Honoré Lore or Lord’s 1818 Estate Inventory Provides a Window Into His Life

Honoré Lore, or Lord (1742-1818) lived an incredibly interesting life. He was born near Annapolis Royal in Nova Scotia, survived the Acadian exile, and served in the Revolutionary War at Fort Albany in New York before settling in Quebec in the late 1780s.

Honoré outlived two wives, Appoline Garceau and Suzanne Lafaille, having seven children with each. He married Marguerite Babin when he was 61 years old and brought forth eight more children with her. Marguerite was his wife at his death in 1818 at the age of 76.

After publishing Honore’s life story, two readers contacted me with additional information.

Justine and Suzanne located and transcribed Honoré’s estate inventory and other documents, each contributing different pieces of the pie. I didn’t realize Honoré had an inventory, and not speaking French or being familiar with French-Canadian documents, I was absolutely over the moon and oh so grateful to both Suzanne and Justine. I can’t thank these ladies enough.

From Suzanne Lesage:

I was curious of how Justine got to the inventories. Last fall, BAnQ totally revamped their website and have improved a lot the accessibility of the documents with genealogists in mind. Going back to the page she mentions, I did a search all “Lord” in the Montreal area and got a list of 6, with this one on top. The good news is there was indeed an inventory for Honoré who died in 1818 – the bad news is that it is not yet available on-line at BAnQ…

1 – Honoré Lord & Marguerite Babin

Notaires

Titre de l’instrument : Inventaires après décès de la région de Montréal, 1791-1840 (2003) Détails

Nom du défunt : Lord

Préonom du défunt : Honoré

Nom du conjoint : Babin

Prénom du conjoint : Marguerite

Profession :

Résidence : Saint-Luc

Nom du notaire : Dandurand, Roger-François Année de l’acte : 1818 Date de l’acte : 1818-09-22 Remarque :

Source : Archives nationales à Montréal, CN601,S107, disponible sur microfilm

But FamilySearch comes to the rescue…

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QHV-L3V7-L97Q?i=136&cat=675092

Image 137

The script is quite good, so transcription should not be too difficult. Any details you are interested in? It seems he had a will (name of notaries Edm Henry &  RF Dandurand?) where his children were the heirs, but his widow could stay put until her death.

Suzanne Lesage GFA

GFA stands for Généalogiste de filiation agréée and is the first level of formal recognition for genealogists in Quebec.

I explained to Suzanne that essentially, I can’t transcribe the documents because unless you know the language, and know what to expect, transcribing handwriting is almost impossible – at least for me.

If I had French text, as in typed out, I could do the translation using online tools. Thankfully, Suzanne took pity on me.

Poor Roberta … Ok then – let’s start with who was there.

Between Suzanne and Justine, we wound up with a reasonable transcription to contemporary French, which I then translated using Google translate. Not everything translated perfectly, of course, and I’m more than happy to make corrections.

Le 22 septembre 1818 inventaire des biens qui étaient communs entre Honoré Lord, défunt et Marguerite Babin sa veuve

Translation:

September 22, 1818 inventory of property that was common between Honoré Lord, deceased, and Marguerite Babin, his widow

Image 138

L’an 1818 le 22e jour du mois de septembre à midi à la requête de Marguerite Babin veuve de Honoré Lord demeurant en la paroisse de Saint-Luc, tant en son propre nom comme commune en biens avec son défunt mari qu’en celui comme tutrice à Rose, Augustin, Claire, Maryse (or Moyse for Moise), Catherine et Modeste Lord enfants encore mineurs issus du dit mariage.

En présence de Jean Lord, leur frère consanguin, subrogé tuteur des dits mineurs.

Plus de François Lafaye, oncle maternel et tuteur et Julien Lord frère et subrogé tuteur de Jacques Lord, enfant encore mineur issu du 2nd mariage du dit défunt Honoré Lord et défunte Suzanne Lafaye.

English translation:

The year 1818 on the 22nd day of September at noon at the request of Marguerite Babin, widow of Honoré Lord, residing in the parish of Saint-Luc, both in her own name as common property with her late husband and in that as guardian to Rose, Augustin, Claire, Maryse, Catherine and Modeste Lord, still minor children from the said marriage.

In the presence of Jean Lord, their consanguineous brother, subrogated guardian of said minors.

Plus François Lafaye, maternal uncle and guardian and Julien Lord brother and subrogated guardian of Jacques Lord, still minor child from the 2nd marriage of the said deceased Honoré Lord and the deceased Suzanne Lafaye.

Image 138 Second Half

En plus la dite veuve comme tutrice à ses dits enfants, Jean Lord comme subrogé tuteur, François Lafaye comme tuteur de Jacques Lord et Julien Lord comme son subrogé tuteur par avis de testament homologué en justice.

Pour la conservation des biens et droits des susdites parties et de tous autres qu’il appartiendra, par les notaires soussignés, va être procédé à l’inventaire exact de tous les biens demeurés après le décès dudit Honoré Lord, trouvés en

la maison où il est décédé, située en ladite

English translation:

In addition the said widow as guardian of her said children, Jean Lord as subrogated guardian, François Lafaye as guardian of Jacques Lord and Julien Lord as his subrogated guardian by notice of will approved in court.

For the conservation of property and rights of the above-mentioned parties and all others he will belong, by the undersigned notaries, an exact inventory will be carried out of all property remaining after the death of the said Honoré Lord, found in the house where he died, located in the said

Image 139

ladite paroisse et à nous montrés et enseignés par lad. Marguerite Babin, après erment par elle tout présentement entre nos mains prêté de tout montrer et enseigner, sans en cacher ni détourner aucunes choses, se soumettant où il se trouverait le contraire aux peines en tels cas introduites qui lui ont été expliquées par nous notaires qu’elle a dit bien savoir. Les biens sujets à prisée estimés par Les sieurs Victor Girouard et Denis Loupris notables de ladite paroisse St Luc, priseurs choisis par les susdites parties, lesquels à ce présents ont promis le tout priser et estimer dans sa juste valeur, suivant le meilleur de leur connaissance, eu égard au tems présent, la criée non comprise attendu que les parties sont d’accord de les faire vendre publiquement dès jeudy prochain. Fait et passé maison dudit défunt, en ladite paroisse St Luc, les jour et an que dessus et ont François Lafaye et Denis Loupris signé avec les notaires, quant aux autres parties et l’autre des priseurs ont déclaré ne savoir signer de ce enquis, ont fait leurs marques.

English Translation:

said parish and showed and taught us by lad. Marguerite Babin, after oath by her now in our hands ready to show and teach everything, without hide or divert anything, submitting where he would be contrary to the penalties in such cases introduced which were explained to him by we notaries that she said she knew well. Goods subject to price estimated by Mr. Victor Girouard and Denis Loupris notables of the said St Luc parish, auctioneers chosen by the above-mentioned parties, which at this present have promised to take it all and estimate in its fair value, following the best of their knowledge, having regard in the present tense, the auction not included whereas the parties agree to have them sold publicly as soon as next Thursday.

Made and passed in the house of the said deceased, in the said St Luc parish, the day and year above and have François Lafaye and Denis Loupris signed with the notaries, as for the others parties and the other of the auctioneers declared not know how to sign this inquiry, have made their brands.

Suzanne’s Quick translate – the widow for herself and as tutor of her minor children, and Jean Lord their brother (subrogé tuteur = deputy guardian according to Google). And François Lafaye, uncle of Jacques Lord, who was there for the interest of Jacques the minor child of the first wife – Suzanne – apparently the will had to be probated.

Image 140 Signatures

Marques lecture faite: Marguerite Babin/sa marque

Jean Lord/ sa marque                     Julien Lord/sa marque

Victor Girouard/sa marque François Lafay [signature]

Du Loupret [signature]

Dandurand [signature notaire]

This seems like a very complex situation, yet probably not that unusual. Indeed Roberta, you will beg for a computer!

You can be very glad for these inventories. Can you imagine nowadays someone going through your house listing everything down to the pillowcases and the forks, and not only listing them, but appraising their quality and pricing them?

An interesting fact is that although Quebec had been under British rule for more than 50 years, they allowed the French legal system in Quebec and Louisiana (still is to this day). Sometimes we hate the French for their lengthy papers, but this document is a goldmine to reconstruct the life of our ancestors.

I was going to suggest using “transkribus” and decided to give it a try for page 2 of the “Inventaire”

Text Recognition powered by transkribus.ai

lade srarisse a à nous montrez eten seignes par lade. Mangurité s’Dabine cepris derment parelle taut présentement entre nos mains preté de tout mantrer chenacienes, aans en cacher ni deteurner aucunes choses se commettent où il se trouverait le contraire aux feines en tels cas introduites qui lui ont été expliquées par nous snataires qu’elle a etit bien davoir Les 1 diens sujets à finisée, estimés par les Srs Victoy Girouna Denes confires, chotables de lad. Banoisse & sue presente choisis par les auso. pranties, lesquels ce ci présents ont paromes détant finiser à eatimes sans sa Luste valeur suivant le meilleur de leur Connaissance en égard au tems présent La bénüe non comprise attendu que les parties dont d’accond de les faize vendre publiquement des Veudy Brochain etait a preché maison desd. defeunt en lad paaroise dt duc, les Lour et an que depus et ent Fmançais Pafaire damis confirêt signé avec les notaires; quent aux autres parlies d l’autre des pniseurs cnt déclaré ne savoir signer, de ce onques ent fait leurs Marques

Which I correct to:

la dite paroisse à nous montre et enseigner par la dte Marguerite Babin après serment par elle tout présentement entre nos mains preté de tout montrer et enseigner, sans en cacher ni detourner aucunes choses de soummettre où il se trouverait le contraire aux peines en tels cas introduites qui lui ont été expliquées par nous notaires qu’elle a dit bien savoir Les d Biens sujets à prisés estimés par les Srs Victor Girouard & Denis Lonprêt, notables de lad. paroisse St Luc priseurs, choisis par les sudtes parties lesquels ici présents ont promis le tout priser a estimers dans sa juste valeur suivant le meilleur de leur Connaissance en égard au tems présent La Criée non comprise attendu que les parties sont d’accord de les faire vendre publiquement dès Jeudy prochain Fait a (Marché?) maison dudt défunt en lad.

paroisse StLuc, les saux etanque dessus et ont François Lafaye & Denis Lonprêt signé avec les notaires; quant aux autres Parties & l’autre priseur ont déclaré ne savoir signer, de ce enquis ont fait leurs marques.

I am not convinced yet…I think this is what Ancestry uses to transcribe the Canadian Census.

Suzanne’s Quick translate:

The widow swears she is not hiding anything – they hire, chosen by the heirs, two appraisers – one of whom cannot sign – and announce that there will be a public auction the following Thursday.

Public Sale

This may finish you… After the inventory, the next act is the public sale of all the goods and farm animals with the names of those who bought them! The widow got to bid on her own things to buy them back from the inheritance! If I understand correctly, two men – the local Innkeeper and a neighboring farmer were to bid on her behalf.

The actual inventory begins with image 140 and continues through image 169. The first portion is the inventory or items, and the later part details who purchased what.

This estate is quite large.

Roberta’s note – This is gold to me. I can hardly wait. I couldn’t sleep.

Image 140 Part 2

Premièrement dans la maison s’est Trouvé et a été prisé et estimé aux livres et Sols ancien cours, savoir

English translation using Google:

First in the house was found and was prized and esteemed in books and old course floors, know.

Note – the list of inventory items begins here. French is in the left column, and English is in the right. There are several items that didn’t translate well, so if anyone has any corrections or explanations, please let me know by referencing the image number.

Une petite marmitte de fonte prisée 2 livres 8 sols A small, prized cast iron pot 2 livres 8 sols 2£ 8s
Item une moyenne ditto et

Son couvercle 48 sols

Item an average ditto and

Its lid 48 sols 2£ 8s

2£ 8s
Item un canard de fonte

30 sols

Item a cast iron duck

30 sols 1£ 10s

1£ 10s
Item une grande marmitte

3 livres

Item a large pot

3 pounds £3

Item un fanat/favat de fer blanc

24 sols

Item a tin fanat/favat

24 sols 1£ 4s

1£ 4s
Item une paire fers à repasser

48 sols

Item a pair irons

48 sols 2£ 8s

2£ 8s
Item un antonnoir et un

moule à chandelle fer blanc

15 sols

Item a funnel and a

tinplate candle mold

15 sols 15s

15s
Item quatre faucilles 40s Item four sickles 40s £2
Item deux haches 40s

chaque

Item two axes 40s

each £4

Item deux grattes 20s

chaque

Item two  scrapers

each £2

Image 141 Page 4

Item une équerre de fer et une

egolline 4£

Item an iron square and a

egolline £4

Item une poële à frire 3£ Item a frying pan £3
Item un demi minot 4

livres

Item half a pound £4
Item 6 bouteilles 20s Item 6 bottles 20s
Item 2 bouteilles et une

cruche 20s

Item 2 bottles and one

Jug 20s

Item 10 assiettes de fayence

30s

Item 10 earthenware plates

30s

1£ 10s
Item 4 tasses et 4

cuillers à thé 15s

Item 4 cups and 4

teaspoons 15s

15s
Item une vieille theyère d’étain

et 2 goblets de crystal 20 sols

Item an old tin sheera

and 2 goblets of crystal 20 sols

Item un chandellier de fer et

un poids de plomb d’une livre

20s

Item an iron candlestick and

a lead weight of one pound

20s

Item 9 cuillers d’étain, 4

fourchettes et 2 couteaux

avec une paire 30s

Item 9 pewter spoons, 4

forks and 2 knives

with a pair 30s

1£ 10s
Item une herminette 3£ Item an adze £3
Item une ferée 30s Item a fairy 30s 1£ 10s
Item une fourche de fer

40s

Item an iron fork

40s

Item 4 bizeaux 48s Item 4 wedges 48s 2£ 8s
Item un gros sarrière/tarrière 15s Item a big quarry / quarrier 15s 15s
Item un compas et une petite

lime 20s

Item a compass and a small

lime 20s

Item une tinette et des ferailles

Item a tin and scraps

£4

Image 141 Page 5

Item une paire de traits de fer

Item a pair of iron bolts

£3

Item un lot de tuilles faulx

30s

Item a lot of faux tiles

30s

1£ 10s
Item 3 manches et 2 faulx

30s

Item 3 sleeves and 2 scythes

30s

1£ 10s
Item un vieu quart rempli

de divers articles 30s

Item an old quarter filled

various items 30s

1£ 10s
Item 2 paires baiches

et chaines 40s chaque

Item 2 pairs of basins

and chains 40s each

Item un petit baril 20s Item a small barrel 20s
Item une vieille baratte et du

sel 15s

Item an old churn and some

salt 15s

15s
Item 2 paniers 6s

chaque

Item 2 baskets 6s

each

12s
Item des membres de sleigh et

un morceau de bois de noyer

24s

Item members of sleigh and

a piece of walnut wood

24s

1£ 4s
Item 5 poches 100s Item 5 pockets 100s
Item 6 dittos 6£ Item 6 dittos £6
Item un vieu sac 5s Item an old bag 5s 5s
Item un collier et une paire de

traits 6£

Item a necklace and a pair of

features £6

Item un vieu harnois et un

vieu collier 6£

Item an old harness and a

old necklace £6

Item un ditto et ditto 9£ Item one ditto and ditto £9
Item 2 peaux de vau

30s

Item 2 cowhides

30s

1£ 10s
Item un petit rouet 6£ Item a small spinning wheel £6
Item un dévidoir 10s Item a dispenser 10s 10s
Item un filet à sauntes

40s

Item un filet à sauntes 40s

Image 143 Page 6

Item un lot de fève en gousse

40s

Item a batch of bean pods

40s

Item un vieu quart et de la

plume 40s

Item an old quarter and

feather 40s

Item 2 manteaux 30s Item 2 coats 30s 1£ 10s
Item un seau feré et un goblet

30s

Item a bucket and a goblet

30s

1£ 10s
Item une huche 3£ Item a hutch £3
Item un coffre 3£ Item a chest £3
Item 4 vieilles chaises 40s Item 4 old chairs 40s
Item un lot de 6 fioles 6s Item a batch of 6 vials 6s 6s
Item un miroir la glasse fendue

en deux 3£

Item a mirror with split glass

in two £3

Item une armoire 18£ Item a wardrobe £18 18£
Item un dressoir 40s Item a 40s dresser
Item un vieux poële de fonte à fourneau et 4 feuilles de tuyau 90£ Item an old cast iron stove and 4 sheets of pipe £90 90£
Item une table 30s Item a table 30s 1£ 10s
Item une vieille ditto 10s Item an old ditto 10s 10s
Item 2 barils 40s

chaque

Item 2 barrels 40s each

 

Item une baratte 30s Item a churn 30s 1£ 10s
Item une chaudière et un coudoir

30s

Item a boiler and an elbow rest

30s

Item une ditto seule 20s Item a single ditto 20s
Item 20 terrines 24s Item 20 terrines 24s 1£ 4s
Item 10 ( 6 ?) plats prisés 20s Item 10 (6?) popular dishes 20s
Item un grand plat 10s Item a large dish 10s 10s
Item 3 dittos 20s Item 3 dittos 20s

Image 144 Page 7

Item une grande charrette et une paire

de roues 18£

Item a large cart and a pair of wheels £18 18£
Item une petite ditto et ses roues 36£ Item a small ditto and its wheels £36 36£
Item un vieu tombereau 30s Item an old dumper 30s 1£ 10s
Item une charrue et ses ferrements

12£

Item a plow and its fittings

£12

12£
Item un grand auge 10s Item a large trough 10s 10s
Item 12 poteaux et une sablière

12£

Item 12 posts and a sand pit

£12

12£
Item 3 herses de bois 10s

chaque

Item 3 wooden harrows 10s

each

1£ 10s
Item une traine et son travail

12£

Item a train and its work

£12

12£
Item une vieille ditto 9£ Item an old ditto £9
Item 26 bottes de lin 12£ Item 26 bales of linen £12 12£
Item une vieille calèche 24£ Item an old carriage £24 24£
Item une tasserie de pois en gousse

120£

Item a cup of peas in pods

£120

120£
Item 200 gerbes d’avoine

18£ le cent

Item 200 sheaves of oats

£18 per cent

36£
Item 1000 gerbes de bled

30£ le cent

Item 1000 sheaves of corn

£30 per cent

300£
Item 600 bottes de foin à

18£ le cent

Item 600 bales of hay

£18 per cent

108£

Les animaux et bestiaux

Animals and livestock

18 poules 9£ 18 hens £9
Item 9 couples de dinde

48s le couple

Item 9 pairs of turkey

48s the couple

10£ 16s
Item 6 jeunes cochons 6£

chaque

Item 6 young pigs £6

each

36£

Image 145 Page 8

Item 3 vieux cochons 18£

chaque

Item 3 old pigs £18

each

54£
Item un cochon à l’engrais 36£ Item a fattening pig £36 36£
Item 8 vieux moutons 12£

chaque

Item 8 old sheep £12

each

96£
Item 5 jeunes dittos 6£

chaque

Item 5 young dittos £6

each

30£
Item 3 chevaux dont un

blanc, le second noir et le dernier

gris, 108£ chaque

Item 3 horses including one

white, the second black and the last

grey, £108 each

324£
Item une vache, une corne cassée

60£

Item a cow, a broken horn

60£

60£
Item une brune nez noir

54£

Item a brunette black nose

£54

54£
Item une ditto rouge

48£

Item a red ditto

£48

48£
Item une ditto brune

48£

Item a brown ditto

£48

48£
Item une ditto roux et blanc

36£

Item a red and white ditto

£36

36£
Item une taure rouge

24£

Item a red heifer

£24

24£
Item une taure caille

18£

Item a quail heifer

£18

18£
Item 2 vaux de l’année

24£

Item 2 worth of the year £24 24£
Item une génisse 9£ Item a heifer £9
Item une paire de bœufs

120£

Item a pair of oxen

£120

120£

Encore dans la maison

Still in the house

Un lit de plume, une paillasse,

Un traversin, 2 oreillers

2 drapes et une courtepointe

Et couchette 48£

A feather bed, a pallet,

A bolster, 2 pillows

2 drapes and a quilt

And berth £48

48£

Image 146 Page 9

Item une boete et une paillasse

et un drap, 4£

Item a box and a pallet

and a sheet, £4

Item un autre lit de plume

30£

Item another feather bed

£30

30£
Item 4 nappes de toile

du pays, 30s chaque

Item 4 canvas tablecloths

of the country, 30s each

Item un drap de laine et une

vieille courtepointe d’indienne

Item a woolen cloth and a

old Indian quilt

£3

Item une bouteille et un verre

10s

Item a bottle and a glass

10s

10s

Ce fait ayant vaqué sans interruption jusqu’à 4h de relevée, la vacation a cessé et adjournée sine die par rapport aux dettes actives, celles passives, les immeubles et papiers – Et tout le contenu ci-dessus du consentement des parties intéressées a été laissé en la garde et possession de ladite veuve qui s’en est volontairement chargée pour le représenter toutes fois quantes et à qui il appartiendra.Fait et passé maison dudit défunt, les jour et an que dessus et ont comme ci-devant signé – lecture faite.

English Translation:

This fact having continued without interruption up to 4 hours off, the session ceased and adjourned sine die in relation to active debts, passive debts, buildings and papers – And all the above contents of the consent of interested parties was left in the custody and possession of the said widow who voluntarily took charge to represent it all times as and to who it will belong to. Made and passed in the house of the said deceased, the days and year that above and have as above signed – reading done.

Jean Lord (sa marque)                    Marguerite Babin (sa marque)

Victor Girouard (sa marque)           Julien Lord (sa marque

François Lafay [signature]  Du Loupret [signature]

Dandurand [signature notaire]

Image 147 Page 10

L’an 1818, le 26 du mois de septembre à 10 heures du matin, à la requête de Marguerite Babin veuve d’Honoré Lord et tutrice aux 6 enfants issus de sondit mariage, en présence de Jean Lord subrogé tuteur desdits mineurs, plus de François Lafaye comme tuteur et Julien Lord comme subrogé tuteur de Jacques Lord, enfant encore mineur issu du mariage dudit Honoré Lord et défunte Suzanne Lafaye, par les notaires soussignés va être procédé à la continuation de l’inventaire ci-dessus conformément à l’adjournement donnée le 22 du mois courant, au bas du procès-verbal de la précédente vacation – comme suit, savoir

Les dettes actives

Ladite veuve déclare qu’il est du à ladite communauté par Joseph Boudreau pour reliquat du prix de vente d’une terre que ledit défunt lui a vendue 300£ ancien cours de cette province

English Translation:

The year 1818, the 26th of month of September at 10 a.m., at the request of widow Marguerite Babin of Honoré Lord and guardian of the 6 children born of his said marriage, in the presence of Jean Lord subrogated guardian of said minors, more of François Lafaye as tutor and Julien Lord as substitute guardian of Jacques Lord, still a minor child born of the marriage of the said Honoré Lord and late Suzanne Lafaye, by the undersigned notaries will be carried out to the continuation of the inventory above in accordance with the adjournment given the 22nd of the current month, at the bottom of the minutes of the previous vacation – as follows, know

Active debts

The said widow declares that it is due to the said community by Joseph Boudreau for remainder of the sale price of land that the said deceased sold to him 300£ old price of this province

300£

Ensuivent les dettes passives

Passive debts follow

Ladite veuve déclare que ladite communauté doit, savoir A M. Richard Wheeler par

compte

The said widow declares that the said community must, know To Mr. Richard Wheeler by account 30£ 19s

 

Item au docteur Léonard Pour médicaments durant La maladie du défunt et par Compte Item to Doctor Leonard For medications during The illness of the deceased and Account 39£

Image 148 Page 11

Item à M. JM Raymond marchand pour ballance de compte de marchandises Item to Mr. JM Raymond merchant for balance of merchandise account 88£ 13s
Item à la fabrique de la paroisse St Luc pour reliquat de vente d’un banc dans l’église Item at the parish factory St Luc for remaining sales from a bench in the church 2£ 8s
Item au Docteur Doucet par compte de médicaments durant la maladie du défunt cent trente trois [sic] livres 8s

 

Item to Doctor Doucet per medication count during the illness of the deceased one hundred and thirty three [sic] pounds 8s 153£ 8s [sic]
Item à Jean Lord Item to Jean Lord 24£ 2s
Item encore à la fabrique de la paroisse St Luc pour enterrement

et frais funéraires dudit défunt

Item still in the factory St Luc parish for burial and funeral expenses of said deceased

 

27£
Item à M. Jourdain LaBrosse Par compte de marchandises Item to Mr. Jourdain LaBrosse By merchandise account

 

19£
384£ 10s

 

Ensuivent les immeubles

Seulement une seixième partie indivise [ajout en marge : dans la moitié aussi indivise] d’une terre de 3 arpents de front sur 30 arpents de profondeur, située dans la seigneurie de la Prairie La Madeleine, tenant par devant au chemin qui conduit à St Jean, en profondeur en représentant Pierre Noël Terrien, d’un côté à la veuve François Brosseau et d’autre côté à Victor Girouard, et une pareille partie des bâtiments dessus construits Quant au restant de la terre [en marge: et bâtiments une moitié desdits bâtiments et cinq sixèmes d’iceux], un arpent et demi de large sur sa profondeur est propre audit défunt, ainsi que 5 sixièmes de l’autre arpent et demi sur sa profondeur

Se trouvent conquets de la seconde communauté

English Translation

Next are the buildings

Only an undivided sixth part [marginal addition: in the equally undivided half] of a land of 3 acres of frontage out of 30 acres of depth, located in the lordship de la Prairie La Madeleine, holding from the front to the path which leads to St Jean, in depth by representing Pierre Noël Terrien, on one side to the widow François Brosseau and on the other hand to Victor Girouard, and a similar part of the buildings built on it As for the rest of the land [in the margin: and buildings one half of the said buildings and five sixths of them], one acre and a half wide by its depth is own deceased audit, as well as 5 sixths of the other acre and a half on its depth. They find themselves conquered by the second community.

I’d love to know where this land was located.

Image 149 Page 12

de biens dudit défunt Honoré Lord et Suzanne Lafaye – les bâtiments désignés en l’inventaire des biens de la communauté dudit Honoré Lord et Suzanne Lafaye

Il y a encore une terre conquit de la communauté de biens dudit Honoré Lord et ladit Suzanne Lafaye située audit lieu de la paroisse St Luc, à l’Est du chemin qui conduit à St Jean, y tenant par devant, par derrière et d’un côté à Denis Laupret et d’autre côté à

[blanc] sur laquelle se trouve une grange construite – et laquelle grange a été construite par amême et des deniers de la communauté dudit défunt Honoré Lord et sa présente veuve – même qu’il a été mis et fait de plus sur ladite terre durant ladite dernière communauté 200 perches et les piquets pour les employer et 4 arpents de fossé. Pour constater la valeur du tout, les susdites parties ont choisi et nommé les sieurs Victor Girard et Denis Louprit personnes expertes qui ont évalué,

Savoir

English Transation:

property of the said deceased Honoré Lord and Suzanne Lafaye – the buildings designated in the inventory of the property of the community of the said Honoré Lord and Suzanne Lafaye. There is still a land conquered by the community property of the said Honoré Lord and the said Suzanne Lafaye located at the said place of the parish of St Luc, to the East of the path which leads to St Jean, holding there from the front, from behind and on one side to Denis Laupret and on the other side to [white] on which there is a barn built – and which barn was built by himself and with money from the community of the said deceased Honoré Lord and his present widow – even though he was put and made more on said land during said last community 200 poles and the stakes to use them and 4 acres of ditch. To see the value of the whole, the above-mentioned parties have chosen and named the gentlemen Victor Girard and Denis Louprit expert people who evaluated,

Know

La grange 600£ The barn £600 600£
Item les perches et piquets Item poles and stakes 36£
Item les 4 arpents de fossés

12£

Item the 4 acres of ditches

£12

12£
648£

Il faut encore observer que pendant cette dernière communauté audit Honoré Lord et sa présente veuve [en marge : il a été paié] savoir à Henry Lord pour ses droits mobiliers au chef de feue Suzanne Lafaye sa mère de principal 515£ 18s 9 deniers, et d’intérêt sur cette somme 135£ fesant 650£ 18s 9d – 650 £ 18s 9d

English Translation

It must also be observed that during this last community audit Honoré Lord and his present widow [in the margin: it was paid] know to Henry Lord for his movable rights to the head of the fire Suzanne Lafaye, her principal’s mother 515£ 18s 9 pence, and interest on this sum 135£ costing £650 18s 9d – £650 18s 9d

1298£ 18s 9d

Image 150 Page 13

Rapport des sommes à rembourser à ladite Dernière communauté ci

English Translation

Report of the sums to be reimbursed to the said

Last community here

1298£ 18s 9d

 

Item à Louise Lord femme de Pierre Babin pour ses droits du chef de Suzanne Lafaille sa mère, de capital Pareille somme de 515£ 18s 9 deniers, Et d’intérêt durant 11 années 340£ 9s 10 deniers, fesant 856£ 8s 9d

 

Item to Louise Lord, wife of Pierre Babin for his rights as head of Suzanne Lafaille her mother, capital Same sum of £515 18s 9 pence, And interest for 11 years £340 9s 10 pence, weighing £856 8s 9d 856£ 8s 9d
Item à Julien Lord ses droits Mobiliers aussi échus du chef De feue Suzanne Lafaye sa Mère, de capital même somme De 515£ 18s 9d, et l’intérêt à constater

 

Item to Julien Lord his rights Furniture also from the chef From the late Suzanne Lafaye

Mother, same capital Of £515 18s 9d, and the interest to be noted

515£ 18s 9d
Item enfin à Charles Hissiau et [blanc] Lorde sa femme Du chef de ladite Suzanne Lafaye Mère de ladite [blanc] Lord en Acompte des droits mobiliers Qu’elle a recevoir Item finally to Charles Hissiau and [blank] Lorde his wife From the head of the said Suzanne Lafaye Mother of the said [blank] Lord in Deposit of movable rights That she received

 

240£
Il faudra encore observer En partage que durant cette communauté Ledit défunt Honoré Lord a vendu Une terre qui lui étoit propre à Jean Baptiste Sire pour la somme de 1800£ de 20s cours ancien

 

It will still be necessary to observe Sharing only during this community The said  deceased Honoré Lord sold A land that was his own Jean Baptiste Sire for the sum of

1800£ of 20s old course

 

2 955£ 6s 1d

 

1800£

Image 151 Page 14

S’ensuivent les titres Primo, l’expédition du contrat de mariage entre Honoré Lord et Marguerite Babin devant Maître Pinsonant/Pinsonaut et son confrère notaires le 11 du mois de février 1804 Inventorié et cotté – 1

Secondement l’inventaire des biens qui ont été communs entre Honoré Lord et Suzanne Lafaye sa défunte femme fait par les mêmes notaires le 3 de février 1804 – inventorié et cotté 2

Troisièmement le procès-verbal de la vente publique des effets mobiliers communs

entre Honoré Laure et feue Suzanne Lafaye dressé par les mêmes notaires le 10 février 1804 Inventorié et cotté trois – 3

Quatrièmement partage d’une terre entre Honoré Lord et ses enfants, devant Maître

Décoigne notaire le 7 de août 1810 inventorié et cotté – 4

Cinquièmement vente de droits successifs immobiliers maternels par Jean Baptiste

Lord à Honoré Lord son père devant Maître Demetot notaire, le 2 janvier 1815 inventorié – 5

Sixièmement vente de portion de terre par Marie Charlotte Laure à Honoré Lord son père devant Maître Pinsonaut notaire le 1er juillet 1802 Inventorié et cotté – 6

Septièmement vente par Pierre Dussault et Marguerite Laure son épouse à Honoré

Laure frère (ou père ???) et beau-frère (ou beau-père ???) devant Maître

English Translation:

The titles follow

First, sending the marriage contract between Honoré Lord and Marguerite Babin

in front of Maître Pinsonant/Pinsonaut and his fellow notary on February 11, 1804

Inventoried and listed – 1

Secondly, the inventory of goods which were common between Honoré Lord and Suzanne Lafaye his late wife made by the same notaries on the 3rd of February 1804 – inventoried and side 2

(RJE – Can we find this document and the following two?)

Thirdly the minutes of the public sale of common movable effects between Honoré Laure and the late Suzanne Lafaye drawn up by the same notaries February 10, 1804

Inventoried and rated three – 3

Fourth division of land between Honore Lord and his children, before Master Discoigne notary on August 7, 1810 inventoried and quoted – 4

Fifth sale of successive rights maternal real estate by Jean Baptiste Lord to Honoré Lord his father before Maître Demetot, notary, on 2 January 1815 inventoried – 5

Sixth sale of portion of land by Marie Charlotte Laure to Honoré Lord his father before Master Pinsonaut notary July 1, 1802 Inventoried and listed – 6

Seventh sale by Pierre Dussault and Marguerite Laure his wife to Honoré Laure brother (or father???) and brother-in-law (or father-in-law???) in front of Master

Image 152 Page 15

Maître Baussa notaire le 14 juin 1800

Inventorié et cotté – 8

Neuvièmement vente par Gabriel Christie écuyer d’une terre de 3 arpents

de front sur 30 arpents de profondeur à Thomas Donets devant Maître Lublin ( ?) notaire

le 28 septembre 1792 inventorié – 9

Vente par Ed. W. Gray écuyer Sheriff du district de Montreal au Général Christie, en date du 29 Juillet 1789, inventorié et cotté – 10

Ce fait ayant vaqué sans interruption jusqu’à 5h de relevée, ne s’étant plus rien trouvé à inventorier, la vacation a cessé et tout le contenu au présent, du consentement des parties, a été laissé en la garde et possession de ladite veuve qui s’en est volontairement chargée pour le représenter toutes fois, quantes et à qui il appartiendra Et attendu que par le testament solemnel dudit défunt Honoré Lord reçu par Edme Henry et R. H. Dandurand

notaires le [blanc] ,

ledit Honoré Lord auroit légué [en marge : la propriété de tous ses biens] aux enfants issus de son mariage avec sa présente veuve mais la jouissance et usufruit à sadite veuve durant sa viduité seulement, pour plus grande sûreté

English Translation

Maître Baussa notary on June 14, 1800

Inventoried and listed – 8

Ninth sale by Gabriel Christie Squire of a land of 3 acres front on 30 acres of depth to Thomas Donets before Master Lublin (?) notary September 28, 1792 inventoried – 9

Sale by Ed. W. Gray Esquire Sheriff of the Montreal district General Christie, dated 29

July 1789, inventoried and quoted – 10

This fact having passed without interruption up to 5 a.m. raised, having found nothing to be inventoried, the sale has ceased and all content in the present tense, from consent of the parties, was left in the custody and possession of the said widow who voluntarily took care of it to represent it all times, quantes and who it will belong to.

And expected that by the will solemn memorial of the said deceased Honoré Lord received by Edme Henry and R. H. Dandurand

notaries on [blank],

the said Honoré Lord would have bequeathed [in the margin: the ownership of all his property] to the children from his marriage to his present widow but enjoyment and usufruct to said widow during her viduality only, for greater safety

Image 153 Page 16

Sûreté de la conservation et entretien d’iceux, sont intervenus et furent présents devant les notaires soussignés les sieurs Richard Wheeler aubergiste, et Antoine Wheeler Brosseau cultivateur tous deux de la paroisse St Luc dans le comté de Huntingdon, dans le district de Montréal, lesquels se sont volontairement rendus pleiges et cautions pour ladite Marguerite Babin veuve, envers et au profit de sesdits auxquels ils ont conjointement et solidairement les uns pour les autres et un d’eux seuls pour tous, sans division, discussion ni fidéjussion à quoi ils renoncent, promis de bailler, payer et livrer quand dus seront tous et chacun les droits successifs, mobiliers et immobiliers afférants auxdits enfants du chef de leurdit défunt père et dont ladite veuve a droit de jouir durant sa viduité comme [en marge : dit est ci-devant] à titre d’usufruit et précaire par et en vertu du testament de leurdit défunt père sus-cité à peine etc.

Et pour sûreté lesdites cautions ainsi Que ladite veuve affectent et hipothèquent

Dis ce jour tous leurs biens immeubles présents et à venir.

Et pour l’exécution des présentes ont élu leurs domiciles irrévocables en leurs présentes demeures auxquels lieux veulent et consentent etc. Nonobstant etc. car ainsi etc. promettant etc.

English Translation

Safety of conservation and maintenance of these, intervened and were present before the undersigned notaries Richard Wheeler innkeeper, and Antoine Wheeler Brosseau cultivator both of the parish of St Luc in the county of Huntingdon, in the district of Montreal, who voluntarily surrendered pledges and deposits for the said Marguerite Babin widow, to and for the benefit of these to whom they jointly and in solidarity for each other and one of them alone for all, without division, discussion or discontent with what they give up, promise to yawn, pay and deliver when due everyone will have the rights successive, movable and immovable relating to the said children of the chief of their said late father and of whom the said widow has the right to enjoy during his widowhood as [in the margin: said is above] as usufruct and precarious by and under the will of their said late father mentioned above etc. And for safety the said sureties as well That the said widow affects and mortgages Tell this day all their real estate present and future.

And for the execution of these have elected their irrevocable domicile in their present homes to which places want and consent etc. Notwithstanding etc. because so etc. promising etc.

Image 154 Page 17

obligeant etc. renonçant etc.

Fait et passé maison dudit défunt en la paroisse St Luc les jour et an que dessus, et a ledit sieur Wheeler signé avec les notaires, quant audit Antoine Brosseau et ladite veuve, ainsi que ledit Jean Lord subrogé tuteur à ce présent, ont déclaré ne savoir signer de ce enquis ont fait leurs marques lecture faite.

Jean Lord (sa marque)        Marguerite Babin (sa marque)

Antoine Brosseau (sa marque)

Richard Wheeler [signature]

Dandurand [signature]

English Translation:

Page 17 (view 154)

obliging etc. renouncing etc.

Made and passed in the house of the said deceased in the parish of St Luc on the day and year that above, and has the said Mr. Wheeler signed with the notaries, as for audit Antoine Brosseau and the said widow, as well as the said John Lord subrogated guardian of this present, have declared not knowing how to sign this inquiry have made their mark reading done.

Jean Lord (his brand) Marguerite Babin (his brand)

Antoine Brosseau (his brand)

Richard Wheeler [signature]

Dandurand [signature]

The Sale

Image 155 

Le 24 et 25 septembre 1818

Vente publique des biens meubles de la communauté d’entre Marguerite Babin et Honoré Lords, son défunt mari

English Translation

September 24 and 25, 1818

Public sale of goods community furniture of among Marguerite Babin and Honoré Lords, her late husband.

Roberta’s note: What follows are the images of the record of the sale. Honore’s son, Honore, is my ancestor, and he apparently purchased three things. One is a box of « compiled items and two old sheep. Of course, based on the earlier information, it appears that he also wound up with either all of or part of the farm.

I can’t help but wonder if Marguerite remained there or exactly how that worked out. She purchased a great number of things from his estate. At that time, a man’s entire estate was put up for sale.

I remember my Dad’s sale, and even though we really didn’t want all that “stuff,” it was still an extremely emotional day, watching his life be disassembled in pieces and partitioned out to the highest bidder.

Thankfully, my Mom didn’t have to buy her things back, but there were still a significant number of hard feelings over events surrounding that sale.

Image 156

I do not speak fluent French anymore, but the text above states that this is the sale of Honoré Lord’s estate and that Jean Lord, son of Honoré is the brother of the six minor children.

Something about Francois Lafaye and Jacques Lord, minor child of Honore Lord and Suzanne Lafaye, also Julien Lord, his brother. I believe this means that Francois is essentially the guardian of these children. Francois is the uncle of Honoré’s children with Suzanne. In 1818, Jacques turned 19 in July, and Julien turned 23 in March.

At the end of this page, it says something about the door of the church.

Image 157

In various places in this document, Francoise Lafaye, free (brother), purchases items for the minor son. I don’t know why some names are struck through.

The word “veuve” means widow. She clearly bid on several items, but some items apparently were purchased by others whose names are struck through and veuve written in.

This must have been traumatic for Honoré’s wife and children.

Image 158

Image 159

Image 160

Image 161

Image 162

Image 163

Image 164

Image 165 

Total: 1838£ 5s

Image 166 :

Avenant le 25 septembre

Animaux

Animals

Image 167

Image 168

Image 169 :

Total : 1821£ 6s

I scanned through the names on these images, and one thing I found remarkable is that few, if any, of Honoré’s adult children purchased items from his estate. There are a couple of people with the Lafaye surname, his second wife’s family, also the family of his daughter-in-law, but not nearly as many as I would have expected.

This causes me to wonder if most people, those whose names were lined out, purchased on behalf of the widow to keep the items from the homestead within the family, for her use.

My friend, Justine, who is a native-French speaker took a look at the translations performed by Suzanne and attempted to find the referenced land records. I would LOVE to know where Honoré lived.

From Justine:

Since I had the time, I had a closer look at Honoré Lord’s inventory in 1818, especially the papers listed at the end.

I misspelled some of the notaries’ names and can’t find them on the BanQ website so I am afraid it is a dead end.

Here are my notes :

– Theophile Pinsonnault from La Prairie (Montreal) is not online on BanQ, but I have not checked FamilySearch. Those acts would be the most interesting for you: if you find them, do not hesitate to ask me for a transcription.

– several deeds are relating to a land in the « prairie de la Madeleine » :

7/08/1810 (notary Louis Decoigne, Lacadie district of Iberville): land sharing between the children and their father : https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QHV-53LJ-Z9L3-M?cat=1215614 (several children mentioned)

28/09/1792 (notary Peter LUKIN, not Lublin, Montreal): sale of the same land by Gabriel Christie to Thomas Donets

https://numerique.banq.qc.ca/patrimoine/details/52327/4171362?docref=P7YPvKx5TbfhTdGJyzu8jA

Weirdly enough, the sale from Donets to Honoré is not mentioned.

The Deed

Honoré’s second wife, Suzanne Lafay (Lafaille) died on August 7, 1803 leaving children ranging in age from 12 to 4 years of age. Her two youngest children died in the last two years of her life.

Her children were Henri, Louise Marie married Peter Babin in 1803, Julien, Suzanne married Charles Ficiault in 1814, and Jacques Lord.

Honoré had five living children with his first wife, Appoline Garceau, who died in 1788. Those children are Honoré, Marie Anne who married Antoine Brousseau 1788, Francois, Charlotte “Marguerite” who married Pierre-Victor Dussault 1797, and Jean-Baptiste Lore (Lord).

On July 10, 1810, Honoré would have been 68 years old. He remarried Marguerite Babin in 1804, so this deed was not in response to his marriage.

And of course, I wonder how the children from his first marriage were provided for. When their mother died, Honoré was still getting settled in Canada after years of exile in the States and serving in the Revolutionary War in New York.

He wouldn’t have been terribly well off in the 1780s. I’m guessing he slowly amassed farm animals and perhaps property too, over the years.

I can’t help but wonder if his eldest son, Honoré, his namesake, wound up with his land. Someplace, there’s probably a clue.

On one hand, his eldest son, who was born in 1768, was not included in the deed above and was 50 years old by the time his father died. He was clearly already well established, had been married for 29 years, and had 15 children. It’s unlikely that he needed his father’s farm.

On the other hand, the eldest son traditionally inherited the land.

However, If Honoré’s son, Honoré, was provided for, what about the other 4 or 5 children from that marriage who were still living when their father died in 1818?

Image 1792 #777 page 1

Very rough translation limited to the names of the individuals involved:

Honoré Lord of St. Luc parish, father of Henry, Louise, Julien, Susanne, and Jaques Lord his minor children from his marriage with Susanne Lafaille, his deceased wife.

Image 1793, page 2

Image 1794, page 3

This document includes a bonus – the signature of Honoré. Apparently Honoré could not sign his name, so signed with a mark. In fact, only one of three men could, including Honoré’s brother-in-law, Francois Lafay.

Until this deed, we didn’t know if Honoré could sign his name or not. Honoré was born in Acadia, Nova Scotia, a dozen years before the removal. The Lord family lived upriver, so he probably spent his days working on the farm, not learning to read and write from the priest. Of course, that’s assuming any children were learning to read and write in that time and place – and I’m not sure that’s true.

The families were horrifically rounded up, forced onto ships, and deported to shores unknown in the winter of 1755. Clearly, all Honoré’s family could do was to survive. He never learned to read or write as an adult, but by then, he probably didn’t need to. The priests read the Bible and interpreted the results for their parishioners, notaries took care of anything legal, and Honoré spent his life working on his farm after he and Appoline arrived in Ste. Marguerite de Blairfindie with their children about 1787.

Inventory Provides Silent Testimony to a Successful Life

Honoré lived a long life and didn’t die suddenly, based on the sizeable medical bills owed to the local doctor. It’s remarkable that his youngest child was just two years and three weeks old at his death.

Based on the lengthy inventory of his estate, plus some telling items, Honoré was anything but poor. To his credit, in addition to the normally expected farm tools and pots and pans, he had a pair of oxen, an old carriage, 3 horses, 18 cows including one with a broken horn, sheep, pigs, hens, pairs of turkeys, tables, chairs, two feather beds, iron candlesticks, pewter silverware, 4 chairs, a hutch, chest, wardrobe, 11 dishes and a “small, prized cast iron stove.”

Items noted as still in the house, aside from the beds and barest of furniture included a spinning wheel, 2 coats, a pen and plume, a bolster, 2 pillows, quilt, 2 drapes (for the bed), a sheet, a mirror, a bottle, tablecloth, a quilt and lastly, specifically noted, “an old Indian quilt.”

What I wouldn’t give to know the story of that old quilt. Where did it come from?
What did it look like? Is there any possibility that it belonged to Honoré’s grandmother, Francoise d’Azy Mius, the daughter of an unnamed Mi’kmaq woman? Could it possibly have survived the Grand Dérangement?

All told, Honoré’s inventory tells the tale of a man who started with nothing and built a relatively comfortable life for the time and place in which he lived. He owned land and livestock and left an inheritance for his many children. Not bad for a man who was forcibly deported with his family at the age of 13 with nothing except their lives.

_____________________________________________________________

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 your price but helps me 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

Uncle William Claxton’s Remarkable Century – 53 Ancestors #416

As a genealogist, we are always cautious when we hear reports of someone who lives to be over 100 years old. Sometimes we find “evidence,” but the “go to” is always that we’re actually looking at something else. Either two people by the same name or perhaps misremembered. In other words, we actually presume that the story is incorrect or maybe embellished, and we have to work to prove that the person actually did reach that age.

Especially before the days of modern medicine, without medications like antibiotics, living to be a centenarian required an incredible amount of luck many times over. Winning both the genetic and lady luck lottery.

By way of example, the story that “Grandpappy Estes lived to be 109” turned out to have grown after his death. Based on George Estes’s Revolutionary War pension application and the reporting of his death, we actually have been able to reconstruct his age. Grandpappy Estes was born in 1763 and died in 1859 at the age of 96.

His son, John R. Estes also “lived to be over 100,” except he was actually 98 when he died. Many of his grandchildren lived into their 90s too, with a few approaching 100.

Longevity certainly does run in this family line. Two of John R.’s great-great-granddaughters, my aunts, lived to be 99.

Of course, today, ages are much easier to confirm with birth and death records. Even before that, census data helped a lot, but was nonspecific and often didn’t exactly correlate from one census to another.

I truly believe that sometimes people didn’t know what year, or day, they were born. Reading old depositions, sometimes birth and age information wasn’t specific and didn’t seem to be important.

Of course, the older one gets, the more often one needs to do math to determine their age, so someone’s age sometimes becomes “fuzzy” as memory fades. It’s easy to see how people began to simply remember someone as achieving that century milestone. All in all, it was remarkable to become anyplace near that aged – so family members could be forgiven for remembering their revered elder in the most favorable or remarkable of circumstances.

Enter William Claxton.

William isn’t my ancestor, but he’s the son of my ancestors, Fairwick/Fairwix Clarkson/Claxton and Agnes Muncy, on my paternal grandmother’s side of the tree.

William, it appears, was quite a colorful character.

Uncle William

Years ago, one of my cousins, Daryl, was chasing information about William Claxton and his first wife, Martha Patsy Gillus Walker.

Things get complicated and confusing quickly.

Martha’s first husband was not William Claxton, but was Henry Claxton, the son of James Lee Claxton and Sarah Cook. Henry died in August of 1838 at age 23.

Martha then married her second husband, William Claxton in July of 1843. William is the son of Fairwix/Fairwick Claxton, the son of James Lee Clarkson or Claxton. William Claxton was Henry Claxton’s nephew, so Martha married her deceased husband’s nephew.

Both Claxton men that Martha married were born in 1815. Fairwix was the oldest child of James Lee Clarkson, and Henry was the youngest, born the same year as Fairwick’s oldest child, William. Did you get all that?

Adding to the confusion just a bit is that Martha and Henry had three children, Edward Hilton, Angeline, and Flora Jane Claxton/Clarkson who later appear on the census with Martha and William after they married. Given that the children’s surnames were Claxton or Clarkson, it’s very easy and even normal without contradictory evidence to presume they were William’s children, but they weren’t.

That was only revealed in the pension re-application after the Civil War for James Lee Clarkson’s widow Sarah’s benefits that had been suspended during that war. Afterward, as her executor, Fairwick, her son, applied for her back benefits and had to include a statement of loyalty from all of her descendants.

Initially, there wasn’t any reason to think this was a banyan tree version of genealogy, but slowly, in trickles, the truth started seeping out, tidbit by tidbit, here and there.

It took years, and I mean decades, of unraveling to sort through this, and some of the findings are rather remarkable, seemingly more related to a tall tale than the truth. Seriously, though, who could make something this convoluted up?

The Census

William Claxton/Clarkson was recorded in several censuses during his lifetime.

In 1850, William, 29, was living in Hancock County, TN, with his wife, Martha, and all of their combined children. He was born about 1831, according to the census taker, and can read and write.

I should probably have mentioned that the Claxton surname is consistently butchered, too. We don’t even know what it “should” be. Y-DNA testing shows us that we match other men in other counties by the surname spelling of Claxton, but James Lee’s War of 1812 documents are filed under Clarkson. It’s also spelled Clarkston from time to time, and in the 1850 census, it’s spelled Caxton.

In 1850, William was living beside his brother, Samuel Claxton, my ancestor, who was living beside their widowed grandmother, Sarah Cook Claxton.

The identity of John Helloms, who was living with Sarah, has never been figured out, although there has been lots of speculation that he was her brother. The problem is that in a deposition, she says her father is Joel Cook, so John can’t be her brother since he’s five years younger than Sarah and her father, Joel Cook, was still alive past 1805.

In 1858, according to the Rob Camp Baptist Church notes, William Claxton was baptized in August, along with his brother Samuel and William’s stepson who was also his first cousin, Edward Hilton Clarkson.

In 1860, William is living in the same place and is listed as age 37, so born about 1823 and has apparently only aged eight years in a decade. He can read and write.

Of course, the Civil War disrupted everything, and families were cleaved cleanly in two. Martha Gillis Walker was the “adopted” daughter of Edward “Ned” Walker Jr., who died in 1860. His descendant, Phillip Walker, reports that in the lawsuits regarding Edward’s estate, there’s a mention of William Clarkson by Henry Walker, Ned’s oldest son and estate administrator. Henry said that William had gone bankrupt during the war and had been loaned some money from the estate that he felt William would never be able to repay. The general sense was that Bill was broke and would always be broke. Perhaps this was part of why he moved away.

By 1870, William had moved to Claiborne County, the adjacent county to the west. He’s 49 in the census, so born about 1821 and living with Martha and their children. He doesn’t own real estate, has some personal property, and cannot read or write.

We know from other records that he probably lived near Cave Springs, some 15 miles from where he was born and lived in 1850 and 1860. That’s 15 miles through the mountains on dirt roads. By today’s standards, not far away, but times were different back then. In essence, he had moved away and wasn’t really part of the nuclear family anymore.

The Lawsuit

According to the lawsuit, William wasn’t there to help when needed during the last seven years of his father, Fairwick’s life, when the rest of the family was tending his farm for him as best they could. Fairwick died in 1874.

William was Fairwick’s eldest child. His two younger brothers had died prior to and during the Civil War. Brother Samuel was the next eldest, and he was gravely ill and incapacitated due to his Civil War service and died in 1876 as a result.

Samuel was followed by two sisters, then John, who also died in the war. Their youngest sibling was a sister who had died, probably in the 1860s.

Feeling completely betrayed and abandoned by William, his only remaining, healthy son, in his hour of need, Fairwick wrote William and the rest of his family, other than Samuel and two grandchildren who did help him, entirely out of his will.

In 1874, Fairwick died, and in 1875, William, then living in Union County, TN, some 45 miles away, filed suit against Samuel contesting Fairwick’s will. That suit made it all the way to the Tennessee Supreme Court in 1878, which is the only reason we have this information. The Hancock County records no longer exist.

To say this lawsuit succeeded in destroying what was left of the family is an understatement.

My heart aches for William and Samuel’s mother, Agnes Muncy, who had to testify about what happened in Fairwick’s last years, as well as about the death of her son Samuel and the deaths of her other children.

She also testified in a deposition about what Fairwick told her about the division of his land:

He and my self were alone and he said he wanted his business wound up that he intended to make three deeds one to Samuel Clarkson, one to Rebecca Wolf and one to Nancy Ferry (was then). I asked him what he intended to do with his other children and he said he would do by them as they had done by him they had left him in a bad condition and he had nothing for them. I persuaded him to leave some land for them and he said I need not talk to him for he would not.

Essentially, Agnes lost all five of her sons, four to death and William to distance, both physical and that imposed by his choices and the resulting heartache.

Union County

In 1880, William was still living in Union County, TN, and is listed as age 57.

We know he lives near Maynardville, in part because Martha, who died in 1884, is buried in the Campbell-Clarkston cemetery there.

In 1880, William was living beside his son, Jonathan Clarkson, and George Campbell from Claiborne County, who had married his daughter, Matilda, in 1869. William’s age, 57, suggests his birth about 1823.

My cousin, Daryl, was given this picture of Matilda Clarkson Campbell, who we originally thought was the person marked with the X – but it isn’t. Daryl later figured out, with assistance, that the people are, left to right in the rear, Dora Campbell (with the X), born 1890, and Matilda Haynes Campbell, born 1873. Front row, left to right: Broda Campbell born 1898, George Campbell born 1845, Matilda Clarkson/Claxton born 1846, Jesse Campbell, born 1875, and William McTeer Campbell born 1872. This photo would have been taken about 1899, given that Broda was born in January of 1898.

Broda and Jesse are the children of Matilda Haynes and William McTeer Campbell. William Campbell is the son of George Campbell and Matilda Claxton, the older seated couple, whose youngest daughter, Dora is standing behind them with the X. In other words, this is a three-generation photo. William Claxton would have still been living, but is not in the picture, but Martha Patsy Gillus Walker had already died.

According to the census, Martha Gillis Walker was older than William Claxton. She died in 1884. Today, the Campbell-Clarkston cemetery outside of Maynardville has been destroyed. When Cousin Daryl was researching, it was reported that only three stones remained and that the rest were either gone or broken. The top is broken and lost from hers, but the dates remain.

Mar. 8, 1815 – Feb. 15, 1884

In addition to Martha, others buried in that cemetery are reported to be:

  • Harvey Clarkston, July 16, 1826 – Nov 26, 1886. Noted as the son of A. P. and M. Clarkston. I have no idea who this might be, but that early date seems like he’s important to unraveling this family.
  • Jonathan McTeer “Mack” Clarkston, July 3, 1849 – August 23, 1928 – the son of William Clarkson and Martha Walker.
  • William Campbell, 1807-1870 – the identity of William and his wife, Martha, below, are unknown.
  • Martha Campbell, 1820 – ? – Noted as “wife of William Campbell, Mother of George Campbell. This may be true, but Martha Nevils and James Campbell were the parents of the George Campbell who married Matilda Clarkson/Claxton, so it’s not this couple.
  • E. Clarkston, March 15, 1819 – October 3, 1895 – I have no idea who this is, but the early date seems important.

Who are these people? The oldest ones died before the days of death certificates, which began after 1900. Sorting out these connections seems important and might lead to answers in earlier generations. If anyone knows, please clue me in.

William Remarries into the Manning Family

On August 17, 1888, in Claiborne County, William Clarkston married Lizer (probably Elizabeth) Jane Manning, born in 1837 to William Mannon. Hancock County had yet to split from Claiborne, which would occur in the 1840s.

Even though disowned, William was apparently still somehow connected with the Hancock County Clarkson family, because in 1884, a transaction took place between William’s step-son, Edward Hilton Clarkson, and William Mannon.

1884, Feb 21 – E.H. Clarkson and Mary his wife of Hancock Co. to William Mannon of the same for $12 land in the 14th civil district of Hancock on the N side of Powell’s River bounded by Herel’s corner, Yearys and E.H. Clarkson’s conditional line, containing 2 acres more or less.  E.H. and Mary sign with their marks. Witness J.N. Thomas and R.D. Green

This is a piece of the original family land where Fairwick Claxton lived on the Powell River and adjoins the Herrell land. I have absolutely no idea how E. H. Clarkson obtained these 2 acres of land, especially given that he had been living in Union County with William and his mother. 

This could have been Edward’s inheritance from his father, Henry, that finally trickled down to him.

Henry did have a land claim adjacent Fairwix and Sarah’s grants. We do know that the earliest Mannon was living in fairly close proximity to Sarah, the widow of James Lee Clarkson – but that’s a story for another day.

The Hancock County courthouse burned, twice, so remaining records are sporadic.

Two Hancock County Clarkson Cemeteries

Not that it’s confusing, but the original Claxton/Clarkson Cemetery is located on the land owned by Fairwick, where James had originally settled with Sarah, and a second Clarkson Cemetery is located further north, near the Mannon/Manning land.

Due to Edward’s involvement in this transaction, for a long time I thought this was the land where the northern Clarkson Cemetery is located, which is near the Manning Cemetery. However, given the land description and location, it’s clearly not. The confusing factor is that William Mannon is involved with and lived near the northern Clarkson Cemetery and purchased the two acres of E. H.’s land that was the original Claxton family land claim several miles away.

However, E. H. Clarkson IS buried in the newer, northern Clarkson Cemetery near the Manning Cemetery, which is very probably where he lived. I told you this was confusing.

We will visit that cemetery in a few minutes. Let’s get back to William who is now married to Liza Manning, and missing from the census.

Twenty Year Gap

The 1890 census is missing, and I can’t find William Claxton anyplace in 1900. He would have been someplace around 77 by that time, so it would have been reasonable to think he had died.

But nope, he didn’t. He was just AWOL.

In 1910, William is still in Union County living with his son, Mack, whose name is really Jonathan McTeer Clarkson. William’s age is given as 85, so born in about 1825, and he’s listed as a widower again. This suggests that his second wife, Liza Manning, is probably buried in the Campbell-Clarkston Cemetery in Union County.

The Newspaper Article

Whoever would have thought William Claxton would have wound up in the newspaper.

Travis Chumley, a native of Claiborne County posts the most interesting photos and historical tidbits in his Facebook feed.

I searched his feed by surname and came up with this gem.

In the Sunday Telegram on April 23, 1916, in Clarksburg, WV, they marveled that “Uncle William” Claxton was 103 years old and had never worn a coat nor called a doctor. I’m here to tell you, it gets cold in those hills and hollers. It snows.

But that wasn’t the only place William’s story was published. William went viral, at least for that time, and the story was picked up in Atlanta, Georgia, Laramie, Wyoming, and probably more locations. Ironically, I’m not sure which of the local papers originated this story, but surely one of them did. Uncle William was famous!

For those who aren’t “southern,” Uncle and Aunt are terms of respect and affection for an older person. For example, my “Uncle George” was a term of endearment for an elderly second cousin once removed (2C1R) who helped me immensely when I first began my genealogy journey. Yea, “Uncle” is much simpler, and everyone “down home” understands. So Uncle and Aunt may or may not be your actual uncle and aunt, or they might be. Is it any wonder our genealogy is confused?

Newspaper articles are full of gold nuggets. William walked 10 miles a day with no or little fatigue. First, why? I can’t even do that today. I don’t know, of course, but based on the culture in the hills at the time, I’d bet he smoked unfiltered cigarettes, too.

Albert is indeed his son, so that’s accurate, although William did live in Union County for some years – from about 1874 through at least 1910. However, he may have gone back and forth between Union and Claiborne.

This article is definitely about the right William Claxton/Clarkson. It’s interesting to note that the old man was deaf.

In the final census before his death, taken on January 30, 1920, William lives with Robert and Emma Patterson. Robert is 63, and William’s relationship to him is listed as grandfather-in-law. William is noted as being 103 and widowed – so born about 1817. He can no longer read and write.

Claxton Reunion – Dinner on the Ground. Held at the William Richie and Flora Claxton Gray home

I came across this photo of the Claxton Reunion that reportedly includes William and his son, Albert, at the home of Albert’s daughter, Flora Claxton (1881-1965), who married William Richie Gray in September 1909.

“Uncle William” Claxton died in 1920. If these children at left are really Ruby and Caltha Grey who were born in 1922 and 1924, respectively, then the William in this photo is not our “Uncle William.”

Posted on Ancestry by a descendant, this photo shows Flora revisiting Albert’s homestead in Ousley Hollow, which is located on Straight Creek, probably today’s Ousley Lane, which runs through “Ousley Holler” in Claiborne County. This is where “Uncle William” lived with his son.

The old log cabin in Ousley Hollow doesn’t look terribly different than the old Clarkson Home adjacent to the northern Clarkson Cemetery in Hancock County, TN, the part that was originally Claiborne, where Edward Hilton Clarkson lived.

The Northern Clarkson Cemetery

Mary Parkey (1927-2000) and I visited this cemetery in 1992 during our great adventure. This cemetery is on private land and you can’t find it if you don’t know exactly where it is and have someone generous enough to escort you.

Both Edward Hilton Clarkson and his sister, Flora Jane Clarkson Chadwell are buried there.

Mary Parkey said that Edward’s wife, Mary Marlene Martin whom he married in 1860, is buried here in an unmarked grave as well, having died in 1893. Edward clearly maintained his connections with the Hancock County families because Mary’s parents were Anson Cook Martin and Margaret Herrell whose family lived adjacent James Clarkson’s original land.

Today, both the northern Clarkson and Manning cemeteries are under the stewardship of the Manning family. I really think this should be called the Edward Hilton Clarkson Cemetery.

William Mannon donated the land for the Mt. Zion Baptist Church, where E. H. Clarkson served as moderator, which is also located nearby.

Clarkson/Claxton Cabin in Hancock County

Edward Hilton Clarkson was the moderator of the Mt. Zion Church for many years.

This land was quite rugged and extremely remote when Boyd Manning took Mary Parkey and me back to the cemetery on his tractor back in 1992.

We climbed aboard the back of the tractor at Boyd’s barn, then he drove down a rough path part way. Towards the end, the tractor could go no further, so we trekked through the woods and overgrowth the rest of the way.

After we were finished at the cemetery, we walked down a steep incline, down a hill to the old Clarkson home, snugged into the holler. I believe this is the roof, still remaining today, but I can’t tell for sure.

No access road was available, and there’s no road to that structure today, either.

None of us knew how those abandoned vehicles managed to get there. Boyd said that once they got there, they never got out.

It was very steep up to the closest path, which wasn’t at all a road. We climbed.

The abandoned home looks like it has been enlarged at least once.

Unfortunately, the early Hancock County deeds are gone, so we may never know exactly how Edward came to own this land, assuming he did. It’s clear that he lived here.

The interior looked like someone just walked away – or died. Dishes were still sitting in the kitchen, and canned goods were eerily waiting for someone to come home and make dinner.

This house had been abandoned for years, probably decades, when we visited.

There was no running water, and one wire for electricity had been strung at some point, held up with nails. Wash tubs sat beneath a lean-to with a roof, and water was carried from the spring.

Every desirable homestead had a fresh spring or well. The Clarksons were lucky, and this spring is probably why they chose this location. Less desirable properties obtained their water from a spring or creek downstream of others, but you never knew if the water was contaminated by the time it got to you.

The cool water runs out of this small cave and pools below.

I actually considered purchasing this property many years ago, with the goal of restoring the cabin in a peaceful location that I could visit from time to time. Maybe escape to was more like it. I think the cabin was a lost cause, truthfully, but I surely wanted to own a piece of family land. I thought my ancestors had owned this land, but now I know better – although it was the land of James Claxton’s grandchild, Edward. Ironically, Edward’s wife, Mary Martin, was also the child of a different ancestor of mine, Margaret Herrell. The DNA of my ancestors is scattered and buried here.

This wasn’t where William Claxton was born, nor his father or grandfather. The original Claxton land was about five miles away.

I wouldn’t find the original Claxton/Clarkson land in the Clarkson bend of the Powell River for another 15 years. 

William’s Burial

FindaGrave suggests that William Claxton/Clarkson is buried in the Campbell-Clarkson Cemetery in Union County, but he’s not.

I would have expected him to be buried maybe someplace on Straight Creek in western Claiborne County, given that’s where he was living in 1920, but he’s not there either. Surprisingly, he’s buried at Cave Springs.

Cousin Daryl took this photo years ago and confirmed his birth and death dates on the stone in person.

The last testimony to William’s advanced age is this stone, which gives his birth day and year as September 20, 1815, and his death as June 29, 1920.

If these dates are indeed accurate, William was three months shy of his 105th birthday, an incredible milestone. He would have actually been 104 when the census was taken earlier that year, so that’s mighty close.

William’s Trail

I mapped William Claxton’s life, as best we know. Granted, there are gaps.

William Claxton/Clarkson was born on the old Claxton homeplace, just down the road from Camp Jubilee in what was then Claiborne County, but is now Hancock.

After 1860, but before 1870, he moved to someplace near Cave Springs in Claiborne County, near where the Campbell family lived, then on to Union County, where the Campell-Claxton Cemetery is located on Rosewood Lane.

Some years later, between 1910 and 1920, he had moved back to Ousley Hollow on Straight Creek, along present-day Ousley Lane, and then, finally, was buried back at Cave Springs.

Intrigue

The Claxton family is one of suspense and intrigue.

There are people who seem to be important buried in the Clarkston-Campbell Cemetery in Union County, but we have no idea who they are.

I still can’t figure out who the father of James Lee Clarkson/Claxton is. Or where James came from before Russell County as a young adult around 1795. Daryl and I always thought the unusual middle name McTeer descended from the Campbell line, but now it looks like it may have somehow come through the Claxton/Clarkson line.

James Lee Claxton’s father-in-law, Joel Cook, disappears into thin air.

James’s widow, Sarah Cook, is found in the census with John Helloms in 1850. Who the heck is that and why is he living with her? Some widows cared for people who could not care for themselves, but this seems different.

Sarah was somehow connected with William Hulloms, who died in Claiborne County in 1820. Sarah is the administrator of his will. Why is that? That’s very unusual. Are those two men connected? If so, how? And how are they connected to Sarah?

What’s Next?

All I can say is that one tiny tidbit has finally turned up – in the most unexpected place. And it’s one juicy morsel.

Stay tuned. I have a collaborator, and we’re digging as fast as we can.

We might have a lead.

Or, perhaps, we have one more mystery on our hands.

One thing’s for sure – Uncle William, who assuredly knew those answers, isn’t telling!

_____________________________________________________________

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 your price but helps me 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

Winning the War with Grinch

I really considered saying nothing this holiday season because it’s been really a difficult year

However, I’ve always been quite transparent with my readers, so I invite you to listen while I talk to myself.

Do you talk to yourself?

Sometimes I have to.

You see, 2023 has been one devil of a year.

Let me give you just a few lowlights.

  • I’ve had Covid twice and RSV once. Yes, I took the vaccines, which is probably why it didn’t kill me.
  • I have a very close family member with horribly debilitating long Covid, and he has had it for almost a year. Not only can he not work, he can’t even stay awake through a meal. Forget doing anything enjoyable. If anyone dares to say anything about how Covid isn’t real or long-Covid is just laziness, I’ll not only ban you from my blog, I’ll curse you with fleas to your armpits and private region for the duration of what I hope is your very long flea-ridden life.
  • A young family member took her own life after being bullied at school. And yes, the school knew about the bullying and DID NOTHING. Not only do I remain furious, but the family is beyond devastated. I can’t even imagine Christmas at their home right now.

I just can’t even…

  • A month later, my closest family member, other than my immediate family, died unexpectedly when I was quite ill with RSV. Cheryl, my sister-cousin.
  • I can’t even begin to explain the huge hole in my heart. She’s the last of my generation. Saying goodbye was both extremely difficult and very cathartic. No mixed emotions here. Being the last one standing does a number on your psyche.
  • Then, my house was struck by lightning. This is beginning to sound like a really bad country song isn’t it?
  • I’m not even going to begin to list everything that got fried. Let’s just say it would be easier to list what wasn’t fried and even that list is dwindling. We’ve become good friends with the electrician, is all that I can say.

Ok, enough of that. See, I’m already talking to myself. I’ve been doing a lot of talking and swearing and muttering under my breath this year.

I truly thought that losing 22 people to Covid, including my husband’s best friend and some very close family members over the past 2-3 years, was the bottom of that barrel. Covid isn’t “over,” but not as many people are perishing now. Or maybe we aren’t counting anymore.

I also lost four very close family members in another devastating event during that time.

Anyway, I thought “everything” would be better by now. Less trying. Fewer disasters. At some point, surely, the worst would have to be behind us.

We can’t even get past one issue or challenge before the next one arrives, screaming, “Hold my beer!” Hey, at least the tornado bounced OVER my house.

We aren’t discussing the flood, though. We were spared this year, but so many weren’t. People around here are building arks.

And the floors. If anyone even mentions floors to me, I’m liable to launch either into an apoplectic fit or a sobbing breakdown. We are now on the 7th round of packing up and moving around the house from room to room to remediate floor issues. Yes, 7. That’s not a typo.

Some days, we have multiple disasters or multiple work crews stepping over each other here while I’m trying to work.

I don’t want to leave you with the idea that everything has been bad this year because that isn’t the case, but the year has been pretty much saturated with ongoing issues and disasters.

I was glad to be just about to usher 2023 out the door with a swift goodbye, but 2023 wasn’t done with me yet.

As I watch my social media feed, I’ve realized that many other people are experiencing this same thing – which is why I’ve decided to invite you to follow along as I talk to myself.

Meet Grinch

This brings us to Grinch.

Meet grinch.

Grinch looks like this, at least at my house this year.

After electronics take a huge power surge, like a lightning strike, some electronic parts and appliances fail immediately, and others fail more slowly. It’s like they are stressed, but they don’t give up the ghost right away.

After the initial hit (while we were traveling AND had Covid), I paid to repair the heat pump, which serves as a combined heating and AC unit.

Well, it turned out that I was throwing money away because right after Thanksgiving, we started having issues again.

So, after several service calls and a few parts, two very expensive pieces of the unit failed one after the other.

We were now facing the “fix or replace” decision.

I don’t need a stress test because receiving the quote for the repair started heart palpitations, followed by the quote for the new unit. Since I lived through that, I’ll probably live to see the century mark.

The new unit comes with a warranty. Parts and labor don’t, yet cost two-thirds as much as the new unit.

Couldn’t get parts for six weeks, best case.

And – we were freezing because we had no heat. It was a 4-quilt, 3-cat night, and I was still cold. The good news is that we had hot water, because I really needed hot showers.

So, the decision was made, and the installation of a new unit was scheduled for December 21st. Merry Christmas. Well, those aren’t exactly the words I said.

However, the day before the installation, the experienced technician we really had confidence in quit. My anxiety level leaped right off the charts. I swear, the Grinch has secretly moved in.

The following day, the installation was on once again, staffed with other people, but everything had to be torn out first. The floor crew was here, too. Four trucks in the driveway and one on the street. I had to go sit in the car for some silence.

Regardless, I could hear my checkbook screaming.

Yes, the Grinch visited and stole the Christmas spirit for a month or so.

When the crew finished installing the new unit, they hauled the broken parts away, hopefully removing Grinch, too.

Thank goodness for multiple credit cards is all that I can say.

I’ve had to tell myself to take a deep breath and just breathe more than once.

So, now that I’ve told you about that evil Grinch, let me tell you what’s NOT wrong, and what I did to combat Grinch.

Grinch can put a huge damper on things, but Grinch CANNOT steal everything.

Holiday Spirit

Whether you celebrate Solstice, Hannukah, Christmas, or something else, the holiday season embodies a spirit of celebration, love, positivity, and generosity.

Gifts and colorful decorations remind people that others care.

Those who can, do for others who cannot.

I’ve been that single Mom with no help, so I stuck some cash in an envelope and gifted our favorite server – who is also a single young mom whose mother died.

My first thought was that I couldn’t afford it, because, you know – evil Grinch and the heat pump. But guess what? Trust me, that heat pump cost so much that the cash I put in that envelope for her isn’t going to matter one iota. Not to me. However, it did matter to her.

She exclaimed, joyfully, “Oh, now I can get my daughter a stocking.” I wished I had put more in there.

At least I HAVE a house, and I CAN replace the heat pump, and I’m NOT debilitated by Covid. I’m also NOT sleeping on the sidewalk in the cold or begging for food for my dog. (Yes, I bought the dog food and gave the guy something for himself too. Yes, I also know it might have been a scam, but it also might not have been. If it was a scam, he deserves an Oscar. I’d rather risk the $ than risk allowing another human and his dog to starve in the cold.)

There’s something else too.

My path through the valley of the Shadow of the Grinch is strewn with boulders, but so far, I’ve been able to navigate them. Alright, I have a few bruises on my shins and my credit cards have been brutalized, but I’ve survived.

This is NOT a life sentence of cold and misery. I’m not condemned.

Ancestral Life

Historian Travis Chumley posts daily photos of life in Appalachia from the first half of the 20th century on Facebook. These photos are of common people – workers, miners, farmers, women keeping house, and children.

Their everyday lives.

These are the lives of my ancestors on my father’s side.

My ancestors were poor, and some lived in grinding poverty – the kind that never leaves your soul.

I’ve been spared and remain spared that fate.

I searched Travis’s feed for both my family surnames and their locations, by county. I also searched the UNT Library collection, here, too, along with the Library of Congress photos.

Let me share this part of the story with you.

Harlan County, 1946

My grandfather lived in a shack up on Black Mountain in Harlan County, Kentucky.

The shacks were numbered. They lived in shack #74 for years, as listed on their child’s death certificate and the census.

Moonshine still – 1940s in Claiborne County.

My grandfather, along with his eldest son made moonshine for the miners. Their young daughters delivered it in a wagon during Prohibition. Yes, most of this family line suffered from alcoholism, a “gift” that descended generationally.

Miner’s home in 1946 in Bell Co. KY. This is one of the nicer homes.

Kerosene lamps. String beans on a thread were how beans were dried, which you can see at right, and newspapers served for wallpaper and insulation. These shacks were people’s homes but were not insulated. Snow drifted in through the cracks in the roof and windows. One family told me that their puppy froze one night, in bed with their three sons.

Bell County, Kentucky, 1946…

Mrs. Leanore Miller, widow of a miner, with a picture of her husband. She said, “there’s more widows and orphans in this holler than men at work”. Kentucky Straight Creek Coal Company, Four Mile, Bell County, Kentucky…

Source
National Archives Russell Lee photographer

Life was unrelenting, and there was no avenue of escape.

Wash day about 1920. Water was carried from the spring. Often clothes were boiled because they were worn for so long between washes. Notice the washboard. The Claxton land still had remnants of wash day down along the creek, long abandoned when we found it in the 1980s.

Everything was done wearing those long skirts, even in the heat of summer. Many women died when their skirts caught fire.

Walking the coffin up the mountainside.- 1940.

Medicine was scarce, and people were often afraid to turn to doctors. Not only was medicine unfamiliar, many women wouldn’t allow a man to treat them.

Death was common. Coffins were handmade in the barn, neighbors dug the grave, and family members were buried in cemeteries “up the hill.” My great-grandparents were buried on the same day, some say together, in the flu epidemic of 1918. They put one body in the barn to wait for the other person to die.

If you didn’t have medicine as a resource, then you were left with prayer. People went to church in wagons. The lucky ones got to ride in trucks like this lady in Springdale, TN, in 1940.

My cousin first took me “up the mountain” in the back of his truck that looked a lot like this, except without the roof.

Oklahoma in 1895.

After Tennessee and sometimes Missouri, the next frontier for many was Oklahoma and Texas. The government divided much of the tribal land and granted individual allotments to Native families. That started the next land rush of settlers who were eager to purchase land for pennies on the dollar.

Some made the journey with their entire family and belongings in a Conestoga wagon, but many of the Native people who were forced onto the Trail of Tears decades earlier, walking during the winter, didn’t make it.

A hitchhiking family waiting along the highway in Macon, Georgia, in 1937. The father repairs sewing machines, lawnmowers, etc. He is leaving Macon, where a license is required for such work (twenty-five dollars), and heading back for Alabama.

Source
Farm Security Administration Dorothea Lange photographer

Everything that family owned was in those bags.

Depression-era home, Wayne County, Michigan 1937

This isn’t in the South, but many people from Appalachia went north seeking work in factories or on farms.

1937 was the year my grandfather’s youngest child starved to death up on Black Mountain.

West Virginia 1937

Life was tough, and many were impoverished. This young woman is picking alongside the road for pieces of coal that fell off of trucks. Some scavenged along train tracks for the same reason. Coal and wood were both used to heat homes.

Walking to school, 1921

Notice that this girl is wearing a coat and hat but is barefoot. My aunt told me that they had one pair of shoes that the children shared for “good” and everyone was mad when the foot of the largest child stretched the shoes out. They went everyplace barefoot.

Clothes were shared in hand-me-down fashion from child to child until nothing was left. Scraps and remnants were often remade and repurposed.

Tennessee, March 1936…

Mother and daughter of an impoverished family of nine… FSA photographer Carl Mydans found them living in a field just off US Route 70, near the Tennessee River.

Source
Farm Security Administration

This mother’s skirt is made from a coarse feed sack, and her top appears to be a sweater in tatters. The baby doesn’t look much better. This is what hopelessness looks like.

I can’t help but wonder what happened to these people.

Scott’s Run, West Virginia. Miner’s child.

This boy was digging coal from mine refuse on the road side. The picture was taken December 23, 1936 on a cold day; Scott’s Run was buried in snow. The child was barefoot and seemed to be used to it. He was a quarter mile from his home.

Source
Records of the Work Projects Administration Lewis Hine photographer

This is no life to aspire to.

Many tried to leave, or did leave, but often what awaited them wasn’t any better.

Florida, 1939

“Buddy,” youngest child of migrant packinghouse worker from Tennessee, sitting on the only bed for six people, which is rolled out on the ground at night and pushed into the back during the day. Belle Glade, Florida.

Source
Farm Security Administration (Marion Post Walcott photographer

I don’t even have any commentary about this one except to say thank the Lord because there but for the grace of God and some amount of good luck goes every family.

Claiborne County outhouse in field. Clark, Joe. [Outhouse in an Open Field], photograph, undated, crediting UNT Libraries Special Collections.

Photograph of a wooden outhouse in an open field. A line of fence posts can be seen in the middle ground of the photo while trees are scattered throughout the background.

I grew up on a farm, and yes, we had an outhouse, but by that time, it was only used for emergencies.

In the south, everyone had outhouses. Many were still in use when I first visited Claiborne County in the 1980s.

Attitude Shift

All of this makes my first-world problems look privileged and trivial by comparison.

If my ancestors can and did survive that as routine life, I can assuredly survive this. I’m embarrassed to admit that I’ve been whining, grousing and complaining so much.

This is why I talk to myself. To remind myself that:

  • My country isn’t under attack.
  • My friends and family aren’t starving.
  • We have clothes and food.
  • There’s no outhouse outside, because there’s plumbing inside, including multiple bathrooms.
  • We don’t have to find wood or pick coal from the side of the road for heat.
  • I have shoes.
  • My children had shoes, and they didn’t have to share them.
  • I may have to pack up my belongings and shuffle them around my house to fix the floors, repeatedly, but I have more than a few suitcases of belongings.
  • And I have floors – that I don’t have to sleep on.
  • I’m no longer that single mother trying to figure out how to acquire the things that I know my kids asked Santa for.
  • I no longer need to ration food from Friday to Friday to have enough to get to the next payday.
  • I no longer have to live in terror of any “strange” noise my car makes, knowing I can’t afford to fix it.
  • I have the ability to alleviate some of that suffering and those challenges for others through various means.

Grinch, I hate to tell you this, but you’re outta here. You’ve been evicted – run right out of town!

This is a Grinch-free zone now!

My Wishes for You

The best that life has to offer

Tranquility.

Kindness

Safety.

Wisdom

The wisdom to know when to walk away

Time

Time to do what you need to do

Time to do what you want to do

May your lightning bolt

Be one of awakening

Freedom from fear

Warmth

Family

Someone who loves you

Unconditionally

Loving another

Unconditionally

Fur family who loves you,

And that you love

Hope

The ability to help others,

Change lives,

Make a difference

The willingness to reach out with love

The desire to give

Motivation

Grace

Gratitude

Both given and received

The satisfaction of bringing joy to others

Great gifts,

But most of all

 I wish you peace

And Inspiration

That you may find your Calling

Or it finds you

And know that you are doing the work of the Divine

Not just for this day

Or month

But until the end of time

Happy Holidays, and no Grinch!

First Aid for the Holidays: It’s OK to Grieve, Just Breathe

As you begin this article, I want to assure you that it ends on a VERY positive note, with tools to help you or others who find themselves in a dark place. The holidays is a very difficult time for many.

Grief wears many faces, and we grieve many things.

This is about my journey out of the tunnel and life on the other side.

These past three years have been indescribably brutal for many people who have experienced loss, and often, multiple losses.

People, family, parents, siblings, children, pets, jobs, homes, and even more devastating losses sometimes – relationships and even entire families. Poof, just gone, sometimes without explanation or reason. Fractured forever, irreparably.

Funerals, when they were held, were often unable to be attended.

There’s no closure.

And now, once again, we face the holidays in this landscape of absence, in an even more politically charged and divisive environment.

Did you just feel your stress level increase?

I know it can be dark and brutal, but I want to share rays of hope with you, and some tools for getting there.

The only way to it is through it.

Please walk with me in this landscape for a bit.

Suicide Hotlines – Just in Case

I know the holidays can be particularly difficult, so just in case you’re overwhelmed, here’s a list of international suicide prevention hotline numbers. Please, please reach out if you need help.

In case you’re wondering, I’m fine. Today, I just talked to someone who isn’t, though.

Change is Tough

For many, including me, the holidays are not and can never be what they once were. Yet, we torture ourselves trying to paste on a smile and go through the motions of the traditions that were once warm and joyful in another time and place. But they aren’t anymore for a wide variety of reasons.

Do yourself a favor.

Just stop.

You don’t HAVE to do this.

And you shouldn’t try to recreate past times through tradition if it’s painful.

Let me share some personal experiences with you. You may have experienced or are experiencing something similar in your life. If you aren’t, good, but rest assured that someone you know and love probably is.

Grief and vulnerability are the secrets no one talks about.

Vulnerability

We are all more vulnerable during holidays or periods of traditional cultural celebration, partly because we have expectations based on past experience. Or maybe it’s actually hope for the holidays and the relationships with the people in our lives. Maybe this year will FINALLY be better than the last, and the last, and the last, and everyone will be “home for the holidays” once again.

After all, traditionally, holidays have been a homecoming that looks like a Hallmark greeting card, at least in our minds.

Real life just doesn’t work this way. And if it once did, it doesn’t anymore.

As life moves on, so do people, pets, and family members, for a wide variety of reasons, including death, often making those memories increasingly painful. In some cases, it’s the cumulative number of those events, layer upon layer of grief. Sometimes, it’s how quickly they occur, an agonizing cluster that changes things forever. And sometimes, it’s the fracture of finality, leaving people feeling like they were thrown away like so much trash.

Sometimes, in our efforts to uphold our own expectations and those of others by recreating legendary family traditions and events, we inadvertently fall into a cycle of repeated disappointment, which can lead us to dread these very events in the future.

That’s a downward spiral.

Let Me Give You an Example

My mother cherished Christmas, treasuring it as a time when all the people she loved gathered together, united under one roof in celebration and togetherness.

The house was bustling, and conversations flowed in every room.

Food was abundant, and children zigzagged excitedly through adult legs on the way to their special table.

Sometimes, Santa even visited, although he looked a lot like my brother or the neighbor from the farm down the road. I’m sure that was just a coincidence, though.

In my family, Christmas was both a holiday and our only family reunion.

After Dad passed away, Mom moved to an apartment, and those large family Christmas gatherings were no more, although we regrouped in a different setting. Mom used to be so joyful, singing in the kitchen, but she often cried at Christmas after Dad and others were gone, although she tried to hide her tears from the rest of us.

After Mom passed away, Christmas was just PAINFUL. We tried to focus on our wonderful memories of Mom, but the pain of her departure was very real. Everyone experiences some version of these events, and it’s normal to feel grief, but what we often aren’t prepared for is that someone’s absence changes the dynamics of everything.

For a few years, we still tried to connect with each other and have something resembling a “family holiday,” but not everyone was interested, and people drifted away. The “glue” was gone.

After both of my brothers died of cancer within a few months of each other just six years later, any semblance of family tradition fell completely apart.

I then tried to pivot into the matriarch role and provide family Christmas traditions for my own offspring. I longed for those earlier joyful days, too. They lovingly remembered “Christmas at Mawmaw’s house,” which, in turn, was some iteration of her family Christmas traditions that had been passed down in her maternal line for unknown generations.

I wanted to continue those warm traditions and create loving memories for my family, passing the tradition of togetherness and love to future generations.

That was a wonderful aspiration, but it just wasn’t to be.

Life is what happens when you’re making other plans.

Physical Mementos

I was bound and determined to continue family traditions. That’s just what the next generation does. My mother picked up the mantle when my grandmother passed away in 1960, and nearly a half-century later, it was my turn.

Mom gave each of her children and grandchildren a special Christmas ornament every year, most of them handmade. She loved to crochet and started working on ornaments and Christmas gifts months before the holiday season. After all, she had several to make and enjoyed every minute. Love was woven in every stitch.

Sometimes, the ornaments were representative of the year, like an Olympics year, for example, or maybe a ballerina or football ornament for children who participated in those activities. The theory was that each child would have a “starter set” of personal Christmas ornaments with loving memories when they fledged from the nest and started their own home with their own Christmas tree.

Mom even taped a tiny year someplace on the ornament, generally on the hanger, so they would know which ornament went with which year.

I thought that was wonderful, so I began to do the same thing.

In addition to making ornaments for my children, I made this ornament for Mom the year she won a Best of Show ribbon at the Indiana State Fair. Mom and I so enjoyed attending those exhibits together, often with grandchildren in tow. That was a red-letter year for her, and she proudly displayed the ornament on her tree, right in the front. Then, 17 years later, I inherited that ornament. It’s bittersweet, of course, but reminds me of our wonderful times together and Mother’s beautiful handwork.

I made and gifted special ornaments each year, not only to my children, but eventually to my grandchildren.

While my children began their adult life with their own ornament set, the next generation wasn’t interested and didn’t even remember that they received ornaments year to year. I tried everything, special boxes, allowing them to select ornaments from my tree that they liked, but nothing worked.

Then, in time, it wasn’t just the ornament tradition that bit the dust, but all of the traditions. Put simply, no one cared. I finally got the message.

That left me with boxes full of Christmas tree ornaments, and two trees. I tried putting the tree up regardless, because – you know – Mom and memories, and she would have liked that. And maybe, just maybe, things would be different this year.

But I sat alone, sadder every year, because there was no family gathering Christmas tradition anymore, despite my continuing efforts. There were no songs, no Christmas smells in the house, and what at one time had been a wonderful, warm tradition became just the opposite. Those ornaments seemed to mock me and served to remind me of pointed absence, not presence.

I dreaded the holidays more each year.

The family had shrunk dramatically and been cleaved into two. One of my adult children continued to come with their spouse and remained engaged, but the silence of the absence of the balance of the family members was deafening.

It’s not like we could pretend that empty chairs weren’t empty.

Then came Covid and unraveled the rest.

Enough is Enough

In some families, Covid, sometimes combined with ugly politics, broke traditions and relationships that haven’t resumed or recovered.

The forced isolation of Covid and traditions shattered by estrangement have continued for many. That situation now exists by choice, not by Covid.

Life is simply too short to continue enduring the repeated pain of rejection, especially for no discernible reason.

Hope is not a strategy, and repeated disappointment evolves into a cycle of ever-deepening grief.

At some point, enough is enough. There needs to be an end to the spiral of recurring pain.

Wishing, hoping, inviting, and even begging simply can’t make people care or succeed in recreating past traditions. People don’t show up if they don’t want to. Recurrent flimsy excuses that really say “I don’t care,” take the place of people. I think guilt then discourages showing up and “facing people” in the future, too, so it’s a self-perpetuating cycle of “can’t bother, don’t care.”

Even if the wished-for people begrudgingly attend, somewhat under duress, or maybe from a sense of obligation, it’s not the same because it’s obvious that they really don’t want to be there. That’s almost worse than absence.

When things no longer work, it’s time to accept that fact, release them, and move on. It’s much like going through the motions in a bad marriage – not good for anyone and never gets better.

For me, that moment arrived when I almost died. I found myself perilously close to death, and in those moments, as life hung perilously in the balance, something inexplicable changed.

Moving

Working from home during Covid provided the opportunity to move – something we had considered for years. We knew it was time to move, and move on.

The next challenge was packing, which means you have to sort through everything and decide what to do with things. Take, leave, give away, sell, or trash. As you come across all those things you boxed up years ago, you relive all of those shallowly buried memories. Ghouls come leaping from the grave.

After consulting with my daughter, I gave away all the Christmas ornaments and both trees to loving homes. I kept a few ornaments – some that Jim and I had purchased on special occasions, those yearly ornaments from Mom, some made by my children, and the ones from my grandmother as well. My daughter will inherit those someday.

The rest just needed to go.

I no longer feel obligated to “try” to recreate traditions that died.

I no longer feel obligated to put up a Christmas tree that simply makes me cry every time I see ornaments that remind me of people, lives, traditions, and relationships that have passed away, either literally or figuratively.

I don’t do any of that anymore.

Life’s too short, and self-care is critically important.

Triggers

Triggers are like unexpectedly poking an old wound. Maybe cracking your shin or crazy bone against something sharp. OUCH!

It seems that we are more susceptible to triggers during the holidays. That’s when holiday decorations, ads, and songs are more in evidence, reminding us of times past whether we want to be reminded or not.

Sometimes, though, triggers are found when and where we least expect them – like in the cedar chest.

This past week, I was ill and wanted to add an extra quilt to the bed, so I grabbed a quilt that one of my friends lovingly made for my small family wedding 20 years ago.

It seemed like such a good idea at the time, asking attendees to sign squares. Each of those yellow centers holds a signature and, often, a message too.

It was late at night, and I was already “sick and tired,” literally. For some reason, I decided to read those squares. It seemed like such a positive thing to do, because it was such a joyful day, and they had been lovingly penned.

What was I thinking? I thought they would be comforting. I should have known better.

As I began, the one signed by my daughter, who stood up with me as my maid of honor, made me smile. There were lovely messages from long-time friends and my quilt sisters.

I saw Mom’s shaky signature, a couple of years before she left us, and that made me both smile and cry. That response didn’t surprise me, but some of the rest did.

Most of the people have either passed away or migrated away. I don’t necessarily mean that in a universally negative sense because, in some cases, it was due to aging and necessary life changes. Even for the best of reasons, it represented a loss of sorts, like Christmas tree lights that dim and wink out one by one.

Sometimes, the reason was darker. Some people died, and in other cases, relationships ended – some horribly and bitterly, inflicting great pain.

But the square that absolutely gutted me was the tiny traced handprint of a child, no longer here. Ripped my heart right out of my chest, threw it on the floor, and stomped on it. Daggers to my soul.

That was it. I folded that quilt up and put it away. I may never unfold it again.

It vividly resurrects all the memories of those now-gone people and traditions in both their glory and deepest tragedy.

We all reach a low at some point, often for unexpected reasons. The proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back, but that does not need to be the end of the story. It’s just the shutting of that door and the opening of another.

Let’s open a door.

New Traditions

I am determined that I will not allow change, even unwelcome or forced change, to defeat me and define my life.

I did not die on that life-changing day, nor with those traditions, relationships, or those people. Those who love or loved me would not want me to, and the rest don’t matter.

Let me say that again, THE REST DON’T MATTER.

I’m still here, relatively healthy, and living the next chapter of life in beautiful surroundings.

Yes, Thanksgiving is on the calendar, and so is Christmas. You can’t miss those dates or events. There will be Thanksgiving dinner, but just for me, Jim, and maybe a friend or two – and that’s now fine.

Yes, just fine.

My daughter and I have mutually agreed to release old habits and make glorious new ones that better suit our lives now. Or, maybe just the tradition of enjoying the moment whenever it occurs. Let’s face it: travel is brutal in the middle of the winter, so we select easier, less-crowded times.

There will be no traditional Christmas tree, for either me or her. And guess what, that’s not only absolutely fine, it’s cathartic and a relief. This is my Charlie Brown Christmas tree now, and I love it. It comes with no hassle and no tears.

Our small remaining family has decided that gifts will no longer be exchanged during the holiday season. We will simply do things for each other during the year, as the opportunity arises and we see something a family member would enjoy.

For example, my daughter and I took a glorious trip together this summer.

Art, gardens, parks, dogs, eagles, moose, coffee, luscious food in little-known quaint restaurants and family – how does it get better???

Sometimes, surprise boxes arrive. That’s such fun. I’m now the proud human adopter of a rescued manatee, Ariel.

Here’s the beautiful part. We are both very much looking forward to our next adventure together – not dreading the holidays.

We will embark on a wonderful journey soon, together, on a white sand beach in a place neither of us ever imagined. I can hardly wait.

No more dreading the holidays and trying to breathe life into dead traditions. She’s probably relieved, too.

We’re free.

It wasn’t easy or immediate, but…

We. Are. Free.

We are no longer adrift or cast away on a sea of grief.

Just Breathe

Today, I can breathe instead of grieve. No more tightness of dread in my chest, increasing each day as the holidays approach, knowing assuredly that things will go wrong, just not how this year. No more fighting back hot, unwelcome tears from mid-November to New Year’s when the holidays are finally over.

Now that I’ve found peace in embracing change, it no longer feels like chronic loss, but a stream of new opportunities to be enjoyed. The joy is being spread in different, less traditional ways.

The past no longer binds me. It wasn’t working any more.

As for Christmas Day, I’m starting a new tradition for myself. I’m going to walk on the beach and feel the salty breeze in my hair. Either alone or with Jim.

No one else will be there. I will commune with Mom and Dad, my brother Dave, my sister Edna, my cousin Cheryl, and the rest of those I’ve loved and lost.

They will be with me there, gliding with the gulls on the ocean breeze.

With immense gratitude, I’ll remember my ancestors who survived incredibly difficult journeys. Without them, I wouldn’t have this priceless opportunity to live and make a difference in other people’s lives.

I will be thankful for those opportunities and send positive energy into the universe for the earth and her people.

I’ll lift a prayer for peace and unity, which we so desperately need right now.

But I won’t, I will NOT grieve the past. I’ve had that funeral, and it’s at rest now.

I, too, will be at peace.

Your Turn

Put whatever brings you pain to rest and release it so that you can make space to breathe in the new.

You’re not obligated to uphold old traditions. Don’t stay trapped in what no longer works.

This is a labyrinth, not a maze.

There’s a way out, an exit, an off-ramp.

Your ancestors will help you. They walk with you in unseen ways, offering guidance and wisdom.

Move on to something new, more suited to you.

Give yourself permission.

Release yourself from the pain of the past.

Create beautiful, new, imaginative traditions, or none at all.

Either is fine.

When life gives you scraps, make quilts.

Find or make something new and joyful.

Allow yourself flights of fancy and to dream.

The sky is not the limit.

There is no limit.

And breathe.

Just breathe.

Help With Inspirational Positivity

What we view interacts with our brain. As a quilter, I’m very aware of how color and pattern make us feel. The images I used in the section above were created with that in mind. How did they make you feel?

If you’re having trouble feeling positive, and who doesn’t from time to time, motivational or inspirational images will help. AI is your friend, so let’s give it a try.

If you subscribe to ChatGPT 4, enter a request into DALL-E, the image generator. If you don’t subscribe to ChatGPT, my favorite, use a free image generator. You can ask ChatGPT’s free version for free AI image generators to get started, or you can try DALL-E for free through Bing’s Image Creator, here. Personally, I think the $20 a month for ChatGPT 4, which includes Dall-E, is well worth the investment, even if you just use it for one month for a daily dose of positivity during a difficult time.

Ask ChatGPT 4’s DALL-E or your AI generator of choice to create an inspirational image. You may or may not provide more direct or additional instructions. You can even just google.

I asked DALL-E to “create a picture by interpreting the phrase, ‘when life gives you scraps, make beautiful quilts’.”

Next, I included a photo of myself as a young person and asked ChatGPT to “put the person in a positive and inspirational setting with a labyrinth.”

ChatGPT doesn’t use people’s photos, but it generates images with likenesses. This is what I received. I can continue refining this image by asking ChatGPT to change it or by submitting a new request. (Please note that ChatGPT’s image generator is sometimes overburdened, and you have to wait a bit and try later.)

Be sure to include words in the instructions like “uplifting, “positive,” “ethereal”, “beautiful,” or “colorful.”

Next, I asked Dall-E to add a quilt theme to the same labyrinth image, above.

ChatGPT’s DALL-E doesn’t always follow directions exactly, but I must admit, I really love this, and now I want to make it as a quilt.

If you’re in a difficult space and can do nothing else right now, utilize ChatGPT, other AI image generators, Pixabay or even Google to bombard yourself with positive, hopeful images of your new or imagined life.

I’m serious.

Inspiration comes from many places, and beautiful images lift our spirits.

You WILL feel better.

Happy Holidays

Thanksgiving week begins now, so gird your loins if you need to, and maybe consider something novel. If you’re concerned about Thanksgiving dinner going off the rails, CNN’s newsletter today, here, provided a list of “20 Questions to Spark Gratitude.” It’s a thoughtful piece and worth taking a look, even if you don’t need it for Thanksgiving. I exchanged answers with Jim, which was fun, and we both learned something.

I asked ChatGPT for nontraditional Thanksgiving celebration ideas, and it suggested a barbeque or picnic celebration on a beach, a craft day, or a gratitude scavenger hunt.

You can ask the free version of ChatGPT for ideas, too.

I wish you the happiest of holidays over the next few weeks, no matter how you do, or don’t, decide to celebrate.

Please do something that brings YOU joy.

_____________________________________________________________

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

Marie Gaudet (c1633-1710) – The Three Maries – 52 Ancestors #415

Just wait till you hear Marie Gaudet’s entire story!!! It’s a doozy. Truth be told, she has a secret so well kept that Marie may not have known about it herself.

But first, we have to set the stage. You need to meet the three Maries – Marie Gaudet and her two daughters – both named Marie. Nothing confusing about that, right?

Of course, you’ll meet the rest of the family as we navigate their adventures and misadventures in early Acadia, now Nova Scotia.

Of course, in the beginning, Acadia consisted of just a few houses on a distant peninsula of land, jutting into the North Atlantic. Only the very brave, or maybe the crazy, would choose to go there where death was only one misstep or mistake away!

Destination Acadia!

Marie Gaudet (also Godet), the subject of this article and the mother of the other two Maries, was born between 1630 and 1633, someplace in France, to her father, Jean Gaudet, and an unknown mother. I can’t help but wonder if her mother was named Marie, too.

Several ships arrived with settlers around 1648, so she may have been on board one of those along with at least her father and two siblings.

We know of the following arrivals, plus many undocumented ships bringing both supplies and workers from France.

  • 1632 – two ships from Auray in lower Brittany and a third from La Rochelle
  • The 1636 St. Jehan roster lists Jehan Guiot and wife, but no children.The departure location is unstated.
  • 1640s – ships from La Rochelle with workers, many of whom returned to France after their work contract expired.
  • Supply ships arrived in 1648.

There are few records of family arrivals, but clearly, they happened.

Marie was probably married about 1650 because her oldest known child, Marie Hebert, was born in 1651.

In the early 1650s, Port Royal was quite small, especially as the seed of the French-Acadians whose descendants number in the millions today. In 1653, there were about 45-50 households primarily clustered around Port Royal, and the population was estimated to be about 270 residents in 1654.

We don’t know when these families arrived, but we do know that French families would not have been transported during English rule, and they were likely in Acadia by 1650. Control of Acadia was batted back and forth like a ping-pong ball, amid much fighting, between the English and the French.

In 1654, Port Royal was burned by the English, but upriver homesteads may have been spared.

This map was drawn by the English in 1758, but shows the farms scattered along the river to the east of Port Royal, named here as Fort Annapolis.

In 1667, Acadian rule again shifted to the French who, in turn, required censuses be taken for tax purposes! Gotta love that tax man for generating records.

We’re lucky we know as much about Marie Gaudet as we do. As it turns out, we’re indebted to many of her descendants who provided depositions decades after her death.

1767 Depositions

After the forcible expulsion of the Acadians from Nova Scotia by the British beginning in 1755, some 3,500 eventually found themselves back in France. Of those, 78 Acadian families were repatriated to Belle-Ile-en-Mer, an island off the coast of Brittany.

On the order of Parliament of Brittany at Vannes, 58 depositions of the Acadians regarding their original heads of families were taken on the island between February and March of 1767. The parish priest recorded what the Acadian exiles, under oath, had to say about their ancestors and their origins. The purpose was to allow French officials to determine which Acadian refugees were entitled to the King’s protection.

Lucie LeBlanc Consentino graciously transcribed the essence of the depositions in English, here.

According to ten of Marie Gaudet’s descendants who gave depositions in 1767, Marie came from France and was married to Etienne Hebert. The descendants all stated that Marie and Etienne came from France, in fact, they said that Marie came “with her husband,” according to Lucie’s translation, but what they don’t say is whether or not they were married in France, or in Acadia. Acadian church records from that time no longer exist. In other words, they could have come separately, both from France and even potentially on the same ship. There may have been no marriage record in France, even if the records from where they originated are still extant. We simply don’t know when they arrived, or from where, or where they married.

Marie’s first or middle name may have been Anne, because two of her descendants mistakenly called her Anne, not Marie.

Depositions were given by:

  • Grandson Jean Hebert
  • Pierre Trahan, husband of her granddaughter Madeleine Comeau
  • One from their son, Pierre Trahan
  • One from their nephews Sylvestre and Simon Trahan
  • Two from the husbands of Marie’s great-granddaughters
  • One from a great-great-grandson
  • Two from husbands of her great-great-granddaughters

All depositions named Marie specifically except for the two Pierre Trahans.

Marie was the younger sister of Francoise Gaudet, who reportedly “came from France” with her husband, Daniel LeBlanc. Marie was also Denis Gaudet’s younger sister. The tree of Karen Theriot Reader, here, in an immigration note, provides the following information:

Robert C. West, AN ATLAS OF LOUISIANA SURNAMES OF FRENCH AND SPANISH ORIGIN; 1625-1880; Baton Rouge, Louisiana State Univ., 1986; p. 98; own copy. “All members of the clan being descendants of a single couple, Daniel LeBlanc and Francoise Gaudet of La Chaussée, Loudun area, France, who settled near Port Royal in 1659.” (A footnote cites: Sclanders, Ian 1972, “The LeBlancs of Acadia,” in FRENCH-CANADIAN AND ACADIAN GENEALOGICAL REVIEW, 4:11-16; Auger 1972, ibid., pp. 21-36; Godbout 1972, ibid. pp. 17-20; Massignon 1962, 1:42; Arsenault 1978, op cit., vol. 2:648; Pollard, Nora Lee, THE BOOK OF LEBLANC, Baton Rouge, Claitor’s, 1973, p. 1)

This, of course, begs the question of whether the Gaudet family was from La Chaussee. I wonder if anyone has searched the records for anything resembling Gaudet in or near that location.

Life In Acadia

Acadians were subsistence farmers, raising what they needed to live with hopefully a little extra to sell to passing ships, English soldiers at the fort, or maybe on a ship bound for New England – although trading with New England was illegal for the most part.

ChatGPT Dall-E’s interpretation of Acadians working in the field in 1686. ChatGPT is insistent on retaining the steeple on the barn, although we know clearly that the Acadians were Catholic and did not attend church in barns in the fields. Beyond that, this is probably a fair representation of communal farmwork.

The 1671 Census

While Marie’s life in Acadia began at least two decades earlier, the first actual record of Marie Gaudet in Acadia is the 1671 census of Port Royal, where Marie is shown as a 38-year-old widow living in the household next to her daughter Marie Hebert, age 20, and her husband Michel De Forest.

Thankfully, Marie Gaudet’s children are listed:

  • Marie 20 (born about 1651, married to Michel DeForest)
  • Marguerite 19 (born about 1652, married to Jacques LePrince)
  • Emmanuel 18, not yet married (born about 1653)
  • Etienne 17 (born about 1654)
  • Child born in about 1656 likely perished
  • Jean 13 (born about 1658)
  • Child probably born about 1660 likely perished
  • Francoise 10 (born about 1661)
  • Catherine 9 (born about 1662)
  • Child probably born about 1664 likely perished
  • Martine 6 (born about 1665)
  • Michel 5 (born about 1666)
  • Child probably born about 1668 likely perished
  • Antoine 1 (born about 1670)

Marie also has 4 cattle, 5 sheep and 3 arpents of land.

Marie’s residence is located between Michel DeForest, her son-in-law, and Denis Gaudet, her brother, age 46, with his wife Martine Gauthier. Their father, Jean Gaudet, laborer, age 96, is living with Denis. Jean’s age is almost certainly wrong since he was still living seven years later in the next census – although it’s possible he lived to 103. Regardless, that poor old man was still listed as a laborer.

Marie had endured a lot of recent grief. The obvious gaps between children strongly suggest that she had buried four children, including a child between 1668 and 1670. Given that she had one-year-old Antoine, Marie’s husband, Etienne Hebert, had died about 1670, or at least within the past two years, sometime after Marie had become pregnant for Antoine. Marie could have been pregnant when Etienne died.

There she was, 36 or 37 years old, living on the frontier, either pregnant or with an infant, plus seven other children to care for. Perhaps her two sons-in-law saved the day, along with her teenage sons Emmanuel and Etienne. Regardless, no one wants to be needy and beholden to others.

Marie already had three grandchildren through daughter Marie Hebert with Michel DeForest, and probably two grandchildren through daughter Marguerite through her marriage with Jacques LePrince, although they are not listed in the 1671 census.

Under the circumstances, how was Marie to survive?

How did she survive?

Remarriage

Marie was single in a time when wives in Acadia were a scarce commodity. She also had land, so she probably had her choice of suitors.

Maybe she intended to wait for Mr. Right, but I’d think that Mr. Right-Now would have been imminently attractive with a farm to run and seven hungry mouths to feed.

The next census wasn’t taken for another seven years, in 1678, but a lot happened during that time.

In 1677, Marie’s oldest daughter, age 26, also named Marie, who lived next door, died. I’ve always wondered if she died in childbirth. Marie must have been utterly heartbroken and probably wondered why it couldn’t have been her instead, although she wasn’t even yet 50.

In the 1678 census, which might have been taken in early 1679, we find Dominiq Garrau (Dominique Gareau) and Marie Godet. With them is listed Jean Godet, no age given, which would be Marie’s father, in addition to a boy, age 3, who would have been born about 1675. Another girl is listed, age 4, so born about 1674, along with 3 acres (arpents?) and 8 cattle. The rest of Marie’s Hebert children are missing.

It’s difficult to interpret this. Marie’s two young children must be by Dominique Gareau, or at least by a husband after Etienne died in 1670. Her two youngest children by Etienne Hebert, sons Michel and Antoine, would have been 12 and 8, respectively. The children listed in 1678 were aged 3 and 4, which suggests that Marie remarried about 1673, two years following the earlier census.

But where were her Hebert children? And what happened to these two children with Dominique?

It’s worth noting that the Hebert and Gaudet land may have been well located, meaning higher land and not swampy.

A note on the census says, “Sans Soucy 29, which means “without worry 29,” 1 acre of high land, bordering at one end on the river, at the other end on the north wood [and] on one side Anthoine Hebert [and] Denis Godet.” Antoine Hebert is Etienne Hebert’s brother, and Denis Godet is Marie Godet’s brother.

In this case, “high ground” may be a relative term.

Children Settle Elsewhere

By 1680, Marie’s adult children began to move away. Now, granted, Les Mines wasn’t terribly far away, by today’s standards. But in 1680, transportation was by canoe.

Les Mines generally meant settlements in the Minas Basin. There was no road at that time, because we know in the early 1700s, when forced to flee, the Acadians tried to cut a cart road to Les Mines.

Grand Pre was the largest settlement, and where most of Marie’s children who left settled, but there was no bringing the children for visits to Grandma’s house.

Gone to Les Mines meant gone for good. Marie’s children may have made the voyage to visit occasionally, particularly her sons, but not the entire family and if those visits occurred, they were assuredly rare.

Marie’s son, Etienne Hebert, age 26, had made the trip by 1680 when his first child was born in Grand Pre.

The exodus of the next generation had begun with a trickle, but soon it would be an open faucet.

The 1686 Census

In 1686, Dominique Garault is shown as age 60 (born 1626), along with Marie Godet (no age given, but she would have been in her 50s); children of Marie (and Etienne Hebert): Michel 20, Antoine 16 and Elarie Garault 9 (born about 1677), with 3 arpents of land, 4 sheep and 3 hogs.

Only one Garault child is shown in 1686, the female, meaning Marie’s youngest son, has died. Elarie is later shown to be a misspelling or misinterpretation of Marie, born about 1677.

Marie Gaudet is still living beside her son-in-law, Michel DeForest, who remarried after his wife, Marie’s daughter, Marie, died.

The rest of Marie Gaudet’s children by Etienne Hebert have married and most live nearby, beginning families of their own. Catherine, age 24, had followed the path of other young Acadians to Les Mines and already had four children.

By 1686, Marie had about 41 grandchildren, 11 of whom she had buried, along with five or six of her own children and, of course, her first husband, Etienne.

Marie’s father had also died in the years since the 1678 census. I bet these Acadian families were in church often. Sundays for Mass, of course, plus at least a baptism and a funeral each week.

Plunder

On May 19th, 1690, the Battle of Port Royal occurred. Most of the Acadian soldiers were absent, and the fort was in a state of disrepair with no cannons mounted. The old fort had been razed, and a new one was in the process of being built, which made Acadia an easy mark as she could not defend herself. The fort, and with it, Port Royal and the rest of Acadia fell immediately. In an act of revenge, the English plundered not only the fort but also the countryside and residents in breach of the surrender agreement.

We don’t know exactly what happened to Marie in 1690, but we do know that Acadian homes were ransacked by the English and stripped of anything and everything valuable. Farms were burned and animals slaughtered for sport. The church and at least 28 homes went up in flames, but the upriver farms were reported to have been spared the torch.

From 1690 through about 1694, this land and her people were embroiled in a tug-of-war between the English and French. Antoine de Cadillac reported that the Acadians, “creolles” as he termed them, “traveled most of the time by bark canoes. Their wives do the same and are very bold on the water.”

I wonder if by the term “Creolle,” which today means a person of mixed descent or a result of two or more cultures, he was referring more to language than anything else.

Three of Marie’s children, Martine, Michel, and Jean Hebert were in Les Mines by about 1690. If they left before the attack, she was probably very thankful for their safety. If they left after, it was just one more loss for her. They may well have decided to leave and settle elsewhere because of the attack.

I would hazard a guess that the Acadians absolutely despised the English. 

1693 Census

Neither Marie nor her husband are listed in the 1693 census, transcribed by Lucie. Their location is a mystery. Perhaps they decided to journey to Beaubassin or Les Mines and then decided later to return. Or, maybe their residence was simply missed, although that’s hard to fathom since the entire census of Port Royal consists of 500 people in 80 households, 878 cattle, 1,240 sheep, 704 hogs, and 120 guns. The entire community is cultivating 1,315 arpents of land. Beaubassin has about 119 people in 20 households, and Les Mines, 307 people in 57 households. Other families are scattered.

Everyone knows everyone as they all attend the same church.

Marie’s daughter, Marguerite, age 40, was living in Les Mines. Her husband, Jacques LePrince, had recently died. Marguerite was raising a 15-year-old daughter, twin boys age 13, along with younger children ages 5 and 1. Her mother might have been a lot of help, but Marie, who would be about 63 by now, isn’t listed in Les Mines either.

Marie’s youngest daughter, Marie Gareau is living in La Heve (LaHave today), her name spelled as Garost, age 17, with a 45-ear-old man simply listed as LaChapelle. There are only three households listed, plus one male “volunteer.” No children are listed for any household, but Marie likely had two before her marriage to her second husband about 1698. The census records 50 people at La Heve, 54 cattle, and 14 guns. Based on the lack of inhabitants, this would be considered a remote outpost. Le Have was the original capital on the southern coast of Acadia, abandoned in favor of Port Royal in 1635.

1696 – Another Attack

Another English attack occurred in 1696. Buildings were burned, animals slaughtered, and the dykes that held back the sea were ruined. It would be three long years before the Acadians could work those fields after rebuilding the dykes once the seawater saturated the ground.

This area along the Annapolis River near and adjacent Bloody Creek on the south, shown on the GIS system above in purple, was dyked and drained by the Gaudet/Hebert family for farmable land. Without dykes to hold the salty seawater back and maintain drainage, the purple land reverted to salt marsh.

I can see the family standing on their ruined fields, knowing their crops would be limited or nonexistent for the next few years, and crying. What were they to do?

What was left?

Was there other nearby land that could be farmed?

1698 Census

By 1698, Dominique, who would have been about 72, had died. In fact, he was dead by 1695 when the loyalty oath was forced upon the Acadian people.

Marie Godet is living alone in 1698 and is noted as a widow, age 60. Her age is clearly incorrect, as that puts her birth in 1638. Her first child was born about 1651, so she was probably 65-68ish.

Marie lives one house away from her daughter Francoise Hebert and her husband Jean Commeau. Marie’s youngest son, Antoine Hebert, and his family live two houses in the other direction. Marie apparently lives in her own home, but the land is being farmed by some family member or maybe collectively.

Family members have far more allotted land by 1698, maybe as a result of the 1696 attacks that ruined the fields. Francoise and her family are farming 39 arpents with 83 fruit trees, and Antoine is farming 16 arpents with 21 fruit trees. Orchards have matured, and families own many cattle, sheep, and hogs. Life seems good for a change!

I do wonder if any of those orchards remain today.

1700-1708 Censuses

It would be tempting to assume that Marie died before the 1700 census, since she isn’t shown in the 1700, 1701, 1703, 1707 or 1708 censuses. But she didn’t. Church records, beginning in 1702, remain, and we know that Marie didn’t die until 1710. She was likely living with a family member and simply wasn’t listed in the census.

Warfare continued and, unfortunately, had become a way of life in Acadia. Pirates, always opportunists, joined in the fray.

In 1708, Queen Anne’s War ramped up. Marie Gaudet was in her late 70s and had probably given up hope that she would ever see peace.

It’s nothing short of a miracle that Marie managed to live to the ripe age of 80, given what the Acadian people faced. But Marie wasn’t done with adversity quite yet.

June 1704 Raid on Grand Pre

In June of 1704, the English again raided Acadia in retaliation for a raid on Deerfield Massachusetts earlier that year. Seventeen warships with 550 men first proceeded to Port Royal, then on to Grand Pre.

The incensed English arrived in Grand Pre, which was entirely unfortified, during the last week of June and approached the village from the dense woods, hoping for a surprise attack.

Col. Benjamin Church, the commander, gave the Acadians and Micmac one hour to surrender, delivering this note.

We do also declare, that we have already made some beginnings of killing and scalping some Canada men, which we have not been wont to do or allow, and are now come with a great number of English and Indians, all volunteers, with resolutions to subdue you, and make you sensible of your cruelties to us, by treating you after the same manner.

Church’s forces got stuck in the tidal mud, giving the Acadians the opportunity to hurriedly evacuate into the woods.

When the muddy soldiers reached the village, the Acadian and Micmac men attempted defense, but were no match for the angry soldiers who proceeded to destroy everything.

According to one of Church’s dispatches, they destroyed 60 houses, six mills, the church, many barns, and about 70 cattle. Still not satisfied with his destruction, Church then gave orders on the third day to destroy the dykes and crops.

On the fourth day, Church left Grand Pre and advanced to raid Pisiguit, present-day Windsor and Falmoth, where he took 45 prisoners who were to be used as barter to negotiate the release of prisoners taken in the Deerfield Massacre.

Church then returned to Port Royal where he joined up with the rest of his fleet, burned a few more buildings, and took a few more hostages for good measure. Church then raided and burned Chedabucto, now Guysborough, before returning to Boston where he bragged that “only five dwellings remained in all of Acadia.” If he was right, this tells us what Marie endured at the age of 74. It’s not surprising that we never find Marie listed in the census in her home, again.

Hostages!!!

In Boston, initially, the Acadian hostages were allowed to roam the city freely, much to the dismay of the residents. Twice, they complained to the House of Representatives, asking that the Acadians be confined.

From that point in late 1704 until their release, the Acadians were confined in Castle William on an island in Boston Harbor which would be where Marie Gareau gave birth on February 1, 1705.

Marie’s youngest daughter, Marie Gareau, gave birth to her son, Paul, in Boston while she and her husband were imprisoned there. The child was baptized in Port Royal on September 26, 1706, just days after their release. This tells us that Marie was in the second group of hostages to be released.

After two long years of imprisonment in exile, the hostages were released in two groups. The first group of 57 left in December 1705, and the second group of 51 was released on September 18, 1706. We have to presume that Marie’s four, five, or six older children were included in the hostages.

Marie Gaudet, Marie’s mother, must have been out of her mind with worry. The baptism of Marie’s baby in Port Royal tells us that Marie got to see her daughter and grandchildren.

I can only imagine the joy of that tearful reunion.

Marie, age 32, along with her husband and five surviving children, were back in Grand Pre by 1709 when she gave birth there.

Later reports indicated that the residents of Grand Pre, not to mention those held hostage, never forgot, never trusted the English, and never felt safe.

Ironically, for Marie Gareau, that fear was entirely justified, as she would be one of the Acadians captured once again, rounded up in Grand Pre, and deported at the hands of the English in 1755.

Then 78 or 79 years old, she died in horrific conditions in 1755 or 1756 onboard the overcrowded disease-infested ships that the Virginians refused to allow to land or accommodate in any way. Hundreds died of illness and malnutrition on the ship held at Williamsburg before the survivors were shipped to England as hostages until 1763.

All I can say is that I hope Marie’s mother, Marie, was waiting with open arms to receive her on the other side.

Land

We do know where Marie Gaudet and both of her husbands lived in Acadia.

In 1653, when Marie was a bride with two young children, Port Royal was described thus:

“There are numbers of meadows on both shores, and two islands which possess meadows, and which are 3 or 4 leagues from the fort in ascending. There is a great extent of meadows which the sea used to cover, and which the Sieur d’Aulnay had drained. It bears now fine and good wheat, and since the English have been masters of the country, the residents who were lodged near the fort have for the most part abandoned there houses and have gone to settle on the upper part of the river. They have made their clearings below and above this great meadow, which belongs at present to Madame de La Tour. There they have again drained other lands which bear wheat in much greater abundance than those which they cultivated round the fort, good though those were. All the inhabitants there are the ones whome Monsieur le Commandeur de Razilly had brought from France to La Have; since that time they have multiplied much at Port Royal, where they have a great number of cattle and swine.”

By 1670, Acadia had grown to about 400 people.

According to a 1733 map at the Nova Scotia Archives based on the 1707 census route, the Hebert and Gaudet families lived in close proximity near a bend in the Riviere Dauphin, now the Annapolis River, at the mouth of Bloody Creek.

Hebert Village is found on the south side of the river, image courtesy of MapAnnapolis, below.

Indeed, the Hebert and Gaudet families had settled upstream from Port Royal several miles, which may have been the only thing that saved them.

If only, if only we had Marie’s journals. It’s doubtful that Marie could either read or write, but we can wish, of course.

Marie Gaudet Dies

Marie lived for a very long time, especially in the age before modern medicine – not to mention that Acadia seemed to remain in a state of almost chronic warfare that ebbed and flowed for Marie’s entire life.

On July 30, 1710, a simple entry recording her death was scribed into the church records by the priest.

Marie’s age is given as 80 years, which puts her birth about 1630, assuming her age is accurate.

That same priest would have given Marie Last Rites, then delivered her final Requiem Mass. The entire community was assuredly present. She was a matriarch, and by then, everyone was probably related to Marie in one way or another.

The Acadians were preparing for war, which descended upon the land once again like an angry plague of locusts less than two months after Marie’s demise.

Her sons, grandsons, sons-in-law, and many descendants would be fighting for their very lives. Maybe it’s a good thing Marie passed when she did.

Burial

Marie was buried in what is now known as the Garrison Cemetery. This resting place is located beside the fort’s garrison and what was the Catholic church, which was destroyed along with Acadian graves in 1755.

Marie joined her children and grandchildren: her daughter Marie who died in 1677, her second husband Dominique Gareau who had been gone for about 20 years, her sister Francoise who had died nearly a decade earlier, her brother Denis who died the October before, and of course Etienne Hebert who had been gone for nearly 40 years. They must have had a joyful reunion.

Marie rests in an unmarked grave near the ghostly image of Fort Anne, keeping eternal watch over the bay. Her grave was probably marked with a simple wooden cross at the time, as her family said goodbye and prepared for the war they knew was sure to be visited upon them soon. 

Perhaps Marie’s spectre watched her remaining daughter, grandchildren and their families being rounded up and herded onto ships in their forced deportation 45 years later.

Perhaps Marie still watches today.

Marie’s Children

We depend upon the various censuses, later church records, and suggestive gaps between known children to determine how many children Marie brought into this world.

Few women were spared the sorrowful experience of burying children.

Child Spouse Total Children Born by 1710 – Grandchildren Marie knew Died by 1710 – Grandchildren Marie buried Total Survived
Marie Hebert c1651-1677 Port Royal Michel DeForest 7 6 1 6
Marguerite Hebert c1652-died aft 1715 Pisiquit Jacques LePrince 12 6 6 6
Emmanuel Hebert c1653-1744 Grand Pre Andree Brun 6 6 0 6
Etienne Hebert c1654-1713 Saint Charles des Mines, Grand Pré Jeanne Comeau 15 11 4 11
Unknown Hebert child c1656- died bef 1671 0 0 0 0
Jean Hebert c1658-1744 probably Pisiquid Jeanne Doiron 17 11 2 13
Unknown Hebert child c1660-died bef 1671 0 0 0 0
Francoise Hebert c1661-1713 Annapolis Royal Jean Comeau 20 17 3 17
Catherine Hebert c1662-1727 Louisbourg Philippe Pinet 14 12 2 12
Unknown Hebert child c1664-died bef 1671 0 0 0 0
Martine Hebert c1665-died aft 1797 Pisiquit Nicolas Barrieau 14 9 5 9
Michel Hebert c1666-1736 Les Mines, Grand Pre Isabelle Pellerin 16 12 0 16
Unknown Hebert child c1668-died bef 1671 0 0 0 0
Antoine Hebert c1670-1753 Jeanne Corporon & Anne Orillon 17 9 0 15
Male Gareau c1675-d bef 1686 0 0 0 0
Marie Gareau c1677-c1755 Virginia Unknown LaChapelle & Jerome Darois 16 6 3 (including her first 2 children) 10
Total 154 105 26 121

Children in bold remained at Port Royal. The rest moved away.

People who lived longer experienced more joy at the addition of grandchildren and even great-grandchildren – but also more frequent funerals and visits to the cemetery.

When Marie died, she had given birth to 16 children, buried five as infants and one as an adult who predeceased her.

And yes, Marie actually did have two daughters named Marie who both lived – her eldest child from her first marriage and her youngest child from her second marriage. Essentially bookends. No, I don’t know why. Maybe they had different middle names or were named after different people, but we will never know.

At her death, Marie had welcomed 105 grandchildren and buried 26, or 25% of them. A total of 154 grandchildren were eventually born to Marie, but only 121 would survive beyond the cradle.

Upon deeper investigation, we discover that Marie probably didn’t know most of her grandchildren, even though two-thirds were born before she died.

Several of Marie’s children moved as settlers to more distant parts of Acadia, probably for available land. We don’t know exactly when they left, but we have some idea.

  • Etienne Hebert was in Grand Pre by 1680
  • Catherine Hebert was in Les Mines by 1686
  • Martine, Michel, and Jean Hebert were all in Grand Pre by 1690
  • Marguerite Hebert was in Les Mines by 1693 as a widow
  • Marie’s youngest daughter, Marie Gareau, was in La Heve in 1693 at the age of 17, in Pisiguit by June of 1704 where she was kidnapped and in Grand Pre by 1709

It must have killed Marie for her baby to leave, especially so young.

Les Mines could have been a more generalized name for the region surrounding and perhaps including Grand Pre. At least those children lived near each other and could rely on family in difficult times. That would have been some comfort to Marie.

Only four of Marie’s children stayed near Port Royal: her oldest daughter Marie Hebert who had died by 1677, Emmanual, Francoise and Antoine Hebert. Those four blessed Marie with 38 grandchildren before her death. It’s sad that she never knew the rest, but based on those 1767 depositions, at least they knew her name and remembered her.

Marie said a final goodbye to seven of her children in a different way before her death. I suspect that at least three of them, if not more, left together.

While Marie herself was one of the original immigrants prior to 1650, one of her children, the youngest Marie, lived long enough to be deported in 1755, more than a century later. Marie Gareau died in either 1755 or 1756, languishing on one of the deportation ships off the coast of Virginia at about age 78. There would have been no Catholic Mass as a funeral for her. She would either have been buried at sea or lost to history in a pauper’s grave, because that’s what the Acadians had been reduced to.

Not the End

This was not the end for Marie Gaudet, nor was her birth the beginning.

Marie’s mysterious past would wait for another 313 years to be revealed – on a glorious late fall day after the last colorful leaves fall to the ground on the old homeplace beside Bloody Creek in Nova Scotia.

As the first snowflakes fall and cling to the earth along the tidal flats of the Riviere Dauphin, Marie has one more story to tell…and trust me; it’s gonna be one humdinger!

_____________________________________________________________

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.

Follow DNAexplain on Facebook, here.

Help Keep This Blog Free

I receive a small contribution when you click on some of the links to vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase 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

Barney Campbell’s Descendants in the 1872 Chancery Court Suit – 52 Ancestors #414

Cousin Sherri, who is related to the Campbells, found a newspaper notification in the Knoxville Weekly Chronicle dating from July 24, 1872, and it clearly has to do with the Claiborne County, TN Campbell line.

Them’s my people!

So down the rabbit hole I went!!!

Who are these people? How are they connected together?  What is this all about?

Why Do I Care?

Why might an 1872 Chancery Court suit be important? My Campbell ancestors, John Campbell and his daughter, Elizabeth Campbell, were long dead by then, so why would I care what was happening 30+ years later?

Well, it’s complicated.

First, we don’t know much about the father of the two men, John and George Campbell, who settled in Claiborne County around the time the county was formed in 1801. They are believed to be brothers, both sons of Charles Campbell, but we lack definitive proof.

Second, we don’t know who the father of Charles Campbell is, but we have Y-DNA hints, and we’ve been chipping away at this brick wall for decades now. You just never know when and where that desperately needed tidbit is going to drop. Property and arguments over property are generational and often reach significantly back in time.

Third, Jacob Dobkins’ two daughters, Jenny Dobkins and Elizabeth Dobkins married John and George Campbell, respectively. Then, their grandchildren and great-grandchildren intermarried. All was NOT quiet on the homefront. In fact, these families seemed to be wracked with one scandal after another. Thank goodness, because those court records make them much more human, and often, it’s all we know about the family. Not to mention buried and not-so-buried hints.

Fourth, Jacob Dobkins was quite controversial. Jacob was a Revolutionary War soldier who bought a ton of land in Claiborne County, 1400 acres to be precise, apparently to keep his family together instead of his sons and son-in-laws moving off to claim land someplace else. Jacob was buried on the old home place, which wound up in the possession of his grandson, Barney Campbell, who himself is surrounded in mystery.

As it turned out, Jacob’s will was hidden and there was a huge brouhaha and resulting lawsuit over all that, complete with soap-opera-worthy drama and first-person details. I didn’t discover that Supreme Court case until this time last year when another cousin notified me. So old Jacob Dobkins still continues to surprise me, as do his family members. That one was juicy, too, and went all the way to the Tennessee Supreme Court in 1853, which is the only reason we found it.

Fifth, Barney Campbell himself. This man – Lord Have Mercy. He was Elizabeth Dobkins’ first-born child. There was debate for decades about whether he was born to Elizabeth before she married George Campbell, or after. And, based on that and other anomalies, whether or not Barney was fathered by George Campbell or someone else. The fact that George’s other children were mentioned by name in his will, but Barney was not, fueled that flame.

The story from WITHIN Barney’s line as told by a descendant:

My grandmother, Sally, died (in 1951) when I was about 10. I heard the story of Barney from her many times growing up…Barney was a Dobkins, his mother was Elizabeth, and he took the Campbell name when Elizabeth married George Campbell.

To explain that and probably to rescue Elizabeth’s reputation, another story emerged in a different child’s line – that George and Elizabeth had found an abandoned baby boy whose parents had been killed in Indian raids and raised him as their own. This, of course, removed the tongue-clucking about long-deceased Elizabeth’s morals. Tisk. Tisk.

Initially, based on DNA results, it looked like the answer was that Barney’s father was “someone else,” but his mother was Elizabeth Dobkins based on his descendants’ autosomal matches. Then, the results from the descendant of a second son of Barney tested and matched the Campbell line. Of course, we can’t go back in time to figure out what REALLY happened. Given those circumstances, I found it odd that Barney, of all the grandchildren, eventually would wind up owning his grandfather, Jacob Dobkins’ farm – especially after the accusations surrounding Jacob Dobkins’ will – yet he did.

I need about four Bingo cards to keep track of all of this.

To add to that suspense, someone else who lived in Claiborne County told me years ago that one of their relatives in Barney’s line started researching this family decades earlier, found something, tore everything up, and stopped searching. They wouldn’t tell anyone what they found and said no one needed to know. There’s clearly SOMETHING there, a story begging to be told.

What was it?

Where did they find that information?

Were the destroyed papers the originals?

Is this the key to that big secret?

Transcribed

I transcribed the article so I could work with the names of the plaintiffs and defendants. It was quite helpful that the suit told us where the defendants lived. I used my own research plus Joe Payne’s website here, which isn’t always correct, but Joe obtained the information from the old-timers in Claiborne County. In other words, the stories haven’t been sifted through the Ancestry filter hundreds of times and “stretched.”

Joseph Lanham and Levi Brooks vs

Residents in Claiborne County:

    • Benjamin Campbell
    • Eldridge Campbell
    • D. Campbell
    • John Campbell
    • Elizabeth Jennings
    • Mary Walker
    • David Campbell
    • Abraham Campbell
    • Alexander Campbell
    • Emily Brooks
    • Louisa Lewis
    • Abraham Lewis
    • Eliza Shumate
    • Daniel Shumate
    • Isaac Campbell
    • Mary Campbell
    • Benjamin Campbell
    • Margaret Campbell
    • George Campbell
    • Nancy Campbell
    • Reuben Kesterson

Non-residents of Tn:

    • Arthur L. Campbell
    • Newton J. Campbell
    • Andrew Campbell
    • Eldrige Campbell

Residents of Union County, TN:

    • Lucy Walker
    • John Walker

Resident of Hancock County:

    • Robert Campbell

Resident of Grainger County:

    • James Campbell

In this cause it appearing from the allegations in the bill filed, which is sworn to, that Arthur L. Campbell, Newton J. Campbell, Andrew Campbell, and Eldridge Campbell are non-residents of the state as aforesaid, so that the ordinary process of law cannot be served on them. It is therefore ordered that publication be made for 4 successive weeks in the Knoxville Chronicle notifying said non-resident defendants to appear before the Chancellor at a Chancery Court to be holden at the courthouse in Tazewell, TN on the second Monday in October 1872, then and there to make defense to complainants said bill, or the same will be taken as confessed and set for hearing ex parte to them.

July 16, 1872

Note that the second Monday of 1872 was October 13.

Who are these people? How are they related to each other? Who are the plaintiffs, and why do they have an interest in whatever the complaint is. And what is the complaint that they are suing over?

I have to know, so down that rabbit hole I leaped. I sure hope there’s a big fat rabbit down there!

Who Are These People?

Of course, the Campbell family, like all Southern families, named children after ancestors, other family members, and so forth. That means there are a bazillion Johns, Georges and Williams, etc. Many are about the same age in the same county. They need to take numbers.

“Hello, I’m John Campbell #372; pleased to meet you.”

The first thing I did was to try to sift out who these people’s parents were. I was actually HOPING that they would be a mix of the descendants of John Campbell and George Campbell, which meant they had a common interest, might link back to their fathers and confirm that they were brothers, or even give hints a generation further back.

Multiple people are listed with the same name, so I had to figure out which person was being referenced.

Also, who are the plaintiffs, and what is their interest?

I created a table and listed every defendant in the suit, the location as given in the suit, then their parents and birth year, if known, along with any commentary. By the way, Barney Campbell had two wives, but that doesn’t matter in this suit, so I’ve only listed him as the parent.

Name 1872 Location Birth/Spouse Parents Comment
Arthur L. Campbell Outside TN Born circa 1842 Barney Campbell
*Newton J. Campbell Outside TN Born 1845, died 1911 in Claiborne, m Lucy Williams 1885 Barney Campbell In 1870, he was living in Pleasant Grove, Kansas, but had moved back to Claiborne Co. by 1885 when he married.
Andrew Campbell Outside TN Born c 1842 Barney Campbell In 1870, Andrew is living with his brother Newton with the Nelson Lanham family in Kansas.
Eldridge Campbell Outside TN B 1827, died > 1880 Claiborne, m 1845 Emeline Hazelwood Barney Campbell Probably this guy, but check his death location since he is reported to have died in Claiborne.
Lucy Walker Union Co., TN B c 1834 m John Walker 1850 Claiborne Barney Campbell
John Walker Union Co., TN Husband of Lucinda (Lucy) Campbell
Robert Campbell Hancock Co., TN B 1845, d 1914 Pennington Gap, VA, m Sarah Thomas George Campbell (son of Barney) & Nancy Eastridge Probably this guy – Robert S. Campbell
James Campbell Grainger Co., TN Probably James C., son of George d 1864, son of Barney
Benjamin Campbell

 

Claiborne Co., TN B 1820 d 1882 Claiborne m Eliza “Louisa” Eastridge Barney Campbell
Eldridge Campbell (second listing) Claiborne Co., TN Uncertain. The only other Eldridge I show is the son of Jacob Campbell, son of John Campbell.
T. D. Campbell (probably Toliver Dodson known as “Dock”) Claiborne Co., TN B 1835 d 1899 Claiborne m Sarah Lewis Barney Campbell
John Campbell Claiborne Co., TN Many candidates, Barney’s son b 1829 d 1900 Claiborne Barney Campbell Many John candidates
Elizabeth (Louisa) Jennings Claiborne Co., TN B 1823, m James Jennings, died aft 1866 Barney Campbell She is likely a widow
Mary Walker Claiborne Co., TN Uncertain, could be Barney’s daughter who married John Lanning and perhaps remarried?
David Campbell Claiborne Co., TN B 1841, d 1919 Claiborne m Missouri Williams Barney Campbell Middle initial either H or R
Abraham Campbell Claiborne Co., TN B 1850 d 1914 Claiborne m Nancy Williams Barney Campbell
Alexander Campbell Claiborne Co., TN B 1853 d 1923 m 2C Sallie Campbell Barney Campbell
Emily Brooks Claiborne Co., TN B 1831 d c 1887 m Levi Brooks Barney Campbell Levi Brooks is one of the plaintiffs.
Louisa Lewis Claiborne Co., TN B 1843, d 1920 m Abraham Lewis George Campbell d c 1879 & Nancy Eastridge, son of Barney
Abraham Lewis Claiborne Co., TN Husband of Louisa Campbell
Eliza Shumate

 

Claiborne Co., TN B 1847 d 1914, m 1866 Daniel Shumate George Campbell d c 1870, son of Barney
Daniel Shumate Claiborne Co., TN Husband of Eliza Campbell
Isaac Campbell Claiborne Co., TN B 1851 d > 1885 George Campbell d c 1879, son of Barney
Mary Campbell Claiborne Co., TN B c 1853 George Campbell d c 1879, son of Barney
Benjamin Campbell Claiborne Co., TN B c 1855 George Campbell d c 1879, son of Barney
Margaret Campbell Claiborne Co., TN B c 1860 George Campbell d c 1879, son of Barney
George Campbell Claiborne Co., TN B 1864 d 1922 Claiborne George Campbell d c 1879, son of Barney
Nancy Campbell

 

Claiborne Co., TN Unknown
Reuben Kesterson Claiborne Co., TN Unknown

*Newton J. Campbell was very confusing. Not only are there multiple men by that name, but the Newton under discussion moved to Kansas, then back before marrying. Before this, I’m not sure anyone realized he had ever moved away. I don’t think his brother Andrew moved back because there is almost no information about him.

Barney Campbell’s first wife was Mary Brooks with whom he had a dozen children between 1820 and 1835. She died between 1835 and 1840. His second wife was Martha Jane Kesterson (1810-1889), the daughter of David Chadwell Kesterson and Elizabeth Lanham. Note the family connection in that Newton and Arthur Campbell are living with a Lanham family in Kansas in the 1870 census.

Barney and Martha had six children that lived, and probably at least one that died, between 1840 and 1853.

Regarding the Mary Campbell who married a John Lanning, I can’t help but wonder if this is actually a misspelling of Lanham. I can’t place her.

I can’t fit Reuben Kesterson, who was ordered to appear as a defendant cleanly into this family. However, in that valley, everyone was literally related to everyone else within a couple of generations, thanks to intermarriage. In the 1870 census, Reuben’s wife was deceased, so he may well have been listed as a surviving spouse. Or, he could be George Campbell’s minor children’s guardian. Or, something else.

It’s worth noting that every one of these people that I can place is either the child of Barney Campbell, through both of his wives, or the child of Barney’s son George, who died in 1864, with the exception of the second Eldridge. There is only one other Eldridge living at that time who is not Barney’s son or grandson. Was Eldridge accidentally listed twice? Did Barney’s son George have a son Eldridge that is unknown?

Barney was born about 1797 and died sometime between 1853 and 1856. A will for Barney has not been found – which may be the predicating force behind this lawsuit.

In 1860, Levi Brooks, one of the plaintiffs, is living beside Barney’s widow with his wife, Emily Campbell, and their children.

Barney’s Children

As a sanity check, I created a table of Barney’s children and what I know about them, then bolded the abovementioned children.

Name Birth, Death Spouse Comments
Benjamin 1820-1882 Claiborne Married Eliza Louisa Eastridge Alive in 1872
George (deceased 1864, not in lawsuit but his children are) B c 1821, d 1864 in Civil War Married Nancy Eastridge Captured in Civil War
Mary E. B c 1822 d ? Married John Lanning in 1853 Uncertain. There’s also a Mary Ann Campbell.
Louisa “Eliza” (deceased, not in lawsuit) B c 1823 d c 1866 Married James Jennings in 1840 – why is he not on the list? Their daughter, Mary Jennings b 1831 married c 1870 Joseph Lanham, one of the plaintiffs
Andrew B c 1826 died ? Married Louisa “Eliza” Campbell, his 2C
Eldridge B c 1827 d after 1880 Claiborne Married Emeline Hazelwood
John B c 1829 d after 1900 Claiborne Married Mary Ann Chadwell
Mary Ann B c 1829 d 1908 Claiborne Married James Walker in 1840
Emily A. B c 1831 d 1877 Claiborne Married Levi Brooks  in 1848 Levi Brooks is a plaintiff.
Lucinda B c 1834 d > 1886 Claiborne Married John Wesley Walker in 1850
Toliver D B 1835 d 1899 Claiborne Married Sarah Lewis in 1854
Charles B c 1841, probably died in Civil War. He served and is not found after. No record of marriage 20 in 1860 census, not found in 1870 nor listed in the suit
David H. (R.) B 1842 d 1919 Claiborne Married Missouri Williams in 1874
Arthur L B c 1842 d 1904 Married Sarah Ellen Clingensmith in 1875
Newton J. B 1845 d 1911 Claiborne Married Louisa “Lucy” Williams c 1885
Abraham B 1850 d 1914 Claiborne Married Nancy Williams his 2C c 1890
Alexander B 1853 d 1923 Claiborne Married Sarah Campbell his 2C c 1880

This is beginning to make more sense.

It appears that this suit probably has to do with Barney’s estate. His second wife, Martha Jane Kesterson was living in 1872 and is not a party to this suit. She would have, by law, inherited one-third of Barney’s estate. Perhaps that portion wasn’t under debate.

In 1839, Barney was taxed for 200 acres, so he clearly had land to be divided which descended through his descendants to recent times.

The Chancery Suit

Ok, so what does the Chancery Bill filed in the Chancery Court in Tazewell have to say? That’s where the meat of this lawsuit will be revealed.

Chancery bills tell us what is alleged. In other words, let’s say that person A claims they paid person B for some land, but person B died before conveying the land, died without a will, and the heirs either didn’t know about the deal, or don’t want to recognize it. Complicating matters further, the heirs planted a crop on the land which needs to be harvested, and person A claims it’s his crop since he bought the land. Person A would file against all of the heirs in order to obtain satisfaction. A judge would have to figure out what happened, and what is equitable under the circumstances.

In most places, Chancery Court is entirely different than Circuit or Criminal Court. Disputes requiring a judge to determine a fair and equitable settlement are resolved in Chancery Court. Think about a couple’s assets in a divorce. A Criminal Court would try someone for murder or a crime that broke a state or federal government law. Civil or “regular” court would be used to collect an undisputed debt, register a will, record tax payments or “prove” a deed transfer in open court by testimony.

Additionally, a Chancery Court generally served a region, not just a county, where county courts only served that particular county.

The second Monday of 1872 was October 13 and the Claiborne County chancery notes do not appear in the regular Claiborne County court notes, although the Chancery Court bills, pleadings and minutes were recorded in the courthouse at Tazewell in Claiborne County.

I browsed the court minutes at FamilySearch and read the circuit court minutes page by page, hoping for something. Anything.

Claiborne County is one of my “home” counties, so I have just about every published resource. I don’t have those notes, but maybe I missed something. I checked every available source, just in case.

I was getting a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach because I was beginning to suspect that those records may not exist. The courthouse burned twice, once in 1863 during the Civil War, and again in 1931. Thankfully, not all records burned either time, but plenty did, including some crucial records.

The FamilySearch Catalog and FamilySearch Claiborne wiki don’t list Chancery suits or minutes at all.

Then, I found it, here.

I Found Something

No, no, I didn’t find the Chancery filing or anything else whatsoever about the suit. What I found was confirmation that those records don’t exist.

Bummer!

This Tennessee Secretary of State site confirms that the Claiborne Chancery Court records began in 1934. Given that divorces were heard in Chancery Court, this also explains why I could never find the divorce records between Martha Ruthy Dodson and John Y. Estes. At least this exercise was good for making sense of that.

However, all that was waiting down this rabbit hole about John and George Campbell was a laughing rabbit. But maybe not for Barney’s descendants.

Sometimes, even some information is better than no information. Just the newspaper article alone helps assemble Barney’s family.

So, now the rest is up to Barney’s descendants. Does anyone know what happened in 1872? Any juicy stories about land, Barney’s estate, or a rift in the family?

One thing we know for sure – something assuredly happened! So far, it’s still a mystery, and this newspaper filing was just a teaser.

Update 10-24-2023

Not long after this article was published, a cousin sent me the following deed from Claiborne County Deed book 12, page 598 that may pertain to the lawsuit filed in 1872. This deed was filed in 1880, so by inference, this deed, if related, would have been related to the result of that suit.

Based on the language, it would appear that Barney had given advancements to his children, but not his son George who had died before Barney. It’s worth noting that not all of the people in the suit are reflected in this deed.

Extracted as follows:

Lucinda Walker, wife of John W. Walker appeared separately…acknowledged annexed deed…signed on August 25, 1880.

Indenture entered into 10th day of March 1869 between Benjamin Campbell, Andrew Campbell, John Campbell, Eldridge Campbell, Emily A. Brooks, Loucinda Walker, T. D. Campbell, Mary Ann Walker, Louiza Jennings all of the county of Claiborne, state of Tennesee, of the first part and A. L. Campbell, David H. Campbell, Newton Campbell, Abraham Campbell, Alexander Campbell of the county aforesaid of the second part.

In consideration of that Barney Campbell had advanced to the party of the first part considerable property both parties being heirs at law of the said Barney Campbell, and that party of the first part for the consideration of their having had advancements by the said Barney Campbell their father before his death do hereby convey, sell, bargain, enfroff? and confirm into the said party of the second part all the right, title or claim to the reversionary interest in the dower of said Barny Campbell’s widow Jane Campbell her dower is the first part laid off to her out of the lands that Barney Campbell owned and lived on at the time of his death, to have and to hold to the said A. L. Campbell, David H. Campbell, Newton Campbell, Abraham Campbell and Alexander Campbell all the right that the said Benjamin Campbell, Andrew Campbell, John Campbell, Eldridge Campbell, Emily A. Brooks, T. D. Campbell and Mary Ann Walker, Loucinda Jennings has or may have in and to the dower of said Jane Campbell widow of Barney Campbell, decd, the part of the first part does hereby covenant to and with the party of the second part that they have a good right to convey their title in the lands before mentioned and that said Party of the first part will forever warrant and defend the title to the said lands as before stipulated to the party of the second part their heirs and assigns forever in fee simple.

Said party of the first part have hereunto set their hands and seals…

Signatures

Jeremiah Brooks
Levi Brooks
Attest as to T. D. Campbell
Robert Campbell
John Cales
as to Mary A. Walker
D. Cardwell
J. A McGriff
as to Louiza Jennings
D. Cardwell
F. L. McVey
as to Loucinda Walker
D. C. Smith
William B. Hodges
Attest to Emily Ann Brooks
Signature Sept 10
Henly Buise
J. W. Buise

Second column:
Benjamin x-mark Campbell
Andrew x-mark Campbell
John x-mark Campbell
Eldridge x-mark Campbell
T. D. x-mark Campbell
Mary Ann x-mark Walker
Louiza x-mark Jennings
Loucinda x-mark Walker
Emily Ann x-mark Brooks

Filed in my office October 4, 1880
B. H. Campbell Registrar

_____________________________________________________________

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

Étienne Hebert (c1625-c1670): Two French Brothers & Their Ancient Ancestors – 52 Ancestors #413

In the book, Les vielles familles d’Yamachiche: vingt-trois généalogies, v. 4 published in 1908 in Ontario, we discover that Étienne Hebert is one of two brothers who came from France and settled in Acadia, now Nova Scotia. Étienne married Marie Gaudet and Antoine Hebert married Genevieve LeFranc.

We know that Étienne and Antoine were brothers because in the 2nd marriage record for Jean-Jacques Hébert (1681-?) to Marguerite Leprince on April 27, 1734, at Saint-Charles-les-Mines, they were granted a dispensation from a 3rd degree consanguine relationship. The only overlap in their two family trees would be the parents of Étienne and Antoine Hebert.

Thank goodness for those church records.

Origins

Stephen A. White provided the following information about Étienne.

HÉBERT, Étienne, came from France with his wife Marie Gaudet, according to nine depositions: one from his grandson Jean Hébert (Doc. inéd., Vol. III, p. 11), one from Pierre Trahan, husband of his granddaughter Madeleine Comeau (ibid., p. 8), one from Pierre and Madeleine’s son Pierre Trahan (ibid., pp. 110-111) and one from their nephews Sylvestre and Simon Trahan (ibid., p. 30), two from husbands of Étienne’s great-granddaughters (ibid., Vol. II, p. 182; Vol. III, p. 90), one from a great-great-grandson (ibid., Vol. III, pp. 93-94), and two from husbands of his great-great-granddaughters (ibid., pp. 45, 92-93). Seven of these depositions name his wife as Marie Gaudet; only those of the two Pierre Trahans, father and son, do not.

Lucy LeBlanc Consentino documents these priceless depositions here.

Parents

There have been several proposed and presumed parents of Étienne and Antoine Hebert. None are proven, and some have been disproven. I’m not going to recount each theory here. I’ll briefly mention the most common ones and strongly suggest that anyone tempted to assign parents for these men consult existing resources and arguments first.

Tim Hebert’s website is no longer online, but you can view it here at Wayback Machine. Tim did an exceptional job documenting the various theories and Hebert descendants.

It has been said that possibly the brothers were from south of Loudon (LaChaussee, Martaize, etc.), however, since Charles Menou d’Aulnay’s family had land in that vicinity. If he recruited settlers from that area, there is a chance they came from there, but there is no proof of where they (or most other) Acadians came from. The linguistic studies by Genevieve Massignon tried to say that they were from the Loudon area, but perhaps she was focusing too much. It is probably true that they came from western France. But the lack of documentation in the Loudon region means that perhaps we’re looking in the wrong place. Michael Poirier has suggested they came from west of Loudon at the coast … near Baie de Bourgneuf.

He bases this on:
– the location of the monastery of the Assumption (on the island Chauvet), which was regularly attended by Richelieu and was the property of his brother, Alphonse.
– Port-Royal and the church of St Jean-Baptiste
– salt-water marshes in the area were drained … much like the dyke system utilized in Acadia
– it was a zone surrounded by Protestants and enclosing Catholics

Genevieve Massignon (1921-1966) argues that a number of familial alliances existed among the first Acadian settlers PRIOR to their arrival from France, pointing to a common French origin. She believes they lived in the Acadian Governor d’Aulnay’s seigneury in France near Loudun (comprised of the villages of Angliers, Aulnay, Martaizé, and La Chausée). The Hébert family was allied with the Gaudets through Étienne’s marriage to Marie. Marie’s sister Francoise was also allied with the Leblanc family through her marriage to Daniel. Evidence of their marriages in France is found in the Belle-Isle-en-Mer declarations in 1767. Moreover, a certain Jean Gaudet was censistaire in 1634 on land at Martaizé (Vienne) in the Seigneurie owned by the mother of Acadian governor Charles d’Aulnay. However, Massignon’s research failed to find any relevant baptismal or marriage records.

Another couple, Jacques Hebert and Marie Juneau have been debunked as parents, based on the date of their marriage and analysis by Stephen White. Jacques was found in Acadia 30 years before Étienne and Antoine, then moved into mainland Canada. It’s unlikely that his two sons would be found in Acadia and not near or with him. Not to mention the depositions that state that Étienne and Antoine were born in France.

Another parent candidate was Louis Habert who is generally considered to have been the first permanent settler in Canada, arriving in 1604. He married Marie Rolet in Paris in 1602 but wasn’t known to live in Acadia. Spelling variations of this family name include Hebert, Harbert, Herbert, Herbot, Harbelot, and others. You can read more about this at FamilySearch here.

One source stated that Stephen White reported that Etienne Hebert arrived on the ship, La Verge in 1648. Karen Theriot Reader, upon further examination, determined that the page given as the source does not in fact provide that information, nor elsewhere by White.

However, the Verve did arrive in 1648, chartered by Emmanuel LeBorgne, Sieur of Coudray, to transport supplies. No passenger list exists, and several ships arrived in Acadia over the years.

In a letter to Tim Hebert, Stephen White stated that their parents are “unknown.” No birth records have been found, and White found none of the proposed parents convincing or even probable.

We simply don’t know when and where Étienne and Antoine were born. It’s fair to say it was in France because families weren’t imported until 1636. The Hebert brothers were born in the 1620s. They would have been teenagers or young men in 1636.

What Was Happening in Acadia?

Warm up your tea or coffee, ‘cause this is a fascinating tale.

Acadia was truly the frontier and constantly caught in the middle in a tug of war between France and England for control of both the land and resources, along with the people.

Settlement in Acadia began in 1604, but we’re joining this history 28 years later.

In 1632, control of Acadia passed from the English back to the French, who immediately launched voyages transporting traders and workers, some of whom became settlers. Their initial goal wasn’t settlement, though, but trading posts.

Port Royal is shown on Champlain’s 1632 map.

Isaac de Razilly was a French noble sea captain and knight who convinced his cousin, Cardinal Richelieu, chief minister to the King of France, that colonizing and establishing fur trade with Acadia was a profitable business venture. As a bonus that probably sounded attractive to Richelieu, they could convert and baptize the Native people, too.

Razilly’s 1632 voyage on the L’Esperance a Dieu included about 300 people, mostly men with possibly 12-15 women. A French newspaper report from that time states that a third ship from Rochelle joined the other two. A mason, baker, nailmaker-blacksmith, joiners, gunsmiths, sawyers, laborers, and soldiers signed up.

In 1640, notarial records in La Rochelle, France, show many contracts of engagement for workers in Acadia, although most of those people aren’t shown in the 1671 census, meaning they either died or returned to France when their engagement was over. In 1640, at least 25 men and 5 women signed up.

Couillard-Despres in “Les Gouvernors” states that 63 men arrived on the Saint Clement in 1642 to assist Charles LaTour.

After Razilly’s death in 1635, his cousin, Charles de Menou d’Aulnay, de Charnisay prepared to take over the administration of Acadia. By this time, there were 44 inhabitants at Le Have, Razily’s base of operation. Sometime between 1635 and 1640, d’Aulnay moved the settlement to Port Royal, but the men who had married Native American women likely did not move with him.

However, Charles La Tour, who had lived in Acadia since he was 17 and was married to a Mi’kmaq woman, had other plans. His father, Claude, obtained a grant for Nova Scotia from the English king, and Charles was appointed Governor, serving from 1631-1642. In essence, the LaTour father-son duo had outsmarted d’Aulnay.

Workers still continued to arrive. The 1636 passenger list of the St. Jehan, including occupations and some location origins, still exists.

d’Aulnay and La Tour began as competitors, with LaTour working out of Cap Sable and the St. John River area with traders, and d’Aulnay, who moved the Acadian settlement from La Have to Port Royal, beginning cultivation. Given where we find Étienne Hebert living, he likely arrived with d’Aulnay.

However, the competition between those men soon became animosity, then open warfare, with both men claiming to be in charge of all of Acadia.

If you think there was no drama in a relatively unpopulated area, just try to keep this next bit straight.

In 1640, after LaTour’s Mi’kmaq wife died, he married a French Huguenot woman, Françoise-Marie Jacquelin, who had powerful connections.

In 1642, d’Aulnay had LaTour, a Huguenot, charged with treason against France. LaTour’s well-connected wife traveled to France to advocate on behalf of her husband, returning with a warship for him to defend himself.

Perhaps this was a bit hasty.

In the Spring of 1643, La Tour led a party of English mercenaries against the French Acadian colony at Port-Royal. His 270 Puritan and Huguenot troops killed three men, burned a mill, slaughtered cattle, and seized 18,000 livres worth of furs.

Apparently, LaTour was a traitor after all, at least from the French perspective.

LaTour then traveled to Boston seeking reinforcements from the English, and while he was gone, d’Aulnay seized all of his possessions and outposts, including Fort LaTour.

Are you keeping track of this? I think the score was 3 to 3 here, with a Hail Mary pass underway. Get the popcorn.

LaTour may have been traveling to Boston, but his wife, Françoise-Marie, had remained at home and was not about to relinquish Fort LaTour without a fight.

In the ensuing battle, Françoise-Marie, at the ripe old age of 23, defended Fort LaTour in the Battle of St. John for three days, using the warship. D’Aulnay lost 33 men but on the fourth day, was able to capture the fort. LaTour’s men were hung at the gallows as Françoise-Marie was forced to watch with a rope around her neck, just in case she got any bright ideas. She was clearly not a woman to be trifled with.

Françoise-Marie was not hung, but Nicolas Denys recorded in his journal that she died three weeks later as a prisoner in captivity. The cause remains unknown, but it’s safe to say that her death was a volley in war. 

After learning that his wife had died, his possessions confiscated, and his men killed, LaTour sought refuge in Quebec City. He did not return to Acadia for several years, but return he would – eventually.

For the time being, d’Aulnay was firmly in control, but that only lasted a few years.

In 1650, d’Aulnay drowned when his canoe overturned, which provided the opening LaTour had been waiting for. LaTour sailed to France, obtained royal favor, his property restored, and returned to Acadia as governor in 1653, accompanied by several new colonists, including Philippe Mius d’Entremont, 1st Baron of Pobomcoup.

It was about this time, around 1650, that Étienne Hebert married Marie Gaudet. Perhaps they hoped that living near her parents, a dozen miles upriver, would be more peaceful and less exposed to attack and conflict.

LaTour had remained a widower since his wife’s death defending Fort LaTour in 1645, but in 1653, he married…wait for it… d’Aulnay’s widow, Jeanne Motin. It was not a marriage in name only, as they had five children. Some said they married to heal the rift between the warring d’Aulnay and LaTour camps, some think it was simply a marriage of convenience for both, and others feel it was LaTour’s final victory over d’Aulnay. However, Jeanne was no shrinking violet because she evicted Nicolas Denys when he attempted to exploit d’Aulnay’s death by setting up trading posts at St. Ann and St. Peters.

LaTour wasn’t off the hook, though, because in an odd sort of way, d’Aulnay still managed to be a thorn in LaTour’s side – even from beyond the grave.

Along with d’Aulnay’s property and wife came his substantial debts to Emmanuel Le Borgne, his main financier from La Rochelle. There were two sides to this story because, as part of the deal, La Bourg and other seigneurs were supposed to recruit and transport new settlers to Acadia and care for them by building communal resources like mills and bake-ovens, but they didn’t.

It appears that the Acadians and their French sponsors were both relatively unhappy. The French did not live up to their end of the bargain by building mills and ovens, and consequently, the Acadians resisted paying taxes. Everyone resented the English, but the English needed the Acadian settlers to work the land. And, of course, the land passed back and forth between the French and English from time to time, punctuated by skirmishes and outright attacks.

Acadia, for an Atlantic peninsula of land with few people, was drama-central.

By 1653, it was estimated that there were 45-50 households at Port Royal and La Have, which provides us an estimate of 300-350 people, including 60 single men. Étienne Hebert was lucky to find a bride, any bride.

In 1654, Port Royal was still small, with approximately 270 residents, as estimated by pioneer Nicholas Denys. Denys was a French prisoner at Port Royal who had been responsible for recruiting volunteers for the 1632 Razilly expedition of 300 men from Rochelle, France. They landed at La Hève near modern Bridgewater, the eventual site of the Gaudet village. This location was near the upper reaches of the tidal portion of the Riviere du Dauphine, and their boat probably could not progress further.

Denys did us the favor of describing Port Royal in 1653:

There are numbers of meadows on both shores, and two islands which possess meadows, and which are 3 or 4 leagues from the fort in ascending. There is a great extent of meadows which the sea used to cover, and which the Sieur d’Aulnay had drained. It bears now fine and good wheat, and since the English have been masters of the country, the residents who were lodged near the fort have for the most part abandoned there houses and have gone to settle on the upper part of the river. They have made their clearings below and above this great meadow, which belongs at present to Madame de La Tour. There they have again drained other lands which bear wheat in much greater abundance than those which they cultivated round the fort, good though those were. All the inhabitants there are the ones whome Monsieur le Commandeur de Razilly had brought from France to La Have; since that time they have multiplied much at Port Royal, where they have a great number of cattle and swine.

The commentary about the French settling on the upper part of the river may be very important for the Hebert family because that’s exactly where they are found.

Denys also recorded that Robert Sedgewick of Boston had been ordered by Robert Cromwell to attack New Holland (New York). As Sedgewick prepared, a peace treaty was signed between the English and the Dutch. Since he was “all dressed up with nowhere to go,” he attacked Acadia in August 1654 and destroyed most of the settlements, including Port Royal, La Have, and the Saint John River village. Sedgewick left the area but appointed an Acadian council with Guillaume Trahan in charge. Some of the French may have returned to France at this point.

Denys doesn’t say if Sedgewick burned the upper river homesteads and farms or if he was satisfied with torching Port Royal. Living 12-14 miles away in the out-country may have been the saving grace of the Hebert and Gaudet families. Or, their homesteads and farms may have been destroyed, too. Certainly, if not burned out, they were devastated by Acadia falling to the English.

Acadia was back under English rule and would remain so until being returned, again, to the French in 1667.

After Sedgewick captured Acadia for the English, LaTour went to London to regain his property, again. Being a Protestant would have worked in his favor, as well as having led the English in raids against Port Royal in 1643.

In 1656, Cromwell granted property to two Englishmen and LaTour, but LaTour sold his share to the Englishmen and moved to Cap Sable, on the southern end of the peninsula, to attempt to live the rest of his life in peace.

We don’t know positively that the Hebert brothers were in Acadia at this time, but it’s almost assured. They had probably been in Acadia for between 10 and 30 years. If White is correct, they had resided in Acadia for eight years. Windows of immigration existed, but generally only when the French were in charge, although France imported settlers to other nearby parts of New France. The French were not imported directly into Acadia when the English ruled.

In 1666, France stopped sending colonists, ostensibly for fear of depopulating the mother-country. However, the English were still arriving in the colonies to escape religious prosecution and for economic reasons. Therefore, the Acadians were exposed to at least some English settlers, probably spoke and understood at least a little English, and established some level of trade with the English colonies along the Eastern seaboard.

By Mikmaq – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1351882

Given the 1671 census and the ages of his children, we know Étienne was married by 1651 and that his wife’s parents also settled in Acadia.

Life in Acadia always seemed to be contentious and apparently, in no small part, dangerous.

Étienne was probably in his mid to late 40s when he died, about 1670. He clearly didn’t die of old age, but probably as a result of hunting, fishing, or farming – some accident. Or, perhaps, there was a skirmish. It seemed like there was always some sort of skirmish, but a simple act of daily living such as fishing carried the risk of drowning.

The Catholic church records don’t exist, if they even had a priest at that time, so we don’t know when Étienne died. We can rest assured that, if possible, he was buried in the parish cemetery, now the Garrison Cemetery in Annapolis Royal, beside the fort and the Catholic church.

The First Acadian Census

Even though Acadia was officially returned to France in 1667, it didn’t actually happen right away. In 1670, the English surrendered the fort at Port Royal, apparently without incident. The new French governor arrived, bringing with him another 60 settlers and 30 soldiers. The new governor ordered a census, thankfully. He likely needed to know how many people would be paying taxes.

The first Acadian census was taken in 1671, documenting between 240 and 350  Acadian residents (depending which count you utilize) in 68 households in Port Royal and one household each in three other locations. Historians know some residents in settlements weren’t counted, and neither were Acadian/Native American families living with the Native people. Estimates of the entire Acadian population reach as high as 500.

Étienne was already deceased, but we can tell quite a bit from his widow’s census record, transcribed here by Lucy LeBlanc Consentino.

Marie Gaudet, widow of Étienne Hebert, 38. She has 10 children, two married children: Marie 20, Marguerite 19; Emmanuel 18, not yet married, Étienne 17, Jean 13, Francoise 10, Catherine 9, Martine 6, Michel 5, Antoine 1, 4 cattle, 5 sheep and 3 arpents of cultivated land.

This tells us that Etienne and Marie were married in about 1650, or maybe somewhat earlier. Their eldest living child was age 20. Étienne was probably about 25 years old when he married, so I’d estimate his birth year as 1625, give or take a few years. It appears that Marie Gaudet and her daughter, Marie Hebert, and her husband, Michel de Forest, and their families were probably living either on the same farm or even in the same house.

Marie’s youngest child was age 1, so we know that Étienne died sometime between 1669 and 1671.

His brother, Antoine Hebert is listed three houses away as a 50-year-old cooper, so he was born about 1621.

Hebert and Gaudet Allied Families

It’s clear that the Hebert family was somehow allied with the Gaudet family as early as 1650 when their children married. It’s possible that they married in France, or Acadia.

What we do know is that these two families lived in close proximity on the Riviere de Dauphine, now the Annapolis River.

This 1733 map at the Nova Scotia Archives is based on the 1707 census route and shows about a mile and a half or two miles distance between the Hebert and Gaudet homesteads – 57 years after Étienne Hebert and Marie Gaudet married.

Etienne Hebert lived along Bloody Creek, where the Hebert Village is found, courtesy of MapAnnapolis, below.

We know where Etienne, Marie, and their family lived and at least something about their life – but what else can we unearth?

The Hebert DNA Story

Eventually, the answer to where the Hebert brothers originated in France will be told through their Y-DNA, passed directly from father to son through the generations without ever being admixed with the mother’s DNA, or divided.

The Hebert family is well-represented in the Acadian AmerIndian Project with three Big-Y testers showing the same haplogroup. Haplogroup R-BY31006 was born about 1650, almost exactly when Étienne and his brother were marrying and having children near Fort Royal.

Click to enlarge any image

Two present-day project members descend from Étienne, and one descends from Étienne’s brother, Antoine. They have the same high-resolution haplogroup, so we know that their father had the same mutation that he gave to both sons. How I wish some Hebert men from France could test, but DNA testing for genealogy is illegal there.

Unfortunately, no other contemporary man of any surname is close to our Hebert cluster. The haplogroup ancestor upstream of R-BY31006 is the parent haplogroup R-BY31008 that occurred about 245 BCE, or 2245 years ago. The descendants of that man are also found in England, Norway, and Scotland, in addition to our Hebert men in France.

That’s quite interesting.

But there’s something even more interesting.

Ancient DNA

Looking at Ancient Connections in Discover, I note that one of the Hebert Ancient Connections was found in France and has been placed into haplogroup R-Z31644. I wonder what the connection is. Let’s take a look at that haplogroup.

The TimeTree shows us that nine ancient DNA samples are found on different haplogroup branches of R-Z31644, of which only one is found in Metz, France, and the rest in the British Isles. It’s unclear exactly what this means. Only the French sample and three others in England and Ireland are found in the current era, meaning after 1 CE. This was clearly prior to the Battle of Hastings in 1066, after which an influx of French settled in England.

Eight ancient DNA results are found in England, but none share a common ancestor earlier than 4300 years ago. Notably, one English burial from about 2000-2300 years ago shares a common ancestor with the Metz, France remains about 4000 years ago. The eight English remains, and our Metz guy descend from a common ancestor about 4300 years ago.

Did Étienne’s ancestors descend from the ancient sample at Metz? Maybe the study provides more clues.

According to the study’s authors:

The Sablon district, which is located in the southern part of the city of Metz, was, during the Gallo-Roman period, a huge necropolis where both inhumations and cremations are found. Towards the end of the 19th century, the exploitation of the sandpits enabled the uncovering of sarcophagi (stone), cists (brick and tile), coffins (wood) and vats (lead).

These characterise the new burial practices developed during late Antiquity. [Spans from about the 3rd to the 6th or 7th centuries.]

The largest funerary space spans almost a kilometre, on either side of the via Scarponensis (portion of the Reims/Metz road).

The Sablon area can be compared to the Collatina necropolis close to Rome by its chaotic organisation, although at a different scale

Looking at a map of Metz helps put this in context.

It’s unclear exactly where along this route the burials were discovered beginning in the late 1800s. They extend for more than a kilometer on both sides of the road in the Sablon neighborhood of Metz.

The Sablon neighborhood extends from near the old city center along the main artery that crosses railroad tracks that appear to sever the original road into the city.

Does the history of Metz tell us who lived there and what was occurring during this time? Indeed, it does.

Metz is located at the confluence of the Moselle and Seille rivers, near the junction of France, Germany, and Luxembourg. The original inhabitants were Celtic. The town was known as the “city of Mediomatrici,” a fortified city of the tribe by the same name.

The Mediomatrici village evolved into a Gallo-Celtic city after Julius Caesar conquered the Gauls in 52 BCE.

Named Divodurum Mediomatricum by the Romans, present-day Metz was integrated into the Roman empire in the first century CE, after which it was colloquially referred to as the Holy Village.

The historic district has kept part of the Gallo-Roman city with Divodurum’s Cardo Maximus, then called Via Scarponensis. Today, this is Trinitaires, Taison, and Serpenoise streets in the old city center, and the Decumanus Maximus, which is En Fournirue and d’Estrées streets. The Roman Forum was located at the Cardo and Decumanus intersection and is the Saint-Jacques Square today, as shown below.

By Alice Volkwardsen at German Wikipedia, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=10681319

The ancient burial occurred between 432 and 551 CE, as calculated from a molar and was found in a very large Gallo-Roman necropolis, more than a kilometer long, located on both sides along the old Roman road.

This cityscape shows Divodurum Mediomatricum in the second century CE, capital of the Mediomatrici, ancestor city of present-day Metz. The original Roman amphitheater is shown at far left, and the living quarters are located within the city walls, protecting them from attack. A wonderful summary of archaeological findings can be found here.

Today the the Centre Pompidou-Metzocation is found at the site of the original large Roman amphitheater. This amphitheater held upwards of 25,000 people and was the largest and most consequential amphitheater outside of Rome.

Rome’s influence ended when the city was attacked, pillaged and burned by the Huns on April 7, 451, then passed into the hands of the Franks about 50 years later. By 511, Metz was the capital of the Kingdom of Austrasia.

How Does the Metz Burial Connect to England?

How do the dots between Metz and the British Isles connect, given that the common ancestor of our Metz burial and the British Isles burials has descendants scattered throughout the British Isles and in Metz?

The Celts first migrated to the British Isles about 1000 BCE, or about 3000 years ago, so this ancient French man and the other ancient burials in the British Isles make sense. Their common ancestor lived 4300 years ago in Europe. The closest common ancestor of our Metz man and any English burial occurred 4000 years ago, 1000 years before the earliest Celtic migrations across the English Channel.

This man from Metz lived 1500 or 1600 years ago and shares an ancestor with several ancient British men in addition to our Hebert line and was likely Celtic..

Of course, not every Celtic man left Europe. Many stayed and eventually integrated with whoever the next conquering army was. That ensured survival. Metz was a prize to be won, controlled over the centuries by many masters.

We don’t know if this specific Celtic man buried along the Gallo-Roman Road was a direct ancestor to our Hebert line, but if not, they were assuredly related and shared common ancestors. The descendants of haplogroup R-BY31008 are unquestionably the ancestors of our Hebert line.

Back to Étienne

Étienne’s Y-DNA has identified his ancestors as Celtic some 4000 years, or 200 generations ago.

More recently, his Y-DNA confirmed his connection to Antoine Hebert, and the church records of both of their descendants confirmed them as brothers.

Depositions given by Étienne’s grandchildren, spouses of grandchildren, great-grandchildren, nieces, and nephews confirm that Étienne was born in France, but, unfortunately, does not say where. This information alone debunked some of his parent candidates.

We find no suggestion of his parents in Acadia, although that’s not impossible. Many people died and never made it into existing records. The Hebert brothers likely arrived together as young men. Antoine may have married in France, as his wife’s surname is not found in Acadia. Of course, her father could have died and left no record. Étienne’s wife’s family lives next to the Heberts in Acadia, but we don’t know if Étienne and Marie Gaudet married in France or after arrival in Acadia.

How well did Étienne remember France? Did he look over his slice of countryside along the Riviere du Dauphine, with its dikes holding the tidal river at bay, and think of similar dikes constructed by his ancestors in France?

What about his parents?

Did they die, or did he sail away, knowing he and his brother would never see them or their siblings again?

Did their family shrink into tiny dots on the horizon, waving from the wharf, then disappear forever?

Did the brothers leave because they wanted to, or did they leave perhaps because they had no family left? Often, orphans had few options in their home country, and any opportunity was welcomed.

Did Étienne marry Marie Gaudet in Acadia, or did they marry someplace in France, then two Hebert boys immigrating to the new land with the Gaudet family?

In one way, we know so much – that Étienne matches an ancient Celtic burial in Metz who died about 1500 years ago, with whom he shared a common ancestor about 4000 years ago – yet we can’t identify Étienne’s parents. At least not today, but hope springs eternal. Two years ago, we didn’t know this.

Hopefully, one day, DNA testing for genealogy will be available to men in France. Our answers lie in Hebert men in some small French village, probably along a river that was once a highway of history.

Acknowledgments

I’m incredibly grateful to the Hebert men who have taken the Big Y-700 DNA test at FamilyTreeDNA, and to FamilyTreeDNA, because without those tests and the Discover tool that includes ancient DNA connections, we would never be able to peer beyond the mists of time into their deep ancestry.

As more men test and more academic studies and ancient DNA results are added to the Discover database, we’ll continue to learn more. The Big-Y DNA test is the gift that just keeps on giving.

_____________________________________________________________

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

Marie Hebert (1651- c 1677): Young Acadian Bride Gone Too Soon – 52 Ancestors #412

Marie Hebert is first found at age 20 as the spouse of Michel de Forest in the 1671 Acadian census in what is today Nova Scotia.

Michel de Forest, age 33, wife Marie Hebert, 20, with children Michel 4, Pierre 2, René 1, 12 cattle, two sheep, and two arpents of cultivated land

Brides were a very limited commodity in Acadia, and women tended to be swooped up and married as soon as they became eligible.

Given that, I’d wager that Marie probably had many suitors, and her father, Étienne Hebert, and mother, Marie Gaudet, selected the man they felt was best suited for their daughter.

Michel de Forest may have had somewhat of an unfair advantage, though, because he was farming the land next door to the Hebert family, as shown on this 1733 map. Or maybe he began farming the land next door as a result of marrying Marie. It’s fun to speculate, but we’ll probably never know for sure.

What we do know is that Marie married quite young.

In the 1671 census, she was 20 and already had three children, the oldest of which had been born four years earlier, so she probably married in the Catholic church at age 15, in 1666. Unfortunately, no records survived until the early 1700s.

The census entry beside Michel De Forest and Marie Hebert is Marie Gaudet, Marie’s mother, as follows:

Marie Gaudet, widow of Etienne Hebert, 38. She has 10 children, two married children: Marie 20, Marguerite 19; Emmanuel 18, not yet married, Etienne 17, Jean 13, Francoise 10, Catherine 9, Martine 6, Michel 5, Antoine 1, 4 cattle, 5 sheep and 3 arpents of cultivated land

This census is unique because it listed the married children by name, even if they weren’t living in the household. Marie was the eldest child, born about 1651. The census also listed the married child in the household where they lived. In Marie’s case, with her husband, Michel de Forest.

Marie’s mother, also named Marie, married by age 17, if not earlier and became a grandmother at 34. I know the math works, but just the thought makes me reel. Four years later, Marie’s mother was a widow.

Marie Hebert’s father had already died, in either 1670 or 1671, given that her mother, Marie Gaudet, had a 1-year-old son.

Marie and Michael de Forest, with their two eldest children, would have accompanied her mother to the church for her father’s funeral, and then to the cemetery for his burial. Marie’s nine siblings would have been there too, as would her own two young children – too young to remember their grandfather. Either Marie and her mother were both pregnant for another child, or they both had babes in arms according to the census. What a heartwrenching day that would have been.

Marie, wife of Michel de Forest married young, and she also died young.

Marie’s Death

In the next census, taken seven years later in 1678, Michel is shown as a widower with 4 acres, 3 cows, 2 calves, 1 gun, four boys, ages 12, 10, 8, 3, and two girls, ages 6 and 4. His age is not given, but he was 40 or 41 and very clearly had his hands full.

Based on the children listed in both censuses, we know that Marie had six children in the nine years or so that she was married, before her death. She had such a short life. Given that her youngest was 3 in 1678, I wonder if she died from complications of her child’s birth in 1677 or perhaps in childbirth in 1678. How I wish we had those church records.

She was only 26 if she died in 1677.

Marie’s still youthful body would have been carefully washed, probably by her mother and sisters, dressed in her best clothes, and placed lovingly in a hand-hewn coffin, then taken by wagon or perhaps by batteau to the Catholic Church one last time for her funeral.

Her funeral hymns would rise in the church where she had been baptized, married, and her children baptized.

After her service, Marie would have been buried in consecrated ground in the graveyard beside the church in Port Royal, probably someplace near her father and maybe her babies. Eternal sentries, their graves overlooked the marshlands of the Rivière du Dauphin, today the Annapolis River. Just upriver a dozen or so miles was the farm where Marie had been born, grew up, courted, and come home as a bride – on the banks of that tidal river.

Her entire life had been lived in just twenty-some years.

I can close my eyes and see her children, beginning with the eldest, Michel, just 10 years old, holding hands as they filed out of the church into the cemetery to bury their mother. The youngest was just a baby.

If the season was right, her children could have picked some Queen Anne’s Lace or maybe some Yarrow along the way and placed their flowers gently on their mother’s casket before it was lowered into her final resting place, perhaps along with a newborn baby.

That would be their last loving act for their mother. Oh, how they must have cried, hot, sorrowful tears sliding down their faces.

The local men would have dug Marie’s grave the day before while the family was preparing her body. What a grief-filled day that surely was – not only for Michel, and Marie’s children, but for her poor mother who outlived her daughter and was herself only 45 years old in 1678, and a recent widow.

Life, or more specifically, death was cruel and oh-so-indiscriminate in who it randomly claimed.

Marie’s Children

Despite losing their mother, Marie’s known children all grew to adulthood.

Child 1671 Census 1678 Census 1686 Census Birth Year Death Year Spouse
Michel 4 12 male 19 1666-1667 By 1731 – Pisiguit, parish of Saint-Famile. Abt 1689 to Marie Petitpas, then in 1708/1709 to Marie Celestin dit Bellemere
Pierre 2 10 male 18 1668 By Nov. 1730 Abt 1693 to Cecile Richard
René 1 8 male 16 1670 1751 Abt 1695 to Francoise Dugas
Gabrielle 6 female 13 1672-1673 Nov. 9, 1710 Abt 1691 to Pierre Brassaud
Marie 4 female 11 1674-1675 1704-1706 Abt 1695 to Pierre L’Aine Benoit
Jean-Baptiste 3 male 9 1675-1678 1776 Abt 1698 to Marie Elisabeth Labarre

I suspect that Marie had another child, born between René and Gabrielle, who was born and died, probably about 1672. There is space for another child between Marie and Jean-Baptiste, or perhaps after Jean-Baptiste, a final child was born and died with Marie.

In 1678, Marie’s husband, Michel, was shown as a widower whose youngest child was 3.

Children’s names were not listed in 1678, although it’s possible to connect the dots with the children’s names from the 1686 census, eight years later.

No mother wants to die before her children, but mothers of younger children will fight every minute they can and with their very last breath to live. Leaving young children is every mother’s worst nightmare.

Baptismal records don’t remain for that time period, but it’s clear that Michel couldn’t farm and raise a passel of young children. Whoever their godmothers were may have been called upon after Marie’s death. After all, that was at least part of the purpose of godparents.

Life went on. It had to. There was no choice.

The Next Chapter

The older boys would have been old enough to help their father, but there’s nothing less helpful than a helpful 2 or 3-year-old. They needed more supervision than Michel would have been able to give.

Part of that problem was solved when Michel married Jacqueline Benoit sometime after the census in 1686, although she was quite young at 15 – younger than Michael and Marie’s oldest three sons.

The next year, in 1687, Jacqueline would present the de Forest children with a half-sibling, Marguerite. Their blended family must have been doing well, but then, disaster struck once again.

Sometime after Jacqueline became pregnant with Marguerite, and before May of 1690 when Michel’s name is absent from the loyalty oath, he died. He and Marie’s youngest child would have been about 13, and Jacqueline’s child was just a baby.

This family had suffered so much. Thankfully, the Acadian community was small and close-knit.

Marie’s de Forest children were now without both of their parents.

Jacqueline remarried in 1691. In the 1693 census, Marie’s children are not living with Jacqueline, their stepmother, and her new husband, although it appears that the oldest two children had relocated to Grand Pre where they lived, and two more would leave Port Royal a couple of years later.

The Children Fledge

With both parents gone, there was nothing to keep Michel and Marie’s children in the Port Royal area, so they began to move to the Grand Pre region – the next frontier. Fortunately for us, the Grand Pre church records (1707-1748) were taken along into exile in 1755 when the Acadians were expelled and today reside in Iberville, LA, providing researchers with valuable early information.

  • Marie’s oldest son, also named Michel Forest, married in Port Royal about 1689. In the 1693 census, Michel de Forest was living in Les Mines at age 27. Michel Forets, resident of Pisiguit, widow of Marie Petitpas, married on October 29, 1709 to Marie Bellemere, living at Grand Pree. Michel and his wives had 12 children.
  • About 1692, Pierre Forest married Cecile Richard. In the 1693 census, he is shown, age 25 in the home of Pierre Brassuad, his sister’s husband, also in Les Mines. He and Cecile had nine children.
  • René de Forest is unaccounted for in the 1693 census, but he signed the loyalty oath in 1690 as an adult. He married about 1695 to Francoise Dugas and farmed his father’s land, remaining in the Port Royal region. They had at least 13 children.
  • Gabrielle Forest married about 1691 to Pierre Brassaud. In the 1693 census, she is noted as Gabrielle Michel. Her burial is recorded in the register of St. Charles aux Mines in Grand Pre, so they had clearly joined her brothers in that area. They had nine children.
  • Daughter Marie Forest married about 1695 in Port Royal to Pierre L’Aine Benoit, her stepmother’s brother, but died after the birth of their son in 1704. They had five children.
  • Marie’s youngest child, Jean Baptiste, would not have remembered his mother. In 1693, he was listed as Jean Laforest, age 15 (so born in 1678), a domestic in the home of Daniel LeBlanc. He married about 1698 to Marie Elisabeth Labarre with whom he had 12 children. By 1714, they were living in Beaubassin.

Marie may have died quite young, but her six children produced at least 59 grandchildren to carry on her legacy.

Even though four of their six children moved on, and another died by 1704, the farm that Marie Gaudet and Michel Forest had carved out of the swamps and wilderness along the Rivière du Dauphin would not leave the family – at least not before the wholesale expulsion of the Acadians in 1755. Their third son, René, stayed to farm his parent’s homestead, establishing the René Forest Village on the banks of the Annapolis River.

In 1755, a century after her birth and nearly 80 years after Marie’s death, those grandchildren and their children’s children were scattered to the winds, but like seeds, planted themselves around the globe in fertile soil, peppering the Acadian diaspora with thousands of her descendants.

_____________________________________________________________

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

 

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