedigree View?

I like the pedigree view because it lets me easily see how people connect with each other. While I’m intimately familiar with the more recent generations, I don’t like the more distant ancestors all being smooshed together in the tile view.

In the pedigree view, I can see how many of my matches descend from each ancestor in the tree format.

Clicking on that number opens the dropdown showing the matches and how they descend from that ancestor.

In these expanded tree views, we really do need a full-screen option. It is challenging to see the entire sequence of descent.

My focus right now is on determining if anyone that I match carries the mitochondrial DNA of my paternal grandmother. On other ancestral lines, I have both the Y-DNA and mtDNA from generations back in time, but not my grandmother. I’m hoping to remedy that.

This layout makes it easy to see that there are many potential candidates for generations upstream. If I find the right person, descended from that ancestor through all females to the current generation, which can be male, I’ll be offering them a DNA testing scholarship for a mitochondrial DNA test at FamilyTreeDNA.

Suggestions for Improving the View

Perhaps Ancestry will provide the option of selecting a default view, so we can select our favorite – tile or pedigree – plus a full-screen option for pedigree view.

Another alternative would be for the pedigree view to be horizontal and extend left to right instead of top to bottom, the same as Ancestry’s traditional trees.

Truthfully, I really like the pedigree format and functionality of the new ThruLines pedigree view, but I greatly prefer the layout of this traditional tree. It’s much easier to see and is expandable without running off the top or bottom of the screen. Maybe Ancestry could combine the best features of both.

Update: A sharp-eyed reader caught that the “Evaluate” feature is now gone, which used to allow you to evaluate other people’s trees that suggested the ThruLines connection. This is really important, and I hope that Ancestry restores it. Genealogists must evaluate everything and weigh the evidence when determining if a connection is accurate.

_____________________________________________________________

Share the Love!

You’re always welcome to forward articles or links to friends and share on social media.

Subscribe!

If you haven’t already subscribed (it’s free,) you can receive an e-mail whenever I publish by clicking the “follow” button on the main blog page, here.

Help Keep This Blog Free

I receive a small contribution when you click on some of the links to vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase your price but helps me keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the affiliate links in the articles or to the vendors below if you are purchasing products or DNA testing.

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Uploads

Genealogy Products and Services

My Books

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research