About Roberta Estes

Scientist, author, genetic genealogist. Documenting Native Heritage through contemporaneous records and DNA.

Ancestry Updates Ethnicity, Introduces New Features & Pushes Some Behind Paywall

I knew something had changed at Ancestry when I signed in a few days ago and saw the following message:

Ancestry assured me that I’m fine, but people who don’t have a subscription can no longer see some DNA features.

Ancestry has placed some previously free features behind a paywall – meaning a subscription called AncestryDNA Plus.

If you have a full subscription to Ancestry, you’re covered. You’re not if you don’t have a full subscription and only ordered a DNA test.

I was waiting for clarification from Ancestry, which arrived in an email yesterday.

Ancestry’s Clarification

In the email from Ancestry, they listed the new AncestryDNA premium features, some of which were previously purchased separately, like Traits, some of which were included with the AncestryDNA test, and some of which are or will be new.

There are several features and changes, so let’s take a look.

AncestryDNA Plus Subscription

The biggest change is that Ancestry will now be requiring some type of membership, either a full Ancestry membership or an AncestryDNA Plus membership, in order to access several DNA features.

Ancestry has placed these features behind a paywall for customers without a full Ancestry subscription.

The subscription price is $29.99 for six months, not a year, and the subscription automatically renews. This means that unless you have a full Ancestry subscription, access to several DNA features now costs you $59.98 per year in addition to the price of your original DNA test. Ouch.

Whooboy. I can hear the screaming from here.

Yes, I know this is NOT what we were expecting when we purchased DNA tests, and I realize it’s quite pricey – especially given that it’s not a one-time purchase but an ongoing subscription.

I will review each of these features – but let me say that if you’ve been doing fine without them so far for your genealogy, there’s probably not anything you really need here.

The most important feature that genealogists need that is NOT available without a full Ancestry subscription is full access to the trees of our matches – and, to be clear, that is NOT available through the AncestryDNA Plus subscription.

Let’s look at each feature separately.

Traits and Traits by Parent

You know all those questions Ancestry has been asking you? Well, this is why.

Ancestry is comparing the DNA of individuals with specific answers to identify genetic commonalities.

Traits was a separate uplift fee in the past, but now it’s included in the AncestryDNA Plus subscription.

You may not have Traits on your account yet. My second test, which is a newer test, does NOT have traits available, but I’m sure it will soon.

If you have Traits, you will have a banner above your DNA Story, Matches and ThruLines on your DNA Results Summary page.

Ancestry includes 42 traits today.

Ancestry shows you which traits are most influenced by which parent, or both parents.

Where you fall within that range is provided as well.

Clicking on each trait provides additional information.

Don’t get too excited about this feature because some of these traits are apparently a lot more environmental than genetic. For example, according to Ancestry, male hair loss is “at least 4% genetic.” Each trait has similar information provided, and some have a surprisingly small percentage of genetic affinity. Others have a surprisingly large number of influencing genes.

Here’s a chart of my traits and the parent that Ancestry has assigned as most likely to have influenced this trait. Please note that for Ancestry to split your Traits by parent, you MUST be able to identify which side of your family your ethnicity categories descend from using SideView, which I wrote about, here. If your parents aren’t identified correctly, the source of your traits certainly won’t be either.

Trait & % Genetic My Result Influenced by Trait Accuracy
Alcohol Flush – 4% Face does not flush Maternal Wrong
Asparagus odor – 4% Able to smell asparagus metabolites (in urine) Paternal Accurate
Birth weight – 5% Above average Both Unknown
Bitter sensitivity – 20% Unable to taste a certain bitter flavor (PTC in brussel sprouts) Both Accurate – I taste brussel sprouts, but they don’t taste bitter
Caffeine intake – 4% Likely to drink a lot less caffeine than average Paternal Wrong – I can’t drink caffeinated beverages anymore, but when I could, I consumed coffee by the pot
Cilantro aversion – 5% Unlikely to enjoy cilantro Maternal Accurate
Cleft Chin – 8% No cleft chin Paternal Accurate
Dancing – 7% Least likely to enjoy dancing Maternal This is hilarious – my mother was a professional dancer, and I love dancing
Earlobes – 9% Unattached earlobes Maternal Accurate
Earwax type – 2% Wet earwax Both Accurate
Eye color – 7% Brown Maternal Accurate – although both parents had brown eyes
Facial hair fullness – 7% Patchier facial hair Maternal No idea
Finger length – 5% Ring finger longer than index finger Maternal Wrong
Freckles – 9% Unlikely Maternal Accurate
Hair color – 25% Dark hair Paternal Accurate, although both parents had dark hair
Hair strand thickness – 1% Thin hair Maternal Wrong – hair very thick
Hair type – 1% Wavy Maternal Accurate
Heart rate recovery – 12% Quicker recovery rate after exercise Both No idea
Introvert or extrovert – 1% Introvert Maternal Also hilarious – my mother was very much the extrovert
Iris patterns – 35% Furrows, crypts, and rings Both Can’t tell
Male hair loss – 4% Lower chance Paternal Probably accurate – my father was not balding in his 60s
Morning or night person – 17% Morning Paternal Wrong, wrong, 1000 times wrong
Omega 3 – 4% Average levels Both No idea
Oxygen use – 38% Average ability to raise maximum oxygen use Paternal No idea
Picky eater – 8% Picky Maternal Wrong
Remembering dreams – 1% Unlikely Paternal I remember some, sometimes, but they tend to fade
Risk Taking – 9% More likely than 60% of the population Both Probably accurate
Skin pigmentation – 13% Light to medium Both Accurate
Sun sneezing – 8% Non sneezer Paternal Accurate
Sweet sensitivity – 4% Extra sensitive Both Accurate
Taking naps – 6% Not a nap taker Maternal Accurate
Tolerating dairy – 1% Likely to tolerate Paternal Accurate
Umami sensitivity – 1% Less sensitive than others Both Uncertain – I can taste Umami but since this is comparative, I don’t really know
Unibrow – 1% No unibrow Paternal Accurate
Vitamin A – 7% Average level Maternal No idea
Vitamin B12 – 5% Average level Maternal No idea
Vitamin C – 4% Average level Paternal No idea
Vitamin D – 10% Average level Both No idea
Vitamin E – 14% Average level Maternal No idea
Wisdom Teeth – 8% Likely to develop all four teeth Maternal Accurate

If you’re thinking to yourself – how can some of these traits be anything BUT genetic, such as unibrow, you’re not alone. How can unibrow and some other traits be anything BUT genetic?

Initially, I thought maybe this would help me learn about my father, who died when I was young, but based on the low percentage of genetic influence, combined with answers that I know are inaccurate – I can’t really rely on any of this genealogically either. All I can say is that I’m really glad I didn’t pay for this feature.

Ancestry writes about their trait predictions in a white paper, here.

At the bottom of the Traits page is a “Compare Traits” tab where you can invite your matches to share traits with you.

My own second kit is not on the list of people to invite, so maybe immediate family is not available to invite? Or maybe it’s because that kit doesn’t have traits yet.

Ethnicity Inheritance

Ethnicity Inheritance shows which of your ethnicities were inherited from each parent. This was previously included in the price of your DNA test, but now it’s available through either the full Ancestry subscription or through the AncestryDNA Plus subscription.

I wrote about ethnicity inheritance when SideView was introduced, here.

Matches are now split by parent.

These matches and totals have recently been updated, at the same time as ThruLines.

Significant issues have been reported with both features, with matches incorrectly assigned that were previously assigned correctly. ThruLines has improved somewhat, but still has not been corrected entirely. Many known cousins who were previously linked to our common ancestor in ThruLines are no longer linked. I wrote about the ThruLines issue, here.

Chromosome Painter

Ancestry’s chromosome painter is NOT a chromosome browser. Yes, it looks similar, but it definitely IS NOT the same thing.

What’s the difference between a chromosome browser and chromosome painting?

Chromosome browsing with matches and chromosome painting look similar, but they aren’t the same and have different functions.

A chromosome browser allows you to compare your matching DNA segments with others and view them in a browser to see which shared DNA segments overlap, indicating a common ancestor. A chromosome browser is required to perform triangulation, which confirms common ancestors and facilitates identifying which segments descend from specific ancestors. I provided a list of triangulation resources, here.

For example, three maternal cousins above are compared on my chromosomes (in grey) using the chromosome browser at FamilyTreeDNA. The three bars under chromosome 1 represent my matches with three selected cousins who descend from Hiram Ferverda and Eva Miller.

  • The first blue cousin matches me in two locations on chromosome 1.
  • The second red cousin matches me in two locations on chromosome 1, one of which is the same location as the first blue cousin.
  • The third turquoise cousin does not match me on chromosome 1 but does on chromosomes 3 and 4.
  • None of those three cousins match me on chromosome 2.
  • On chromosome 3, you can see that all three cousins match me on a portion of the same segment which in this case indicates that we all inherited that segment from our common ancestral couple. I know these cousins, so I already know this is a maternal match, but I can easily confirm by checking my mother’s results or using the matrix tool to be sure we all match each other. Any unknown match who matches us on this same segment also descends from this same ancestral line – meaning either Bauke and Eva, or one of their ancestral lines.

All major vendors except Ancestry provide a chromosome browser.

Chromosome painting is different.

While a chromosome browser displays your matching segments with selected matches, ethnicity chromosome painting automatically paints your ethnicity on your maternal and paternal chromosomes at each location.

Ancestry paints your ethnicity on your chromosomes by parent, by assigned world region, based on YOUR designation of maternal and paternal “sides.” My maternal chromosome is displayed on the top, and my paternal chromosome is displayed on the bottom.

With chromosome painting, there’s no way to see which matches match you on specific chromosomes. Nor does Ancestry provide you with segment information. In other words, you can’t compare a specific segment to see which of your matches match you on that segment.

However, that’s one of the great features at DNAPainter, and they’ve found a way to utilize Ancestry’s painting for that purpose.

DNAPainter estimates the segment information from Ancestry’s chromosome painting, which means you can utilize the segment information from Ancestry at DNAPainter. Having said that, I’m very skeptical of Ancestry’s painting accuracy.

Note that almost all of Ancestry’s chromosome painting covers the entire maternal or paternal chromosome with one ethnicity. In my case, three maternal chromosomes have two ethnicities, and the balance of 39 chromosomes show only one ethnicity for the entire chromosome.

That’s very suspicious, given my mixed heritage, and does not align with ethnicities at the other vendors.

Furthermore, if you look at chromosome 10 as an example, my maternal chromosome shows Scotland, and my paternal chromosome shows Ireland. My mother, who is primarily (87.5%) German, Dutch, and French, and whose ancestors I’ve confirmed through 5 generations have zero, as in no Scottish or Irish. So, in this case, the ethnicity is misattributed, which means the painting of that entire maternal chromosome is incorrect as well.

That’s not the only one. Ancestry has also attributed all of maternal chromosome 18 and half of chromosome 2 as Scottish too.

Ancestry updates their ethnicity estimates periodically, generally every year or so.

If yours hasn’t been updated recently, updates are supposed to be complete by the end of September 2023.

Ethnicity estimates are just that, and each update varies slightly, but that’s about it. The only ethnicity update that would help me is IF Ancestry “rediscovered” my Native American segments that come and go at Ancestry, AND they would include matching segment information with cousins so I can determine which of my ancestors contributed that Native segment. Then I’d know which cousins share that Native segment and could utilize their trees to isolate the common ancestor. Yes, I know, I’m hallucinating, because that’s never going to happen.

However, maybe an ethnicity update will encourage people to sign in and create trees. That would be useful.

Compare My DNA Ethnicity and Communities

Another feature that seems to be new and does NOT say “Member Access,” so should be available to everyone, is the ability to compare DNA ethnicities and communities with others.

By selecting the Compare My DNA tab, then DNA Communities, you can see which of your matches share communities with you.

Note that I don’t match my own second test exactly.

By selecting Ethnicity estimates, you can see which regions you and your matches have in common.

Please understand that this does NOT necessarily mean you share those regions due to the same ancestors!

For example, my Ferverda cousin and I may or may not share some or all of our Germanic Europe or England and Northwestern Europe ethnicity from our common ancestors – and there’s no way to know or tell without segment information and a chromosome browser.

Future Features

Ancestry’s email referenced a future feature – Communities Inheritance by parental connection.

I only have three communities at Ancestry, and I know which ones result from which ancestors.

I’m presuming that if Ancestry is referencing this new feature, it’s not too far in the future.

Parental Sides Based on Ancestry Ethnicity

In the article about SideView, I discussed how customers indicate which parent is which based on ethnicity. If you can’t do it using ethnicity results alone, you can view your closest matches, which presumes you know how you’re related to them, and select ethnicity regions based on shared regions.

These additional features are built upon the base of SideView, which is built upon a base of Ancestry’s ethnicity estimate.

Many of these features rest on your ability to accurately determine your maternal and paternal sides – either using your ethnicity results or your shared ethnicity of your known closest matches. My Mom is 50% German and 24% Dutch, with the remainder being equally divided between French/Native (Acadian) and English. My father has no German and no known French. The high percentage of German made my parents easy to separate. Had I made a mistake though, or if Ancestry makes a mistake in ethnicity attribution, such as the Scottish example I provided, all of these features that depend on an accurate parental division will also be inaccurate.

Summary

This new feature rollout was confusing to sort out since:

  • Some features require a full subscription
  • Some require the new AncestryDNA Plus subscription (or a full subscription)
  • Traits was previously an extra purchase but is now included with either subscription
  • Some features remain available with the AncestryDNA test with no subscription

I made a chart.

Feature With DNA Test Subscription Needed Comment
Traits Yes Was an uplift, now included with either subscription
Traits by Parent Yes Now included
Ethnicity Estimate Yes No
Ethnicity by parent Yes Was included, now behind paywall
Ethnicity Chromosome Painter Yes Was included, now behind paywall
Matches by parent Yes Was included, now behind paywall
Compare Communities with Matches Yes No Today, there is no “Member Access” label
Compare Ethnicity Estimates with Matches Yes No Today, there is no “Member Access” label
Communities by Parent Yes Future Feature
Full Access to Matches’ Trees Partial Full subscription needed, not AncestryDNA Plus Future features in email from Ancestry

Features not mentioned above remain included in the AncestryDNA test, meaning without any additional subscription:

  • Matching
  • Grouping Matches
  • Shared Matches
  • Communities
  • ThruLines

Opinion

I have two issues with this new rollout. Ancestry is now charging for previously included features. Secondly, many of those up-charge features are predicated upon ethnicity estimates that the customer has to divide maternally and paternally. In other words, there’s a significant possibility that you’re paying for and depending upon something inaccurate.

What bothers me the most is the fact that Ancestry giveth, and Ancestry taketh away. The SideView features were included with the original DNA test purchase price initially, but now Ancestry has pushed some of those features behind a paywall. I feel that’s disingenuous.

In the bigger picture, I’ve wondered how long companies can continue to fund new features with new test sales. The companies have to provide the results to their millions of legacy clients that now reaches back years. As the database continues to grow, the processing and storage requirements do, too – and that isn’t free.

The companies BEST able to continue to fund that development are the companies that utilize DNA tests to leverage larger and repeated sales – like Ancestry and MyHeritage records subscriptions.

Furthermore,  Ancestry and 23andMe both collaborated with pharmaceutical companies, although both initial contracts have expired. Ancestry’s current collaborations are listed here.

Companies that do not utilize DNA to leverage other sales would have more motivation to place at least some of their advanced tools behind a subscription paywall. 23andMe has been doing that progressively since 2020 and now offers a “membership” for $69 per year – assuming you have a recent test. Otherwise, you have to retest for the additional cost of $229 before you can purchase the membership.

MyHeritage also limits access to full trees for DNA testers without a Premium subscription, but by comparison, they have not put any features behind a paywall that were previously included in the DNA test, nor do they have a separate DNA subscription.

Both FamilyTreeDNA and MyHeritage require a one-time unlock, $19 and $29, respectively, for advanced features if you upload a test from another testing company, meaning you didn’t test with them – but that’s entirely different from a secondary yearly subscription to access DNA features for paying customers.

FamilyTreeDNA, whose only business is DNA testing, includes all features with a DNA test. No subscription is available or required.

I’ve included this to say that I understand the need to generate revenue. My issue is that I feel like Ancestry, the largest DNA testing company, who could best afford research and development investment, essentially did a bait-and-switch with their customers by taking something away.

When ThruLines went sideways a month or so ago, I knew something was up. I suspected that Ancestry was recalculating relationships in the background for some reason. Now we know that the reason was these new features.

However, the problem with ThruLines isn’t fixed. I don’t believe many previous connections were wrong and are correct now. Cousins who match me and had common ancestors in their tree still have common ancestors in their tree and still match me – but aren’t currently connected through ThruLines. And I’m not referring to just a few.

Then, there are the issues with maternal and paternal match assignments.

Neither of these issues inspire much confidence, especially as a company begins charging for previously included features. Issues happen in IT, but the issues need to be resolved as soon as possible. The fact that these issues aren’t resolved, in addition to the required subscriptions being rolled out before the issues are resolved, makes me angry with a company many within the industry recommend in good faith.

I feel like all customers, full subscribers who want and need to utilize advanced tools to solve genealogical puzzles, along with customers who “only” tested their DNA, are being penalized.

The very least Ancestry could have done was delay the subscription rollout until they fixed the mess they made. The honorable thing would have been to only place new features behind the paywall, not taking existing features away from customers already enjoying them.

I have a full yearly subscription, so I’m covered, but if I were not, there’s nothing in the new features that I think will benefit my genealogy.

  • Traits doesn’t benefit genealogy
  • Traits by parent doesn’t benefit genealogy
  • Ethnicity by parent doesn’t – even if it was accurate.
  • Chromosome painting doesn’t – in part because the ethnicity and division is inaccurate and in part because no segment information is provided.
  • Matches by parent could be useful, but since it’s currently malfunctioning and is based on SideView ethnicity divisions, I don’t have much confidence in the results.
  • Communities by parent, a future feature, might be useful for some people, assuming parents are assigned correctly.

Since we are discussing Ancestry’s new features, I know that someone will ask if I’ve noticed the new Ancestry Dog DNA test that rolled out simultaneously.

Yes, I noticed. I suggest you read this article before purchasing any dog DNA test from any source.

There’s so much that Ancestry could do for their paying customers, whether we’ve paid for a DNA test, a subscription, or both, but instead, they’ve focused their efforts on another revenue-producing product that has nothing to do with human genealogy.

I feel like Ancestry is offering a lot of window dressing eye-candy, while what we really need are genealogical answers that are within their power to provide.

The four DNA-related features that Ancestry could provide that would be the most beneficial for genealogy would be:

  • DNA match search by ancestor. Not surname-only like is provided today. Not just Estes, but Moses Estes, or better yet –  the Moses Estes born in 1711 who died in 1787. I have 106,000 matches, and I’m not going to scroll through what are probably thousands of never-ending unrolling matches, each of which I have to click on their tree to see if my ancestor is there. This is entirely unnecessary.
  • Matching segment information for matches, including triangulation. I want to confirm which ancestor I share with my matches – and prove it.
  • Chromosome browser – seeing is believing.
  • ThruLines extended back at least another two generations, from 7 to 9.

Working without these features is akin to riding a unicycle with one hand tied behind your back. I swear, sometimes I feel like Ancestry doesn’t want us to FIND our ancestors; they just want us to keep looking!

But that really doesn’t help them in the long run, either.

Helping genealogists actually identify ancestors means we have an entirely new generation to search for in those subscription records, and then another, and another. Yep, we’d have more reason than ever to subscribe!

I want more than a carrot dangling at the end of a stick. I want tools that facilitate answers. Now, for that, I’d gladly pay a subscription.

_____________________________________________________________

Follow DNAexplain on Facebook, here.

Share the Love!

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

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

You Can 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 the price you pay but helps me to keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the 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 Book

 

Genealogy Books

  • com – Lots of wonderful genealogy research books
  • American Ancestors – Wonderful selection of genealogy books

Genealogy Research

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michel de Forest (c1638–c1690): Acadian Family Founder – 52 Ancestors #411

There are some things we know about Michel (de) Forest, and a lot that we don’t. Furthermore, there are myths that, with repeated telling, have become widely accepted and ingrained into genealogy, but now seem to have been disproven. Thankfully, the lives of our ancestors continue to come into clearer focus.

Let’s start with the facts we have, beginning with the trusty census records.

Acadian Censuses

The French Acadians settled in what is now Nova Scotia beginning in 1632, moving to Port Royal in 1635 on the Bay of Fundy.

It’s estimated that by 1653, there were 45-50 households in Port Royal and about 60 single men. Of course, those men would have been very interested in finding wives.

A prisoner in 1654 estimated that there were about 270 residents.

From about 1653 to 1667, Acadia was under English rule, not French. This is actually important for Michel de Forest’s history, because as a French man, he would probably have arrived prior to 1653. We know he was married in 1666, so he would already have been in Acadia before 1667.

The Acadians took periodic censuses beginning in 1671. While there are millions of Acadian descendants today, the founding population was small. Given the challenges they faced, it’s actually amazing that they survived at all and that their descendants thrived, even after the Acadian Removal, known as Le Grande Derangement.

The first record we find for Michel de Forest is the 1671 census in Port Royal, Acadia, transcribed here by Lucie LeBlanc Consentino, where he is listed as Michel de Forest, age 33, wife Marie Hebert, 20, with children Michel 4, Pierre 2, René 1, 12 cattle and two sheep.

This tells us that he has been in Acadia for at least five years, in order to have married and have a 4-year-old child. He would have been about 27 when he married.

This also provides a birth year for him of about 1638.

The next census, taken in 1678, shows Michel as a widower with 4 acres, 3 cows, 2 calves, 1 gun, four boys, ages 12, 10, 8, and 3, plus two girls, ages 6 and 4. His age is not given.

Assuming that all of Michel’s children were born to the same mother, this suggests that Marie Hebert died sometime in or after 1675, when the last child would have been born.

Marie and Michel were only married for between 9 and 12 years. I wonder if she died about 1677 in childbirth. Of course, there’s no evidence for that. If she died giving birth to that child, or shortly thereafter, the child is deceased too.

In 1684, a new governor was appointed to Acadia who described the Acadians as living simply and pastorally. He claimed they lived better than Canadians, never lacking meat or bread, but weren’t as industrious. He said they never put anything away for a bad year, and their dowries were small – a few francs and a cow in calf, a ewe, and a sow.

Maybe that explains at least one of Michel’s cows and sheep in 1671.

In 1686, Michel is once again enumerated in the census, age 47, now married to Jacqueline Benoit whose age is given as 13, but is very likely erroneously recorded. Census takers then were probably much the same as census takers decades later in the US. However, accuracy was probably not deemed to be as important in Acadia. After all, everyone knew everyone else. The entire census consisted of 392 people, but scholars estimate that it was probably closer to 500.

Based on Jacqueline’s earlier family records, I believe she was 17. Michel’s children with Marie Hebert are listed as Michel 19, Pierre 18, René 16, Gabriel 13, Marie 11, and Jean-Baptiste 9. Michel had one gun, 8 sheep, and 4 hogs and was cultivating 5 arpents of land.

Age 47 puts Michel’s birth year at 1639. He was either newly married, or his wife was pregnant, because their only child was born about 1687.

In 1686, Jean-Baptiste, at age 9, fits the same pattern as the child who was 3 in 1678, but the math is slightly off. Age 9 in 1686 would put Jean-Baptiste’s birth year in 1677. Perhaps 1676 is the actual birth year, which puts Marie Hebert’s death sometime between 1676 and the 1678 census.

A 1688 report from the governor states that there was a labor shortage, a shortage of manure necessary for developing the uplands and also a shortage of tidelands that would be easy to dyke. As a result, 25-30 (mostly) younger people had moved to Minas in the last 6 years.

By sometime in 1691, Michel’s second wife, Jacqueline Benoit had remarried to Guillaume Trahan. In the 1693 census, she was listed with him as age 20. Michel Forest’s daughter Marguerite, age 6, is shown with the family, but without a surname, as is Angelique, age 1. Angelique would have been born to Jacqueline and Guillaume.

In May of 1690, Michel’s son, René signed the required loyalty oath, but Michel did not, which tells us that he had died by then.

Therefore, we know that Michel died sometime between the birth of his last child, Marguerite, born about 1687 to his second wife, Jacqueline, and May of 1690.

Michel’s youngest child, Marguerite, married about 1705 to Etienne Comeau and had nine children. She is shown with her mother and step-father in 1693 in Les Mines.

Acadia Land Location

Based on later records and a reconstruction of the 1707 census which includes Michel’s son, René de Forest, we know the probable location of Michel’s land. Further confirming this, Karen Theriot Reader reports that Michel had obtained a considerable concession extending over a mile in depth, a dozen miles to the east of the fort in Port Royal.

The René Forest Village is a dozen miles east of the fort, exactly where we would expect based on the description of that concession. A mile in depth is a LOT of land, which would have begun with water frontage on the rivière Dauphin, now the Annapolis River.

Based on the legend, a mile in depth would extend across 201 and possibly to or across 101, Harvest Highway, as well.

As further evidence, Michel married Marie Hebert, daughter of Etienne Hebert and Marie Gaudet, who lived on the adjacent farm.

The Hebert’s lived in close proximity to the de Forest family, maybe half a mile away, which would make courting easy! MapAnnapolis was kind enough to map these locations, here.

The Nova Scotia Archives shows the Hebert and Forest villages on this 1733 map.

This land remained in those families for a century. It’s no wonder that these families intermarried heavily.

Spousal Candidates

There weren’t many marriageable-age young women to choose from among Acadian families, which explains why some men chose Native wives.

I did some analysis on the 1671 census, which proved quite interesting.

There were a total of 68 families in Port Royal in 1671. With that small number of families, it’s no wonder everyone is related to everyone else within just a few generations. The descendant population is highly endogamous today. WikiTree reports that Michel has more than 28,000 identified descendants.

The 1671 census is unique in that families with older children noted how many married children they had. Then, the married child was also enumerated with their own family.

For example, Marie Hebert’s mother was widowed, and her census entry reads thus:

“Marie Gaudet, widow of Etienne Hebert, 38. She has 10 children, two married children: Marie 20, Marguerite 19, Emmanuel 18, not yet married”…and so forth

Then, Marie Hebert is listed with her husband, Michel de Forest, along with their children.

This provides us with a rare opportunity. First, we can match children, particularly females, up with their parents so long as at least one parent is still living.

This dual listing methodology also provides an unexpected glimpse into something else. Missing married children. At least six married children females in the age bracket that I was studying were noted as “married,” but they are not listed with a spouse anyplace. This could be because they had left the area, but that exodus hadn’t really begun that early and wouldn’t for another 15 years or so. It’s also possible that they were simply missed, but that seems unlikely, given that everyone literally knew everyone else and where they lived. Furthermore, everyone lived along the river.

After matching the married daughters up with their husbands, two name-based matches remained questionable, given that the ages were significantly different. For example, one couple lists Marie Gautrot as their married daughter, age 35, but Claude Terriau’s listing shows Marie Gautrot, age 24, as his wife. Their oldest child is 9. This may or may not be the same person.

My goal was to see how many females were of marriage age and single in 1666 when Michel de Forest married. I calculated the probable marriage date for each female based on the oldest child’s age minus one year.

Based on the women living in 1671, 5 females other than Michel’s wife were married in 1666, so they may or may not have been available for marriage when Michel was looking.

I entered all the women between ages 18 and 35 in 1671 into a spreadsheet, meaning they were between 13 and 30 in 1666 when Michel was about 26 or 27. While 13 is extremely young to marry, it appears that young women began marrying at that age. I suspect they married as soon as they reached puberty or shortly thereafter.

After all, finding a “good” husband was important, and in Acadia, pickings were slim. Plus, you really wanted your daughter to settle nearby, so if her “intended” was a neighbor, so much the better. And if her “intended” also had a farm and a cow – that was the veritable jackpot!

The total number of females aged 18-35 in 1671 was only 41, one of which was a widow whose age I can’t reconcile accurately.

Of those people, only 12 were unquestionably unmarried in 1666, plus possibly the widow. If all of the women who married in 1666 were unspoken for in 1666 when Michael was courting, the absolute maximum number of available spouses in that age range was 18, including Michel’s wife. I did not calculate the number of marriage-age males, but there seemed to be more males than females.

Eighteen potential spouses are actually not many to choose from. “Here are 18 people – pick one to marry for the rest of your life.” Today, we hope and expect to be happy. I’d bet they simply hoped not to be miserable and to survive. The most important qualities were probably selecting someone kind and industrious, although young people might not have realized that.

The priests would not sanction marriages to Native women unless the woman would convert and be baptized in the Catholic church, so the men who married Native women tended to live in the woods among the Native people, adopting their lifeways.

The female Acadian marriage age was quite young, ranging from 13-25. The average was 17 years and 10 months.

Calculated marriage ages of women in that age bracket based on the age of the oldest child, less one year, were:

  • 13 years old – 2 people
  • 14 – 3
  • 15 – 5
  • 16 – 2
  • 17 – 5
  • 18 – 2
  • 19 – 6
  • 20 – 3
  • 21 – 1
  • 22 – 1
  • 23 – 1
  • 24 – 1
  • 25 – 1

It’s clear from these numbers that most people were married by 20, and by 21, few female marriage partners were left. The marriages of the women in their 20s could also be erroneous if their first child or children died before the census.

Church records before 1702 do not survive, so we can’t check further.

Michel probably climbed in his birchbark canoe, wearing his cleanest clothes, and paddled the short distance to visit Marie’s parents, asking permission to marry their daughter. Or, perhaps, he asked them in church. They would have seen each other there, at least weekly, so long as the colony had a priest in residence.

Or, maybe Michel became inspired when he was visiting Marie and just popped the question one fine day when she looked particularly beautiful as they strolled through the fields on their adjoining lands.

Because Michel had no parents in the settlement, he would have established himself as a farmer by that point, proving his ability to support a wife and children. This is probably one of the reasons he didn’t marry until he was 28. Regardless of when he arrived, or under what circumstances, he still needed time to build a foundation that would make him marriage-eligible. That would mean being either a farmer, with land, or a tradesman. Something with a dependable income – as dependable as anything could be in a region torn by conflict between the French and English.

If Michel were already farming when he married, which is likely, Marie’s parents would have been excited because their daughter would be living in very close proximity, literally within sight. Or, perhaps, this is how the de Forest family came to establish their home, then the village, next to the Heberts.

Life and Death in Acadia

Michel died young. If he perished in 1687, he would have been roughly 49 years old. If he died in 1690, he would have been 52. Certainly, he could have died of natural causes, but it’s more likely that something else was responsible for his death.

Of course, without modern medical care, any wound could fester and cause sepsis, or an accident with a horse could end a life in the blink of an eye. An appendicitis attack was a death sentence. Dysentery, typhoid, and other diseases of contamination wiped out entire families.

However, none of his children died, nor did his wife at the time, so something else caused Michel’s death.

One likely candidate is the warfare with the English. Acadia had been settled by the French, but the English coveted the land, eventually taking permanent possession, in 1710. However, they had been trying for decades, and control of Acadia has passed back and forth more than once – and never peacefully.

However, 1690 was particularly heinous.

1690

In 1690, Acadia was once again plundered and burned by the English out of Boston. The church in Port Royal and 28 homes were burned, but not the mills and upriver farms, which may have included the Forest homestead.

The French pirate, Pierre Baptiste attempted to defend Port Royal in 1690 but was unsuccessful. A year later, he was successfully recruiting men in Acadia to join him in capturing British ships.

The Acadians in Port Royal swore an oath of allegiance in May of 1690 hoping to de-escalate the situation. Instead, their priest was kidnapped and taken to Boston. Luckily for us, the priest took the loyalty oath document with him, which tells us which males were alive as of May 1690. I transcribed that list, here.

Michel is not on the list, and neither are his two oldest sons, Michel and Pierre. The eldest was probably married already, but Pierre was not. Michel’s third son, René de Forest, signed the oath and stayed in Acadia to work his father’s land. The older two brothers settled shortly thereafter, if they hadn’t already, in Grand Pre which had been founded in 1686 by the Melanson family.

The English were firmly in charge of Acadia after the 1690 attack.

Emboldened, 2 English pirates took advantage of the opportunity and burned more homes, killing people and livestock.

However, by this time, it appears that Michel was already gone. His children and widow would have been left to fight those battles.

Did Michel die defending his home and family in 1690, along with his son or sons? Was their homestead burned either in the initial attack or by the pirates?

Origins

Michel was the first Forest, de Forest or Foret settler in Acadia – the founder of the Acadian Forest family. He was clearly there before he married in either 1665 or 1666, based on the age of his eldest child.

If Michel was born about 1638 or 1639, he would have been roughly 28 years old when he married.

Forest family researchers are fortunate to have long-time researcher, John P. DeLong, as a family member. John is a descendant and has been studying this family for more than 35 years. He’s been providing his web page for more than a quarter century. Thank you, John!!

John has evaluated the various famous and infamous stories about Michel’s origins, piece by piece, including both a mysterious name and religious denominational change – all of which are without any scrap of evidence other than uncertain oral history. Sometimes facts are morphed or molded a bit to fit the narrative – and that seems to be what happened over the decades, and indeed, centuries, regarding Michel.

There are two long-standing myths, meaning oral history, surrounding Michel de Forest. John goes into great detail, documenting both exceedingly well on his site, “The Origins of the Acadian Michel Forest.”

I’m not going to repeat them herel, but I strongly encourage all Michel Forest researchers to read his extensive research, points, counterpoints, and citations. It’s an excellent piece of work.

Not only is John’s research exemplary, it’s backed up by Y-DNA evidence. Assuming the tester’s genealogy is accurate, our Michel de Forest is NOT a descendant of the French Huguenot family who sought refuge in the Netherlands. Their Y-DNA, documented in the Forest Y-DNA project, here, is entirely different.

One of the theories involves our immigrant Michel being born by another name in the Netherlands to Huguenot refugees, then changing both his name and religion when immigrating to Acadia.

He was also rumored to be related to the Forest family of New Netherlands, now New York. That family descends from the Dutch Huguenot family.

An older story involved being born to another couple from the same line, but that was debunked earlier.

I concur with John DeLong’s conclusion that Michel very likely arrived around 1650 with Governor d’Aulnay:

Governor d’Aulnay was recruiting young men to voyage to Acadia between 1645 and 1650. Furthermore, a marriage delay of sixteen years is understandable. He (Michel) had to mature to adulthood, perhaps wait for his period of servitude to end, maybe spend some time setting up his own farm to become independent, and then had to wait for an eligible bride to mature given the shortage of marriageable woman in the colony. This could take up sixteen years. Surely, the fact that his second marriage was to a girl of 14 or 15 indicates that there was a serious shortage of eligible women in the colony even as late as 1686.

Without any other evidence, this is the most reasonable hypothesis.

What we know for sure is that Michel arrived in Acadia without any known family. This makes me wonder if Michel was an orphan or perhaps an adventurous teenager who set out to see the world.

Michel must have been wide-eyed as he set eyes on Port Royal for the first time. He would spend the rest of his life here, and his bones would rest in this very location.

Forest DNA

Thank goodness for the Forest DNA Project at FamilyTreeDNA. Y-DNA for males is passed from father to son, unmixed with the DNA of the mother. Occasional small mutations occur, allowing descendants to be grouped into family lines, but overall, Michel’s direct male descendants will match each other. In other words, de Forest or Forest men will match other Forest men.

Several of Michel’s direct patrilineal descendants have tested, and, as expected, they match each other. They do NOT match the Huguenot/New Netherlands group – not even close. Assuming the genealogy of the New Netherlands descendant is accurate, and no undocumented adoptions have occurred, this dispels any remaining doubt that anyone might have.

Often, stories become so ingrained in families and culture that disproof is hard to accept, especially when the story defines part of the family or cultural identity. One might ask themselves – how could these family stories have been so wrong for so long?

In this case, we know that at least two different de Forest descendant lines dating from a common ancestor in about 1830 carried this oral history, independently. Of course, we have NO idea how that story began. Maybe someone “noticed” the similarities in names and assumed that they were connected. Maybe someone told someone else they were connected. Regardless, it happened.

Then, after 150+ years of being repeated, it was accepted as incontrovertible fact, and everyone believed it. Why wouldn’t they? Those stories had been in the family “forever” so they “had” to be true. In the early/mid 1900s, books were published, further cementing the stories into the family psyche. If it’s in print, it has to be accurate, right? Then, online trees began, and what was previously in print in libraries became easily accessible from home, and the age of click/copy/paste began and continues to this day.

Let me say this again – Acadian Michel Forest’s Y-DNA, meaning his direct paternal line, does not match with the paternal line of the Dutch family, meaning that Gereyt de Forest who was born in 1737 to the wealthy Protestant de Forest family in Leiden in the Netherlands was NOT the Catholic Michel de Forest of Acadia. There are no facts that add up, and neither does the Y-DNA.

What do we know about Michel Forest’s DNA results, aside from the fact that his descendants’ Y-DNA doesn’t match the Dutch line of the same or similar surname who settled in New Netherlands?

Several of Michel de Forest’s descendants have tested, which you can see here.

I wish very much that every tester would enter their earliest known ancestor.

The volunteer project administrators have grouped Michel Forest’s known descendants together, above. You’ll notice that their haplogroups are estimated to be R-M269 based on STR tests, or the much more refined haplogroup R-FT146490 based on a Big Y test taken by kit number N36241.

On the other hand, kit number 939910 is reported to be a descendant of Melchoir de Forest III who was born about 1521 and died about 1571 or 1572. This is the Huguenot branch that immigrated to the Netherlands, then to New Netherlands. This is the line rumored to be Michel’s ancestors. Specifically, Gerryt (Geryt, Geryte, Gerryte) de Foreest/Forest born in 1637 was said to have gone to Acadia where he changed his name to Michel and became Catholic again. The birth year aligns approximately, but that’s all. Nothing more is known of Gerryte, so he was the perfect candidate to morph into Michel. A similar birth year, a continent apart, with no additional evidence, does not the same person make.

Assuming the tester’s genealogy is accurate, the Melchior haplogroup is I-FT413656, and the test can be found in the Ungrouped section.

I would very much like to see another confirmed test from any paternally descended male Melchior Forest descendant, preferably through another son. This would confirm the difference.

The base haplogroup of the Acadian Michel de Forest group is haplogroup R and the haplogroup of the Huguenot group is I. This alone disproves this theory, as those haplogroups aren’t related in thousands of years.

There are several testers in the project’s Ungrouped section. I can tell that the project administrators were actively trying to test all lines with a similar surname to see if any match. So far, they don’t.

The Group Time Tree, available under the project menu, shows all of the testers from both groups, together on one tree by time, across the top.

It’s easy to see that Acadian Michel De Forest’s group doesn’t match any other group of men with the same or similar surnames. I love this tool, because you can view all project members who have taken the Big-Y test, together, with time.

Additionally, the Forest Project has provided a summary, here that is a bit outdated, but the essence is still of value. Michel does not descend from Jesse, who descends from Melchior.

Additional information is available exclusively to members of the Forest Association, which can be found here. I’m not a member, so I don’t know what additional information might be there.

Discover More

FamilyTreeDNA has provided the free Discover tool. One of the Forest men has taken the Big Y test and has been assigned the detailed haplogroup of R-FT146490. Haplogroup R-M269 is about 6350 years old, while the mutation responsible for R-FT146490 occurred about 200 years ago.

This fine, granular information, combined with other men who have taken the Big Y test and have either the same or nearby haplogroups, provides us with significant information about our de Forest family.

It confirms who we are and tells us who we’re not.

The Discover tool provides us with information about the age of Michel’s haplogroup, R-FT146490.

The haplogroup of Michel’s direct male paternal-line descendants is estimated to have been born about the year 1800, which suggests that if more descendants of Michel through different sons were to test, we might well identify another haplogroup someplace between 1800 and the parent haplogroup born about 800 CE. That’s a thousand years. Where were our ancestors?

These dates represent ranges, though, so the 1800 date could potentially be earlier.

Perhaps additional Forest men would be willing to upgrade.

Aside from Michel’s descendants upgrading, it would be very useful to see how closely we match other men from France. But that’s a problem.

A huge challenge for Acadian DNA testing is that DNA testing in France is illegal, so most of the French tests we have are from lines that left for the New World or elsewhere.

Perhaps in time, Michel’s origins before Acadia will be revealed. Where were his ancestors between 800 CE and when we find Michel in Acadia by 1666? That’s a BIG gap. We need more of Michel’s descendants to test, preferably at least one person from each son.

Michel Summary

Michael’s life was short, and while we know who he married and the names of his children, thanks to the census, so much has been lost as a result of the destruction of the early Catholic church records.

That Catholic church that was burned by the British in 1690 assuredly held the records we need. However, the Acadians had much more than church registers to worry about after that attack. They had to bury their dead and provide for the living, somehow.

Under normal circumstances, Michael’s funeral would have been held inside the church near the fort in Annapolis Royal, and he would have been laid to rest in the cemetery beside the church. That may or may not be what happened, depending on when and how he died. The original Fort and historic area, including the church location and cemetery, is shown between St. George Street, Prince Albert, and the Bay, above.

The church no longer exists, and Acadian graves are unmarked today, but we know they were buried in what is now called the Garrison Cemetery, overlooking the Bay that welcomed Michel about 40 years earlier.

_____________________________________________________________

Follow DNAexplain on Facebook, here.

Share the Love!

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

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

You Can 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 the price you pay but helps me to keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the 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 Book

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

Calling All Descendants of George Estes (1763-1859) – You’re Invited to His Revolutionary War Grave Dedication – 52 Ancestors #410

If you’re a descendant of George Estes (1763-1859), Revolutionary War Veteran who lived and died in Halifax County, VA, you’re invited to the dedication of his gravestone. I wrote about George’s life and service, here.

The Dan River Chapter of the Sons of the American Revolution is holding a dedication ceremony for George and his new gravestone on Sunday, October 21st, 2023 at 11 AM in the Oak Ridge Cemetery in South Boston, Virginia.

Dwight Spangler worked with local cousin, Mark Estes, and the Graves Preservation Committee of the Dan River SAR chapter to compile the necessary documentation to request a marker from the VA.

Documenting the location was challenging because the family moved George’s grave before the City demolished the structures on the premises, along with the cemetery, for both the landfill and the Water Department.

The graves were moved to Oak Ridge Cemetery, literally across the street, where the Estes family owned a block of graves. According to family member, Shirley Whtilow, whose father was actually one of the men who moved the graves, Estes family members who lived on the original land, including George, were reburied in the family plot in Oak Ridge.

After George’s stone arrived, Mark installed it in the Estes cemetery plot, almost directly across from Estes Street where the original land, cemetery and homestead were located.

Mark provided the location where George’s marker has been installed. Notice Estes Street directly across from George’s grave in the Estes plot. It’s possible that Oak Ridge Cemetery was established in the 1880s on Estes land.

To attend George’s ceremony, use the Cemetery entrance on North Main Street, just north of Hamilton Blvd.

In the photo above, the purple semi at right is sitting on Estes Street, waiting to turn on Main Street. The Main Street entrance to the cemetery is shown above. The surrounding walls were constructed using cobblestones from the early South Boston streets, some of which may well have been laid by George himself. He worked on several road crews.

It’s somehow fitting that George’s family will meet in the Estes plot in the cemetery, across the street from his home where he resided after returning home from the Revolutionary War, protected with a wall salvaged from the roads on which he worked.

It may be 164 years after George was originally buried, and probably nearly a century after he was reburied – but it’s happening. George finally has a stone. And we, his descendants, have the opportunity to honor his life, including not one, not two, but three tours of duty in the Revolutionary War. Hope to see you there.

Please let me know if you’re planning to attend.

Acknowledgements and Thank Yous

On behalf of all of George’s descendants, I would like to thank both the SAR and Dwight Spangler. I extend my deepest appreciation to cousin Mark Estes, along with my now-deceased cousins, all of whom were descendants of George’s daughter, Suzanne Estes, through son Ezekiel Estes (1814-1885), then son Henry Archer Estes (1857-1934).

Doug Estes (1925-2019), Shirley Estes Whitlow (1926-2014), and Nancy Dunkley Osborne (1936-2008) were first cousins to each other. They not only graciously shared our family history when I visited Halifax County twenty+ years ago, but helped me piece it back together.

Shirley’s father, William “Willy” Fife Estes (1892-1984) helped move the graves, so Shirley knew where the remains had been reburied. Shirley drew a map, showing me where the Estes homes and cemetery were originally located. She took me to the Estes cemetery plots in Oak Ridge. Nancy showed me where George’s grandfather, Moses Estes (1711-1787), lived, and she cleaned and maintained the original Estes stones in Oak Ridge Cemetery. Doug shared several family stories with me, including details about the original Estes land and reburials. Doug and Shirley visited the original Estes farm, and played on the Estes land in the 1930s, before the main house burned in 1933 and the land was sold or leased to the City.

_____________________________________________________________

Follow DNAexplain on Facebook, here.

Share the Love!

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

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

You Can 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 the price you pay but helps me to keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the 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 Book

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

RootsTech 2024 Registration Opens Today

I’m excited – for two reasons. First, RootsTech registration opens today, and second, in partnership with RootsTech, I’m doing something entirely new – DNA Academy!!

Registration

RootsTech will be held February 29 – March 2 at the Salt Palace in Salt Lake City, Utah. Registration opens today.

RootsTech 2024 will be both in-person and online.

Click here to register or view the speakers and sessions.

Please note that the online version is free again this year, and includes more than 200 sessions in multiple languages. More than 250 in-person sessions will be offered.

You can take a look at the speakers, here. I’ve noticed that some of the search and filter functions are struggling today. When I encountered issues, such as nothing displaying, I closed and opened my browser again.

Click on the Filters to view the speakers, categories, meaning general sessions, in-person or online, and the different presentation types.

Please note that this list does NOT include sessions provided by vendors that will be presented in their booths – so there will be more available.

Yes, I’ll Be Attending – In Person

I know the next question will be whether I’ll be speaking and if I’m going to be at RootsTech in person. The answer is yes.

I’m looking forward to presenting two sessions.

My second session is brand new for RootsTech.

DNA Academy

RootsTech and I are partnering to offer something new this year – DNA Academy.

DNA Academy will be a two-hour session that pulls all the pieces together for you. Offering a two-hour session is something new and experimental for RootsTech.

Often, people ask about the differences between DNA tests, testing companies, and popular third-party tools. How do you manage all of this anyway? How should you approach testing to address your specific genealogical challenges?

I’m offering this in-depth two-hour class to present everything in one place. And yes, I promise to give you a stand-up and stretch break at the one-hour mark.

Please note that this session is listed as a workshop, but it isn’t in the traditional sense. You don’t need to bring your laptop as it’s lecture only. There won’t be any in-class exercises, but you’ll be able to apply this information right away.

I’m very excited about offering this comprehensive class, and I hope you’ll join me.

See you at RootsTech!!!

_____________________________________________________________

Follow DNAexplain on Facebook, here.

Share the Love!

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

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

You Can 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 the price you pay but helps me to keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the 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 Book

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

East Coast Genetic Genealogy Conference – In Person and Virtual – October 6-8, 2023

There’s a conference focused solely on genetic genealogy, and you’re invited!! Now that’s talking my language!!!

The second annual East Coast Genetic Genealogy Conference (ECGGC) will take place on October 6-8, 2023, at the Maritime Conference Center in Linthicum Heights, Maryland, just outside Baltimore.

This year’s conference is a hybrid affair, with both in-person and virtual speaker sessions and vendor booths.

The in-person conference includes lunch and costs $225, while the virtual conference is $175.

As the name suggests, this conference caters to genetic genealogists. The lineup includes wonderful speakers who I’m sure you’ll recognize, here. I can hardly wait to attend some of these sessions. The great news is that you really don’t have to pick and choose from the more than 40 sessions, because you can view recorded sessions after the conference.

Please note that while my session on Sunday at 11, Wringing Every Drop Out of Mitochondrial DNA, is listed as In-Person, it is not. Due to a change in plans, it’s virtual.

Be sure to check out the DNA Academy on Saturday evening from 6 to 8:30 PM. This event was quite popular last year.

Is there a presentation or a few that you’re particularly looking forward to?

Recorded sessions will be available until December 31st, so even if you can’t join us that weekend, or you’re on the other side of the world and the timing just doesn’t work, you don’t have to miss out. Often, in-person sessions aren’t recorded and available later, but at ECGGC, both in-person and virtual sessions will be recorded so you can watch any session through year-end. Thanks to the fine folks on the ECGGC conference committee for providing this benefit.

You can purchase a ticket, here.

This is a wonderful opportunity, and I hope to see you there.

_____________________________________________________________

Follow DNAexplain on Facebook, here.

Share the Love!

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

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

You Can 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 the price you pay but helps me to keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the 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 Book

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

René de Forest (born c 1670-1751), Hanging On by a Thread – 52 Ancestors #409

René de Forest was born in 1670 near Port Royal, Acadia, to Michel de Forest and Marie Hebert. Acadia had been at the heart of a dispute between the French and English for control of the region, and René was born into the middle of that conflict.

The 1671 census shows his father, Michel de Forest, age 33, wife Marie Hebert, age 20, and children Michel, age 4, Pierre, age 2, and René, age 1. They also had 12 cattle, 2 sheep, and 2 arpents of cultivated land.

An arpent of land was equal to either about 192 linear feet if measured along a riverbank, for example, or about .84 acres. A typical French practice, in Louisiana, arpents are long, narrow parcels of land along streams and waterways.

The entire 1671 census consisted of 67 Acadian families at Port Royal, which included the area up and down the rivière Dauphin, now the Annapolis River, from the confluence with the Bay of Fundy up to about Bridgetown today.

Forty-eight families had land listed, meaning 19 families had no cultivated land, even though they were listed as farmers. The most wealthy man had 30 arpents. Several had between 1 and 6 arpents. This means that René was by no means wealthy, but was in the normal range. He also had more cattle than most, so perhaps that made up for less cultivated land. I’d bet his cattle were grazing on uncultivated land.

Early Life

René’s actual birthday is reported as January 11, 1670, on WikiTree, with two sources provided that I cannot verify by original records. His birth was not listed at the Nova Scotia Archives in the church records because the remaining records did not begin until 1702. It would be interesting to know where earlier researchers obtained the date of January 11th. Regardless, based on the 1671 census, we know the year of his birth.

His father was listed as a widower in the 1678 census with 4 sons and 2 daughters. The youngest child listed was age 3, which tells us that Marie died sometime between 1675 and 1678. If they had another child in 1677, that child died too.

René’s mother died when he was young. He was between age 5 and age 8. That must have been devastating for a young child. I hope he had at least some memory of her.

Probably with help from his siblings and relatives, Michel raised those children and farmed for the next few years. Somehow, someplace in the midst of all this, René learned to read and write – well – at least he was able to write his own name.

In 1684, a new governor was appointed to serve in Acadia who complained that the Acadians never put anything away for a bad year and their dowries were small – a few francs and a cow in calf, a ewe, and a sow. This made me smile.

In 1686, another new governor reported that the Acadian people had scattered and lived far from each other, their homes being built behind the marshes along the river. Several families left the region a few years earlier to establish villages elsewhere, but René’s father was not one of them.

René’s father, Michel, remarried a decade or so later, about 1686, to Jacqueline Benoist.

In the 1686 census, listed along with other census years on the Acadian-home site, Michel, 47, is listed with Jacqueline, who is noted as age 13, along with his children by Marie. René is listed as age 16. I question both his age and his stepmother’s as well. Her parents were shown in the 1678 census as having two girls, one born in 1671 and one in 1677. If Jacqueline was born in 1671, she would have been age 17 in 1678. Much more reasonable than a 13-year-old married to a 47-year-old man. If she was born in 1677, she would have been 11 in 1678, clearly not old enough to marry. I’m betting that she was 17, not 13. Still, her stepsons were older than she was.

Michel seems to be doing fairly well, or at least reasonably, given that he has a gun, which was an absolute necessity both for hunting and defense, 5 arpents of land, 8 sheep and 4 hogs.

Michel and Jacqueline had their only child, a daughter, Marguerite, in about 1687.

Then, along came 1690, a red-letter year.

1690 Attack

In 1690, Acadia was again plundered and burned by the English out of Boston. The church and 28 homes were burned, but not the mills and upriver farms. This suggests that the Forest farm may have escaped being burned, although we certainly don’t know for sure.

The English were clearly in charge now. René would have been about 20. The Acadians had been preparing for this eventuality, amid lesser attacks, for years.

Michel died about 1690, or more specifically, between the 1686 census and May of 1690, and his widow remarried very shortly thereafter.

We don’t know exactly when or how Michel died, but he was 50ish – so he probably didn’t die of old age. His death certainly could have been related to the 1690 attack. His widow’s quick remarriage would have provided safety and security for herself and her children – and maybe Michel’s children from his first marriage, too.

Michel’s death made René an orphan by the age of 20. I wonder if the family stayed on the land Michel was farming. What happened to his younger siblings when his stepmother remarried? Who raised them? Where did they live?

At this point, René was an adult – whether he was ready to be or not.

1690 – The Loyalty Oath

The political situation in Acadia was extremely inflamed and very tense. In an attempt to diffuse the situation, the Acadians agreed to sign a limited loyalty oath. Essentially, they simply wanted to remain neutral in the warfare between France and England, not fighting “for” either side. Hence, their nickname of French Neutrals.

The Massachusetts State Archive holds the original oath with signatures because the priest, in possession of the oath document, was kidnapped in May of 1690 and taken to Massachusetts. I wrote about this oath, including a transcription with signatures, here. The title of the article is “1695 Loyalty Oath,” because that’s the year in the Massachusetts Archives. The oath document was physically in Massachusetts at that time, having been transported by the priest, but that’s not when or where it was signed.

Wee do swear and sincerely promise that wee will be faithfull and bear true allegiance to his Majesty King William King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland.

So helpe us God.

René signed his own signature on the May 1690 Oath of Allegiance in Port Royal. It’s worth noting that his father did NOT sign, so Michel was deceased by this time. And he may have been very recently deceased.

Mark Deutsch provided additional important information in a comment on the original article, as follows:

This oath was actually forced upon the residents of Port-Royal by William Phips, commander of a force from Massachusetts that captured Port-Royal in May 1690 without a fight. Phips had seven ships, 64 cannon and 736 men, more than the entire population of Acadia. This was during King William’s War, mostly fought in Europe, as usual, but with North American involvement. In his own words, Phips reported, “We cut down the cross, rifled the Church, pulled down the High-Altar, breaking their images”; and on 23 May, “kept gathering Plunder both by land and water, and also under ground in their Gardens”. see Dictionary of Canadian Biography. http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/phips_william_1E.html

“An employee of the Compaignie d’Acadie had buried the cashbox, and Phips had him tortured until he revealed its location…The New Englanders also confiscated the 4,000 livres from the colonial treasury.” p. 89, “A Great and Noble Scheme” by John Mack Faragher.

“As the looting continued, Phips summoned the inhabitants hiding in the woods ‘forthwith to come in, and subject yourselves to the Crown of England…swearing allegiance to their Majesties, William and Mary of England, Scotland, France (sic) and Ireland, King and Queen’. Otherwise he declared, ‘you must expect no other Quarter, than what the Law of Arms will allow you. Fearing slaughter, the frightened residents cautiously returned to their homes. On 24 May, Phips administered the oath of allegiance to the adult males” p. 90, supra.

After giving orders to his men to impose this oath to everyone, both French and Native they could locate in Acadia, “and upon refusal hereof to burn, kill, and destroy them.”, he sailed back to Massachusetts. Later in 1690 Phips made an attempt to take Quebec with 34 ships and 2,300 men, but Governor Frontenac, familiar with Phips’ reputation of course refused surrender, and Quebec could not be captured. King William’s War ended in 1697 with the Treaty of Ryswick and Acadia was reaffirmed to be French, although the capture and pillaging of Prot-Royal had not resulted in any British government of the town and there was no attempt to exert control over the outlying villages or obtain oaths. The oath from the men of Port-Royal was promptly retracted as made under duress and fear for their lives.

Marriage

Around 1695, René married Françoise Dugas. The couple welcomed their first child, Marie, in 1696, the same year that the British attacked Acadian again. Once again, burning homes and slaughtering animals.

By the time the next census rolled around in 1698, René Forest was listed as 28 years of age, his wife, Françoise Dugas, age 20, Marie, age 2, Marguerite, age 1, with 18 cattle, 22 sheep, 2 hogs, 16 arpents of land, 40 fruit trees and 2 guns. The location is given as Port Royal. I wonder if René had a spare gun, or if the second one was his father’s. Comparatively speaking, 16 arpents of land is a lot. The fruit trees would have been very important and would have taken a few years to produce, so Rene was clearly invested here, and investing in the future as well.

In 1701, the census showed René Forest, 31, Françoise Dugas (wife), 22, Joseph, 3, Francois, 1, Marie, 5, Marguerite, 4; 1 gun, 12 cattle, 18 sheep, 3 hogs, 6 arpents of land. (Port Royal)

Now I wonder if the 16 arpents of land in 1698 was supposed to be 6, or the 6 in 1701 was supposed to be 16.

The next census is in 1703, where René Forest is listed with his wife, 4 boys, 4 girls, and 1 arms-bearer, which would have been him.

In 1707, we find René Forest and wife, 4 boys less than 14, 2 girls less than 12, 8 arpents of land, 14 cattle, 24 sheep, 15 hogs, and 1 gun.

We know where René lived, based on the 1707 census.

Fortunately, the location has been reconstructed by MapAnnapolis, here.

The red star marks this satellite view from Google Maps.

By 1708, the tension was reaching fever pitch again, and it was becoming evident that attacks would follow, probably sooner than later.

1710

This time, the English unquestionably meant business.

One Capt. Morris wrote that the channel south of Goat Island was shallow and rocky; north of the island, it was wide and deep, but there was a strong ebb and flow of the tides. The 5 miles from Goat Island to the fort had water, even in low tides. Small vessels could travel as far as 18 miles above the fort, near present-day Bridgetown. René lived about 12 miles upriver, but below Bridgeton. Large boats could go 9 miles further to “the falls” on the tide if they could stand being beached at low tide. But the bottom was “intolerably rocky and foul.”

On September 24, 1710, Port Royal was attacked again by the English who sent five ships and 3400 troops. That’s 3400 soldiers against about 1700 total Acadians, including women and children.

The 300 Acadian soldiers gathered in Fort Royal and made a valiant attempt to hold the fort, and with it, Acadia.

Par Charny — Travail personnel, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=17854799

The Acadians, with their 300 soldiers, which would have included all able-bodied men, stood absolutely no chance, although they did manage to hold the fort for 19 days under siege. The episode became known as the Siege of Port Royal, or the Conquest of Acadia.

Here is what we know about the battle:

As the fleet sails north, it is joined by a dispatch ship sent by Thomas Matthews, captain of the Chester; it was carrying deserters from the French garrison, who reported that the morale of the French troops was extremely low. Nicholson sends the ship ahead with one of the transports; as they entered Digby Gully , they received fire from groups of Micmacs on the coast. The ships retaliate with their guns, with neither side taking any casualties. On October 5, the main British fleet arrived at Goat Island, about 10 kilometers (6.2 mi) south of Port-Royal. That afternoon, the Caesar transport runs aground while attempting to enter Annapolis, and is eventually swept away by the rocks. Her captain, part of her crew and 23 soldiers died, while a company commander and some 25 other people fought ashore.

The following day, October 6, British marines began landing north and south of the fortress and town. The northern force was joined by four New England regiments under the command of Colonel Vetch, while Nicholson led the remaining New England troops as part of the southern force. The landings were uneventful, with fire from the fort being countered by one of Fleet’s long-range bombers. Although later accounts of the siege state that Vetch’s detachment was part of a strategic plan to encircle the fort, contemporary accounts report that Vetch wanted to have command somewhat independent of Nicholson. These same accounts state that Vetch never came within range of the fort’s guns before the end of the siege; his attempts to erect a battery of mortars in a muddy area opposite the fort, across Allain Creek, were repulsed by the fire of cannon. The southern force encountered guerrilla-type resistance outside the fort, with Acadian and native defenders firing small arms from houses and wooded areas, in addition to taking fire from the fort. This fire caused three deaths among the British, but the defenders could not prevent the British on the south side from establishing a camp about 400 meters from the fort.

Over the next four days the British landed their guns and brought them to camp. Fire from the fort and its supporters outside continued, and British bombers wreaked havoc inside the fort with their fire each night. With the imminent opening of new British batteries, Subercase sent an officer with a flag of parliament on 10 October. The negotiations started badly, because the officer was not announced correctly by a beater. Each side ended up taking an officer from the other, mainly for reasons of military etiquette, and the British continued their siege work.

On October 12, the forward siege trenches and guns within 91 m (300 ft) of the fort opened fire. Nicholson sends Subercase a demand for surrender, and negotiations resume. At the end of the day, the parties reach an agreement on the terms of surrender, which is formally signed the next day. The garrison is permitted to leave the fort with all the honors of war, “their arms and baggage, drums beating and flags flying.”

René Forest, now 30 years old, would have marched out, head held high, one of those proud but defeated men.

This hurts my heart.

Conditions of Surrender

The requirement to leave must have pained the Acadians greatly, but they had no say in the matter.

The British were required to transport the garrison to France, and the capitulation carried specific protections to protect the inhabitants. The conditions provided that “inhabitants of the cannon firing range of the fort,” meaning 3 English miles, may remain on their properties for up to two years if they wish, provided they are prepared to take the oath to the British Crown.

There’s that oath issue again.

If they took the oath, they had two years to move their “moveable items” to a French territory which was any of the rest of Acadia, at least until the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713.

481 Acadians pledged allegiance to the Queen of England, and the French troops left Port Royal, now renamed by the English to Annapolis Royal. I bet the Acadians refused to call it that.

450 English soldiers remained, but they clearly didn’t want to be there. By June of 1711, only 100 were left – the rest having either deserted or died.

Then, there was Bloody Creek.

Bloody Creek

One of the reasons I suspect that René’s father, Michel, was killed in or as a result of the British attack of 1690 is René’s continued resistance. Not just resistance either, because all of the Acadians were resisting in one way or another. The attack at Bloody Creek probably illustrates the depths of René’s conviction and his hatred of the British.

In 1711, a detachment from Fort Anne went upriver and was ambushed by a band of Indians. Thirty soldiers, a major, and the fort engineer were killed at “Bloody Creek, 12 miles east of Annapolis Royal.” The Native people were closely allied and often intermarried with the Acadians.

Note the location of Bloody Creek, and the René Forest “village.” Who lived in that village anyway? I doubt that an ambush happened on the river in front of René’s home, and he knew nothing about it and did not participate.

Nope, I’m not buying that for a minute.

While there were 11 fewer soldiers, in the end, it made no difference in the outcome.

1713

On April 13, 1713, Acadia passed to England, with France ceding all of Nova Scotia or Acadia with its 2000 residents. One author reported that in the past century, France had sent less than 200 colonists to Acadia and, at that point, had focused on Louisiana.

Par John Thornton; annotations by User:Magicpiano — Boston Public Library digital map collection, Call Number: G3320 1713 .T56: http://maps.bpl.org/details_10062/, Domaine public, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=12188909

This 1713 map shows eastern New England and southern Nova Scotia, Port Royal is at point A, Boston at point B, and Casco Bay at point C.

The English pressured the Acadians from 1713-1730 to take an oath of allegiance and become British subjects. The Acadians refused, expressing three points of concern:

  • That they be able to continue their Catholic faith unimpeded
  • That the Indians (allies of the French) might attack an Acadian who fought against the French
  • That the English take the Acadians’ history into account

While in 1710, none of the Acadians wanted to leave, by 1713, they had accepted their fate and actually wanted to move to a French-controlled territory and away from the British.

In 1714, the last census was taken, and René is listed with his wife, 5 sons, and 5 daughters.

From the Acadians in Grey website, we discover that René received permission from the French in August 1714 to settle on Île Royal, but, like most of his brothers, he remained in British-controlled Acadia. However, records show that his brother Jean-Baptiste was in Beaubassin by 1726.

This is actually surprising, given a 1714 letter from the English Governor of Acadia.

Be Careful What You Wish For

Oh, the irony.

By sometime in 1714, the Acadians were ready and wanted to leave and join the other French families. However, Vetch, the English governor, reversed his position when he realized how strong that French settlement would be, and that he would have no farmers to govern.

  • Vetch noted that except for 2 families from New England, the Allens and Gourdays, all of the rest of the Acadians wanted to move to French-controlled areas. This would clearly have included René.
  • He notes that there are about 500 families in Acadia, which he calls “L’Accady and Nova Scotia” but that there are also 500 families in Louisbourg, plus 7 companies of soldiers. The French king had given them 18 months of provisions and helped them with ships and salt for the fishery to encourage Acadian settlement there.
  • He states that if the Acadians move from Nova Scotia to Isle Royale, it will empty the area of inhabitants. He’s concerned that the Indians who have intermarried with the Acadians and share their religion would follow, along with their trade, making Isle Royale the largest and most powerful French colony in the New World.
  • He says that 100 Acadians who know the woods, can use snowshoes and birch canoes, plus knowledge of the fishery, are more valuable than five times as many soldiers fresh from Europe.
  • He noted that some Acadians, mostly without many belongings, had already moved, and the rest planned on doing so in the summer of 1715 when the harvest was over and the grain was in.
  • The Acadians would take their 5000 cattle with them, plus many sheep and hogs. So, if the Acadians move, the colony would be reverted to a primitive state devoid of cattle. It would require a long time and 40,000 pounds to obtain that much livestock from New England.
  • Last, he noted that the treaty didn’t give the Acadians the right to sell the land.
  • He stated that the Acadians wouldn’t have wanted to go if the French officers (speaking for the French king) hadn’t threatened that they’d be treated as rebels if they didn’t move.

Based on the 1710 edict and the 1713 ceding of Acadia to the British, combined with the constant pestering to sign an oath, I somewhat doubt his last assertion. However, the fact that half the Acadians were in Louisbourg which was being subsidized by the French king, and was ruled by the French, must have made the unwelcome mandatory move edict of 1710 look pretty attractive by 1714.

I have to wonder why René declined to go before the governor changed his mind. Perhaps René maintained hope that things might still right themselves, right up until he didn’t anymore. Maybe he didn’t want to depart without his brothers, who were likely the other residents in the René Forest Village.

The Acadians truly believed they were leaving, though, because they didn’t plant crops. Now, what were they to do?

The Acadians tried any number of avenues to leave, including making their own boats, but they were seized, and the Acadians were essentially held hostage on their own lands with no crops or resources.

Still, they refused to take that bloody oath.

The next few years were a mess.

In 1715, the English shut the gates to the fort, and the Acadians were prevented from trading with either the English soldiers or the Native people.

By 1717, when some of the Acadians had planted their fields again and decided to remain on peaceful terms, the Indians were upset and threatened the Acadians, fearing they were defecting to the English side.

Everyone was upset with everyone else, and the situation was untenable. However, in the background, the Acadian families continued to marry, have, and baptize children. Life didn’t stop because life as they knew it might end. It also might not.

There is no remaining baptism record for René’s child born in 1710, the year of the siege, but children were born to René and Françoise in May of both 1713 and 1715. Then, in July of both 1717 and 1719.

For René, every child that was added to the family probably ratcheted up his anxiety level. He needed to protect and provide for his wife and children. He all-too-clearly would have remembered what happened to his parents, especially his father.

1720 – Another Ultimatum

The English didn’t want to lose their source of supplies, so they wanted the Acadians to stay, but on English terms. The Acadians were difficult, if not impossible, to control. It had been a decade since the English had taken control of the fort, told the Acadians they had to leave, and then reversed their position four years later. Everyone was weary, and the Acadian families had to be incredibly tired of the constant upheaval and uncertainty.

As for René and Françoise, 13 of their 14 children had been born, and their oldest was 24.

Late in 1720, General Philipps issued a proclamation that the Acadians must take the dreaded oath unconditionally or leave the country in 3 months. He also said they couldn’t sell or take any of their property with them, thinking that would pressure the Acadians into taking the oath. However, they still refused, saying that the Indians were threatening them.

When the Acadians requested, “let us harvest our crops and use vehicles to carry it,” Philipps figured that they were planning on taking their possessions with them and denied their request. He may have been right.

The Acadians felt that their only ” escape ” route was by land instead of the typical water route, so they began to create a road from Minas to Port Royal, about 70 miles.

In response, the governor issued an order that no one should move without his permission. He also sent an order to Minas to stop work on the road.

The English stated that the Acadians desired to take the Port Royal cattle to Beaubassin, about 215 miles today by road but not nearly as far by water. Beaubassin was a fortified French possession.

Exasperated, Philipps pronounced the Acadians ungovernable, stubborn, and added that bigoted priests directed them. The Acadians probably wore those badges with pride.

Philipps went on to say that the Acadians couldn’t be allowed to go because it would strengthen the population of their French neighbors. They were also needed to build fortifications and to produce supplies for the English forts.

He stated that the Acadians couldn’t leave until there were enough British subjects to be settled in their place, and he hoped that plans were being made to import British subjects. Furthermore, he expected problems from the Indians, who didn’t want the Acadians to leave, and rightfully blamed the British.

France started sending people to Ile Royal. The fort at Louisburg, destroyed in 1758, was begun in 1720. Other settlements in the region included St. Pierre near the Straight of Canso, which had slate mines, and Niganiche, further north on the Gulf of St. Lawrence, a fishing port. The French were strengthening their hold on the region.

No wonder those areas looked so attractive to the Acadian families. They would finally find peace among other French families – if they could just get there.

During this time, René’s last child was born and baptized in the fall of 1723, but there’s a suspicious lack of a child in 1721, which suggests that there might have been a child who was born and died, and the records went missing, if they existed at all.

A Wedding

The Port Royal church records are not indexed by witness name, so the only way to discover if your ancestor stood as a witness to a marriage or burial, or a godparent at a baptism, is to happen across the record.

On February 11, 1726, Jacques Forest, 26 years old and lived at Beaubassin, son of Jean Forest, habitant of Beaubassin, and mother Elizabeth La Barre married Marguerite Giroard, 21 years old, daughter of Jacques Giroard and Anne Petitpas, deceased. The witnesses were René Forest, uncle of the groom, and Francois Forest, son of René Forest, along with Jacques Giroard and Pierre Le Blanc, son of the late Pierre Le Blanc.

This Annapolis Royal church record tells us that René’s brother Jean did, in fact, move to Beaubassin. Jacques married a local girl, though, so he may not have been in Beaubassin for too many years. Clearly, there was some back and forth between the locations, even though it was a long way.

That Oath – AGAIN

In 1725, former Governor Armstrong, already familiar with the Acadians, returned. He was reported to be a violent man with a bad temper,

However, Armstrong realized he needed the Acadians and convinced the Port Royal Acadians, representing about one-fourth of the Acadian population, to take the oath by reminding them that England would not allow Catholics to serve in the Army. As they had stated many times, the Acadian concern was having to fight against their countrymen and family members, including the Native Americans.

Happy just to convince them to sign something, anything at all, Armstrong offered to allow them to take the following oath:

“I do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King George the Second, so help me God.”

This meant that they wouldn’t have to “take up arms” against the French or Indians, they could leave whenever they wanted, and they had the freedom to have priests and to practice the Catholic religion.

In 1729, that oath was considered too lenient and declared null and void. Everyone was unhappy, very unhappy.

That’s when a bit of trickery served everyone’s interest by buying peace for two decades.

Subterfuge

Philipps, who had replaced Armstrong again, reported that the Acadians took this oath:

“I sincerely promise and swear, as a Christian, that I will be utterly faithful and will truly obey His Majesty King George the Second, whom I acknowledge as the sovereign Lord of Nova Scotia and Acadia. So help me God.”

That’s what Philipps reported, but the actual oath continued on a second page, as follows:

“… that the inhabitants, when they have sworn hereto, will not be obliged to take up arms against France or against the Savages, and the said Inhabitants have further promised that they will not take up arms against the King of England or against its government.”

The priest and a notary signed as witnesses, but Phillips only sent the first part back to England, securing peace. No one on either side of the Atlantic was any the wiser. Only Philipps knew.

Everyone in Acadia must have heaved a sigh of relief. For the first time in memorable history, in more than three decades, everyone was relatively happy.

Acadian families continued to worship at the Catholic church in Annapolis Royal. Babies were born and baptized. Betrothals and weddings were celebrated. Another generation of Acadians would be buried in the cemetery adjacent the Catholic church, which was also adjacent the fort – the center of the Acadian community.

Family Life

We know from a combination of birth records that began in 1702, combined with later marriage records, that René and Françoise had at least 13 children, with four additional suspicious gaps of three or four years between children, which often signals a baby that died prior to existing church records, or a stillbirth, which would not be recorded in the church records. Of course, with all the upheaval, some events probably just never made it into the official register, or some portions of the register were missing.

Six girls and seven boys graced their lives.

Their last child arrived in October 1723 when René was 53 years old, and Françoise was 47.

René witnessed all of his children’s marriages except for Charles, the youngest, who reportedly married in 1745 in Beaubassin. In 1745, René would have been 75 years old, probably just too old to travel the distance from his home to Beaubassin, assuming he even knew his son was getting married. More than 100 miles by water for an old man, even under the best of circumstances, was just too much.

Several of René’s children’s marriage records include his signature which confirms that the 1690 signature is his. It does cause me to wonder where he learned to read and write. As I view the later parish records from Port Royal, fewer and fewer people can write their names, so literacy in Acadia wasn’t a priority. They were just too busy surviving, and the priests would read them whatever they needed to know.

René was the godfather of one of his grandchildren, the first child born to his son Francois in 1729. He may have been the godfather to some of his daughters’ children as well, but I did not view each of those records – only the Forest records.

René’s children married in the following order, with his signatures where available. Not all priests recorded any or all signatures. Others just had a big old signing party, and everyone signed!

Marie – 1718

Joseph – 1720

Marguerite – 1724

Francois – 1727 – the record exists, but no signature.

Mathieu – 1728 – the record exists, but no signature.

On January 10, 1730, son Joseph died and was buried the following day – in the deepest winter. I wonder how they managed to dig the grave, or maybe they pre-dug a few graves in the fall.

Joseph was only 32 years old and left behind three small children and a pregnant wife. His fourth child was born the following August and named for him. I hope that Joseph and his family lived in the René Forest Village so that René and the others could help them. Large, nearby families meant survival. Based on Joseph’s age, his death was assuredly some sort of accident or sudden illness.

It’s apparent, given the 3 and 4 year gaps in the census and other records that René and Françoise had lost babies or young children, but Joseph was his first older or adult child to perish. Without modern medicine, early deaths were more common than today, but the saying that parents aren’t supposed to bury their children still holds. 

A year and a few days later, daughter Marie would marry. I wonder if René quietly stopped by Joseph’s grave to say hello.

Marie – 1731

Jacques – 1734

Catherine – 1737

Elizabeth (Isabelle) – 1738

Anne – 1740

Jean – 1743 – the record exists, but no signature.

Pierre – 1744 – the record exists, but no signature.

Charles – probably married around 1745, but is missing in the Port Royal/Annapolis Royal marriage records.

Sadly, daughter Marguerite died on May 27, 1747, about 53 years of age, leaving behind six children and her husband. This would have been a sad day for René and Françoise, who were actually fortunate that “only” two of their adult children died – but I’m positive that “fortunate” is not how they felt.

I’ll include additional information about the children in their mother, Françoise Dugas’s article.

René’s Death and Burial

In 1750 and 1752, there is a René Forest shown in Menoudy, now Minudie, near Beaubassin, but we know this is not our René because our René died at Port-Royal on April 20, 1751.

Father Defenetaud dutifully recorded René’s death and burial. He states that René Forest was about 80 years old, died on April 20th, and was buried the following day, April 21, 1751.

The witnesses were Claude Godet, Mathieu Forest, and Francois Forest. Both of the Forest men who witnessed the burial were his sons.

René’s funeral would have been held in the Catholic church in the town he had known as Port Royal. I’d wager he forever refused to call it Annapolis Royal – the British name assigned to Port Royal after the humiliating 1710 defeat.

René’s life had been full of adventure – most of it unwanted. Born in Acadia, he had never known anything else, so maybe the never-ending drama just became normal at some point.

If the reports are accurate, in late 1714 or early 1715, René, along with the other Acadian families, had wanted to remove. Yet in August 1714, when he received permission to go to Ile (Isle) Royal, present-day Cape Breton Island in Nova Scotia, where Louisbourg is located, he did not.

René spent the rest of his life right there on the Annapolis River, or as he called it, the rivière Dauphin, beside Bloody Creek, which he may well have named when those British soldiers had the bad judgement to travel upriver and were ambushed there in 1711. Perhaps that name served as a warning to others and as a small victory for the Acadians. I’d bet money René was all in on that, especially if his father died as a result of the 1790 British attack. The Acadians, it seems, were beaten, but their spirit was never defeated.

René spent his entire life trying to hang on to his life, culture, and his farm in Acadia – sometimes by nothing more than a thread. Often by sheer tenacity – refusal to surrender.

After the Priest said the final prayers, René’s family and neighbors would have lowered his casket and filled the hole with Nova Scotia’s dirt, each member dropping a handful at a time.

René’s grave was probably marked with a white wooden cross, perhaps made by his sons, plus maybe a small stone of some kind, but that didn’t last long. When the Expulsion began in 1755, the English burned everything, and as the final insult meant to erase the Acadians, the cemetery was destroyed.

Today, the Garrison Graveyard is being mapped and studied, hoping to identify the grave locations of the more than 500 Acadians buried here. The same location is also the site of English graves and post-Expulsion burials, with perhaps 2,000 graves in total.

Perhaps it was for the best that René died before the Acadian Expulsion began. He would have been about 85 years old in 1755, herded onto a ship with other suffering Acadians, only to see his beloved Acadia burn. It would have probably killed him, horribly, and his family would have had to endure watching, assuming they hadn’t been separated.

I’d much rather think of a stubborn, elderly, grey-haired French-speaking man living on his farm in the René Forest Village that he had protected with every ounce of his being for his entire life, surrounded by his loving wife and family who lived nearby, maybe singing songs of comfort to him as he peacefully slipped away to the land of his ancestors.

_____________________________________________________________

Follow DNAexplain on Facebook, here.

Share the Love!

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

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

You Can 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 the price you pay but helps me to keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the 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 Book

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

Ancestry’s ThruLines Are a Hot Mess Right Now – But Here Are Some Great Alternatives

Right now, ThruLines at Ancestry is one hot mess.

Aside from the inherent frustration, especially over a holiday weekend when many people had planned to work on their genealogy, I’d like to say, “don’t panic.”

I don’t have any inside information about what’s going on at Ancestry, and I’ve attempted to make contact through their support page with no luck. They make talking to a person exceedingly difficult; plus, it’s a holiday weekend, and they are probably inundated.

Regardless, I have an idea of what is happening. Ancestry has been in the midst of recalculating “things,” perhaps in relation to their other changes, which I’ll write about separately in a few days.

In any event, Ancestry SURELY MUST KNOW there’s a significant problem because I imagine thousands of their customers are screaming right about now. Adding another voice won’t be helpful.

Symptoms

  • You may not have ThruLines at all.
  • If you do have ThruLines, don’t trust the information, or more to the point, don’t trust that it’s in any way complete.

I have two tests at Ancestry, both connected to different trees so that my matches and Thrulines are calculated separately for each test.

Test One

My first Ancestry test is connected to my primary tree. I’ve been amassing Thrulines cousins ever since the feature was released. I have hundreds of cousin matches descended from some of my more prolific ancestors.

Additionally, my sister’s grandchildren have tested, as have other close relatives who have connected their tests to their trees.

Today, those people are still showing on my match list, but are NOT showing as matches in ThruLines. None of them. Most of my ThruLines ancestors are showing zero matches, and the rest are only showing very few. Ancestors who had hundreds before now have 2, for example.

Here’s an example with my cousin, Erik.

My grandfather, William George Estes, shown in Erik’s tree, above, is his great-grandfather. Erik is my half first cousin, once removed, and we share 417 cM over 16 segments.

Yet, looking at my ThruLine for William George Estes, neither he nor my other cousins are shown as matches. Same for William George’s parents, and so forth.

ThruLines is VERY ill right now.

Test Two

My second DNA test at Ancestry is even worse. There are no ThruLines calculated, even though my DNA is tree-attached, and I had ThruLines previously.

I see this message now, and I can’t even begin to tell you how irritating this is – in part because it suggests the problem is my fault. It’s clearly not. My tree hasn’t changed one bit. I’m not alone, either. I’ve seen other people posting this same message.

And yes, if you’re thinking that there is absolutely no excuse for this – you’re right.

However, outrage isn’t good for us and won’t help – so let’s all do something else fun and productive instead.

Productive Genealogy Plans

Here are some productive suggestions.

At MyHeritage:

At FamilyTreeDNA:

  • Build your haplogroup pedigree chart by locating people through different companies descended from each ancestor in your tree through the appropriate line of descent, and see if they have or will take a Y-DNA or mtDNA test.
  • Tests are on sale right now, and there’s no subscription required at FamilyTreeDNA for anything.
  • Check Y-DNA and mtDNA tests to see if there are new matches and if you share a common ancestor.

At 23andMe:

  • Check for new matches and triangulation.
  • Check to see if 23andMe has added any of your new matches to your genetic tree.

Remember, the parental sides are typically accurate, but the exact placement may not be, and 23andMe deals poorly with half-relationships. It’s certainly still worth checking though, because 23andMe does a lot of heavy lifting for you.

DNAPainter

For me, the most productive thing to do this weekend would be to copy the segment information from new matches with whom I can identify common ancestors at FamilyTreeDNA, MyHeritage and 23andMe – the vendors who provide segment data – and paint those segments to DNAPainter.

Not only does DNAPainter allow me to consolidate my match data in one place, DNAPainter provides the ability for me to confirm ancestors through triangulation, and to assign unknown matches to ancestors as well.

As you can see, I’ve successfully assigned about 90% of my segments to an ancestor, meaning I’ve confirmed descent from that ancestor based on my autosomal matches’ descent from that same ancestor – preferably through another child. Will new matches propel me to 91%? I hope so.

What percentage can you or have you been able to assign?

If you need help getting started, or ideas, I’ve written about DNAPainter several times and provided a compiled resource library of those articles, here.

Have fun!!!

_____________________________________________________________

Follow DNAexplain on Facebook, here.

Share the Love!

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

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

You Can 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 the price you pay but helps me to keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the 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 Book

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

Reminder – Free Discover Webinar Through September 5th

Wow – has this ever been a week!!! This article should be subtitled, “Never Argue With a Woman Named Idalia.” Trust me, Idalia will be the least popular baby name for 2023.

But first things first.

I want to provide a friendly reminder that the webinar, Y-DNA Discover Tool – What News Can Your Haplogroup Reveal? is free through September 5th at Legacy Family Tree Webinars and will be available in their library for subscribers thereafter.

Discover is a free Y-DNA tool provided by FamilyTreeDNA.

Anyone can use Discover. You don’t need to have taken a Y-DNA test, but the greatest benefit will be realized with Big Y-700 test results. Don’t worry about that now, though, because I explain the differences between tests in the webinar. You can get a lot out of Discover, even if you only know a base-level haplogroup.

Normally, these webinars are live, but those plans were interrupted by Hurricane Idalia.

Idalia developed so quickly – and we really weren’t sure where it was going until just a day or so in advance – or how severe it would be. It was ugly, and as I write this, Idalia is still torturing the east coast.

When I realized the possible impact, and that the probability of having both power and internet were very remote, I contacted Legacy Family Tree Webinars and discussed options.

We really didn’t want to reschedule since more than 2000 people from around the world had signed up for the webinar. We decided that the best option was to record the webinar in advance as a precaution. Then, if possible and Idalia targeted her wrath elsewhere, I would still give it live.

Needless to say, doing anything live wasn’t in the cards on Wednesday. I should add that I am safe and dry with minimal damage – just some branches and small trees down – but others nearby aren’t nearly so fortunate. Flooding was recorded in feet of water, roads are still closed to vehicles, boats rescuing people who didn’t evacuate are zipping down the flooded streets in many places, and there’s just a massive mess. Thousands of people are displaced.

However, as they say, “the show must go on,” and it did. The webinar was presented even though I couldn’t be there for Q&A. Anticipating that possibility, I recorded a lot of detail for you.

I hope I didn’t sound as rattled as I felt, because I was recording in the midst of hurricane prep and the first bands of wind and rain were already lashing the windows. I knew that we were facing a monster storm. That’s very unsettling.. All things considered, I think the webinar went quite well. I was afraid the power would go out while we were recording, but fortunately, it didn’t.

At the end of the webinar, I pulled everything from all of the Discover tools, the Block Tree, and the Group Time Tree together, then added historical migration records along with known, proven family genealogy.

Given that:

  • How did Discover do?
  • Was it useful?
  • Is it accurate?
  • How accurate?
  • What has it done for the Estes paternal line genealogy?
  • What do I know about my Estes lineage that I didn’t know before?
  • What’s the next step?
  • What can Discover do for you?

I really encourage you to tune in and take advantage of this free educational webinar through September 5th, maybe even over the Labor Day weekend.

Please feel free to share this article and information about the webinar with interested groups and organizations!!!

_____________________________________________________________

Follow DNAexplain on Facebook, here.

Share the Love!

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

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

You Can 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 the price you pay but helps me to keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the 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 Book

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

Just a Scrap – 52 Ancestors #408

It’s a scrap. Just a scrap.

Buried at the bottom of my tub of fabric scraps, accumulated over decades of sewing and quilting.

But this scrap – oh, it’s different. So very different.

I plucked it from the pile where it had slept peacefully for decades, a smile playing at the edge of my lips. I recognized it like an old friend I hadn’t seen in an eternity. I ran my fingers across it, gently caressed its crinkled softness, and immediately had to sit down.

As the tears welled up in my eyes, the light in the room faded away as I was transported back in time…and back…and back.

Fall

It was cold outside. My child had celebrated with a birthday cake sporting two candles a few days earlier.

My husband and I both worked every minute of overtime we could possibly manage and picked up side jobs too. He was handy, and we made stereo entertainment cabinets for people that looked like bars. He did the construction and installed the burnt brick facade, and I did the finish work, including collage decoupage countertops. I wish I had a picture. They were beautiful. But pictures were a luxury back then.

Still, with a small child, two car payments, rent, utilities, daycare, and yes, college – we barely had time to breathe – and we had exactly no spare money. We knew exactly how many miles we drove each week, so we could budget for gasoline. Eating out was a dream that never happened. We accounted for every penny.

We were deliciously happy, though, and didn’t really notice the hardships. If anything, we thought we were incredibly fortunate to have successfully fit all those pieces together. College was our dream, and we were committed to achieving it. We both knew it was our only way “out.” We really didn’t want to live the rest of our lives not being able to afford a pizza and digging through the couch for change.

I was barely 20, not even old enough to vote. Far too young, especially by today’s standards, to carry that level of responsibility. My husband, slightly older, had already served in Vietnam, and returned, a beautiful but damaged soul.

We wouldn’t discover just how damaged until a few years later.

Our splurge for the year had been a sewing machine, purchased on sale in the late summer.

The Sewing Machine

We didn’t realize it at the time, of course, but we got tangled up in a classic “bait and switch” scenario. Advertising something very reasonably priced, except when you get to the store, they don’t have any left. However, they do have something just slightly more expensive that’s much better, and, oh, by the way, they’ll finance it too. There’s no reason NOT to purchase now, right?

I had been sewing for years when I lived at home, before I married. Sewing your own was much less costly than purchasing ready-made clothes, and I really, REALLY wanted a sewing machine. However, we knew what our budget would allow, and that more-expensive-but-better sewing machine simply was not in the budget.

As sad as I was to do it, we were literally walking out of the store. We agreed that the payments just didn’t fit our circumstances. However, they tried one more time, and their final offer included material. Fabric! Free! They had me. Then, as now, I loved fabric, and we really did need some new clothes. We’d use our clothing budget.

I picked out the softest, most wonderful purple velvety fabric along with a luscious coordinating polyester – enough to make all three of us a beautiful outfit. Well, almost enough. I already had a yellow blouse to wear. There just wasn’t enough of that fabric. How I wish I had a scrap of ANY of that!

I bought a pattern for my husband’s pants because a tailored zipper was complex, but I drafted patterns for the other pieces based on measurements from existing clothes.

Except for that skirt. That was my original design, and I was SOOO proud of it. I kept that skirt for years, long after it no longer fit.

These were our “good clothes” for a long time – at least for me and my husband. Of course, the baby outgrew that outfit shortly.

That meant, in addition to everything else, we had to make payments on that sewing machine, too. Regardless, I spent several weeks blissfully sewing, happy as a clam.

As the leaves began to transform themselves into a vibrant crayon box, we began thinking about the holidays.

The Holiday Season

In the north country, it begins to get nippy in October. Nights become crisp, Mums bloom, apples ripen, and crops are harvested. Families visit orchards on the weekends, buying pumpkins, Indian Corn, and squash, and Mother Nature begins to put herself to bed for the winter.

By Thanksgiving, it’s downright cold and usually has snowed at least once, even if it’s just a dusting. If you hadn’t begun thinking about Christmas gifts for the family by Halloween, it would probably be too late by Thanksgiving. Lots of gifts were handmade. Virtually nothing was last-minute or spur-of-the-moment.

We had to plan and save or figure out something wonderful to do for gifts. Anything extra required careful planning. Some employers gave Christmas bonuses and needed their employees to work extra hours during the holiday season. The best did both of those things, plus gifted a frozen turkey.

That particular year, there was simply no money to do much of anything. It seemed that in addition to everything else, someone’s car was always breaking and needing some kind of repair. It would be another decade before I purchased an actual never-used brand spanking new car, and even then, it was the cheapest one possible.

Yet, Christmas cometh…

Fortunately, we did get to work extra hours and received a turkey, which helped immensely. The overtime would be used for gifts, sewing machine payments, and gas to get to the Christmas festivities. The turkey would provide us many meals, including soup for lunches for some time. We had a freezer and made good use of it.

The Family

On my side of the family, we had Mom and Dad. Dad was actually my much-beloved stepfather, who I couldn’t have loved more had he been my biological father. Truth be told, maybe I loved him extra for picking me and loving me so much.

To be very clear, Mom and Dad ALWAYS said they didn’t want or need anything, and as an adult, now, I fully understand that. They truly meant it. But as a young mother, proud of my independence, I WANTED to do something for Mom and Dad. I loved them. It wasn’t an obligation.

We didn’t exchange gifts with my adult siblings. Maybe we’d bring a tin of home-baked cookies, fresh bread, or an applesauce cake rollup, but nothing was expected except showing up for the Christmas festivities and having a good time together.

On my husband’s side of the family, there were more people. His mother was raising his three younger siblings, at home, and while she said the same thing – that she didn’t need anything – we really had to do something for the children. Furthermore, she was not well and really did need things.

My husband’s father had been killed when he was young, and his stepfather came and went. I don’t remember if he was present or absent that year. We often didn’t know in advance.

We didn’t exchange gifts with his adult brother either, and his other brother had died just a couple of years earlier in a tragic accident. Christmas was always difficult for his family, and we did our best to be sure everyone was cared for in one way or another.

Then, of course, we had our own son. And what was I going to do for my husband?

That was nine people I needed to figure out a gift for.

By now, you’ve probably guessed, the answer had something to do with that sewing machine.

Off to the Mall

I didn’t know what I was going to do, but I did know that I could make something much less expensively than we could purchase anything similar. But what could I possibly make for my husband’s young siblings?

I needed inspiration, so off we went to the mall. We needed to visit Santa anyway.

Each of the two malls had a fabric store. Then, there was the discount store located elsewhere, House of Fabrics – that’s the store I preferred. They often had the best deals – but we needed to look everywhere first – just in case.

For years, I had been purchasing remnant fabrics to make clothes for me and Mother.  We worked with whatever remnant fabrics we could find, and often the resulting clothes turned out quite nicely. Here’s Mom in 1970 wearing a dress I made for her out of a remnant.

A remnant is the remaining fabric when most of that fabric is sold off the bolt. Most of the time, that meant less than a yard remained, but sometimes there was more, especially if they wanted to get rid of it for some reason. The good news was that remnants were and often still are significantly less than the original fabric, per yard.

If fabric at that time cost, say, $2.00 per yard, a remnant might cost a dollar per yard, or even less – especially when the store wanted to clear out the remnants. Sometimes the entire box of remnants was marked down another 50% or 75%, and trust me, when that happened, we dug through that box like hound dogs digging for a bone.

Sometimes, stores purchased large quantities of discounted fabric. Probably overstocks and mill-run ends with the explicit intention of running an ad and selling them cheaply.

While I don’t think this ad included the fabrics I bought, I very, very clearly remember that the fabric was 88 cents per yard, and because I was purchasing several yards and it was on sale, I could buy the fabric for 77 cents per yard. That was a great value!

But what could I make for everyone with this unusual knit fabric?

The colors were actually quite attractive – red, green, hot pink, blue, black, yellow and pumpkin. Sometimes, close-out or overstock fabric was strange, including weird colors, which is often why it was marked down – but this wasn’t.

I walked around the store, looking for ideas, when I spotted the pattern.

Bathrobes

Bathrobes! Something like this pattern – several sizes in one envelope, so you only had to purchase one pattern.

And the best thing was that I could modify the pattern for males or females, and any size. It didn’t include a child’s size, but I could do that myself.

Bathrobes would be personal, fun, and bright – and we could hide something fun in the pockets. Yes – bathrobes were the answer!!!

I needed between 3 and 6 yards for each bathrobe, depending on the size, which meant that I needed about 35 yards of fabric, more or less. That’s a HUGE amount of fabric, almost as long as a small house if you rolled it all out at once.

And I needed enough of any one color to make a bathrobe. Plus, a little extra just in case I made a mistake.

The really GREAT news was that I could purchase 35 yards of fabric for about $27, plus the pattern and some matching thread.

What a relief! I was going to get out the door for under $50!

And – I’d make matching bathrobes for my husband and toddler. They would both love that!

The bad news – it was already Thanksgiving-ish – so I had to make roughly three bathrobes a week, PLUS work and do everything else I had to do.

Whooboy!!!

December

We had recently moved into an apartment with two bedrooms and a basement. We thought we had died and gone to heaven.

We set my sewing machine up on an old table the previous tenants had left in the basement because it was too heavy to heft up those stairs. By basement, I’m not referring to a nicely finished walkout. Nosiree! Our basement was a cold, damp concrete block basement with a concrete floor and a small “garden window” for light, in addition to one lightbulb. I didn’t care, though, because it was SO MUCH better than anything I had before. It was roomy and quiet with a table. I could certainly make this work.

That was also the year I found plain, undecorated Christmas ornaments stacked beside the neighbor’s trash. They were in the original boxes – never used. I salvaged those and decorated them with glitter. Not only was everyone going to get a bathrobe, they were going to receive a customized ornament, too.

There was no stopping me now. I had a plan!

Never mind that everyone’s bathrobe managed to include some amount of bonus embedded glitter.

Each fabric had to be cut into specific lengths as designated in the pattern, then the pattern pieces were pinned to the fabric according to the layout. The largest bathrobes had to be made first because the pattern was cut down to a smaller size for each succeeding one.

After being pinned in place, the fabric pieces were then cut out around the pattern pieces with a pair of scissors. Seam allowances and certain locations were marked for matching to their companion pieces.

The pieces were then ready for the beginning of construction.

The bathrobe pieces were matched together, then pinned together and sewn. I always sewed double or French seams for clothing that was going to get heavy wear – and I expected these would. These bathrobes weren’t lined, but the edges needed to be finished. I made cuffs for the sleeves and a facing for the front, neck edges, collars, and bottom hem. This was one of those projects that got more complex as it progressed – in part because there was no pattern or instructions for that facing, collar, or edging.

This is why I always, always purchase extra fabric.

I finished the first bathrobe, but it took about a week, and I was in trouble. Of course, I could only work in the evenings and at night, after we ate supper, as it was called then, and after the very active toddler was in bed and safely asleep. I was now down to between two and three weeks with eight bathrobes to make, two of which had to remain secret until Christmas morning. Plus, we were both working more overtime than ever.

How was I possibly going to finish before Christmas?

Bless My Husband

Like the trooper he was, my husband decided to help – and unlike the two-year-old who also wanted to help – my husband really was a help.

His factory job began in the wee hours of the morning. If I recall, he had to be at work by 5:00 or 5:30, and his job was physically exhausting. Plus, we both had second jobs. So, by the time I was sitting down to sew – he really needed to be in bed.

However, he decided he could pin and cut fabric for me with some direction/instruction – and that’s exactly what he did. He worked on one side of the table, and I worked on the other.

I remember looking across the table at him working diligently. The scrunched-up face he made when he was concentrating – and the cat face he tried to make when he made a mistake and felt like he needed to ask for forgiveness.

That was so doggone cute – there was no way to ever be mad at him. I suspect he knew that. We both laughed out loud – sometimes until we cried. Plus, he tried so hard, and I was incredibly grateful for my partner – even a partner in sewing. Something he probably didn’t want to do – but he never complained or said a word.

So, in the evenings, after we ate and I packed his lunch box for the following day, I would modify the patterns to the next smaller size, if needed, lay the fabric out, and tell him where to pin the pieces. I’d sit down across from him and sew on the bathrobe already under construction.

I could hear the tissue paper patterns crinkling as he unfolded and smoothed them. Sometimes, those pins bit us, too.

When he finished pinning, he’d ask if that looked right, and when it did, he cut the pieces out with dressmaker shears and carefully labeled them for me.

Then, he’d go to bed for the night, and I’d sew for a few more hours. Often, I’d lay the bathrobe I was sewing aside and work on his and our son’s bathrobes after he went to bed. I had to keep those hidden.

In the mornings, after he had already left for work, I got myself and the toddler ready for the day, prepared breakfast and my lunch, drank a prodigious amount of coffee because I had stayed up way too late, did the daycare drop-off, and was at work by 7 or 8, depending on the schedule. By then, the sun was coming up, but our day had begun hours earlier.

Christmas

We finished in the nick of time and were so excited to wrap those gifts for Christmas that year. We had carefully chosen the fabric color for each person and included something small in the pocket of each bathrobe. Of course, everyone received their own ornament, too.

I still have the one I made for my husband with our wedding date on it. It’s put far away.

On Christmas morning, I gave my boys their blue bathrobes, and I almost couldn’t get them out of them in time to go to Christmas at his mother’s.

My family always celebrated Christmas on Christmas Eve at my mother’s house. I suspect that was a throwback to old German family traditions, but it also worked out quite well because my brother and his family, and my aunts on Dad’s side could all come on Christmas Eve.

I had selected pink for my mother’s bathrobe and pumpkin for Dad’s.

Yes, pumpkin. I knew when I first saw that fabric that whatever I made, the pumpkin fabric would be for him.

Pumpkins

Dad was the pumpkin man.

I won’t say he was known far and wide as the pumpkin man, but certainly up and down our road and in our family.

One of the first things Dad did, as a courtship offering to Mom, was to bring pumpkin blossoms as a gift. To cook, that is, not as a bouquet.

Mom had absolutely no idea what to do with them or how to cook them. Later, of course, this was a huge joke within the family. He was offering her a delicious delicacy, available for only a couple weeks each year, and we were certainly not properly appreciative. Hint: Dredge them in an egg wash, roll them in flower, and fry them crispy in hot oil in a cast-iron skillet. My mouth is watering just thinking about them.

Dad planted pumpkins in mounds in the garden in the spring; they flowered in the summer, and any flowers left on the vines would mature into pumpkins by fall. You removed extra blossoms, fried them up, and ate them.

And boy, come fall, did we have pumpkins in all shapes and sizes.

The neighbor kids came and got pumpkins. Eventually, grandkids did too. We made pumpkin everything, canned it, eventually froze it, and gave pumpkins away to anyone who would take them. Of course, Dad was the neighborhood supplier of jack-o-lanterns.

Everyone is remembered for something, a legacy, and I’m sure Dad was remembered for many years for his pumpkins.

So, Dad would get a pumpkin-colored bathrobe.

Even if Dad hadn’t liked his pumpkin bathrobe, he would never have told me or let on in any way.

As the years wore on, I never saw him wear any other bathrobe, ever again. So, I knew he truly loved it. Now, I appreciate that it was because we made it for him – but I didn’t realize that at the time.

Parts of it were eventually worn threadbare, but Dad insisted it was “just fine.” I offered to make him a new one. “Nope,” he said – he liked that one.

Two More Decades

By the time Dad no longer needed his bathrobe, Labor Day weekend in 1994, two decades later, there were places worn so thin you could see through them, the pockets were sagging from years of use, I had repaired it multiple times, and there were cigarette ash burns where the ashes had fallen off his cigarettes as he sat in his bathrobe every single evening in his chair.

I can close my eyes and still see him sitting there.

Such beautiful, warm, fond memories. And such exquisite pain.

I’m so incredibly glad that I made those bathrobes. Mom wore hers for years, too.

Not only is the memory of Dad in his bathrobe, and how much he loved it, near and dear to my heart – so are the memories that my husband and I weren’t aware we were making as we constructed them.

I would lose my husband to the demons of his military service in Vietnam not long after. Years before I lost my Dad in 1994. I would lose that child, too.

All those people are gone.

The Scrap

So, seeing that scrap, the last physical remnant of that Christmas, knocked the wind right out of me and made my knees weak.

So many visceral memories just came flooding back, like the dam gate had been opened. I had no idea the scrap was in that tub, of course.

And yes, I had to take some time this week to grieve the people who have since passed on – and the life, or lives, I thought I was going to live – but was robbed of that opportunity.

But you know what – it’s a spiritual sin to grieve happiness.

Joyfulness.

And we were happy. Exquisitely, soulfully happy.

No one wants to endure the pain of loss and departure, but I wouldn’t give up one day, not one minute of that poverty-stricken time. We all had each other – encompassed in a cocoon of love for that short time. It wouldn’t last long. And it was perfect.

No one, and nothing, could ever take that time away from us.

And in a strange way, I felt that Dad and my husband had come to visit me once again.

So here I am. Decades later, in a far-away place, living a completely different life than I could ever have imagined – with absolutely none of those people.

They are not dead – they have simply transitioned. Their energy and positive life forces are not diminished. Just distant, right? I accepted that and made peace with it long ago. Right?

Right?

Then, I dug in that scrap bin, and they came rushing back to life.

What do I do with this?

Scrappy Stars

Ironically, I was making a scrap quilt when I stumbled across this, my oldest scrap.

I’ve moved across the country, not once, not twice, but three times with this scrap unwittingly in tow and from house to house many times.

It was always with me, just as Dad is. I just didn’t realize it.

The scrap quilt I’m making is a star design. I knew, immediately, that Dad’s pumpkin fabric was meant to be included in my pumpkin star.

The individual blocks are made by sewing scrap strips together on a foundation block of fabric.

There was also some pumpkin fabric in the scrap bin as well. For some reason – no idea why – I’ve always been partial to pumpkins. 😊 They have always reminded me of Dad and evoked such fond memories.

So, now his pumpkin bathrobe fabric is permanently neighbors with other pumpkin fabric – as it should be.

My daughter, who my Dad utterly adored, selected sunflowers for her wedding theme long after he had transitioned to the other side. Above, at far right, his bathrobe fabric is paired with sunflower fabric from her wedding quilt.

The largest piece of the bathrobe fabric scrap is here, at lower right. The middle strip is dark, but is not the bathrobe fabric. The star beside the pumpkin fabric signifies Dad watching over us. The light peach fabric with blue flowers, against the pumpkin fabric is from something I made Mom, and is in her memory quilt too.

I’m assembling the individual blocks into groups. Here, I’m experimenting with laying them out together. I like the Halloween jack-o-lantern.

Each one of these scraps in this quilt remains from something else I made. It’s much like watching my life pass before my eyes, one scrap at a time. A trip right down memory lane.

The pieces aren’t sewn together yet, but the star will look something like this.

The finished star will be about 32 by 32 inches and will be joined by eight more stars in different colors – all from scraps.

Just a Scrap

Our lives are made up of scraps, pieces of who we were, combined with new circumstances, new jobs, new homes, and new people to create a new whole. We evolve.

After I finished cutting the pumpkin bathrobe scrap for the star quilt, I now have several smaller scraps instead of one larger one. Isn’t that the way of life, though?

I can’t help but think about DNA and recombination.

The pieces of what and who from the past recombine in us to become something vibrant and new.

Renewal.

Rebirth.

It’s how we survive.

So I took Dad’s leftover scraps and put them back in my now much-reduced orange scrap bin with their brethren.

But I couldn’t, I just couldn’t leave them there.

I wanted them and what they symbolize closer to me, so I gathered the small pieces and put them in my little “Far from the eyes, close to the heart” dish I bought overseas as a student in 1970, just a very few years before I made that bathrobe for Dad.

I will use the larger small pieces to make a mini-quilt to sit under this little dish, with pumpkin fabrics of course, and maybe a sunflower too.

Dad’s scraps, always reminding me of the goodness and love radiated by that man, will keep me company in my office now. He’d like that! I’m guessing it will someday sit on my daughter’s shelf or in her office, too.

When I finish my Scrappy Stars quilt, I’ll sleep beneath those pieces of Dad’s bathrobe and at least one piece of Mother’s clothing – their love still enveloping me.

Because, you see, it wasn’t, and isn’t just a scrap. It’s a piece of many people’s lives.

I never realized I would be the benefactor of Dad’s bathrobe made of inexpensive close-out fabric all those years ago. That it would live on for so long. That our creation constructed that cold, broke, winter in the basement would warm and comfort our loved ones, then me, and eventually, my daughter, who wasn’t even born yet then.

When life gives you scraps, build something beautiful. And, of course, give them new life in quilts.

_____________________________________________________________

Follow DNAexplain on Facebook, here.

Share the Love!

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

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

You Can 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 the price you pay but helps me to keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the 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 Book

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

Y-DNA Discover Tool – Free Webinar

You’re invited to join me for a free, live webinar about the Y-DNA Discover tool on Wednesday, August 30th, at 2 PM EDT, courtesy of Legacy Family Tree Webinars.

FamilyTreeDNA‘s Discover tool can be used with any Y-DNA haplogroup. I’ve written about Discover here and the newest feature, Globetrekker, here

Y-DNA Discover Tool – What News Can Your Haplogroup Reveal? will be free next Wednesday and for the following seven days. After that, this webinar, along with the rest of Legacy Family Tree’s extensive webinar library is available via an annual subscription of $49.95. I think my new webinar will be webinar number 2042 in their library.

A subscription also provides access to the webinar handouts, the webinar chat logs, and a subscribers-only door prize during each webinar. If you’re interested, you can subscribe here.

What’s In the Discover Webinar?

Discover is an amazing tool, but I think many people are missing ways to use it for genealogy. I’ll cover both the free Discover version and the additional functionality for Big Y testers.

Everyone can use Discover for any Y-DNA haplogroup, no matter the haplogroup source. Of course, the more granular or refined the haplogroup, the more relevant the haplogroup will be to your most recent ancestors. Y-DNA haplogroups are available through the following types of tests:

  • Autosomal at 23andMe, LivingDNA – base or midrange level haplogroup derived from target testing a few Y-DNA locations in an autosomal test. These haplogroups are generally at least a few thousand years old. Think tree branches.
  • Haplogroup estimate when taking the 12, 25, 37, 67, or 111 STR marker Y-DNA tests at FamilyTreeDNA. Think tree branches.
  • The Big-Y DNA test, also at FamilyTreeDNA, provides the most refined and detailed haplogroup. Think twigs and leaves that are very specific to your family at the ends of each larger branch.

After briefly introducing Y-DNA, how it works, and why you care, I’ll be stepping through each Discover feature and function. This includes the Group Time Tree, which isn’t part of Discover but is available through FamilyTreeDNA‘s projects and uses the Discover technology.

  • Haplogroup story – description and overview
  • Country Frequency – where this haplogroup and related haplogroups are found in the world
  • Notable Connections – the famous and infamous, and what that means to you
  • Migration Map –  short story, complete with ancient DNA sites
  • Globetrekker – animated, refined story with lots of detail and several options. Paths your ancestors may have taken to arrive where your line is first found.
  • Ancient Connections – ancient Y-DNA that anchors haplogroups
  • Time Tree – when and where haplogroups were born and how they connect
  • Ancestral Path – every step from you to Y-Adam, when and where that step occurred
  • Suggested Projects – relevant projects for collaboration (and buried hints)
  • Scientific Details –  haplogroup age estimates, age ranges, and your haplogroup’s mutations
  • Group Time Tree – for project members only – the Time Tree complete with all Big-Y testers who’ve opted-in to this project and provided a location, plus earliest known ancestors, displayed in groups
  • What you can do to help yourself

I’ll discuss using the various Discover features to understand what the information means to you, why it’s important, and how to utilize it for your genealogy. I’ll also talk about how to incorporate Block Tree information and projects.

If you’d like to listen and educate yourself, that’s great, but you might want to take this opportunity to think of a male-line brick wall you’d like to work on or learn more about. Don’t we all want to know more about every line – even if we’ve run out of known ancestors and records? Keep your focus line in mind as we apply the tools one-by-one to my Estes lineage, building evidence, during the webinar. Discover helps us peel back the veil of time.

At the end, I’ll provide hints and tips about constructing your plan of attack – how to locate testers and what to do next.

Mark your calendar, and don’t forget to convert the time to where you live. Next Wednesday, August 30, at 2 EDT. See you then!!

_____________________________________________________________

Follow DNAexplain on Facebook, here.

Share the Love!

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

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

You Can 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 the price you pay but helps me to keep the lights on, and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the 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 Book

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research