Jeanne Chebrat (1627 – 1678/1686), The Miller’s Daughter – 52 Ancestors #489

Jeanne Chebrat is somewhat of a mystery woman. Ironically, we know when and where she was born in France, but we know very little about her life in Acadia. That’s the inverse of what we normally find.

Life in La Chaussée

Jeanne was baptized at Notre-Dame de La Chaussée on February 5, 1627. The registry with her baptism is found in the archives of Deux-Sevres et de la Vienne.

Jeanne Chebrat or Chebrot was born to Antoine Chebrot or Chebrat and Françoise Chaumoret. Her baptism record doesn’t give her birth date, but Catholic babies were typically baptized the day they were born, if possible, or as quickly thereafter as possible otherwise.

Jeanne’s father was a merchant miller, “marchand meunier,” a tenant miller according to notarial records, who would have been contracted to Charles de Menou d’Aulnay or his family, the seigneurial family who owned the land.

Typically, the miller leased the mill and lived adjacent to or nearby the mill. He had to be there when farmers dropped off their grain, to grind it, then for them to take it back home as flour or meal after grinding.

There wasn’t an actual mill at or near the village of La Chausee, but the d’Aulnay family owned land across multiple parishes. Charles de Menou d’Aulnay’s mother, Nicole de Jousserand, held seigneurial rights that linked lands across Martaize, Saires, Guesnes, and La Chaussée. Church tithing borders also shifted over time. Towns today were small villages back then, linked to other hamlets by dirt roads across an agricultural landscape.

Furthermore, Cardinal Richelieu had created a patchwork of churches and investors, and sometimes the traditional rules were applied selectively.

Therefore, we don’t know exactly why Jeanne Chebrat was baptized at La Chaussée in the winter of 1627, and her sister, Mathurine, was baptized at Saint-Vincent just 33 months later. Today, Saint-Vincent is represented only by its cemetery, now called Cimetière de Monts-sur-Guesnes in Monts-sur-Guesnes.

There were only a few windmills that occupied the ridges where their sails could catch the wind. We know that in 1650, Antoine Chebrat ran the La Chaussée windmill, but based on other records we have, he served as a miller at other nearby mills earlier. Other mills were found near Saint Vincent, still within the larger group of d’Aulnay seigneurial lands, which could explain the 1629 baptism location.

Regardless of which mill her father ran in 1627, the church at La Chaussée, where Jeanne was baptized, was 5 or 6 miles away. And it was early February.

February in the Poitou

February in the Poitou is characterized by shifting, raw winds averaging about 10 or 11 MPH and primarily blowing from the south and southwest. For a miller, this was wonderful, a gift, enabling him to grind the winter grain before the spring rains and dampness arrived.

But for a newborn infant, not so much.

February brought freezing conditions with temperatures dropping into the low 30s (°F) overnight. While it wasn’t cold enough to completely lock up major rivers with solid sheets of ice, thick morning frost and ice were found along the edges of the smaller stream banks like Le Milleron and La Briande. This meant valley millers with water mills had to spend their early mornings manually clearing ice off their wooden waterwheels to prevent the paddles from cracking or freezing solid. And sometimes the small streams did freeze, grinding everything to a halt.

The skies were gray and depressing, with clouds covering the sun about three-fourths of the time during the winter months. Cold rain, sleet, and light snow showers would have saturated the dirt tracks between La Chaussée, Saint Vincent, and the various mills in the commune of Saires and Guesnes. Transporting heavy sacks of grain from the muddy valley fields to the windmills via pack-mules or ox carts would have been slow, treacherous, and dangerous work during this time of year. The miller’s wife probably welcomed chilled farmers into her kitchen with something hot to drink and a seat beside the fireplace.

Then, in the midst of winter, Jeanne was born, and Antoine needed to take his newborn baby girl to the church for the sacrament of baptism.

The baby would have been carefully wrapped to keep her warm. Even in the best case, under those conditions, the trip would have taken two to three hours each way. The journey would have been treacherous, especially descending steep ridge slopes into the valley with a newborn. The wagon didn’t dare tip over or become mired in the mud.

Even today, the streets of tiny La Chaussée are unpaved, and these same buildings would have been standing in 1627 when they passed by.

Sometimes, especially with a difficult birth, the mother didn’t accompany the child to be baptized, but with a trip like this, Françoise wouldn’t have had a choice. Someone had to feed the baby and care for her on the trip to and from the church.

Maybe they stayed overnight with a local couple who lived in the village right by the church.

Perhaps someone had ridden ahead to alert the priest to be prepared. He probably wouldn’t normally have been at the church on a Friday, although he likely lived next door. He might have been called away, though, to provide comfort or last rites.

Jeanne’s parents were probably terribly relieved to see the steeple appear on the horizon in the distance.

The church stood adjacent to the walled courtyard with houses that opened into the center where they shared the well.

Jeanne’s parents would have entered through the rear portico.

The doorway opened into the stairwell descending into the nave.

Antoine would have helped Françoise, who had just delivered their daughter, down the precarious steps.

Churches weren’t heated then, so the priest would have warmed the Holy Water a bit for the baptism.

When I stood here, I didn’t realize that my ancestor had been baptized in this very place. That I was standing where her parents had stood on that Friday in February.

In this photo, Claude is welcoming us back home some 397 years after Jeanne was baptized here. Antoine and Françoise would have stepped up onto this altar, carrying their baby oh so carefully.

Beneath their feet were these same stones, worn smooth over the ages by thousands of the faithful. Their ancestors probably walked here too.

The church, on that cold February day, had already witnessed 500 winters, and maybe more. Built along the old Roman Road, more than 20 generations of French peasants who lived in the village and nearby hamlets had been baptized, married, and committed into consecrated ground here.

But on this day, Antoine and Françoise were baptizing the child who would become one of the founding women of the New World, of Acadia.

Their blood and hers still run in thousands of their descendants who trace their lineage back to this beautiful, quaint church that sheltered so many.

Françoise and Anthoine probably crossed themselves in thanksgiving for their safe arrival. If God deemed that they should die on the way home, at least their baby’s soul was protected.

This timeworn Madonna greeted them, holding her child.

This church is connected to multiple Acadian families. Deceased Acadian historian, Stephen A. White wrote that in 1662, Jeanne’s sister Philippe Chebrat married a widower, René Mirgardiere, whose previous wife was Jeanne Breau, spelled Braud on this plaque mounted on the church wall.

Confusing Records

The only other baptism record we have for any of Jeanne’s siblings is that of her sister Mathurine Chebrat, who was born on November 8, 1629 and baptized in the parish of Saint-Vincent de l’Oratoire.

In the Catholic religion, while one could attend services at a convenient church, you were expected to return to your “home church”, meaning the one whose parish boundaries you lived within, for sacraments like baptism.

There were exceptions, of course, primary among them being that a child was in imminent danger of death. In this case, you didn’t need to go to any church – the midwife or anyone else could baptize the child until their own priest could supplement those rites.

Another possibility is that the weather was just too bad, or a road had washed out, allowing a priest in another parish to make an exception and baptize an infant.

So, we don’t really know why Antoine’s children were baptized in churches just 5 miles apart. It probably had to do with the fact that he was a tenant miller to Charles de Menou d’Aulnay, whose home church was La Chaussée. Jeanne’s father, Antoine, may have moved from mill to mill as his leases expired, or d’Aulnay may have needed him temporarily at one mill or another.

We do know that d’Aulnay recruited heavily from his parish at La Chaussée for reliable, skilled French peasants to set sail for Acadia, today’s Nova Scotia. But he also didn’t limit his recruitment efforts to just La Chaussée.

Eventually, Jeanne was one of those recruits, probably as a newlywed with her husband, although we have no marriage record for her.

Let’s reconstruct what we can from what we do know.

The Mills

We know that in 1650, according to notarial records referenced by Stephen A. White, Jeanne’s father was the miller at the windmill of La Chaussée in the parish of Saires. Millers lived at or very near their mill, so this information is incredibly enlightening.

The mill referenced in the document is a windmill, not a watermill. Windmills must sit high enough that they can catch the wind in their sails, while watermills run on the waterpower of a stream and, by definition, streams run across the lowest points of the terrain.

Click to enlarge

According to both the Cassini map of the area, drawn in 1765, and the 1813 Napoleonic map, there were no mills in the parish of La Chaussée, which was low, but there were several in neighboring parishes, as indicated by the cluster of red arrows above.

The red circles at La Chaussée and St. Vincent are where Jeanne and her sister were baptized, respectively, and Guesnes is the location where the marriage contract of another sister, Philippe, says she was born.  Aulnay, on the far left, above La Chaussée, is the manor house of Charles de Menou d’Aulnay, where his portion of the grain needed to be delivered.

In the neighboring parish of Saires, there were three sets of mills. The icons with sails represent windmills, and the little wheels represent water mills.

The windmills depicted are positioned along a ridge above companion watermills. Windmills need to be situated in a cleared area at a relatively high elevation, away from trees in order to catch the wind to drive the huge mill’s sails.

However, when the water runs low, or freezes, watermills can’t function, so windmills and watermills worked as companions to ensure that the grinding of grain could continue throughout the year.

The mills at and above Pincevent are actually called Moulin du Chaussée on the 1813 map. The windmill symbol beside the letter “K” marks the site uphill from the watermill. Neither exists today, but the home/farm structure at Pincevent where the miller probably lived does.

The mill at Renault is called Moulin Renault, and the road is still named after that mill. The homes and barns still exist.

The mill labeled Mn Balancauene in 1765 (or something like that) is gone today, but the tiny road called Moulin de Balamboene runs until it becomes simply an inaccessible farm path.

All three watermills are located on the stream named La Briande, with their companion windmill nearby.

The 1813 cadastral map of Saires shows very clearly the mill named Moulin du Chaussée where the La Briande stream crosses the road that is today D69, just Northwest of Pincevent N, along with the Moulin Renault less than a mile away.

La Briande translates to either “the high place” or “settlement on the ridge” or something like “the noisy rushing stream.” Perhaps all three were relevant to this stream, considering its source and that it supported several mills for miles across the French countryside.

While the name on the map is written at the stream intersection, a tiny drawing depicting a windmill is shown above that area at “K”, near a boundary line of some sort.

When I first studied these maps, trying to reconcile the locations between them, I didn’t realize that the 1813 map showed the only locations of homesteads, which were farm compounds at that time.

Typically walled in that era, these working farms included outbuildings – hence the unusual shapes. In other words, this map wasn’t just showing some of the places people lived – it showed all of the places people lived. Given that the miller had to live adjacent to or very near the mill, one of these was clearly the Chebrat family home, at least by 1650, and probably many years before.

The 1813 cadastral map of the Guesnes parish shows other mills that align with the Cassini map.

So does Monts-sur-Guesnes that includes St. Vincent, but since the Saires map specifically names one of the mills “Chaussée,” and the 1650 notarial record states that windmill is in the parish of Saires, the mill above Pincevent should be that mill. In fact, it’s the only reasonable candidate.

The La Chaussée mill is the closest mill to the village of La Chaussée that’s in the parish of Saire. The church at La Chaussée was about 5 or 6 miles away.

Jeanne’s father would have had to transport d’Aulnay’s share of the grain to his estate, another mile or so north of the village of La Chaussée. That path took him either through Saint Vincent or Guesnes, so he would have been quite familiar with those village locations too, and their respective millers.

Millers renewed their contracts every few years, so Jeanne’s father could have worked at any or all of them over time.

The neighborhood where Jeanne spent at least part of her childhood probably revolved around the mills that fell within the parish of Saires.

I’ve marked the Saires locations on this modern-day terrain map, where the higher grounds are shaded in light gray.

While I can’t pinpoint the exact location where Jeanne lived, the map itself narrows the possibilities. Let’s start with our best candidate, the ancient hamlet of Pincevent N, with only one farm compound – and that farm maps exactly to the 1813 cadastral map.

This homestead stood between the tiny cart path and the brook which snakes behind these buildings at the rear of the property. These buildings are certainly old enough, and are in the exact location on the map, to have been where the miller and his family lived.

Farms had to be self-sufficient, and typical for a farm of that era, the buildings closely lined the road.

The original wall had apparently deteriorated to the point of no salvation – so a contemporary wall has replaced it.

My guess is that this is where the Chebrat family lived, at least in 1650, and Jeanne’s father tended both mills. It helped that his son was a miller too.

We can still see this beautiful French farm home that appears to be the original. Built from local Tuffeau limestone, and meant to last for centuries, it would have stood when  Antoine Chebrat was the miller here.

Based on accumulated evidence, I believe this is where the family lived in 1650 and probably several years earlier as well.

I can picture Jeanne feeding chickens or playing under these trees in the courtyard.

The only other building is the neighboring farm named La Beuille, also ancient, and now an event venue, which you can view here. Those restored buildings are stunning and probably reflect what they looked like four hundred years ago if you use your imagination a bit.

This tiny road exits right at Moulin Renault, but instead, let’s take a drive along the path to the Chaussée windmill first.

La Briande Creek is actually quite small and has been contained in a culvert beneath the road. Its headwaters spring forth just a mile and a half away, above Moulin Balanbouene.

Crossing the little bridge, we see the location of the La Chaussée water mill where the creek crosses the road, up D69 to the intersection with D68, near where the Chaussée windmill stood.

Over the years, Antoine would certainly have been familiar with all of the mills, so Jeanne would have traveled this road too. She may have played in the yard as the local farmers dropped their grain off and enjoyed some local gossip, along with wine, as her father ground their grain.

Today, a few fields are still cultivated along these remote one-lane roads, but the forest has regrown over much of the land.

La Briande creek or brook runs beneath the highway here, more like a gulley, so the two little buildings shown on the north side of the creek would have been located in this field at right. The treeline is the stream.

Today there is no evidence of old structures here.

The “K” location marking the windmill, but with no buildings, is located further up this road. Homes needed access to fresh water, and there was none to be had on hilltops. The miller lived near the watermill below.

Only one building or home is located along this stretch today, at the intersection with D68. That home isn’t on the 1813 map, and certainly doesn’t appear to be more than 300 years old.

Using Google Street View, the location of the mill appears to be roughly here, near the intersection where these trees now stand.

Once again, no aerial evidence of a mill. The area is heavily forested.

I was looking for the telltale foundation and hillock where the mill once stood, but instead I found these beautiful sunflowers just beyond that intersection.

Of course, any trace may be gone now, or it may be hidden in the woodlands. Like the other mills, it would have stood near the road.

We can see this intersection on the 1813 map, so we’re turning towards Moulin Renault.

On the map below, follow the green arrows from Pincevent Nord past the La Chaussée mill sites and around the Moulin Renault loop and back home again.

A few hundred feet down D68, the tiny Moulin Renault loop road turns to the left. At that time, the entire purpose of this path would have been access to the mills.

Local historians have written about the windmill here, and the hillock that remains. The old foundation stones are now covered with bramble, brush and trees, but they know where it’s located.

On the Cassini map, this location also had a water mill, which makes perfect sense.

The original windmill was located at the red arrow. At that time, it rose above the landscape, but today what’s left of the foundation is obscured in a raised clump of trees and vegetation.

What could be a water mill on the 1813 map appeared to be spanning the La Briande creek.

At harvest time, local farmers would bring their grain in wagons and carts to the mill to have it ground. They had no choice. You had your grain milled in the seigneur’s mill, just like the miller had no choice but to share the bounty with the seigneur as well.

Following the curve shows the field behind the mound where the windmill once stood. The mound is on the right side of the photo, just left of the road.

Unless you know what you’re looking for, you’d never notice this rise, unless perhaps you discovered the old mill’s foundation stones.

A few disheveled stones are exposed today, but most are buried now.

The first farm, behind these buildings lining the road, sits directly across from the hillock. This was probably the watermill or its buildings.

Looking back towards the hill as we drive towards the next farm structures.

These buildings date from the same era.

Beyond the second farm enclosusre, we drive past a few fields and through the forest.

The verdant green of this second-growth forest shades the other end of the road where it intersects with D68 today. Within sight would be the sails of the Moulin Chaussée.

Spring in May is joyfully beautiful here. How Jeanne must have missed this.

Jeanne’s Family Members – It’s Complicated

To understand Jeanne Chebrat’s family in the Poitou, we need to follow the legal breadcrumbs left behind in Poitiers’ un-digitized notarial vaults. Because local village church records from this era are missing or incomplete, these French property agreements and notarial records sometimes serve to fill at least part of the gap – if we’re lucky.

In our case, we are somewhat lucky, because there was value in the miller’s leases and perhaps other personal property, so when either the husband or wife died, property distribution needed to be considered. Not only that, marriage contracts were drawn up when something of value was involved as well. Prenuptials are not a new thing!

These records reveal several siblings who functioned in a tightly knit family circle working together to navigate life, marriage, and the family milling business. If we had church records, we’d probably find them standing as godparents for each other’s children too.

I translated the page of Chebrat information collected by Stephen A. White and published in his long out-of-print book, Dictionairre Généalogique des Familles Acadiennes, which included information from 1650 and 1662 notarial bundles. the 1650 bundle number 4 E 26 128 can now be requested from the French archives and the 1662 one as well, number 4 E 26 140. I have requested both, so we’ll see what, if anything, arrives.

Bless that man’s heart for his years of in-depth research.

After I had completed this article, or so I thought, I discovered that White had published a correction in 2003, which I’ve incorporated here. Better before than after publication of this article.

Thanks to White’s research and that of others, Jeanne’s sibling network and part of her father’s family becomes clear, and with it, different chapters of Jeanne’s own pre-Acadian life.

  • On January 30, 1650, Jeanne’s brother, Pierre Chebrat, drew up his marriage contract before the Poitiers notaries, Poyriet & Maxias, to marry Florence Lamoureux, which states that he, too, is a merchant miller. This would suggest Pierre’s age between 25 and 30, so maybe born 1620-1625.

Note that because the notaries were in Poitiers doesn’t mean that’s the location where the couple was married. People who lived in the small Poitou hamlets had their legal work taken care of in Loudun or Poitiers.

Pierre’s family members were apparently nearby or journeyed with him on this joyous event.

  • François Chebrat signed as a witness on Pierre’s 1650 marriage contract. According to White’s correction, François had erroneously been identified as the brother of the groom, but, “According to J.-M. Germe, “Origine de la famille Chebrat” (“Origin of the Chebrat Family”), Les Amitiés généalogiques canadiennes-françaises, no. 10, 1999, pp. 27–33, François Chebrat was Antoine Chebrat’s brother, rather than his son, and Étienne Chebrat was François’s son.” This makes François Chebrat Jeanne’s uncle.
  • Étienne Chebrat, the son of François, also stood as a witness for Pierre. He later left the family milling trade to become a master woodturner (marchand tourneur). His February 3, 1642 apprenticeship reportedly provides his family connections. The Société généalogique canadienne-française lists it as number 26835. The Vienne archives identify the notary Hélie Maxias’s 1642 minutes as 4 E 26 120. This makes Étienne Jeanne’s first cousin.

Twelve years later, on January 15, 1662, the family gathered again before the notaries Porcheron & Maxias in Poitiers. This time, it was for the marriage contract of Jeanne’s sister, Philippe Chebrat, who was marrying the widower, René Mirgardiere. Philippe’s contract explicitly notes that she was born in the town center (bourg) of Guesnes, proving the family’s movements over time.

If Philippe was roughly 20 when she married, as would be typical, she would have been born about 1642. This document notes that their father, Antoine, is now deceased and reveals another sibling, plus Pierre who we already know.

  • Pierre Chebrat traveled to Poitiers to act as the primary family witness for his younger sister.
  • Marguerite Chebrat, Jeanne’s sister, also stood as Philippe’s witness.

These documents, combined, suggest that Jeanne’s parents were having children from about 1620 to about 1642, placing her mother’s birth around 1600.

The Monkey Wrench

I hate to even breathe these words, but there’s another Jeanne Chebrat too, born in April of 1627. This is only possible in my worst genealogy nightmares!

The other Jeanne Chebrat was baptized in the city of Poitiers itself, at Saint-Hilaire-le-Grand.

On the fifth day of the said month [April 1627], Jehanne Chebrat, born to Savine Jacquet, of the parish of Sainte-Triaise, was baptized. The godfather was Mre Jehan Chebassier. The godmother was Andrée Jacquet. The said godmother declared that she did not know how to sign.

The entry names the baby Jehanne Chebrat, names Savine Jacquet as her mother, and gives Sainte-Triaise as the parish associated with her mother. That explains why Sainte-Triaise appears in some accounts even though the baptism is in the Saint-Hilaire-le-Grand register. As it turned out, not all churches had baptismal fonts, and Sainte-Triaise did not.

On Sunday, May 5, 1619 François Chebrat and Savine Jacquet were married at Sainte-Triaise in Poitiers.

I asked two AI agents, plus cousin Mark, to translate, and this is the best we can do, focusing on the main points, not all of the squiggles:

On Sunday, the fifth day of May, one thousand six hundred nineteen, I, the undersigned parish priest of Sainte-Triaise in this city of Poitiers, certify to whom it may concern that I married François Chebrat to Savine Jacquet, a parishioner here, at the entrance of the said church at about five o’clock in the morning, the solemnities of our Mother the Church having been duly kept and observed, in the presence of Mathurin Chebrat, father of the said groom, Pierre Chebrat, Jehanne [Braudelle?], Loyse [Hude?], Jehan Guillon, Honoré Mazereau, Jehan Courtois, Catherine des Neiges, Marie [Charpentier?], [inked-out text], [Laine Vinier?], and several others.

Margin note:

Chebrat, natif de Mirebeau (“Chebrat, native of Mirebeau”) and Jacquet, natifve de ceans (“Jacquet, native of this parish)

Signatures below the entry:

Honoré Mazereau, Jehan Courtois, Catherine des Neiges, and [Chandor?], followed by curé susdit (“the aforesaid parish priest”). Brackets mark uncertain or obscured readings.

Mirebeau is in the Vienne department of France, between Poitiers and Loudun. It’s about 16 miles (26 km) north-northwest of Poitiers and 10 miles (17 km) southeast of La Chaussée by road.

If all of this is accurate, then Mathurin Chebrat was from Mirebeau, as were his two sons, Antoine and François. This certainly explains why Antoine Chebrat named his daughter Mathurine. It’s a very unusual name.

It appears that the two Jeanne Chebrats were first cousins.

The Chebrat family, writ large, seems to have been associated with Poitiers, while Antoine Chebrat became a miller, and at one time, worked in the mills belonging to d’Aulnay – making his daughter the most likely candidate of the two Jeannes to have been recruited for Acadia.

I’m not alone in my thoughts about this. White believed that to be the case too. The La Chaussee connection with d’Aulnay, and his recruitment for Acadia are the primary factors, so let’s move ahead with Jeanne’s life as best we can.

Jeanne’s Marriage

Unfortunately, parish records are missing in both La Chaussée and neighboring Martaize, where some think that Jeanne’s probable first husband, Jean Poirier’s family lived. French historian Geneviève Massignon, in her 1962 book, stated that Jean may have come from the Martaize area because Poirier appears, with the surnames of other Acadian settlers, among the censistaires, tenants paying taxes, to the estate of Charles d’Aulnay’s mother. Martaize, La Chaussee and Guesnes are all within four or five miles of each other, and the peasants wouldn’t necessarily have lived in the towns.

Clearly, we don’t know, but if Jeanne’s sister was born in the small “village of Guesne” around 1642, that would have been where Jeanne was living then too.

An old monastery and abbey once stood at Guesnes, and the town formed around them, along with two windmills.

Let’s take a little tour of the area.

This ancient church at Guesnes, on the road that’s still dirt, served as the monk’s chapel in the 1640s.

It wasn’t until 1671 that an agreement between the curé of Dercé and the priory at Guesnes granted permission to open a door towards the village so residents could attend mass here.

So while the Chebrat family probably passed this building often, it’s not where they attended church, not where their baby would have been baptized, nor where Jeanne Chebrat would have been married about the same time.

Philippe’s 1662 marriage record explicitly states that she was born in “le bourg,” the village, of Guesnes.

The 1765 Casini map shows mills here, and the 1813 cadastral map shows us two mills, both labeled.

The upper mill says “Moulin du vent,” windmill, then slightly to the right, we can see Moulin de Pain Perdu.”

The lower mill, shows an icon for a windmill, with the label beneath the La Briande stream which is labeled Moulin de Bay. Nothing is left of that mill or buildings today. The map of neighboring commune Monts-sur-Guesnes shows the actual Moulin de Bay, at least the water portion, just over the border. So if Philippe Chebrat was born in the village (bourg) of Guesnes, it would likely have been at the Moulin de Pain Perdu, not in the neighboring commune.

A “pain perdu” mill, means literally “lost bread” and is a metaphor referring to the financial ruin of the miller due to an intermittent or too small stream that made a water mill unreliable.

Because a miller’s entire livelihood depended on grinding grain into flour to make bread, a mill that stood idle meant no flour, no income, and no food. The investment and the labor were considered “lost bread,” wasted effort and lost sustenance.

This name could have been applied historically, because, as we see on the map, there is also a windmill to augment the watermill.

On today’s Google satellite view, using that three-pronged intersection as our anchor, we can clearly see the remains of the foundation of the windmill in a field. There’s no question about what this is. It aligns perfectly.

At the bottom of the image, we see the location where the stream crosses the road, which is the location of the mill labeled “Pain Perdu” which looks to span the creek.

This is the only candidate location for a home beside a mill location. Let’s see what’s left today.

Approaching the stream from the east, we can see the tiny brook with its little bridge. Of course, the mill race is gone today, but the evidence of it is not.

This building was probably part of the mill itself, tucked up against the creek. The heavy, finely dressed limestone blocks (pierres de taille) reinforced the corners of the building. This is classic 17th/18th-century Poitevin construction designed to withstand the immense vibrations and structural stress of a heavy waterwheel and turning millstones inside.

The corner blocks were staggered in their placement for additional structural reinforcement. This was not decorative. In watermills, the weight of the turning internal mechanism (the pit wheel, wallower, and massive stone grinding wheels) transferred immense kinetic energy into the structural frame. Without ashlar limestone blocks anchoring the building’s corners to lock the loose rubble-stone walls together under tension, the vibrations would cause the mortarless or weak-lime walls to slowly bow out and collapse.

The building is tucked down near the stream bed, utilizing the natural slope of the landscape to let water gravity-feed directly into or under the lower level where the wheel turned. That portion is gone today.

I’m not sure if this was actually the mill, or a secondary building while the mill itself crossed the actual stream. The stream channel may have been rerouted a bit, too.

I’d sure love to see this up close and personal. Jeanne’s sister, Philippe, was probably born here, and Jeanne would have lived here too.

It’s difficult to see into the farm compound today, but parts of the other buildings remain, while being shored up with modern materials.

I can see the local farmers with their carts pulled by oxen arriving with their grain. Perhaps the oxen got tied up by the barn and received some oats or maybe some barley while the men went about their business.

I don’t know if the current owners know this used to be where the local miller lived, but it’s still a working farm.

Looking across the road, which would have been a dirt path in the 1640s, we see the field that the Chebrat family would have seen. Then, grains were probably being grown here to be ground at the mill.

The church was not nearby. It didn’t matter how far they lived from their parish church, the family would have traveled there for Philippe’s baptism. Guesnes had both a monastery and an abbey, but the church that served the villagers was in the commune of Dercé.

Antoine and Françoise would have visited the Dercé parish church, five miles further north. You can see the interior, here. I’m struck by how much this church resembles the one at La Chaussee.

Given that Jeanne’s sister, Philippe, was born in “le bourg” of Guesnes, she assuredly was baptized here. Did her parents stand inside this building with her sister, Jeanne, as she married Jean Poirier, too?

Young French women generally married between 16 and 20, which would have placed Jeanne’s marriage sometime between 1643 and 1647, probably in France.

If Jean Poirier was her husband, that means that Marie Françoise Poirier, born about 1648, and Michel Poirier, born about 1650, were her children.

If Jean Poirier was Jeanne’s first husband, and Antoine Gougeon was her second husband, per the 1671 census and their daughter, Huguette Gougeon, was born about 1655, then Jean Poirier died before 1654.

In 1654, Jeanne Chebrat would have been 27 years old with two small children, no family, and no way to support herself in Acadia. In the terms of that place and time, she needed a husband. It took two to manage a farm and feed a family, and Jeanne’s family was all back in France.

I hope she wasn’t as terrified as I fear she was. In my own life, I remember those stunned days of “what next,” and I wasn’t one of maybe 80 adults in a far-away land.

Departure and Arrival

There’s a bit of deduction going on here, because we have no other choice. It would have been extremely unusual for a single female to travel to the New World alone. We know from later records that Jeanne’s parents did not immigrate, and her known brothers are accounted for. Could there be unknown siblings? Absolutely, but we’ve pieced what we can find together from multiple sources.

Jeanne isn’t mentioned in 1650 or any of the later records, but she was already in Acadia.

There were no other settlers in Acadia with the Chebrat or similar surnames, or at least none that lived to the first census or had children who did. So, it stands to reason that Jeanne married in France and that she and her new husband, recruited by d’Aulnay, set forth from La Rochelle to make their future in a new land sometime between 1643 and 1650 when d’Aulnay died.

The road from La Chaussée to La Rochelle was about 100 miles of unpaved oxcart pathway.

Before departing, the couples would have disposed of almost all of their belongings, except for the absolute essentials. Maybe an iron cooking pot if they were lucky, sewing tools, maybe seed grain, personal bedding, and their clothes. That was it.

Then, as reported by Massignon, the families who were leaving together would have gathered at the church in La Chaussée where the priest blessed them, and their journey, and they would have said final farewells to their families and neighbors. Of course, in a peasant farm community, everyone was their relative.

Belongings were loaded into either carts or wagons and the people walked alongside the fully loaded wagons as they traveled 10 or 15 miles each day.

As they looked back towards the church, the entire congregation would have been standing outside, in the roadway, waving until they were specks in the distance, then gone. Forever.

Jeanne’s mother must have sobbed her eyes out.

Jeanne knew beyond any doubt that she would never see her parents or siblings again. I’m sure the family had already discussed the possibility and potential of setting off for a new life in Acadia – but Jeanne’s parents were too old, and her older siblings obviously didn’t want to.

Not to mention that Antoine Chebrat was already well-established in the upper-peasant class as a master-miller and probably had absolutely no desire to start over again. Plus, Acadia may already have had enough millers. It was farmers and laborers that were needed.

Most of the road to La Rochelle was along fields and forests. For a week or maybe more, they would have spent their nights someplace on the road. Maybe a merchant’s yard, barn, tavern, or a church.

After about a week, barring any issues, they would have arrived in La Rochelle where they would have camped in the grassy area alongside the quay until the ship was ready to depart.

Their fate lay across the water, at the mercy of the sailors, the wind, and of course, God. Did they have second thoughts here?

They probably didn’t know how many people left these shores, but never saw the other side.

Before boarding the ship and sailing through the harbor gates, they would have attended church one last time. Just in case.

Finally, they boarded the ship and settled into their cramped quarters below. Families were packed into the area between decks. The ceiling was less than five feet, so many could not stand upright. This was a dark, damp, unventilated space that became wet with seawater seepage. They slept on straw pallets, and the lucky ones, in hammocks tied between support beams. And privacy? Guess again.

God help you if you were prone to seasickness.

Their rations for the next six to ten weeks, depending on the winds, and Heaven-forbid, storms, were primarily hardtack biscuits, salted pork, beef or fish, dried peas, and either stagnant, sometimes-wormy water or sour beer stored in wooden casks. Yum!!

They must have felt equal parts excitement and dread, mixed with a smattering of fear.

Excitement because their new life that they had heard so much about lay across those waters, outside the safety of the harbor. D’Aulnay had told them of the vast lands and open fields just waiting for them.

Dread because death lay there too.

And fear because so many things could go wrong.

This painting depicts the bustling La Rochelle harbor in 1762, and it probably didn’t look a lot different than it did in the 1640s when Jeanne sailed.

We don’t know exactly when Jeanne left France. We do know that d’Aulnay brought 20 additional families to Port Royal in 1641, and continued to bring families from the La Chaussée area on subsequent trips until his death in 1650.

That said, according to Stephen A. White, a sailor named Jean Poirier arrived in Acadia in 1641 on the ship Le Saint-François.

If this Jean Poirier was the husband of Jeanne Chebrat, she would only have been 14 in 1641. Was this her husband, either then or later? That’s unlikely at 14, but not unheard of. If she met Jean in Acadia – how did she get there? It’s extremely unlikely that she came alone.

Was it the handsome sailor, Jean Poirier, who convinced Jeanne to marry and join him in Acadia permanently? Had Poirier accompanied d’Aulnay back to La Rochelle and La Chaussée after one of their expeditions, perhaps? Did Jeanne marry with dreamy stars in her eyes?

Or, did Jean Poirier stay in Acadia and Jeanne arrived independently somehow?

Was Jean Poirier, the sailor, a completely different person from the Jehan (Jean) Poirier later referenced as the deceased father of Michel Poirier in 1671?

Or, was Jeanne Chebrat never married to Jean Poirier?

What does Stephen A. White have to say?

We have no definitive proof that the same Jeanne Chebrat baptized at La Chaussée in 1627 was in fact the wife of Jean Poirier and Antoine Gougeon. It is nevertheless highly possible that it is the same person, seeing that the Brun family of Acadia originated from the same parish. Furthermore, the Chebrats and Bruns appear to be allied, because the wife of Vincent Brun was a Breau, and Philippe Chebrat, sister of Jeanne, married the widower of a Breau.

I will also add that in Acadia, the Brun family lived just down the river maybe three miles from where Jeanne lived with Antoine Gougeon.

So many unanswered questions.

The 1671 Census

The first actual record we have of Jeanne Chebrat in Acadia is the 1671 census where she is recorded as age 45 and married to Antoine Gougeon. They have a 14-year-old daughter, Huguette Gougeon. They were doing well, with 20 cattle and 17 sheep on 10 arpents of land.

Here’s the unusual thing – Jeanne has no other children living in the household.

This had to be absolutely heartbreaking, because one must assume that Jeanne buried at least 4 children after Huguette’s birth, and probably 5 or 6.

In other households, there are two Poirier young adults listed.

If Jeanne married Jean Poirier around 1641 or 1642, gave birth to Marie Françoise Poirier around 1648 and Michel Poirier around 1650, she had probably lost two or three children before Marie Françoise was born, and possibly another child after Michel.

Her poor mother’s heart.

The Poirier Connection is Strange

Acadian males did not leave home to set up their own household until they married. Yet, in the 1671 census, enumerated one house away from Jeanne Chebrat and Antoine Gougeon, but not next door, we find Michel Poirier, age 20, a laborer, son of the deceased Jehan Poirier, with 2 cattle, no sheep, and no cultivated land. Michel is living alone and is noted as a laborer, which typically means farmer.

This is just so strange. How was Michel supporting himself? Where did he keep his cows? If he was Jeanne’s son, why wasn’t he living with her and pasturing his cows with theirs? If he is living on his father’s land, why wasn’t that now Jeanne’s land? Or was it Jeanne’s land? If so, then why did Michel live in a separate house at age 20?

Michel married quite young, about 1673, to Marie Boudrot, and they settled in Beaubassin.

In 1671, Marie Françoise Poirier, age 22, was married to Roger Kuessy, age 25, and they had one child, a daughter, age 2. They owned cattle and sheep, but had no cultivated land either. They too settled in Beaubassin shortly after the census.

Translated into reality, if these were Jeanne’s children, she probably never saw her daughter again. Women did not seem to come and go, probably due to children and households to run, but males did travel back and forth to trade some, so it’s possible that Jeanne would have seen Michel from time to time. He would have brought news of Marie Françoise and her children.

Maybe Jeanne recalled when she had said goodbye to her own mother at about the same age as her daughter when she left. At least Jeanne’s daughter wasn’t half a world away – so far that one would never even know when their family members passed away.

Widowed, Maybe for the Second Time

Widowed by the 1678 census, Jeanne Chebrat, now called “the widow Gougeon,” has six pairs of horned cattle on 12 arpents of land. Three younger children were living in her household, none of whom were enumerated with her in 1671, and could not have been her children. Two may have been her daughter Huguette’s children with Guillaume Blanchard, who happened to be at her house, or perhaps Jeanne had taken in orphans. Who knows?

Jeanne’s age is not given, but we know that she was 51 years old.

Jeanne’s Death

By the time the 1686 census rolled around, Jeanne was gone, so she died sometime between 1678 and 1686, and between 51 and 59 years of age. Certainly not “old” as we think of aged today.

The Unresolved Question

One question in particular keeps coming back to haunt me.

Why do people think Jeanne was married to Jean Poirier?

The Depositions of Belle-Île-en-Mer

After the 1755 Expulsion of the Acadians, a few Acadians, after a treacherous multi-leg, multi-year ordeal, managed to eventually make their way back to France, as paupers.

On Belle-Isle-en-Mer, depositions were taken in February 1767 to determine the genealogical history of the refugees and their paths to France to determine how much assistance the French government was going to render.

Given that this was 140 years and several generations after Jeanne Chebrat was born, and 112 years after Huguette Gougeon was born, it’s no wonder the refugees’ recollections were incomplete. Not to mention what they had been through.

Stephen A. White published the following information and analysis in 2005 about the descendants of Huguette Gougeon, Jeanne Chebrat’s confirmed daughter. I am grateful for the translation and transcription by Karen Theriot Reader.

Jean Blanchard came from France with his wife, according to Jean LeBlanc, husband of his great-granddaughter Françoise Blanchard (Doc. inéd., Vol. III, p. 43). The deposition of Françoise’s nephews Joseph and Simon-Pierre Trahan is to the same effect (ibid., p. 123). Both depositions mistakenly give Guillaume as the ancestor’s given name. Jean LeBlanc’s makes an additional error regarding the name of Jean Blanchard’s wife, calling her Huguette Poirier. The censuses of 1671 and 1686 meanwhile clearly show that she [Jean Blanchard’s wife] was named Radegonde Lambert (see DGFA-1, pp. 143-144). The source of these errors is probably a simple confusion arising from the fact that Jean LeBlanc’s wife’s grandfather Martin Blanchard had a brother Guillaume who was married to a woman named Huguette, as this writer explained in an article published in 1984 (SHA, Vol. XV, pp. 116-117). This Huguette was not named Poirier, however, but Gougeon, although her mother, Jeanne Chebrat, had married a man named Jean Poirier before she wed Huguette’s father Antoine Gougeon, and all her male-line descendants in Acadia were Poiriers. Unfortunately, we do not know just what questions Jean LeBlanc asked in trying to establish the Blanchard lineage, but he might certainly have had the impression that Huguette was a Poirier from the fact that so many of her relatives were Poiriers, including her grandnephew Joseph, who was also on Belle-Île in 1767 (see Doc. inéd., Vol. III, pp. 13-15).

White explains why he thinks that Huguette Gougeon was mistakenly called Huguette Poirier.

Here’s what Jean LeBlanc had to say.

Statement of Jean LeBlanc:

Jean LeBlanc dit Derico married in June 1726 to Françoise Blanchard, born in St. Charles Parish in May 1705 of Rene Blanchard of Cobequit and Anne Landry of Port Royal; Rene Blanchard issued from Martin and Marie LeBlanc and Martin Blanchard descended from Guillaume, who left France with his wife Huguet Poirier, settled at Port Royal and died there; Anne Landry was issue of Rene Landry, who came from France with Marie Bernard, his wife. Both died at Port Royal.

Of course, we know that Huguette Gougeon, who married Guillaume Blanchard, did not leave France with him, and we also know that Guillaume Blanchard was born in Port Royal about 1650 to Jean Blanchard and his wife, Radegonde Lambert.

This royal mix-up, a double error of blurred memory three and four generations later, is the source of the deduction originally made by Placide Gaudet that Jeanne Chebrat married Jean Poirier – and she may well have.

Is it possible that Huguette Gougeon was actually the child of Jean Poirier?

It is possible, and the census-taker erroneously recorded her as a Gougeon. Census-takers have been known to make mistakes before.

What Evidence Do We Have?

How could we tell if Huguette was a Poirier or a Gougeon?

We don’t have Huguette’s marriage record when she married Guillaume Blanchard about 1673 because the earliest parish records for the church in Port Royal begin in 1702.

However, Huguette’s death entry, recorded in 1717 by the local priest who would have known her, gives her name as Huguette Gougon, not Poirier.

The next unanswered question is whether Jeanne Chebrat was married to Jean Poirier.

Were Huguette Gougeon and Marie Françoise Poirier Half Sisters?

If Huguette Gougeon and Marie Françoise Poirier were not (at least) half sisters, then Jeanne Chebrat was not married to Jean Poirier.

Jeanne Chebrat contributed her mitochondrial DNA to all of her children, but only females pass it on.

Several descendants of her daughter, Huguette Gougeon, have taken mitochondrial DNA tests and are haplogroup HV4a1a4+152. These results represent the mitochondrial DNA of Jeanne Chebrat.

However, according to WikiTree’s known descendants of Marie Françoise Poirier, one granddaughter who carries Marie’s mitochondrial DNA has descendants who are eligible to take that test.

If their mitochondrial DNA results match those of Huguette Gougeon’s descendants, then we have our answer. If they don’t match, then we know Jeanne Chabrat was not the mother of the Poirier children.

Marie Poirier and Roger Kuessy or Caissie had three daughters, two of whom, the eldest and youngest, were apparently both named Marie.

  • Marie Caissie, the eldest, was born about 1669, married Toussaint Doucet, and had five known daughters who survived to marry and have children.
    • Marie, born about 1692, married Germain Girouard and had 4 daughters. Several of her descendants are eligible to test for her mitochondrial DNA.
    • Anne, born about 1697 in Beaubassin, married Denis Gaudet and Jean Bertrand, and died in France. Her daughter’s lines have not been extended to the present, but she may have candidates as well.
    • Marguerite, born about 1702, married Paul Doiron, 3 daughters but lines lost after Expulsion
    • Madeleine, born about 1714, married Pierre Richard, had two known daughters but no further information is known.
    • Marguerite, born about 1717, married Francois Borel, had no known surviving children.
  • Madeleine, born about 1688, is found in the 1700 census, but appears to have died between 1703 and 1707. Either that or she married and disappeared.
  • Marie, the younger, born about 1697, had only one known surviving daughter, who had no known surviving daughters.

The Miller’s Daughter’s Legacy

Jeanne Chebrat’s life was extraordinary. A peasant French girl whose life stretched from the cold February winds of the Saires plateau across the Atlantic to the tidal coastlines of Nova Scotia and wheatfields of Belle Isle.

Jeanne watched her world divide the day she left the church at La Chaussée, bound for La Rochelle, and again at the quay of La Rochelle, knowing she would never return to her family and the towering windmills of her youth. Sometimes we don’t fully appreciate something until it’s irretrievably in the past.

When she stepped down into the dark tween-decks of a nameless merchant ship, Jeanne also stepped into her role as one of the foundational mothers of Acadia.

I wish we knew more about Jeanne’s life. She survived the notoriously difficult Atlantic passage, and widowhood, probably twice, and helped transform the traditions of the Poitou into the fabric of Acadian life.

Today, her blood flows through thousands of descendants, a living testament to a young woman from La Chaussée who braved the open sea to plant deep, unyielding roots in a new world. She left everything familiar, everything she knew behind with the hope of building something better. Perhaps she carried an adventurer’s soul.

But there’s one mystery left that can be solved.

Are You the Answer to the Final Mystery?

While historical records, maps, and notarial agreements helped us piece together a paper trail, we need genetic genealogy to take us the last mile.

The female-line descendants of Jeanne’s daughter, Huguette Gougeon, have been verified by several testers who have taken the mitochondrial DNA test.

To definitively lock the puzzle pieces together and confirm that indeed, Jeanne Chebrat did marry Jean Poirier, and give birth to Marie Françoise Poirier, we need to test a direct, unbroken female-line descendant of Marie Françoise Poirier.

If you trace your lineage through an unbroken mother-to-mother pathway back to Marie Françoise Poirier, you are a vital keeper of this historical link. If this fits you, and you have already taken a mitochondrial DNA test, please let me know.

If anyone, male or female in the current generation, descends from Marie through all females, I have a free DNA testing scholarship for you. This scholarship covers the entire cost of a mitochondrial DNA test at FamilyTreeDNA for a verified candidate.

If you take the test and match the other testers who descend from Huguette, we will  prove that these two Acadian dynasties are actually one, sharing a single, brave mother.

If you qualify or need help reviewing your family tree to find out, please reach out.

Let’s bring Jeanne this last mile home together.

_____________________________________________________________

Share the Love!

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

Subscribe!

If you haven’t already subscribed, it’s free. You’ll receive an e-mail whenever I publish by clicking the “follow” button at the top of the main blog page, here.

Help Keep This Blog Free

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

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Uploads

Genealogy Products and Services

My Books

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

Antoine Gougeon (c1626 – 1671/1678), Shared Land and an Unsolved Mystery – 52 Ancestors #488

The first actual record we find of Antoine Gougeon is the 1671 Acadian census record, where he is enumerated in Port Royal, Acadia.

Click on any image to enlarge

The area included in Port Royal wasn’t just the town, but the fertile tidal marshes and communities all up and down la Rivière du Dauphin, today’s Annapolis River.

Antoine Gougeon is listed as a farmer, age 45, with his wife, Jeanne Chebrat, who is also 45, and their daughter Huguette, age 14. They have 20 cattle and 17 sheep on 10 arpents of land.

It’s difficult to determine exactly where the family was living, because listed next to them is Barbe Bajolet, a widow who had married Savien de Courpon in La Rochelle, France. He was a mariner and sea captain. We don’t know where Barbe lived in Port Royal, but it was probably in or near the actual town. She had some cattle and sheep, but no land.

Next to Barbe we find Michel Poirier, a bachelor, aged 20, son of the deceased Jehan Poirier, with 2 cattle, no sheep, and no cultivated land.

Michel Poirier is reported to be the son of Jeanne Chebrat, which would mean he’s Antoine’s stepson, but I’m not entirely convinced.

Next on the census is Daniel LeBlanc, the founder of the LeBlanc Village at Belle Isle. Now that’s a HUGE clue, because we know where Daniel lives – upriver at Belle Isle.

Pierre Commeau, an aged cooper, is listed on the other side of Antoine Gougeon. We know the Commeau family lives on the south side of the river, about 3 or 4 miles upriver from Port Royal, while Daniel LeBlanc lived 9 or 10 miles upriver on the north side of the river.

I’m not convinced that the 1671 census is listed in house-by-house order, although some portions may be.

What Does the 1671 Census Tell Us?

The 1671 census tells us that both Antoine and Jeanne were born around 1626, before Isaac de Razilly brought the first Acadian settler families in 1632, so they were both born in France.

It also tells us that Antoine and Jeanne were married by about 1656, given that their daughter is listed as age 14, which puts her birth around 1657. In later census years, Huguette’s age was fairly consistently given with her birth year as 1655, so they were probably married about 1654ish.

Regardless, this census tells us that Antoine and Jeanne have been married at least 15 years.

It’s curious that they don’t have any other children. I would have expected additional children aged 12, 10, 8, 6, probably 4, and maybe 2.

We also know that Antoine was in Acadia before July of 1654 when the English attacked Port Royal and defeated the French. From 1654 until 1670, Acadia was in the possession of the English, and no French settlers arrived from France during that time.

Therefore, Antoine had to have already been in Acadia before then, and he wasn’t an unmarried soldier, or he would have been shipped back to France in 1654 when the fort and the rest of Acadia fell.

Port Royal Falls

Antoine may or may not have been married by July of 1654 when Puritan English Colonel Robert Sedgwick sailed into the river basin, below the fort at Port Royal. Planning to attack the Dutch at New York, his plans were foiled when peace was unexpectedly declared, so he decided to attack Acadia instead. Not only was he “all dressed up with no place to go,” as a merchant, he wanted to secure the fur trade and fishing resources for New England, and by proxy, England.

Sedgwick commanded some 750 soldiers who greatly outnumbered the 133 French soldiers quartered at the fort in Port Royal. Needless to say, Port Royal, and by extension, the rest of Acadia, was in an indefensible position.

The official Governor, Charles de La Tour, had surrendered at his own fort on the St. Jean River and was taken captive by Sedgwick. The garrison at Port Royal knew it.

Therefore, with their Governor already held captive, Emmanuel Le Borgne de Belle-Isle and Germain Doucet de la Verdure negotiated surrender terms.

Le Borgne was a wealthy and corrupt French merchant banker who was in Port Royal attempting to collect Charles d’Aulnay’s debts, then owed by Charles de La Tour following his 1653 marriage to d’Aulnay’s widow.

Doucet did the best he could under the circumstances, but he was sent back to France with the soldiers, while Le Borgne, who was believed to be treasonous and in cahoots with the English, negotiated extremely lucrative terms for himself. He was allowed to keep his ship that was filled with valuable alcohol, and all of his land. His sons were allowed to stay “as hostages” to watch over his property and business interests.

The surrender terms included that the Acadians’ property would remain in their possession and undamaged, but unfortunately, the English did not honor their promises. Port Royal was plundered and burned, including their beloved Catholic church.

Of course, we don’t know if Antoine had already married and might have been upriver working his land, or if he was in Port Royal.

If he was upriver, the English didn’t venture that far during their rampage, so he would have been discouraged and depressed, but safe.

Later that summer, English pirates visited again and killed whatever livestock was left. It was going to be a very rough winter.

What Else Do We Know About Acadia Around 1654?

Nicolas Denys, a French merchant and early Acadian settler was assaulted, chained and held captive at the fort in Port Royal in 1653 and 1654 by Le Borgne as a result of violent regional trade wars. During that time, he kept journals where he recorded that:

“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 “great meadow” is Belle Isle which was, in fact, owned by d’Aulnay’s widow, who was at that time Madame de La Tour.

Additionally, Denys estimated that there were about 270 residents in 1654, which would translate to maybe a total of 38 or 39 families if each family had an average of five children.

We know that between 1651 and 1654, Emmanuel Le Borgne (Jr.) granted land that had been dyked and drained at Belle Isle by Charles d’Aulnay before his untimely death in 1650.

We also know that in 1671, Antoine Gougeon was farming land, but until recently, we didn’t know when or how he acquired that land. Had it been granted to him, or perhaps to Jeanne Chebrat’s first husband, assuming she was the wife of Jehan Poirier?

Antoine Gougeon’s Land

In 1994, Stephen White prepared a “37 Families” document for the Acadian Congress, which was essentially a large family reunion where Acadian descendants from around the world reunited. Lucie LeBlanc Consentino, on her website, translated a portion of Stephen’s document, as follows:

The jointly-owned land mentioned below leads researchers to believe that there existed a bond of some kind between Antoine Gougeon and his son-in-law Guillaume Blanchard on one side of the family and with Daniel LeBlanc on the other. The nature of the connection is unknown.

When I wrote the article about Guillaume Blanchard and tallied his land, it appeared that he might have wound up with the land that Antoine was farming.

But White provides another tidbit, which I’ve reformatted according to his commentary here about the 1734 English Rent Roll records.

First Grantees 1734 Present Possessors
Land Tract 1 Daniel LeBlanc and Guillaume Blanchard John Prince (probably Jean LePrince) and Pierre Godet
Land Tract 2 Daniel LeBlanc and Antoine Goujon pay one Den par Arpent Guillaume Blanchard, Joseph LeBlanc and his brethren

It’s worth noting that I don’t have access to those rent rolls and if we did, we might be able to extract additional valuable information.

Land Labeled as Tract 1

Land that I’ve labeled as Land Tract 1 was originally granted to Daniel LeBlanc (c1626-c1698) and Guillaume Blanchard (c1650-c1717), the father, not to be confused with Guillaume’s son by the same name.

Guillaume Blanchard’s wife, Huguette Gougeon, was the daughter of Antoine Gougeon and Jeanne Chebrat.

Guillaume Blanchard was the son of Jean Blanchard and Radegonde Lambert.

Daniel LeBlanc, whose parents are unknown, was married to Françoise Gaudet, the daughter of Jean Gaudet (c1575-after 1671) and an unknown mother.

We know where this beautiful land was located at Belle Isle. I took this panoramic view standing near Hebb’s Landing, just upriver from the Gougeon/Blanchard land. We are standing where they stood, looking across the river.

By 1734, this tract had passed into the hands of Jean LePrince (1692-1750/1762) and Pierre Gaudet/Godet (1654-1741), the grandson of Jean Gaudet. Jean LePrince was the son-in-law of Guillaume Blanchard.

Pierre Gaudet married Marie Blanchard (1656-1714), Guillaume Blanchard’s sister. So, both families were in this area quite early.

According to this 1757 map, drawn from a 1733 map with additional information added, Jean LePrince’s land is across the river from Gaudet Village, the original land granted to Jean Gaudet. This could explain the 1734 land possession, perhaps, and might also be a clue about the multiple lawsuits that Jean LePrince was engaged in – all having to do with property.

Jean LePrince (also spelled Le Prince, Prince, and similar variants) purchased land in 1731 at or near Paradis Terrestre, at far right, above, near where he already lived. Paradis Terrestre is mentioned on the rent rolls, but only as an existing “village,” but it’s not clear how it’s associated with the land owners.

Jean LePrince’s grandmother was Marie Gaudet, the daughter of Jean Gaudet. She had married Étienne Hébert, and the Héberts originally lived on the south side of the river, but in time expanded to both sides.

Land Labeled as Tract 2

The 1734 rent roll shows that Antoine Gougeon and Daniel LeBlanc originally held a joint land interest in Tract 2 that later passed to Guillaume Blanchard (c1690-1752), the son, and to Joseph LeBlanc and his brethren, who would be Daniel LeBlanc’s heirs, sometime before 1734. There were three Joseph LeBlanc males living at that time, but two were in Grand Pré. The third, Joseph LeBlanc, born in 1698, was the son of Pierre LeBlanc, the son of Daniel LeBlanc – all of whom lived at Belle Isle.

Daniel LeBlanc and Antoine Gougeon were contemporaries, both born in France, and unfortunately, we don’t know why they obtained a joint interest in this land. It could have been coincidence, or convenience, a financial deal, or it could have been something more.

The information recorded by Nicolas Denys may provide some indirect insight into how long Antoine Gougeon had actually been in Acadia. We know that de Razilly brought the initial settlers between 1632 and 1635, when he died, and Charles d’Aulnay became his successor. Antoine, born about 1626, was far too young to come by himself at that time.

At about 15, Antoine was still too young to come alone when d’Aulnay brought 20 more families in 1641, unless he came with his parents, who died before he came of age, and left no other children with the Gougeon surname. Antoine could also have arrived as a servant.

Depending on when Antoine arrived, he may or may not have fought in the Acadian Civil War when Charles LaTour and Charles d’Aulnay waged their final battle for control of Acadia in 1645. If so, he would have been about 19.

Daniel LeBlanc was born about the same time, 1626, and married Françoise Gaudet (1623-1699) around 1650.

Guillaume Blanchard, Antoine Gougeon’s son-in-law, was born about 1650 to Jean Blanchard and Radegonde Lambert. Jean and Radegonde lived near the fort in Port Royal, but the 1678 census shows them living with Guillaume and Huguette upriver by the LeBlanc family. This land-grant history makes perfect sense, especially when you consider that the details were being recalled in 1734, some 80 years later.

Questions

All of that said, I am left with a quandary. If Tract 1 was originally granted to Guillaume Blanchard and Daniel LeBlanc, this means it was granted to Guillaume after he married, which is when Acadian males moved from their parents’ homes. In the 1671 census, Guillaume is living with his parents, so had not yet married.

That would place the Tract 1 land grant around 1673 when he and Huguette married. Why wasn’t this land granted to Guillaume’s father, Jean, who was still living at that time? Jean is listed first, before Guillaume, in the 1678 census, inferring he is the head of household – but that could simply be circumstantial.

Why was this prime farmland not granted in the 1650s or 1660s? Why was it granted what appears to be a generation later than Tract 2 that was granted to Daniel LeBlanc and Antoine Gougeon? This would make sense if Guillaume Blanchard had married Daniel LeBlanc’s daughter, but he didn’t.

Given that Le Borgne Jr., who was doing the granting, was known to drink – a lot – and even spent some time in jail in 1689 due to his drunken land deals, maybe we’ll just have to chalk this up to way too much wine.

A Hint from France

One hint about the Acadians that might provide insight into both Antoine Gougeon and Daniel LeBlanc is found in a paper published by Gregory Kennedy.

Kennedy asks questions about why the founding Acadian group chose the rare occupation of marshland farming, and how they knew how to do it. Kennedy says:

Early colonial leaders Isaac de Rasilly and Charles de Menou hired a group of salt-making experts in 1635, but this does not explain why virtually all of the colonists chose to pursue and expand marshland farming around the Bay of Fundy. It was in many ways a strange choice.  It took years to drain and desalinate the marshland, and the fields were perpetually vulnerable to breaches in the dykes caused by storms or raiders. It also required technical expertise as well as careful planning and regular upkeep. Surely the colonists must have had some previous knowledge of marshland farming?

Kennedy found his answer on early maps of similar marshlands in Martaizé, the heartland of where we now know many of the original Acadian families lived – in the parishes of Aulnay, La Chaussée, and Martaizé. Both Isaac de Razilly and Charles de Menou d’Aulnay were the Seigneurs of La Chaussée and recruited settlers from there.

Kennedy found evidence of these Martaizé marshes on multiple historic French maps, along with further evidence that the land was drained, then leased out to wealthy families for cultivation using the same methods employed by Acadians.

Many Acadian families originated in La Chaussée, having been recruited by d’Aulnay, including the parents of Antoine Gougeon’s wife, Jeanne Chebrat. I wrote about Acadian families and La Chaussee, here.

Are Daniel LeBlanc and Antoine Gougeon Related?

Since their tract of land was awarded jointly, Daniel LeBlanc and Antoine Gougeon may have been related or allied through connections back in France.

Dispensations of consanguinity would be our telltale clue. If Acadians related as closely as 3rd cousins wished to marry, canonical law required them to receive a priest’s dispensation before the marriage could take place.

Dispensations of Consanguinity

Fortunately, when priests granted dispensations of consanguinity, they recorded them in the marriage record. When the parish register still exists, we can find that information. These are genealogy goldmines!

Dispensations of consanguinity can be a bit confusing, so I created a reference chart. Please note that this does not imply that a dispensation would ever be granted for full siblings to marry. That was strictly forbidden, but dispensations were granted for first cousins to marry. This table depicts how the dispensation and relationship counting works.

Bride/Groom Relationship Direct Common Ancestor Generational Distance Degree of Consanguinity
Full Siblings Parents 1 gen 1st degree
1st Cousins (1C) Grandparents 2 gen 2nd degree
2C Great-grandparents 3 gen 3rd degree
3C GG-grandparents 4 gen 4th degree
4C (dispensation not required) GGG-grandparents 5 gen 5th degree (not required)

In circumstances where the number of generations to the common ancestor is uneven, so one person is at the 4th generation (3C) level, where a dispensation would be necessary, but the other is at the 5th generation, where a dispensation would not be necessary, the priest counts the longest leg. So, in this example, the couple would NOT need a dispensation, although I have seen some granted at that level.

If the couple shares two different couples as common ancestors, say at the 4th generation level, the priest notes two impediments and grants dispensations for each one separately.

Back to Daniel and Antoine

Since it’s safe to say that Antoine Gougeon and Daniel LeBlanc aren’t full siblings, and extremely unlikely to be paternal half-siblings, let’s say their mothers were sisters, which would make them first cousins.

Antoine and Daniel’s grandchildren would be 3rd cousins and would still need dispensations to marry. By the time either the bride or groom reached the fifth generation, or 4th cousins, no dispensation was required.

Figuring dispensations must have been the bane of priests, because it certainly is for genealogists.

For genealogists, it means looking up all the children and grandchildren of both Antoine and Daniel, along with their spouses. Each spouse’s ancestors also have to be checked to see if they have the other family in their line.

Antoine only had one child, Huguette, but Daniel had six children that lived to adulthood and gave him 50 grandchildren who lived to marry and have children of their own.

Finding intermarriages between the two families before 1702 doesn’t matter in this case, because unfortunately, the Acadian parish records prior to 1702 no longer exist, so any dispensations of consanguinity between any of their descendants who married don’t exist either.

However, some of their grandchildren were married later when parish registers do exist.

So yes, I spent several days chasing the descendants of both men.

Given the intermarriage patterns of the Belle Isle families, it’s hard to believe that I did not find one single intermarriage between the descendants of Daniel LeBlanc and Antoine Gougeon’s daughter, Huguette, who married Guillaume Blanchard.

I did find six intermarriages with people who descended from Guillaume Blanchard’s sister, Marguerite. Of those, only two took place at a time and in a place that have extant parish records. Those two were in Port Royal, and the dispensation was as expected for their common relationship in the Blanchard line through Guillaume’s sister. Unfortunately, this tells us nothing about any relationship with Antoine Gougeon or Huguette.

A seventh marriage, between Madeleine Bourg and Jean LePrince in 1762 in Bécancour, Quebec, held promise.

Thankfully, the parish record exists, and the priest granted a 3rd degree dispensation.

Year 1762, the fifteenth of February, after having published three banns of marriage between Jean LePrince, son of Jean LePrince and of Jeanne Blanchard, deceased of Port-Royal, his father and mother, and Marie Madeleine Bourg, widow of Pierre Richard, daughter of Michel Bourg and of Marie Cormier, her father and mother, also deceased, residents of Beaubassin, after having obtained dispensation for the third degree [of consanguinity], we received their mutual consent of marriage and gave them the nuptial blessing, in the presence of the parents and a large number of other persons, they declared not knowing how to sign.

By comparing their genealogy, I should be able to find their common ancestor three generations back in time. I’m so excited. Maybe the answer lies here!

The wonderful news is that all of the ancestors of Madeleine Bourg have been documented through the 5th generation, which is one generation beyond where dispensations are required!

Using this WikiTree Ancestor’s view, their common ancestor should be found in the 4th column.

Now for Jean-Baptiste’s list.

Here we go! Who matches in the 4th column?

No one.

Wait?! What?

There is only one possible connection. Since we know who Madeleine’s ancestors are, and we know all but two of Jean-Baptiste LePrince’s ancestors at this level, their common ancestor COULD BE one or both of the missing LePrince couple. This means the male would carry the LePrince surname, which none of Madeleine’s ancestors do. So, could one of Madeleine’s female ancestors have been married twice? Let’s look at each one and see if that’s possible.

Jacques LePrince was born about 1646, possibly in France, and he had married Marguerite Hébert by 1671. So, his father would have been born no later than 1626, and his mother probably no later than 1630. They would have married by about 1645.

So, checking Madeleine’s female ancestors three generations back in time, we have as candidates:

  • Marguerite Boudrot was born in 1648, so she’s eliminated.
  • Marie Dugas was also born about 1648, so she’s eliminated.
  • Marie Madeleine Girouard was born about 1654, so she’s eliminated.
  • Catherine Hébert was born about 1656, so she’s eliminated.

Ok, so let’s look one generation further out, in the last column, just in case.

Madeleine Bourg’s side Jean-Baptiste LePrince’s side
Daniel LeBlanc
Françoise Gaudet Jean Gaudet, father of Marie Gaudet, his ancestor, and also Françoise Gaudet
Antoine Hébert Unknown Hébert, father of Étienne Hébert, his ancestor, and also Antoine Hébert
Genevieve Lefranc (not LeBlanc)

For dispensations, this generation doesn’t matter, but I have to know. There are still no common ancestors, but there are common families offset by a generation. This is may well be the source of the confusion.

As we sit here scratching our heads, let’s think about the circumstances under which these people married in Quebec in 1762.

They had both been caught up in the devastating expulsion of 1755 when they were ripped from their homes and families and lost literally everything. They had somehow managed to survive inhumane, horrific circumstances. Each had lost their spouse, and they probably lost children.

Based on what we know about Madeleine, after her husband, Pierre Richard, was deported to South Carolina without his family, she fled with her three small children, seeking safety. After multiple stops, she found her way to Prince Edward Island, where Pierre somehow made his way back and located her. They boarded a ship for Quebec, but a smallpox epidemic was raging, and he died there in 1758. She went on to Bécancour and was, with her siblings, one of that city’s founders.

Jean-Baptiste LePrince probably crossed the frozen North Mountain in Acadia in December of 1755 and survived that horrible, starvation winter encamped on the beach at Morton. From there, in the spring of 1756, he and his three small children, possibly accompanied by his wife, made their way across the bay, then somehow across Quebec. His wife perished sometime between 1753, when their last child was baptized at Port Royal, and September of 1756 when his child died in the smallpox epidemic that ravaged the Acadian population in Quebec City. The fact that there is no burial at Port Royal suggests that his wife was pregnant during their escape or had a newborn infant. I can’t even begin to imagine what she endured. Jean-Baptiste made his way from Quebec City to Bécancour by 1762 when he married Madeleine.

These people had been severely traumatized!

The priest in Bécancour didn’t know their families, so he would have needed to rely on their collective family memories about their ancestors.

In 1762, after everything they had been through, they were trying to remember who their great-grandparents were, people who had been born in the 1640s and early 1650s. More than a century earlier. They probably both knew that they descended from the Hébert and Gaudet families, 3 or 4 generations earlier in Acadia, but perhaps they couldn’t remember exactly how. The priest probably figured better safe than sorry and granted the third-degree dispensation, just in case.

So much for unraveling the mystery of whether Antoine Gougeon and Daniel LeBlanc were related. This well has run dry. Short of discovering records in France that connect Daniel LeBlanc and Antoine Gougeon, we’ll never know.

Please forgive that very long detour. At least we know we’ve left no stone unturned on this particular rocky path. And you know how to do this yourself now too!

The 1678 Census

In the 1678 census, Jeanne Chebrat is only listed as “the widow Gougeon.” She has six cattle, but no sheep and no arpents of land.

If she was 45 in 1671, she would have been 52 in 1678. Her daughter Huguette had already married Guillaume Blanchard around 1673.

There are two boys and a girl enumerated with Jeanne Chebrat, aka Widow Gougeon, but they cannot be her children based on their omission from the 1671 census. The girl, age 6, had not yet been born in 1671, and it’s highly unlikely that Jeanne had her final child at age 46.

I reconciled the 1671 and 1678 censuses, and even looked at the 1686 census, and the most logical explanation is that some of Jeanne’s Blanchard grandchildren, Huguette’s children, who lived on the same property, managed to be enumerated with her. It’s also possible that she had taken in orphans to raise.

In any case, they aren’t Antoine Gougeon’s children.

Antoine Is Gone

We don’t know when Antoine died, other than it was between the 1671 and 1678 censuses and he was between 45 and 52 – certainly too young for “old age” to take him.

While there were armed conflicts in both 1645 and 1654, there was nothing of this nature between 1671 and 1678 that would hint at his death.

We also know Antoine lived upriver because he’s listed as one of the original grantees of the Belle Isle marshland, and we recognize the neighbors.

St. Laurent Church and Cemetery

The St. Laurent church was built at Belle Isle sometime around 1654, after the English took Port Royal and burned the church beside the fort, so the Gougeon family would have worshiped at St. Laurent and buried family members in the cemetery beside the little church.

The church in Port Royal wasn’t rebuilt until sometime after 1673, and by then, their home church would clearly have been St. Laurent for almost two decades. It was nearby, it was theirs, and it might have been built on their land.

The parish record is long gone, but Antoine would have been laid to rest here, just beyond the bend in the river where the St. Laurent Mass House was located.

The church and cemetery are lost forever, but Antoine Gougeon’s memory is not. He still rests here in peaceful, serene Belle Isle, near or perhaps on the land that he and Daniel LeBlanc once farmed together. The world has moved on, but time is frozen here, where Antoine is still at home.

FOCUS: Step 2 – Finding the Y-DNA and Mitochondrial DNA of Your Ancestors

This is the third article in our FOCUS series, providing step-by-step instructions for identifying brick-walled ancestors.

These two articles detail the initial steps:

By now, you will have selected the ancestor you want to focus on identifying, and you have tools in your toolkit for working with DNA matches who have no trees.

You may have ordered DNA tests from multiple vendors and are waiting on results, so while you wait, we’ll start with finding the Y-DNA and mitochondrial DNA of your ancestors and identifying DNA testing candidates.

While it may sound counterintuitive, we’re going to be working with all of the major vendors, including FamilyTreeDNA, who actually tests for Y-DNA and mitochondrial DNA, plus WikiTree, 23andMe, MyHeritage, Ancestry, GEDmatch and FamilySearch. They are all quite useful in different ways.

This Type of Searching Is Different

Normally, when we search for brick-walled ancestors, we are searching backward in time. In other words, we begin with the last person we know and work back from there, hoping to identify the previous generation.

If we don’t know Lucy’s birth surname and she was born about 1750, and married William Moore in the late 1770s, we begin with what we do know in that timeframe.

Searching for our ancestor’s Y-DNA or mitochondrial DNA, and testers who carry that DNA, is fundamentally different because we begin with that ancestor and work forward in time.

In other words, if we want to find Lucy’s mitochondrial DNA, we begin with her daughters and track forward in time to the present. Hopefully, someone has already tested, and we can locate that result, but if not, we need to find people who descend through a specific path that carry Lucy’s mitochondrial DNA.

If we were searching for the Y-DNA of William Moore, we would look for his direct paternal descendant males who would carry the Moore surname.

Chicken or Egg?

I’ve been debating whether I should show you:

  1. How to locate and identify the Y-DNA and mitochondrial DNA of your ancestors first, or
  2. How to use Y-DNA and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) to help break through your brick wall first

I decided to write the “how to locate” article first because I don’t want you to skim over and ignore the ‘how to use’ article, thinking it’s irrelevant to your research because you don’t carry the Y-DNA and/or mtDNA of your brick-walled ancestor.

There are lots of avenues to locate the Y-DNA or mitochondrial DNA of your ancestors, something you definitely want to do. You’ll soon see that Y-DNA and mtDNA information can also assist with autosomal DNA results.

These are all pieces of your ancestor’s puzzle, and you never know which one will be the one to topple that wall.

Plus, you don’t know what you don’t know about that ancestor.

Let’s jump right in!

Who Carries the Y-DNA and Mitochondrial DNA of Your Ancestor?

As a quick refresher, only men can test for Y-DNA because only men have a Y chromosome which is inherited from their father. It’s passed in a direct paternal line from father to son, never mixed with DNA from the mother. Because it’s never divided during recombination like autosomal DNA, it’s uniquely useful for connecting lineages both recently and back in time hundreds and thousands of years.

Both Y-DNA and mitochondrial DNA incur occasional mutations that function as genetic breadcrumbs, making them incredibly useful for reassembling those specific family lines where genealogy paper trails have broken or been interrupted.

Mitochondrial DNA is passed from mothers to their children of both sexes, but only daughters pass it on. This means that in the current generation, males and females can both test for the mtDNA of their direct, mother-to-mother, matrilineal line.

Anyone, including males, who descends from an ancestor through all females can test for that ancestor’s mitochondrial DNA.

If you’re lucky, you’ll carry the Y-DNA or mitochondrial DNA of the ancestor you are seeking. If not, you’ll need to do one of two things:

  1. Determine if someone has already tested for that ancestor
  2. If not, find candidates to test

Y-DNA is generally easier because you at least (hopefully) have a surname to work with that has been passed from father to son, along with their Y chromosome.

Mitochondrial DNA is more challenging since surnames change each generation, so I’ve included several mitochondrial examples. Don’t skip over them, because the same research techniques apply to Y-DNA too, especially difficult cases.

If you’re a male, I strongly recommend that you order:

If you’re a female, you can only order the mtFull test, but you may be able to ask your father or brother or a male relative (with the surname in the lineage you seek) to take the Big Y-700 to represent your father’s family line. In other words, if you’re looking for a male Estes, you can ask your 2C Estes male who descends in a direct paternal line of all Estes men from your common ancestor.

Complete Versus Partial Tests

Haplogroup-only results derived from autosomal tests are fine as far as they go – but they don’t go very far. Most are what I would call midrange, providing testers with a haplogroup from maybe 2000 years ago, and some are much more distant than that. That isn’t to say they can’t be useful in a limited capacity, but Y-DNA and mtDNA have so much more potential.

You need comprehensive Y-DNA and mtDNA test results that identify all your haplogroup-defining mutations and can be refined as more people test and match family-level mutations.

Haplogroups are important, but you also need to match with other testers. Additionally, you’ll want the most complete haplogroup possible, because it will help you genealogically by providing a complete breadcrumb trail with the ability to identify your most recent common ancestor (MRCA).

FamilyTreeDNA is the only vendor that offers these complete tests that include matching with other testers, plus additional genealogy tools.

The Big Y-700 test scans for mutations in the stable portion of the Y chromosome and is the only way to obtain that personal-level information. It’s those recent mutations that will help place you within a biological family – or eliminate you from other lines, which prevents barking up the wrong tree.

The benefit of taking the test yourself, or sponsoring a test for someone willing to share their results with you, is that you have ready access to information through FamilyTreeDNA’s tools such as:

  • Matches with other Y-DNA and mtDNA testers
  • Matches Map (ancestor locations)
  • Advanced Matching, which provides a filtered list of people who match you on BOTH your Y-DNA or mitochondrial DNA AND your Family Finder autosomal test
  • Haplotype clusters (for mtDNA)
  • Your mutations
  • Block Tree (for Y-DNA)
  • Customized Discover tools

Click any image to enlarge

  • Discover’s Advanced Tools like the Match Time Tree, shown above, which displays your matches with their earliest known ancestors (EKA) together on the Time Tree
  • Globetrekker™ (for Y-DNA with mtDNA coming soon)
  • Up to 30 Ancient Connections
  • Up to 20 Notable Connections

FamilyTreeDNA’s free Discover tool, here, provides public information for everyone about haplogroups, but if you haven’t taken the test, you won’t receive matching and customized information described above, which is essential to genealogy.

Upgrades for Partial Tests

You may have previously tested at a lower level at FamilyTreeDNA.

For mtDNA, the early mtPlus test examined a portion of the mitochondria and provided matching at lower levels, as do the 12-111 marker Y-DNA tests. Both provide a predicted high-level basic or midrange haplogroup based on the mutation information available in those limited tests.

If you took an earlier, partial test, you can sign on to your account to upgrade by clicking on the “Big Y,” even though it’s greyed out. Grey simply indicates that you don’t currently have that level of test.

Click on “Full” to upgrade to the mtFull test.

Test Features at Various Levels

Depending on the type of test you take, and at which vendor, you may have a fully refined or partial haplogroup.

Discover provides a substantial amount of information if you receive a partial haplogroup:

A partial haplogroup is better than no haplogroup, but it’s also like working with one hand tied behind your back. If at all possible, you need to work with a full haplogroup and matches.

Testers who click through to Discover from their own test, or a test they manage, can view additional features not available in the free version.

The table below shows the four different ways you can access and view your ancestor’s haplogroup. Based on the testing level and/or how they tested, the haplogroup level will vary.

Clearly, the best scenario is when you either take the Big Y-700 or mtFull test yourself, or you have access to the test results of someone who takes that test to represent your ancestor’s DNA. Primary access confers the greatest amount of information, but you can still glean information in other ways.

Feature Introductory Level Test at FamilyTreeDNA* Tester’s Big Y-700 or mtFull Test – Full Access Partial Haplogroup from Autosomal Test Your Ancestor’s Haplogroup but without Full Access
Matching Yes, at that lower level Best – at all levels No No
Matches Map Yes, at lower level Yes No No
Mutation Values Yes, STR markers at lower Y-DNA level Yes, STRs (Y-DNA) and SNPs Not directly but through Discover Not directly but through Discover
Haplotree & SNPs with surnames (Y-DNA only) Yes, at lower level Yes No No
Block Tree (Big Y test only) No Yes No No

 

Advanced Matching (multiple types of tests) Yes, at that level Yes No No
Ability to Join Group Projects Yes Yes Only test owner or manager can join Only test owner or manager can join
Discover Reports Yes, same information as the free version due to lower coverage Yes, when clicking through from your FamilyTreeDNA account Free version Free version
Haplogroup Story Yes, at lower haplogroup level Yes – best and highest level Yes, at lower haplogroup level Yes, at lower haplogroup level
Country Frequency Map and Table views Yes, at lower haplogroup level Yes, at most refined haplogroup level Yes, at lower haplogroup level Yes, at most refined haplogroup level
Notable Connections Same as free version About 20 for Y-DNA, 11 for mtDNA About 10 for Y-DNA, 3 for mtDNA About 10 for Y-DNA, 3 for mtDNA
Migration Map Yes, at lower level Yes, at advanced level Yes, at lower level Yes, at advanced level
Globetrekker (Y-DNA only, mtDNA coming soon) No Yes No No
Ancient Connections Same as free version About 30 About 10 for Y-DNA, 3 for mtDNA About 10 for Y-DNA, 3 for mtDNA
Time Tree Yes, at lower haplogroup level – generally 2,000 years or older Yes, at most refined haplogroup level, often within genealogical timeframe Yes, at lower haplogroup level – generally 2,000 years or older Yes, at most refined level
Match Time Tree No Yes – your matches & their EKA on the Time Tree including WikiTree Connections and Ancient DNA No No
Ancestral Path Yes, at lower haplogroup level Yes Yes, at lower haplogroup level Yes
Suggested Projects Yes Yes, at more refined level Yes, but must test with FamilyTreeDNA to join Yes, but must test with FamilyTreeDNA to join
Scientific Details, ages and variants Yes, at lower level Yes Yes, at lower level Yes
Compare Haplogroups Yes Yes Yes Yes

*Note that often your ancestor’s haplogroup as reported by the Family Finder (autosomal) test is more refined, meaning closer in time, than the Y-DNA haplogroups predicted by STR tests, but both are always substantially less specific than the Big Y-700 test. As of the publication date of this article, Family Finder does not yet report a mitochondrial DNA haplogroup, but that is planned for the future.

This chart only includes features you would specifically use to identify an ancestor or ancestral lineage. There are other reports provided with your test that will be of interest. Discover provides about 14 reports that include various options.

Now we can envision:

  • The benefits of finding our ancestors’ Y-DNA and mtDNA
  • The benefits of obtaining the most refined haplogroup possible
  • The benefits of being able to view the results directly

You may not be able to achieve all of these, but even a partial haplogroup is better than no haplogroup at all, and a fully refined haplogroup, even if you can’t see everything in another tester’s account, is better than a partial haplogroup.

So, let’s see how to find your ancestors’ haplogroups. I collect them all, not just for brick-walled ancestors, but because they tell a part of our story not available through any other means.

Finding Your Ancestor’s Mitochondrial and Y-DNA

If you are the DNA tester for your brick-wall ancestor, then you’re golden, but chances are that you’re not.

If you’re searching for Y-DNA, and you don’t carry that Y-DNA yourself, you’ll need a male relative who carries that Y chromosome to test.

Males carry the Y-DNA of their direct patrilineal ancestors, shown in the image below on the left side in blue, plus the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of their mother, shown with yellow hearts at far right.

At the 4th generation level, we have 4 Y-DNA lineages to collect (light blue, dark green, medium green, and teal), and a total of 8 mtDNA lineages.

Let’s say you’re searching for your father’s mother’s mother as your brick-wall ancestor.

Your father (and his siblings) carry the mtDNA of his mother, shown above in fuchsia, as do her grandchildren through her daughters. That’s why your father has a fuchsia heart. If close family members test, chances are you can arrange to manage their test or view their results. (Be sure they take the autosomal Family Finder test too. You’ll need that later.

If you don’t manage their test for them, you’ll need to ask to see their results to view matches and work with trees.

I have a family project at FamilyTreeDNA that I manage. I ask people who have tested for a particular ancestor to join that project so I can easily view their results while they continue to manage their test, and can select how much they want me to see or do.

FamilyTreeDNA is currently working on a multi-kit management feature that will address the challenge of sharing results.

But I Don’t Know of Any Cousins…

Let’s say you don’t know of and can’t readily identify anyone who descends from your ancestor appropriately.

If the ancestor you seek is a male, mitochondrial DNA is probably not going to help you because men don’t pass their mitochondrial DNA on to their descendants. In order to obtain a male ancestor’s mitochondrial DNA, you’d need to be able to identify a sister or someone known to descend from his mother (or sisters) through all females to the current generation. Needless to say, if you know who his mother is, you probably already know who he is.

If your brick wall is a female ancestor, your first order of business is to find someone who descends from her through all females to the current generation, where the tester can be male or female.

Why is this so important?

Mitochondrial DNA isn’t admixed with the father’s DNA, so it’s not divided in each generation. This means that mitochondrial DNA is the only direct line-of-sight we have that bypasses both changing surnames and genetic recombination for females.

Who Has Tested for Your Ancestor?

If you’re NOT the tester for your brick-walled ancestor or aren’t the curator of the test, your first step is to see if someone else has already tested.

This can sometimes be challenging.

It’s impossible to obtain mitochondrial DNA for an unknown ancestor if there are no known daughters, and for Y-DNA if there are no known sons. You may need to review genealogical resources to make sure you’ve identified all of that ancestor’s children.

Barring those scenarios, there are a surprising number of resources available to find descendants.

WikiTree

The first place I check to see if someone has already tested for a particular ancestor is WikiTree.

WikiTree is the one place where you find the ancestor along with the people who have taken DNA tests who descend from that ancestor. It’s invaluable.

Normally, you have to work with matches to identify your common ancestor. WikiTree works the other way around. Your starting place is with the ancestor.

You can’t Google your mystery ancestor’s name because if you knew their name, they wouldn’t be a mystery ancestor – but you can Google their spouse or a child.

I’m using an example from my own line because my mitochondrial DNA results are connected to her.

I’m Googling:

Barbara Mehlheimer born 1822 died 1906 in Indiana at WikiTree

Google was slightly confused but the results got me to where I needed to go.

Barbara Mehlheimer married George Drechsel and her daughter was Barbara Drechsel who married Jacob Kirsch.

First, check Barbara’s WikiTree profile card to confirm you’ve found the correct person.

Next, click on the DNA tab beneath her profile information (or just scroll down). She has four DNA Connections.

You can see that one person, me, who carries Barbara’s mitochondrial DNA has connected their DNA to Barbara’s profile. I did this by entering my DNA information on my WikiTree profile, then WikiTree connects my DNA haplogroup information from mother to mother to mother to Barbara and propagates my DNA haplogroup to her, her matrilineal ancestors, and their female descendants. If you click on the haplogroup, it takes you directly to that haplogroup in Discover.

Three people have connected their autosomal results to Barbara. This information can be very important, and not just for mitochondrial DNA. It allows us to identify autosomal testers we may match at different testing companies who descend from Barbara.

In your research journal, make notes of these names, testing companies, and kit numbers. Remember that this doesn’t mean the company noted is the only place someone has taken an autosomal DNA test. I’ve tested at all of the major companies, but only GEDmatch and FamilyTreeDNA are listed here.

For Y-DNA and mitochondrial DNA, the haplogroup is shown, although when testers receive a new Y-DNA or Mitotree haplogroup, they seldom think to revise it in WikiTree. This means their current haplogroup may be more specific and improved since the WikiTree information was entered.

Some people may have tested at different levels too. In this case, Buster Estes, who is now deceased, was one of the earliest testers, long before the Big Y tests were available. He only took a 25-marker test, so his haplogroup was predicted as R-M269. Garmon, on the other hand, was able to upgrade his Y-DNA test to the Big Y-700, and his haplogroup is much more refined at R-ZS3700. Their haplogroups don’t match exactly due to the levels at which they tested, but they also don’t preclude the two testers from belonging to the same genetic line.

This screenshot of Discover’s Compare function illustrates how important the Big Y-700 test is when compared to the STR test’s predicted haplogroups. The man who developed the mutation that defines R-ZS3700 lived about 1750 CE, and the man who developed R-M269 lived about 4450 BCE, or 6,450 years ago. That’s a big difference.

Using a combination of multiple testers and genealogy, we’ve identified the man who developed R-ZS3700 and passed it on to his sons. Moses Estes was born in 1711 in Virginia and all of his descendant testers carry R-ZS3700.

Now that’s extremely useful information, because we know that any man with haplogroup R-ZS3700 descends from Moses Estes in a direct paternal line, and any man whose haplogroup is not R-ZS3700 or doesn’t include R-ZS3700 upstream of his haplogroup does not descend from Moses Estes in that way.

Please add your DNA tests, including haplogroups and your kit number, to your profile at WikiTree so that the haplogroup information can be populated appropriately to your ancestors.

Searching for a Test Candidate Using Autosomal Descendants

When you’re searching for a testing candidate at WikiTree, you can click through to the tester’s profile and view exactly how they descend from the ancestor shown.

Let’s say that no one has linked a mitochondrial DNA test to the ancestor you’re searching for, but several people have linked autosomal tests to that ancestor’s profile card.

Click on the tester’s name and then on the DNA Ancestors tab to see how they descend from that ancestor. If you’re lucky, you’ll find someone in the autosomal list who is a mitochondrial DNA testing candidate.

If you’re looking for a Y-DNA tester, begin by looking for a male with the same surname as that ancestor. If you’re looking for a mitochondrial DNA tester, you’ll need to view each tester’s ancestors.

Regardless of whether they are a mitochondrial or Y-DNA testing candidate, you’ll identify your most recent common ancestor (MRCA) for each person, information that will become essential for the autosomal tools that we’ll be discussing in future articles.

In your research journal, I suggest that you record all of their descent information now, including their names, where they tested, your MRCA, kit numbers and any other relevant notes.

If you’d like to ask them to take a specific test, or if they already have and you’d like to know more, you can message WikiTree users by clicking on their profile, and then on the little envelope beside the profile manager’s name.

Finding Your Ancestor’s DNA Descendants at WikiTree

Let’s say that no one in the DNA list of people who have already taken tests descends from your ancestor matrilineally. Don’t worry, there are still more options!

At the top of the WikiTree page for that ancestor, click the down arrow, then on DNA.

The default tab shows the DNA Ancestors of the profile you’re viewing. You’ll see Y-DNA for males, and both mitochondrial and X-chromosome ancestors for everyone.

You may notice that there’s an ancestor listed for your brick wall ancestor. That’s wonderful, but don’t jump for joy quite yet. Remember, WikiTree is a one-world tree, and you need to verify the underlying genealogy in every tree here, and at every vendor.

Always confirm using multiple sources, meaning resources other than trees. The great thing about WikiTree is that there are often several sources listed in each person’s profile, and other resources that can help immensely. I love WikiTree, but I’m always skeptical of information in any tree, and I prove everything to my own satisfaction. I wrote several articles about that topic in the Genealogy Proof Series, here.

To find testers, you’ll need to view your ancestor’s DNA Descendants.

Click on the DNA Descendants tab.

The Mitochondrial DNA Descendants view shows potential candidates for mtDNA testing. Remember, in the current generation, males and females can both test so long as they descend from that ancestor through all females.

In the case of Barbara Mehlheimer Drechsel and her descendants, there are several males who are immediately eliminated because they’ve been deceased for more than a century, and several daughters who didn’t have children.

Not every person’s line on WikiTree has been added or developed. You can see that three daughters’ lines that might hold candidates don’t list all their children, and I still need to research two additional people. That means I still have five candidate lines to extend that have potential mtDNA testers.

So, in summary, if Barbara was the ancestor I was seeking:

  • One person has already tested
  • Three daughters don’t have their families extended.
  • Two have daughters that I need to research.

For both Y-DNA and mitochondrial DNA, I like to have at least two people who descend from different children of the ancestor, and whose tests match at a level that does not preclude that lineage. This helps confirm both the genetic line and the genealogy of both testers.

With male ancestors, having more than one tester for each line through different siblings is essential.

Kit Numbers, Earliest Known Ancestors and Google

When DNA kit numbers are included at WikiTree, you’ll want to Google to see if that kit number is shown in a public Group Project at FamilyTreeDNA where you may find more information.

The exact search string to use to find a specific kit at FamilyTreeDNA within projects is:

“9993” site:familytreedna.com

Replace 9993 with the kit number you’re interested in. You can also add the word “projects”, without quotes, to the end of that string to omit forums and limit the search to within projects. This string both focuses and limits the search, filtering out most noise.

By clicking on “read more,” you’re taken directly to the Estes Family Surname Project Y-DNA page.

The green haplogroups are SNP-confirmed, unlike the red predicted haplogroups from the lower-level 12, 25, 37, 67 or 111-marker tests. The R-ZS3700 haplogroup was obtained from the Big Y-700 test, so it is the most granular and specific. If this is your line, you’ve just found your ancestor’s haplogroup. It’s also possible that, by testing, you could receive an even more specific haplogroup.

Please note that haplogroup R-M269 is the most common haplogroup in Europe, and isn’t specific enough to use for anything other than very basic information. It can rule out two people with different base haplogroups, like haplogroup I or J, for example, as descending from a common patrilineal ancestor.

Project administrators are all volunteers, and each administrator groups their Group Project members differently, so take a few minutes to review the project pages. You may find additional testers who have joined this project who descend from your ancestors or your ancestral line.

You may also find other lines with the same surname and a substantially different haplogroup, which tells you that there are multiple genetic lines with the same surname. I have one example of this in the same county, at the same time, found in men by the same exact name – think John Smith. So frustrating. Without DNA testing, we would NEVER have sorted through those two same-name but completely different lines.

However, finding people who match your ancestor’s DNA but don’t have your earliest known ancestor (EKA) may be just the clue you need to knock down that brick wall. How are your ancestor and that other person’s EKA connected, and in what timeframe? Do they share a surname? A location? Are there other clues?

It’s unlikely that you’ll be able to use a kit number to Google unless you find one at WikiTree, but you can still search using the oldest name in that line that you know.

nicholas ewstas site:familytreedna.com

Replace the kit number with your EKA, in this case, “Nicholas Ewstas” in the search string, either with or without quotes. This takes you to the same page and any other projects that someone may have joined using exactly that earliest known ancestor’s name. Keep in mind that you’re only looking at their oldest ancestor, not every ancestor between them and their EKA. Your brick wall may lie someplace in there, which is why you need to check matches and view their trees.

Since women’s surnames change in every generation, they generally won’t be found in specific ancestral surname projects like men. This makes Googling using the ancestor’s name even more important.

catherine lejeune site:familytreedna.com

We don’t know who Catherine LeJeune’s mother is, so finding that someone has entered Catherine as their EKA may be critically important.

This is especially important for female brick-walled ancestors, since using this Google string with their daughters’ names may reveal someone else’s EKA in that genetic line within a project.

After clicking through to the project page, be sure to enlarge the page to display the full project, and use your browser search since partial results with predicted haplogroups may not be grouped with full mitochondrial sequence results.

Multiple people who descend from Catherine LeJeune have tested. The first six only took the partial test years ago. The bottom two testers took the full sequence test and have a new Mitotree haplogroup – U6a7a1a. We know that Catherine was born about 1633, in France, and we can see that other people have also tested and list different EKAs. Next, it’s time to research the other ancestors shown, or check WikiTree to see if any of these testers are listed there so you can contact them.

Now that you have found your ancestor’s haplogroup, you can use the free version of Discover to learn more. I wrote about using mitochondrial DNA and Discover in the article Mitochondrial DNA A-Z: A Step-by-Step Guide to Matches, Mitotree, and mtDNA Discover.

Now, let’s move to the DNA testing companies to see how we can find our ancestors’ Y-DNA, mitochondrial DNA, or testers, at 23andMe, FamilyTreeDNA, Ancestry, and MyHeritage.

At 23andMe

23andMe is not a genealogy company. That said, if you can figure out how people are related to you, you might be able to obtain a partial haplogroup for an ancestor. 23andMe shows both Y-DNA and mitochondrial DNA haplogroups to autosomal matches, but there is no Y-DNA or mitochondrial DNA matching, or associated tools.

23andMe caps matches without a subscription at only 1,500, and they don’t support trees, so I struggle to find useful haplogroups without an associated surname.

Browsing or searching your 1,500 allowed matches (you can have around 5,000 with a subscription) for a particular surname may provide you with an abbreviated haplogroup for both male and female ancestors.

Despite my best efforts, while my maternal grandfather’s mother is not unknown, nor are her ancestors for several generations reaching back into Germany, I’ve been unable to find her mitochondrial haplogroup. Evaline Miller (1857-1939) was born and died in Kosciusko County, Indiana, where she married Hiram Bauke Ferverda, an immigrant from the Netherlands.

Ferverda is an unusual surname, so let’s use it for our example. Thankfully, I’m not dealing with something like Smith.

I entered Ferverda in the 23andMe search bar and it shows four results, two of which are in the 2C-3C range, and one that’s further distant.

I already have the Ferverda Y-DNA, so I don’t need that, but I do need the mitochondrial DNA of Eva Miller Ferverda, and I really don’t want to sift through Miller surnames.

I know who Mr. Ferverda is on my match list, and which ancestor we share. His mitochondrial DNA is not Eva Miller’s.

Fortunately, I know who Eva’s parents were, as shown above on my MyHeritage tree, so I can search for Ferverda, Miller, Lentz, Ruhle, Wolflin, and Heubach, several of which are unusual. Reaching back into Germany is difficult.

It’s likely I match all four of those people at 23andMe through a common lineage that descends from either Hiram Ferverda, Eva Miller, or both. Let’s see what I can put together.

Emily is estimated to be a 2C2R. She is younger than I am based on the birth year she provided in her profile which I am not showing for privacy reasons. Emily also stated that her maternal grandmother was born in Warsaw, Kosciusko County, Indiana, and provided family surnames that include Ferverda, Miller, Glant, Zimmermann, and others.

Kosciusko County is where Evaline Miller lived with Hiram Ferverda, and their daughter, Margaret, married Chester Glant. Margaret Ferverda Glant’s daughter, Joyce, was born in Kosciusko County and married a Zimmerman.

But now, I was stuck. That’s all I had in my desktop genealogy software.

I shifted to Ancestry, where I discovered a death certificate and other information that provided what I needed to close the gap.

This information confirmed Emily’s statement that her maternal grandmother was born in Warsaw, Kosciusko County, Indiana.

Therefore, drum roll…Emily carries Eva’s mitochondrial DNA haplogroup, which is T2b.

Let’s move on to the other two matches, both of whom carry haplogroup T2b.

Ian’s maternal grandmother’s birthplace is Leesburg, Kosciusko County, Indiana, and his surnames include both Ferverda and Robison.

Eva Miller Ferverda’s daughter, Chloe Ferverda, married Rolland Robison and had a daughter, Charlotte, whose daughter married a man with Ian’s surname. Their information allowed me to connect the dots appropriately. Ian’s mitochondrial haplogroup is also T2b, which confirms Eva Miller’s mtDNA haplogroup through a second child.

Shirley, the third match who carries haplogroup T2b, also shows the surnames of Ferverda and Robison, and tracks back matrilineally to Eva Miller.

In spite of the many challenges at 23andMe, and thanks to the rare surname of Ferverda, I’ve identified Eva Miller’s partial haplogroup, but not her full haplogroup. A partial haplogroup is much better than nothing and gives me something to work with.

I checked at Ancestry, MyHeritage and FamilyTreeDNA to see if any of those three people have tested there and have trees. Indeed, Ian tested at FamilyTreeDNA and I had corresponded with him and made a note that he is a matrilineal descendant of Eva Miller Ferverda, but he has not taken a mitochondrial DNA test there.

We know that if Emily, Ian, Shirley, or another appropriately descended person were to take a full-sequence mitochondrial DNA test, we would learn a LOT more about Eva’s mitochondrial DNA. If I can’t locate someone who has already tested, I’ll reach out to these people at 23andMe and offer a scholarship for a full-sequence mtDNA test.

It’s ironic that at the most restricted and least likely testing company, I found three people descended from Eva Miller. Hope springs eternal.

Unfortunately, T2b was formed about 8450 years ago and is a very broad haplogroup made up of many subclades, but at least I have something now – and this partial haplogroup may be just the seed I need to lead to more.

Now, let’s move to FamilyTreeDNA and hope that someone there has already taken the mtFull test.

At FamilyTreeDNA

There are multiple ways to find the Y-DNA or mitochondrial DNA of your ancestors at FamilyTreeDNA.

Project Search

You can search for surname projects along with other types of projects.

On FamilyTreeDNA’s main page, without signing in, scroll all the way to the very bottom footer where you will see the Group Projects link.

If you’re searching for a surname, enter that surname in the search box.

The next screen shows projects that people with the Estes surname, including females, have joined. This includes all types of projects and does NOT mean that these projects are relevant to your line, but it does include two surname projects you may find useful.

Scrolling down shows you how many people with the surname of Estes have tested. Keep in mind that some will be females, some use married names, and sometimes people use an alias, so they aren’t included in this count.

Surname projects for females aren’t terribly helpful since the surname typically changes in each generation, at least in Western cultures.

You can also search for keywords, such as Acadian. If you know that ancestral line is Acadian, you may find clues there, including descendants of your brick-wall ancestor.

Group Project Time Tree

Many Group Projects at FamilyTreeDNA have enabled the Y-DNA Group Time Tree feature. When visiting the project, if the administrator has the Group Time Tree enabled, click on that link under the DNA results tab.

The Group Time Tree is a genetic tree of Y-DNA testers within that project based on the groups created by the project administrator.

The groups constructed by the administrator are shown at left, the Time Tree in the middle, and the testers with their EKAs and country of origin flags at right. I’ve added the red text to reflect the Estes genealogical lineage.

Based on the timeline at the top, you can see how closely these Y-DNA testers are related in time. Each haplogroup shown represents a different branching genetic lineage – breadcrumbs at work. If you are a genetic Estes male who descends from the Estes family that originated in Kent, England, and you take the Big Y-700 test, you’ll be a member of R-BY482 or its descendant haplogroups.

Keep in mind that not all testers join group projects, so it’s likely that there will be matches on your match list that aren’t here. Furthermore, only Big Y testers appear on any Time Tree.

The Group Time Tree is public, but when you sign in to your account and click on the Match Time Tree from your account, you’ll be able to view more, including testers’ trees and WikiTree connections if your matches have connected themselves to WikiTree.

Click to enlarge

I’ve converted the Estes genetic tree into a genealogical tree in a spreadsheet based on the trees of DNA matches. I’ve also included STR testers, because they are good candidates to upgrade to Big Y tests, and they are shown in the Estes Group Project. They can’t be included in the Time Trees because they don’t have the SNPs discovered with the Big Y tests. Please note that not all testers were included in this spreadsheet.

You can follow the paths of the various haplogroups. All of the red-background, black-outlined cells are Big Y-500 or Big Y-700 testers. The Big Y-500 was obsoleted several years ago in favor of the much more informative Big Y-700 test, which reveals additional haplogroups because it tests more of the Y chromosome. I’m still hoping that people will upgrade, although some testers are deceased and can’t.

The Big Y-500 tests with red stars are candidates to be upgraded to the Big Y-700 to potentially receive a more specific haplogroup. The balance of the tests in red cells are Big Y-700 tests, which identify several additional Estes haplogroup paths.

Let’s look at an example.

Beginning at the top, we know that R-BY482 is present in Nicholas Ewstas, born in 1496 in Kent, England, because all of his descendant testers carry that haplogroup too. Additionally, three generations later, in Silvester’s generation, he developed the additional mutation named R-BY490. We know it developed in Silvester’s generation for two reasons:

  • The descendants of Silvester’s brother, Robert, born in 1603, do NOT carry R-BY490. Robert’s son Matthew’s descendants only carry R-BY482.
  • The descendants of both of Silvester’s sons, Richard (pink column) and Abraham (the entire green row), all carry R-BY490.

All of the descendants of Silvester’s son, Abraham, born about 1647, the Virginia settler, who have taken the Big Y test carry R-BY490. Additionally, descendants of several of Abraham’s sons, color-coded columns beneath the green row, have developed additional haplogroups. Several more testers would likely have new haplogroups if they took the Big Y-700 test. A new haplogroup requires at least two men with the same unique mutation (breadcrumb), in addition to R-BY490 (in this case), to identify a specific lineage and assign it a new haplogroup name.

Abraham’s son, Moses Estes, born in 1711, is a good example. We know that Moses developed the mutation R-ZS3700 because four of his descendants have taken the Big Y-700 test and have that mutation that is not found in Moses’s brothers’ lines. All four Moses descendants carry R-ZS3700, and two, in the James Carroll Estes line, have developed an additional mutation, haplogroup R-BY154784.

Until Big Y testing became available, descendants of the R-BY154784 lineage didn’t know where they fit in the Estes tree, because the connecting genealogical records between Missouri, where their ancestors are found, and Virginia, where they came from, were missing.

Therefore, if you don’t carry the Estes Y-DNA, but you can find your ancestral line in projects, you can potentially do two things:

  1. Identify the specific lineage to which you belong, especially if you have access to your relative’s test results, including matches and trees.
  2. Without matches, you may still be able to identify at least some haplogroup levels, such as R-BY482 or R-BY490, which opens the door to:
    • Using autosomal results to find matches with Estes-specific haplogroups
    • Using Discover to utilize the dozen+ public reports available for everyone
    • Asking people to upgrade

While I’ve been using the Estes DNA results because it’s a project I administer and the one with which I’m the most familiar, this same approach works for mitochondrial DNA as well, especially if you can identify your ancestor’s DNA in a project.

Finding Projects in Discover

The public version of Discover provides surname and project searches as well, but works a little differently.

Select Group Project and enter the term you wish to search for.

Clicking on the project takes you directly to that project’s Group Time Tree where you can identify your ancestral line.

People who have tested at FamilyTreeDNA can join projects. Many projects accept autosomal testers who descend from that family line.

To join projects, sign in, then from your home page, click on “Group Projects” in the header, and make your selection.

Search for Surnames in Family Finder Autosomal Matches

Now that you’ve identified your ancestor’s haplogroup, you can use that information to find, rule in, or rule out various people in your Family Finder match list as your ancestors’ haplogroup carriers.

FamilyTreeDNA displays the haplogroups of your autosomal matches who have taken the:

The Family Finder test doesn’t test either the Y chromosome or mitochondria fully, but it target-tests a selected number of non-autosomal haplogroup-defining locations. The haplogroups that Family Finder identifies are typically midrange, meaning they are from roughly 2,000 to 5,000 years old. Furthermore, different tests on different chips at different times didn’t always test the same locations. This relatively new Family Finder haplogroup feature is free.

Uploaded DNA tests from other vendors may or may not receive a haplogroup, but regardless, it will NOT be displayed to their matches. Not all other vendors test or include Y-DNA or mtDNA SNP locations in their upload files, and your mileage may vary widely.

My cousin David has taken the mtFull test, so his mitochondrial haplogroup is the most refined possible, but his Y-DNA haplogroup of R-L151 was derived from his Family Finder test. Haplogroup R-L151 is about 5,000 years old. If I needed his haplogroup, it’s useful to rule out other major haplogroup branches that might be found in other men by the same surname. Plus, I can learn quite a bit from Discover.

Haplogroups are displayed in your Family Finder match list for everyone who has taken a Y-DNA or mtDNA test, but currently, only Y-DNA haplogroups are provided for Family Finder results. Midrange mtDNA haplogroups are planned for sometime in the future.

There are several methods to search for either a specific surname or haplogroup within Family Finder matches.

Let’s use my Ferverda/Miller/Lentz haplogroup T2b revealed at 23andMe. That haplogroup would almost assuredly be broken down further with full-sequence testing, and it might have been renamed as a different subgroup of haplogroup T in the new Mitotree.

Let’s begin with searching for haplogroup T2b.

The search bar allows users to select Name, Ancestral Surname, mtDNA Haplogroup or Y-DNA Haplogroup.

You’ll notice that there are a total of 59 results that include T2b as a part of the haplogroup. The mitochondrial lineage I’m seeking is my mother’s paternal grandmother, so the matches should be on my mother’s side, although there is no guarantee I don’t match someone autosomally on my father’s side too.

I checked the trees of all 59 people in the T2b category, and unfortunately, none descended from the line I need.

If you change search terms or categories, be sure to clear your filters.

Under the Filter option, you can filter for several options in addition to searching.

For our next example, I’ve selected both the Big Y-500 and Big Y-700 tests, and searched for Ferverda.

I already have the Ferverda Big Y-700 haplogroup, but if I didn’t, I would now!

Don’t forget that you can sort by any number of fields, and you can download your entire match list into a csv file. I find that easier because I can search, sort and filter at will.

Don’t forget to check back from time to time as more matches are added.

Utilizing Haplogroup Projects

Under the Group Projects header, or by Googling for a haplogroup T2 (or T, or T2b, etc.) at FamilyTreeDNA, you can view the haplogroup T2 project, and filter for haplogroup T2b or any subclade.

Be sure to expand the project’s page size to display the entire project. It defaults to displaying 25 rows at a time, but you can see the number of pages at the bottom of the page. I expanded the page size to 5000 so that I can use my browser search for known surnames in the mitochondrial line.

By using my browser search and searching for each known surname by generation, I searched for Ferverda, Miller, Lentz, Ruhle, Wolflin and Heubach.

I was VERY excited for a minute when I found a Lydia Lentz listed as a tester’s EKA.

Because the female’s surname changes in every generation, there’s only one family in this lineage that Lydia Lentz could have been a member of to represent the mitochondrial DNA of Eva Miller whose mother was Margaret Elizabeth Lentz.

So, the question is whether or not Lydia Lentz is the sister of Margaret Elizabeth Lentz.

Shifting to my desktop software, it’s easy to see that Jacob Lentz and Johanna Frederica Ruhle had four Lentz daughters who lived to marry and have children. None of those daughters were named Lydia, so the Lydia Lentz EKA in the haplogroup T2 project is not representative of Eva Miller’s mother and grandmother.

Margaret Elizabeth Lentz is Eva Miller’s mother, and I had already searched within the project for Miller. I added Yost, Gallagher, and Overlease to the browser search in the haplogroup T2 project with the hope that someone might have listed a woman with one of those surnames as their EKA, but no such luck.

Not everyone joins projects, or provides their earliest known ancestors, but I didn’t find the surnames of any of the females in my known line here.

Let’s see if Ancestry can help.

At Ancestry

Ancestry doesn’t do Y-DNA or mitochondrial DNA testing, so you won’t find your ancestors’ Y-DNA or mtDNA at Ancestry, but their trees can help you find testers.

Let’s shift to Louisa Drechsel, one of the daughters in the Mehlheimer/Drechsel line we were working with earlier that needed more research.

I looked at the hints for Emma Louisa Drechsel, who was always called Louise or Aunt Lou in my family, and discovered another Ancestry member with Emma in their tree.

I clicked through to the tree to discover that the tree’s home person does not descend from Barbara matrilineally, which means they are not a candidate for Barbara’s mitochondrial DNA.

I then clicked on the tree owner’s name to see whether they happen to be an autosomal DNA match to me. They are not. Without messaging them, there’s no way to know whether they have taken a DNA test, and there’s really no point since they are not a mitochondrial DNA candidate.

While I’m at Ancestry, I’m going to check ThruLines to see if anyone who is an autosomal DNA match to me also descends matrilineally from Barbara. There are no autosomal matches shown who have our common ancestor in their tree, and who are mitochondrial candidates.

Remember, a male between the ancestor and the testing candidate always blocks the mitochondrial DNA path.

These people are all autosomal DNA matches.

There may be descendants who either aren’t DNA matches or who haven’t tested who might be mitochondrial candidates. They can be located by checking Ancestry’s trees for our common ancestors and determining how the tree owner relates to that ancestor, if they do.

Compare Trees is New

Ancestry recently introduced “Compare trees”, a new beta feature. It may not be fully rolled out to everyone yet, and because it’s in beta, the feature may change.

To access this feature, go to your tree, not their profile card.

I clicked on Barbara Mehlheimer’s link in my tree, which displays this little mini-profile. Then click on “Compare trees” at the bottom.

Ancestry displays your tree, at right, and the other tree, at left. You can select another tree to compare at top right.

Ancestry’s comparison only shows a total of three generations – the selected person, their parents, and their children.

The person I actually want to follow is Louisa, but if you click on Louisa’s card here, it simply compares the two Louisas – it doesn’t shift down a generation.

This means that to follow more recent generations, you have to go back to your tree, select someone further down in the tree and repeat the process.

This process is cumbersome, but doable thanks to the new Compare Tree function. I’ll come back to this after checking the rest of the “easier to harvest” fruit from other resources. Remember to make notes in your research journal so you don’t forget where you left off – although trees are always changing.

MyHeritage has one of my favorite tools.

At MyHeritage

Recently, MyHeritage has begun providing midrange Y-DNA haplogroups for some of their DNA testers. If you’re one of the lucky testers, you can use the free Discover tool to learn about your haplogroup, but a haplogroup alone won’t help you much with genealogy. You need matching and advanced tools for that.

Unfortunately, you can’t see the haplogroups of your matches, so you can’t search or filter using that criterion. You can, however, ask any men with the surname you’re seeking if their haplogroup is displayed.

Cousin Finder

MyHeritage has an ingenious tool called Cousin Finder that I wrote about here. Cousin Finder helps you find cousins who share common ancestors with you, regardless of whether or not you are a DNA match.

MyHeritage found 531 people in their database that share ancestors according to both their and my trees.

This list of matches doesn’t page; it scrolls, so I made a spreadsheet of the people who are relevant to my search for my brick-walled ancestor. Scrolling becomes difficult and very slow as you proceed down the list. I didn’t want to have to do this twice.

You can improve performance by using the relationship side filter. Because your ancestors match, MyHeritage knows on which “side” of your tree your common ancestor is found.

At this point, I’m interested primarily in identifying Y-DNA or mitochondrial DNA candidates for a specific ancestor.

Using the Drechsel/Mehlheimer line as our example, I’ll search on my mother’s mother’s side.

We already met Patty at WikiTree, but let’s pretend we don’t know Patty. I can click on “View her tree” to see Patty’s whole tree, or I can click on “View Relationship,” which shows how we are both related to our common ancestor.

As we know, for mitochondrial DNA, any male in the line between the ancestor and the testing candidate blocks the mitochondrial DNA path. Patty inherited her mother’s mtDNA, not her father’s.

I didn’t forget about Eva Miller Ferverda either.

I searched for cousins who descended from my mother’s father’s side to find mtDNA candidates for Eva Miller and didn’t find any. But I did find an entirely unexpected bonus.

My mother’s father’s line shows all the connections on that side. While clicking through each one, I quite serendipitously discovered a mitochondrial DNA candidate for Eva Miller’s husband’s great-grandmother, Anna Elizabeth Jonker, AND, separately, a potential Camstra Y-DNA tester too. Oh, happy day!

It was only later, while working on my genealogy for Frederica Ruhle and hoping to discover where she actually lived in Pennsylvania, that I discovered that MyHeritage has put a Cousin Finder link in each ancestor’s profile.

Who doesn’t love a pleasant surprise?!

You no longer need to sift through all of your cousins on a particular side, but remember, had I not done that, I wouldn’t have found either the mitochondrial descendant of Anna Elizabeth Jonker nor the Camstra Y-DNA candidate.

At FamilySearch

FamilySearch is more challenging and is best for fleshing out trees where not much research has been done. Remember that FamilySearch has access to records that are not available at either Ancestry or MyHeritage.

FamilySearch is a one-world tree. Like all trees, it’s subject to errors, so caution is always advised.

At FamilySearch, from your profile card in the tree, locate the ancestor whose Y-DNA or mtDNA you seek.

Then click on that person. Their profile card will pop up. Click on “Tree,” then, at the top right, select Portrait.

Now you can expand their children downward. Note that the little “two people” in the top left corner of the profile card means there are multiple spouses. The only way to view all of the children is to click on that person’s placard, then select the alternate spouse.

Living people have no placeholders on this tree.

You can contact contributors who provided information on a profile in the tree.

Click on the source provider’s name to see if they are related, and click on the little tree icon to see how.

However, once a year, there’s a great way to contact interested descendants.

Relatives at RootsTech

RootsTech is the largest genealogy conference in the world, and it’s sponsored by FamilySearch.

About six weeks before RootsTech takes place each year, and for about a month after, you can participate in Relatives at RootsTech.

During that time, you can select an ancestor and see which other people who have signed up for RootsTech also descend from that ancestor. I wrote about how to do that in the article, Relatives at RootsTech Reveals Cousins and Provides DNA Candidates. I almost always find someone who descends from an ancestor whose Y-DNA or mtDNA I need for my tree.

It’s a wonderful opportunity to meet new cousins and collaborate.

At GEDmatch

GEDmatch is an autosomal DNA upload site that offers a variety of matching and display options. While they don’t attempt to calculate a haplogroup, uploaders can enter their mtDNA and Y-DNA haplogroups, if known.

GEDmatch isn’t normally a resource we think of for either Y-DNA or mtDNA, but it can be useful under some circumstances.

In the One-To-Many limited free version and the Tier 1 subscription model, you can view haplogroups if someone has entered their haplogroup name, but you can’t filter without the Tier 1 version.

I filtered for haplogroup T2b and found one person in the match list with haplogroup T2b4. I then viewed the GEDCOM that this person has also uploaded, but they do not descend from Eva Miller Ferverda’s line.

GEDmatch isn’t built for haplogroups, but sometimes, if you have a known haplogroup that isn’t terribly common, you can catch a lucky break there.

Where AM I?

OK, so where am I in all of this?

I feel like I’ve searched the corners of the earth!

I’ve primarily used two examples.

  • My own mtDNA line which is the Drechsel/Mehlheimer line that I chose because it’s a great example that I knew well.

If I had actually been searching for a testing candidate, we would easily have eliminated several possibilities. Five female lines remained as possibilities that need additional research, plus my own test if someone were actually searching.

  • Then there was Eva Miller Ferverda (1857-1939), whose partial haplogroup, T2b, was discovered at 23andMe in three matches. I was able to reconstruct their trees, confirming that this was her line, but I was unable to find any testing candidates elsewhere.

Each of the DNA testing and genealogy vendors provides a way to communicate with other users of their platform.

  • At both 23andMe and MyHeritage, you can message through their platform.
  • At FamilyTreeDNA and GEDmatch, you can email your matches.
  • At WikiTree, you send an email through their platform to the profile card manager.
  • At FamilySearch, you cannot see placeholder cards for living people, so you need to check to see if people making changes to that ancestor’s profile are related. Then check their children closest to the present day for the same information. You can message through the FamilySearch platform.
  • During Relatives at RootsTech, you can message your cousins through their platform. The great thing about these folks is that you know they are interested and engaged, because they’ve just signed up for RootsTech.

Communicating With Testing Candidates

I’m fortunate that there are three mitochondrial descendants of Eva Miller Ferverda at 23andMe, one of whom is also at FamilyTreeDNA. I will message or email all three of them individually with a short, customized message that contains:

  • How I am related to our common ancestor.
  • A question about whether they have taken the mtFull test, or any test, at FamilyTreeDNA. If they have taken any test there, it’s easy to upgrade.
  • A sentence about how FamilyTreeDNA was the original genetic genealogy founder of this industry and the only company to offer the full mtDNA and Y-DNA tests.
  • Why they can benefit from taking the mtFull test and how it can help us learn more about our common ancestor.
  • An offer for a full-sequence mitochondrial DNA testing scholarship if they have not already taken that test.
  • I ask if they are interested and provide my email in case they have questions or want to discuss further.

Depending on how much space I have for the message, there are two articles I often provide links to in case they are unfamiliar with either Y-DNA or mtDNA testing.

  1. 4 Kinds of DNA for Genetic Genealogy is a very basic article for people who might be unaware that there is any type of DNA testing other than autosomal. This is often the case with Ancestry.
  2. The article Mitochondrial DNA A-Z: A Step-by-Step Guide to Matches, Mitotree, and mtDNA Discover is an in-depth article about using mtDNA. This is a wonderfully educational how-to article, but I always hesitate before sending this one because I don’t want their eyes to glaze over.

Scholarships

I gladly and eagerly offer scholarships for both Y-DNA and mtDNA testers from lines I need to represent my ancestors.

I equate scholarships to finding a rare out-of-print book about that exact family line, with only one or two copies still in existence, and only one accessible in a rare book shop in Podunk, Idaho. I would book a flight tomorrow at 5 AM to go and pick it up in person even if I had to eat beans and hot dogs for the next six months to pay for it. If you know me, you know I’m not kidding! I’ve gone on many wonderful road trips to meet with and collect DNA samples from cousins.

A Y-DNA or mtDNA test doesn’t cost nearly as much as that excursion and is even more reliable, because we know the DNA results are accurate – assuming the tester’s genealogy is accurate, which you should verify, and no undocumented adoptions or broken lineages have occurred.

Good luck on your treasure hunt!

____________________________________________________________

Share the Love!

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

Subscribe!

If you haven’t already subscribed, it’s free. You’ll receive an e-mail whenever I publish by clicking the “follow” button at the top of the main blog page, here.

Help Keep This Blog Free

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

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Uploads

Genealogy Products and Services

My Books

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

Huguette Gougeon (c1655-1717), Epidemics and Upheaval – 52 Ancestors #486

Huguette Gougeon was born about 1655 in Port Royal, Acadia, to Antoine Gougeon and Jeanne Chebrat, almost exactly a century before the Acadians would be permanently rounded up and expelled from Acadia. Huguette didn’t know it, but she was giving birth to the expulsion generation – her children, and theirs.

Huguette’s mother was a widow with at least two children who had married Antoine about 1654, sometime after her former husband, Jean Poirier, had died. There’s substantial confusion surrounding the Poirier connection, though, and we’ll discuss that in Jeanne Chebrat’s article.

Assuming Huguette’s mother was Jean Poirier’s widow before remarrying, when Huguette was born, she had a sister, Marie Francoise Poirier, who was about 7, and a brother, Michel Poirier, who was about 5.

In the 1671 census, Antoine Gougeon, a farmer, was 45, and her mother, Jeanne Chebrat, was 45. They have one child, Huguette, who is 14, which puts her birth at about 1657. They have 20 cattle, 17 sheep, and are living on 10 arpents of land.

I’m guessing that Huguette had several siblings born between her birth and about 1669 when her mother would have been about 43. They were probably all buried in the local cemetery beside the Catholic church.

Huguette and her parents lived two doors from Michel Poirier, a bachelor, age 20, son of the deceased Jehan Poirier. Michel had 2 cattle, but no other livestock and no cultivated land. I wonder if this meant that Michel was living where his father lived, although you’d think if that was the case, he would have had some land under cultivation too.

There’s another question as well. Twenty is VERY young for an Acadian male, let alone a single male, to be living outside of a family unit – the youngest I’ve ever seen by a substantial margin. This is a real head-scratcher with his purported mother living nearly beside him.

Based on the neighbors, as shown at MapAnnapolis, they are living upriver at Belle Isle and probably had been for some 15 or 20 years. Many Acadians moved upriver after the devastating English attack in 1654, which means Huguette had never lived anyplace else. In fact, she never would.

The next census was taken seven years later, in 1678, and Huguette had married Guillaume Blanchard. They already had three children, two boys and a girl, suggesting they married at least five years earlier, which would have been around 1673. Huguette would have been about 16 at the time, a typical age for an Acadian bride.

The couple is living with Guillaume Blanchard’s parents upriver at Belle Isle. Huguette’s father has died, and Huguette’s mother, the widow Gougeon, lives nearby.

The 1686 Census

Eight years later, in the 1686 census, Guillaume Blanchard is shown as 35, and Huguette Goujonne (sic) is 27, which puts her birth about 1659.

For the first time, we discover the names of Huguette’s children.

  • Marie is 12, so born about 1674 – this is the daughter in the 1678 census
  • A son born before the 1678 census, so probably in 1676, has died before 1686
  • Son Rene is 8, so born about 1678 – he would be the son in the 1678 census
  • Antoine is 6.5, so born in 1679 or 1680
  • Jeanne is 5, so born about 1681
  • Huguette may have lost a child born about 1683
  • Anne is 2, so born about 1684

They are farming 5 arpents of land.

1690 – An Extremely Rough Year

The Acadians who lived upriver at Belle Isle were somewhat protected from whatever was going on at Port Royal – at least physically and in the short term.

A bend in the river at Port Royal, combined with extreme tidal fluctuations – as much as 25 feet – prevented large warships from traveling upriver beyond Port Royal.

Belle Isle, another 9 miles or so upriver, was protected from immediate incursions and attacks by the English. They weren’t, however, immune to the results.

Huguette wasn’t unfamiliar with the English. They had taken the fort in 1654, the year before she was born, and control of Acadia wasn’t returned to the French until 1670, after the Treaty of Breda, when she would have been about 15.

While the English controlled Acadia during this time period, they were not part of the Acadian community. Amazingly little intermarriage occurred, in part because the Acadians were staunchly Catholic, and the English were equally as staunchly Protestant.

So, while Huguette would have been familiar with English soldiers and administrators, living upriver, she would only have seen them occasionally, and from a distance. They were probably a curiosity.

From 1670 until 1690, life in Acadia, under French control, was relatively peaceful. I say relatively, because Acadia was never truly peaceful.

By 1690, tensions between the English and French had escalated again, and in April of 1690, English warships, with 42 cannons and more than 700 men, descended upon Port Royal.

The entire 1686 Port Royal census counted only 592 people in 95 families, meaning roughly 100 men and a few older boys. The Acadian families only had 75 guns between them.

The English fleet entered the basin several miles downriver, but the sentry and grapevine system would have delivered word quickly so that the upriver families could prepare in whatever way they did.

The fort at Port Royal was in a sad condition, decrepit and crumbling, and it was impossible to defend either the fort or the town. Port Royal was the capital of Acadia, so if Port Royal fell, so did Acadia.

The fort had no defensively mounted cannons, and only about 70 of the 90 soldiers stationed there were present. Worse yet, they only had 19 guns in the entire fort. Unprepared is an understatement.

Even with all of the French and Acadian forces combined, the situation was still hopeless, at least militarily. The fact that 42 Acadian men were absent, and when French Governor Meneval sounded a cannon as an alarm, only two men showed up to help, made an already impossible situation hopeless. 72 men with 19 or 20 guns against more than 700 men with guns and cannons.

The English demanded surrender, and the French had little choice. Thankfully, the English didn’t fire on the fort and small town of Port Royal, or it would have been a massacre.

The 1686 map shows us how small Port Royal actually was. Port Royal was the administrative, military and financial center of Acadia, but the farmers who lived up and down the river and farmed the salt marshes were the workhorses, the backbone of the economy, producing the food and agriculture that sustained the Acadians, Port Royal, and the fort.

The Acadian governor negotiated surrender terms that provided:

  1. For the Acadians to keep their possessions, undamaged.
  2. That the Acadians could continue to practice their Catholic religion.
  3. For the French soldiers and administrators to be unharmed and transported back to France.

All things considered, this was the best the French governor could possibly expect, under the circumstances.

However, after it was agreed upon, the English refused to sign the agreement, and as soon as the French surrendered, the English fleet commander unleashed those hundreds of men upon Port Royal.

They rampaged, stole, plundered, and burned the town.

They did not venture upriver, where their lack of warships and cannon for cover would have made that endeavor MUCH riskier.

Huguette would have been about 34, had 9 or 10 children ranging from infant to 17, and may well have been pregnant. An Acadian mother’s fertile years consisted of either being pregnant or nursing.

While there was no warfare close enough to hear, the upriver Acadians would certainly have been filled in by messengers.

As Huguette stood near the river, outside her home or in the fields perhaps, she would have seen the smoke begin to rise over the river in the distance. First wisps, then rolling plumes reaching to the Heavens, obstructing the sun. There was no question. Port Royal was burning.

What did Huguette do?

There’s no record of action the upriver Acadians took to shield themselves, but given what we know about the landscape, their Native allies, and their knowledge of the terrain, my expectation would be that the women took the children and retreated into the woods in the mountains. They could have taken some supplies with them, but they weren’t exactly expecting or prepared for warfare.

These mountains behind the Blanchard’s stream at present-day Marshland Road represented safety and survival.

It would have been better to be safe and hungry than dead – and Huguette and the other upriver Acadians had no idea how far the marauding soldiers would venture.

The English were now in charge. They rounded up the Acadian men, held them in the church at Port Royal, and forced them to sign an oath of fidelity to the English crown.

Then, the English soldiers and warships left. Yes, Acadia was now in English hands, and the upriver farms hadn’t been burned.

Yet.

A few months later, English pirates returned and finished the job. They killed the Acadian families’ livestock and took anything they could find. There’s no record of them venturing upriver either, but we don’t actually know. They could have killed their livestock, but not burned the farms, although that’s unlikely.

We do know that the Acadian way of life was disrupted.

Their church in Port Royal was burned. Many families were going without. Livestock was limited, and much of the harvest was ruined. They were headed into a very lean fall and winter.

1697 – Acadia Officially Returned to France

While Acadia was officially in English hands, functionally, not much changed. England wasn’t prepared to suddenly have possession of Acadia and had made no plans to govern it.

Following Sir William Phips’s 1690 capture and plundering of Port Royal, Massachusetts briefly claimed jurisdiction over the territory. However, because Phips left no garrisoned troops behind to enforce English rule, French authorities, led by Governor Joseph Robinau de Villebon, actually re-established operational control on the ground as early as 1691. International and legal sovereignty was formally restored to the French Crown when the Treaty of Ryswick was signed on September 20, 1697.

Regardless of who officially, or unofficially, controlled Acadia during this time, the Acadians had lost the spiritual anchor in their community – their church.

The Church

The Catholic church and associated rituals were the spiritual foundation of Acadian life, and the church was the hub. Both in France and after families began arriving in Acadia more than half a century earlier, the Acadians had battled and fought the English for their Catholic existence, both figuratively and literally.

When we think of the church in Acadia, and more specifically in Port Royal, we think about the physical Church of Saint John the Baptist that stood near the fort in Port Royal itself.

This 1686 map clearly shows the church in front of a fenced cemetery with little crosses marking graves. This is where the Acadian people worshipped and laid their family members to rest before the 1690 fire.

No church stands there today, but the location of the original church is marked between the fort’s garrison and the Garrison Cemetery, on one of the ramparts.

Evolution of the Church in Port Royal

The history of the church in Port Royal is an important part of understanding the lives of Acadians. While the church was a physical building, it was also a living thing. Understanding the evolution of “the church” in Port Royal is essential to understand Huguette’s life at Belle Isle, and the lives of all Acadians up and down the river valley.

Unfortunately, many records don’t survive, and there are no registers before 1702, so we have to gather information from other sources.

The first known surviving church record from Port Royal is the baptism of Marie de Menou, daughter of Governor Charles de Menou d’Aulnay and Jeanne Motin, on September 21, 1639. Witnesses were Claude Petitpas and Mr. Boudrot, the first syndics of Port Royal, along with Pierre Cachet, son of Pierre Cachet, and Jeanne Trahan, age 10, the daughter of Guillaume Trahan, who served as the baby’s godmother. This clearly occurred in Port Royal given that d’Aulnay had just recently moved the seat of Acadia from La Hève to Port Royal.

Syndics were appointed by the heads of households within the community to address parish concerns and represent interests to the seigneur and state.

That doesn’t necessarily mean that the church building itself had been built. Priests held services wherever they were, made notes, and recorded baptisms, marriages, and burials in the parish register later, when they could.

Capuchin friars were brought in 1641 by d’Aulnay and were active in Port Royal during the 1640s. They instructed both Acadian and Native American children and established a monastery at Port Royal. In 1649, a monk consecrated a new church there and was the same priest who officiated a few years later at the 1653 marriage of Jeanne Motin and Charles de la Tour.

Based on this information, we can infer that residents who lived in or near Port Royal between 1649 and 1654 worshipped in a church building, and people prior to that worshipped someplace in Port Royal, perhaps at the monastery.

In 1654, Port Royal fell to the English, and both the church and monastery were burned. La Société historique acadienne tells us that the English banned worship at the fort, so the Acadians built the chapel in the woods at Belle Isle to avoid detection. Many would have attended church and maintained their customs and rituals, as much as possible without a priest, during this time.

A decade later, in 1664, a Franciscan friar was reportedly sent to Acadia, but other records suggest that Port Royal lacked a priest until after France regained control of Acadia in 1670.

Given that the English controlled Port Royal, including the fort, where the Catholic church had been located, they would never have allowed a replacement church to be built there.

During that time, “church” was not being held in a church building in Port Royal.

Brenda Dunn in her book, A History of Port Royal, tells us that:

“In June 1673, men from the St. Jean Baptiste parish in the Port-Royal area met at the request of their church trustee, Abraham Dugas, to organize funding for construction of a parish church. Mass was being held in a borrowed room. The Acadians had maintained their faith throughout the long period of English rule.”

While they may have had a priest in Port Royal, there is no evidence of a church until 1673 or later.

In a letter dated October 2, 1685, Father Trouvé described Port Royal as a community of “at least 600 souls,” noting that despite being spread over five leagues along the river, residents attended church in large numbers on Sundays and holidays. Five leagues is 12 or 14 miles, which reached far upriver. He was clearly including most if not all of the settlements near Port Royal, although if one measured from the most distant settlements in each direction, it would probably be further than that.

In 1686, Bishop Jean-Baptiste de La Croix of Quebec visited Port Royal and participated in sacraments for the Feast of Saint Anne on July 26 and praised the congregation’s sincere piety.

In 1690, the English took Port Royal and burned the church again.

The Saint-Jean-Baptiste Catholic church would never be rebuilt here.

In 1693, a new priest was assigned. We know there was no church because in 1701, the priest was recorded as being upset because the stones of the ruined church were being used for the new fort being built to defend Port Royal.

In 1699, a visitor noted that the makeshift church resembled a barn more than a church.

In 1701, a nun lamented that the impromptu church had a straw-covered roof, log walls, and paper windows. There was no bell, and the people were called to mass with the beating of a drum. She was clearly not happy about this state of affairs.

Earlier parish records were lost, and the incomplete register we have begins in 1702.

In 1704, Father Justinien Durand became the parish priest. He lived at the monastery, adjacent to the former church that also functioned as a rectory.

The location of the original church was incorporated into the fort.

The congregation had no means to build another church and gathered in “a dwelling house” until they pooled their funds and obtained a building sold by Claude-Sébastien De Villieu in 1704 or 1705 for 4,000 écus and turned it into a church. This site is located at 208 St. George St. today, further from the fort, although the present building is not the original.

Conflict

It’s at this point in history that the Blanchard family encounters the brutal intersection of religion, politics, land, money, and expansionism. While the mother church in Port Royal struggled and the congregants purchased Villieu’s building to transform it into a much-needed church building, Huguette Gougeon’s husband, Guillaume Blanchard, was engaged in a personal war with Villieu over the frontier land he had developed at Petitcodiac.

Blanchard won a battle, but Villieu won the war, and Blanchard lost his entire investment and that of his family members as well.

While Blanchard won the right to remain on the land he had dyked there, Villieu retained seigneurial rights, meaning Blanchard would have been forced to pay retroactive rents and taxes to his bitter rival, wiping out his investment and making life in Villieu’s shadow unbearable.

If Huguette and Guillaume had been attending the church at Port Royal for any reason by that point, their attendance would have ceased abruptly. They were not going to worship in a building funded by the very man who broke them financially. I doubt they ever set foot in that particular church again.

They had probably been attending church upriver at Belle Isle for 20 years by that time. Their local chapel was labeled as the Mass House on maps but was named St. Laurent. Maybe they attended the central church at Port Royal on holidays, Christmas and Easter, at least when there was a church there.

That particular church building didn’t last long.

Another Fire

The church and monastery at Port Royal were destroyed again during one of two attacks on Port Royal by the English in 1707.

The French government had provided compensation to rebuild the monastery, but a two-year dispute arose over whether to rebuild the monastery or the church. The dispute ended with the capture of the town by the British in 1710, so neither was ever rebuilt.

The Acadians tried to recover by adding a chapel to the fort in 1709, but when Fort Port-Royal was surrendered to the English in 1710, the fort chapel was turned into a barracks for British troops.

The layout is shown on the sign above at present-day Fort Anne, with red building #9 being the 1709 church-turned-barracks.

By 1713, in order to keep the peace, parishioners local to Port Royal were allowed to participate in mass at the nearby Mohawk Fort, as the British permitted a parish priest to reside there.

But Acadians were far from compliant.

Resistance at Belle Isle

In January of 1711, Father Justinien Durand was captured by the English, held hostage and taken to Boston until he returned in a hostage exchange in December of that year.

After his return, he was operating clandestinely out of the St. Laurent Church in Belle Isle, serving his parishioners there and up and down the river as best he could.

A new church was reportedly built on the other side of the river in Granville Ferry at an undetermined location that served the local population who were too distant from Belle Isle. Another church, La Croix du Cap, is found on a map at Lequille. Yet another, Sainte-Anne at Pointe-aux-Chênes, met near today’s Stoney Beach near the Melanson settlement. Services were probably held in other homes as well.

It’s no wonder that the parish records are so fragmented and incomplete.

All Catholic churches and chapels in Acadia were destroyed when expulsions occurred, beginning in 1755.

However, the St. Laurent church, first referred to as a “Mass House,” where Huguette and her family had probably been attending since the 1650s, was located at Belle Isle and became the spiritual heart of that community.

St. Laurent Church

Note that the “Mass House” church or chapel, St. Laurent, is very close to the LeBlanc Village and their neighbors, the Blanchard family. Transporting a body all the way back to Port Royal by canoe for burial, especially in the winter, seems both unnecessary and risky, if it were even possible.

We know that Acadians settled at Belle Isle between 1651 and 1654 when the English burned the church at Port Royal. They would have needed someplace much closer to worship, so they would have built their local chapel, a satellite of the official mother church at Port Royal.

There are at least 20 burial records that specify St. Laurent in the Registers of Saint-Jean-Baptiste, 1702-1755. This list is not at all complete since most burial records did not specify any burial location, and the parish records prior to 1702 no longer exist.

We know that in 1711, after the English took Port Royal for the last time, Father Durand was holding mass at St. Laurent upriver at Belle Isle, and burials took place there too.

While births and deaths were unplanned events and had to be dealt with in a timely manner, marriages had the benefit of being planned. Bound by religious dictates of the Catholic Church, publishing marriage banns was required. These canonical laws mandated that before a couple could be legally and sacramentally wed, their intention to marry had to be publicly proclaimed by the priest on three consecutive Sundays or major Feast Days during public Mass.

The purpose was to allow community members to come forward if they knew of any roadblocks, such as an existing marriage elsewhere, a lack of parental consent for minors, or if a dispensation for consanguinity was required.

Sometimes the banns requirement was waived in the case of visiting priests, remote locations, or other mitigating circumstances.

When the Acadians could no longer hold services in Port Royal, the St. Laurent church at Belle Isle would have fit the bill. Although it began as a chapel of convenience, it eventually became more.

Given what we know about the church at Port Royal, Huguette could have been baptized in Port Royal if she was born before the church burned in 1654, or at Belle Isle, which is more likely, given that she was probably born in 1655.

Her family lived less than a mile from St. Laurent, and many miles from Port Royal. Even when the family had a choice, the most reasonable and expeditious choice would have been the chapel at St. Laurent.

Huguette and Guillaume were probably married at St. Laurent around 1672 or 1673, given that the church at Port Royal was not rebuilt until sometime after mid-1673. As each child arrived, they were probably baptized at St. Laurent too.

By 1692, when Huguette’s eldest daughter, Marie Blanchard, married Charles Bourgeois, the only church available would have been at Belle Isle because the church in Port Royal by the fort was burned for the final time in 1690.

Saint-Jean-Baptiste Church History

The history of the Saint-Jean-Baptiste church in Port Royal, while long and complex, is essential for understanding the lives of Acadian families, especially the upriver families.

The name of the “church” never changed, and all baptisms, marriages and burials were recorded in the Saint-Jean-Baptiste parish register. The building was burned at least three times in two locations, and “church,” write large, was held in many places. Satellite churches, such as St. Laurent, were built, but they were still chapels of convenience for people too distant from Port Royal.

Of course, during times of strife, and particularly when the English were in charge, St. Laurent became the face of Saint-Jean-Baptiste.

This table summarizes what we know about “the church” and the associated chapel at St. Laurent. Bolded years are when a church building of some sort existed at Port Royal.

Year Event Port Royal Church Other Church Comment
1639 d’Aulnay child’s Baptism At Port Royal Probably no church building
1641 d’Aulnay brings Capuchin friars Established a monastery Taught children
1649 Consecration by priest New church at Port Royal
1651-1654 Acadians moving upriver to Belle Isle Maybe Mass House built Probably began worshipping at Belle Isle
1654 English attack Church and monastery burned Mass House (St. Laurent) built when English banned worship at Port Royal Assuredly worshipped at Belle Isle when Port Royal church burned
1654 No church at Port Royal Probably buried people at Belle Isle
1664 Friar maybe appointed
1670 French regain control of Port Royal Services in “borrowed room”
1673 Abraham Dugas organized and planned a new church At Port Royal – not sure when actually built
1685 Visiting priest’s report Residents attend church in large numbers on Sundays and holidays
1686 Bishop Visit from Quebec At Port Royal Praise the residents’ sincere piety
1690 English take Port Royal Oath signed in church Church burned
1690 English pirates attack Port Royal English soldiers or English pirates burn church
1699 Gathered in dwelling house Visitor noted that makeshift church resembled barn more than church
1701 Priest report Church in rubble Priest upset because stones used to reinforce fort
1701 Catholic nun notes Impromptu church Straw-covered roof, log walls, paper windows, no bell, and people called to Mass with the beating of a drum
1704-1705 Villieu’s building purchased by congregation Converted into church Located at 208 St. George St., in Annapolis Royal today
1704 Father Justinien Durand appointed parish priest Lived in monastery beside former church
1705 Father Durand note about burial of heart of Jacques-François de Montbeton de Brouillan la Croix du Cap “…his heart was brought back to Port-Royal and interred “near the Cross of the Cape (auprès de la Croix du Cap), where a chapel is to be built.”
1707 English attack again, twice Burned converted church and monastery Record in parish register mentions St. Laurent location
1709 Chapel at fort Chapel added at fort
1710 Port Royal falls to the English Fort chapel becomes English soldiers’ barracks
1711 English arrest Father Durand At St. Laurent
1713 Father Durand burial entry St. Laurent and La Croix du Cap “…buried in a place called the Cross of the Cape, which has served as a cemetery since the country has been subject to the English, because we were unable to transport him to the cemetery at the upper part of the River…”

The Catholic church, as well as the neighborhood chapels played an outsize role in the lives of the Acadians. Perhaps it was their irrepressible faith that helped them survive.

The 1693 Census

In the 1693 census, Huguette Gougeon is listed with Guillaume, age 42, and their children, except her name is now spelled Agate Goujon and she’s 37, which places her birth about 1656. Perhaps Agate sounded something like Huguette.

Huguette’s children begin with her married daughter, husband and their baby, who are living in the same household with Huguette and Guillaume:

  • Marie, 19 and married to Charles Bourgeois, 20, along with their one-year-old daughter, Jeanne.
  • Rene, 16, so born about 1677
  • Antoine, 14, born about 1679
  • Jeanne, 11, born about 1682
  • Anne, 9, born about 1684
  • Missing child, born about 1686
  • Jean, 6, born about 1687
  • Elisabeth, 4, born about 1689
  • Guillaume, 3, born about 1690
  • Magdeleine, 1, born about 1692

In 1693, Guillaume and Huguette were doing well with 30 cattle, 40 sheep, 15 hogs, and 3 guns. They now farm 30 arpents of land, which is more than most Acadians. They only had five arpents seven years earlier in 1686.

They may have inherited Huguette’s parents’ 10 arpents of land and may be farming the six arpents of land owned by Guillaume’s parents.

Four families have more than 30 arpents of land, and nine others have exactly 30 arpents, a rather common amount to have been granted upriver.

Daughter, Marie Blanchard and Charles Bourgeois

In the 1693 census, Huguette’s married daughter, Marie, 17, and her husband, Charles Bourgeois, 22, are also shown in Beaubassin, where their baby, Marie, is recorded as 4 months old. Clearly, the couple has relocated between the baby’s birth and when the census was taken in both locations. The discrepancies in names and ages illustrate the differences between census takers and their varied levels of accuracy. I bet the little girl’s name was Marie Jeanne.

Marie Blanchard would go on to have 10 known children. Their destinies are inextricably tied to the horrific 1755 Expulsion.

  • One died before 1752, probably in Tintamarre.
  • One in South Carolina.
  • Three in Quebec.
  • One, along with his family, perished on the ship Duke William that sank in the North Atlantic on December 13, 1758, while forcibly transporting exiled Acadians to France.
  • One probably in Saint-Domingue (now Haiti), where his son is later found marrying.
  • One in St-Jean-du-Perrot, France.
  • One in Saint-Pierre et Miquelon Islands off of Newfoundland after being a refugee in Baie-Verte, then deported to Georgia.
  • One in La Rochelle, France, after first being sent to Georgia, South Carolina, Boston, then Saint-Pierre et Miquelon, where their homes were again destroyed before they went to France in 1778.

My heart aches for Marie’s terribly fractured family, torn so ruthlessly from each other.

Marie herself died sometime after 1733, when two sons married and she was alive, and before 1748, when Marie’s daughter married and both of her parents are noted as deceased. I’m glad Marie didn’t live to see what would happen just a few short years later.

While Huguette would have missed Marie when they settled in Beaubassin, she clearly had her hands full with her own large family, including a new baby. Still, it’s sad that Huguette didn’t have the opportunity to know her first grandchild for more than just a few weeks.

Grandchildren can be one of life’s greatest joys.

The 1698 Census

In the 1698 census, Huguette is listed as age 43, which puts her birth about 1655. Her children are now:

  • Rene, 21
  • Antoine, 19
  • Jeanne, 14
  • Anne, 14
  • Jean, 11
  • Elisabeth, 9
  • Guillaume, 8
  • Madeleine, 6
  • Pierre, 3
  • Charles ½

Huguette and Guillaume have expanded their property under cultivation to 34 arpents of land. They have 26 cattle, 24 sheep, 12 hogs, and 3 guns.

Additionally, they have 12 fruit trees, which would be apples.

Their near neighbor, Pierre Martin, is said to have planted the first apple trees at Port Royal, and apple trees still grow in abundance at Belle Isle today.

Marie, Huguette’s married daughter living in Beaubassin, is now 18 and has three children. Jeanne, 5, Charles, 3, and Marie, 2.

The Next Frontier – Petitcodiac

We don’t know how much Huguette was involved with Guillaume’s investment at Petitcodiac, and the resulting legal battle. Between 1698 and 1699, Guillaume set out for the next frontier and established the Village des Blanchard, hoping to build his own seigneury where he could grant land and benefit from the rents paid by fellow Acadians who would work the land. That’s exactly how French property ownership worked, and Guillaume had spent his life at Belle Isle as one of the farmers.

Now, he dreamed of more and set out to turn those dreams into reality.

In 1698, Guillaume and fellow Acadian Pierre Thibodeau set out on an exploratory journey, scouting for a suitable location with marshes similar to those at Belle Isle.

Correspondence from that time makes it clear that Guillaume requested a massive tract of land, half a league on either side of the river for an unstated distance. His request was sent to France for processing, but another man, Claude-Sébastien de Villieu, who lived at Port Royal, claimed that the land Blanchard requested belonged to his father-in-law, Michel Leneuf de La Vallière, as part of his already-established seigneury at Beaubassin.

In 1699, Guillaume, two of their sons, René and Antoine, and one son-in-law began clearing the land and dyking the fields to keep out the salty river water to prepare them for agriculture and settlement. That process took three years until enough salt had leached out for the fields to be productive.

Huguette would have been about 44 or 45 at that time, with nine children at home ranging from about two to 22.

She would not have accompanied Guillaume on either the scouting trips or the trips to dyke the river and prepare the land for habitation. Someone had to stay home to care for the family and tend to the crops and livestock at Belle Isle. That’s exactly what Huguette did – without the help of her two eldest sons, who accompanied Guillaume on their grand adventure.

Did Guillaume plan to move his family to Petitcodiac when the fields were ready, sometime around 1702, or was the plan to manage his seigneury from a distance, with his wife and children remaining on the land at Belle Isle? An October 1702 paragraph in a letter by Mathieu de Goutin reporting about the founding of Les Mines may provide the best insight into that question.

“The said Blanchard has a sailing vessel, and grown sons, sons-in-law, and nephews, who will put the Petitcoudiac land along the Petitcoudiac River to use and will settle there many people, and in three years the colony will draw support from them.”

Guillaume’s Petitcodiac colony was meant to be an investment.

Those two sons and one of Huguette’s daughters and son-in-law, although we don’t know for sure which one, spent the winter there in 1701, so they had every intention of establishing permanent homes at Petitcodiac.

By 1702, 5 families with 13 people lived at Petitcodiac. We know that Huguette was not among them, because there weren’t enough people listed to include Huguette’s children. It’s probably a good thing she hadn’t uprooted and moved, because trouble was on the horizon.

On March 20, 1703, a royal decree was issued from the Conseil d’État in Paris that tried to balance the interests of both parties in the land request. It stated that the Acadian settlers could retain possession of the land and improvements, granting a “censitaire du seigneur,” essentially making them tenant farmers with the right to pass the tenancy of the land to their descendants. But it also established that La Vallière was to have seigneurial rights over the land.

This ruined Guillaume’s plans, but he apparently appealed, with the same verdict being repeated in 1705.

However, the events that occurred in 1704, with Benjamin Church attacking and burning Village des Blanchards at Petitcodiac and ruining the fields, probably resolved that still outstanding question in a different manner.

The Blanchard family returned to Belle Isle, and the 1705 decision simply put the final nail in that coffin.

I’ve always wondered how Huguette felt about this entire episode.

For six or seven years, from 1698, when the planning and scouting began, through the development stages, into the full-time residency, and beyond the fire, she had been Guillaume’s partner. We don’t know if she was excited and an encouraging partner, or if she was simply relieved when it was finally over, and her now-adult children came back home and settled at Belle Isle.

The 1700 Census

In the 1700 census at Port Royal, Huguette Gougeon, aged 45, lived with her husband, Guillaume Blanchard, aged 49, and their children. This census was compiled before Huguette’s daughter, Jeanne, married in August.

  • René, aged 23
  • Antoine, aged 21
  • Jean, aged 13
  • Guillaume, aged 10
  • Jeanne, aged 18
  • Anne, aged 16
  • Élisabeth, aged 11
  • Madeleine, aged 8

Pierre and Charles, who would have been five and two and a half, respectively, are missing in the census, but they had not died because we find records of them as adults.

Daughter Marie had already married.

The family owned 3 guns and lived on 30 arpents of cultivable land with 26 cattle and 39 sheep.

Jeanne Blanchard and Olivier Daigre

Daughter Jeanne Blanchard married Olivier Daigre on August 8, 1700. Given that Olivier lived even farther upriver, and the church in Port Royal was meeting in a “borrowed room” in Port Royal at that point in time, they almost certainly married at St. Laurent.

They could have been the daughter and son-in-law who overwintered at Petitcodiac in the winter of 1701.

Jeanne’s children were born beginning in 1701, so Huguette would have been able to watch them grow up. She had six children with Olivier Daigle, although the youngest was born five months after his untimely death on September 22, 1709.

  • One died in Beaubassin.
  • Three died in Cornwall in 1756 after the Expulsion.
  • One died in Liverpool.
  • One probably died in Connecticut.

All of Jeanne’s children with Olivier Daigle settled in Beaubassin or Grand-Pré.

In 1755, the Grand-Pré men were gathered in the church where the Expulsion decree was read to them. Their property was stripped away and forfeited to the English crown, and they were to be removed. The men were held captive while the women gathered their children and a few things.

They were herded at gunpoint with whatever meager belongings they could carry onto ships for deportation to random, scattered locations. Many Acadians never knew what happened to their families. Many didn’t survive.

The cruelty was astounding. How could humans intentionally treat other humans that way just because of who they were?

Anne Blanchard and Claude Bourgeois

Anne Blanchard married Claude Bourgeois around 1701. Her sister, Marie, had married Claude’s brother, and the couples initially settled side by side at Beaubassin.

It would have been difficult for Huguette to say goodbye, knowing she would probably never see another daughter again, and she would miss out on knowing her grandchildren. At least both daughters were together.

Anne had 10 children between 1704 and 1732, and eight survived to be exiled by the English.

  • Two died in Beaubassin.
  • One in the refugee camp at Miramichi.
  • One in Quebec after being deported to Connecticut.
  • Two in Mole-St-Nicola, Haiti, after being deported to Georgia, South Carolina, then New York.
  • One may have died at Miquelon or, after 1767, in Cocagne and Richibouctou-Village, NB, after making their way back.
  • One at Miquelon or near present-day Hillsborough, NB, after making their way back.
  • One possibly at Halifax, where they were held after being deported to South Carolina, then returning to Camp Miramichi before being held at Halifax.
  • One in Louisiana after leaving Halifax.

We know that Anne Blanchard, who was about 71 in 1755, lived to see the horrific Expulsion. She and Claude are listed in the last census at Baie-Verte in 1755 after their homes were burned in Beaubassin in 1750 and the forts in Chignecto fell. After that, the families were loaded onto ships for deportation to random colonies. Some escaped into the woods, assisted by the Mi’kmaq, where the escapees faced dense forest and grueling treks. Some mounted guerrilla offensives. Their fate is unknown.

1701 Census

In the 1701 census at Port Royal, Huguette Gougeon, age 46, is living with her husband, Guillaume Blanchard, age 51, and their children.

  • René (surname mistakenly recorded as Richard), 24
  • Antoine, 22
  • Jean, 14
  • Guillaume, 12
  • Isabel (Élisabeth in other records), 12
  • Madeleine, 9
  • Pierre, 6

Charles is missing but is not deceased. He would have been 4.

The family owned 5 guns and lived on 20 arpents of cultivable land with 25 cattle, 25 sheep, and 17 hogs.

The Parish Register

Fortunately, beginning in 1702, the Saint-Jean-Baptiste parish register is extant, and we can begin to track births, marriages, and deaths, although the register is not complete.

I can’t help but reflect on how fortunate we are to have this register and the effort it must have taken from the priests serving the region to preserve it. They must have kept it at their residence or squirreled away someplace safe, because it didn’t burn in the 1707 or other fires.

The opening page shows both a French and Latin paragraph.

“Registers of Baptisms, marriages, and Burials of the parish of St. Jean Baptiste of Port-Royal, beginning the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred two in the month of September.”

This tells us when this register was begun. Unfortunately, earlier registers do not exist. So, what happened to the earlier registers? We have a clue.

Father Abel Maudoux, a secular priest working under the Bishop of Québec, had shepherded the Port-Royal church through an extremely turbulent decade beginning around 1693.

In 1702, the Bishop recalled Father Maudoux and officially transferred the territorial assignment and spiritual authority over the parish to the Franciscan Récollet order.

Following this institutional shift, Father Félix Pain, a Récollet missionary, was assigned to take over the parish duties.

While both men were Catholic, they belonged to completely different administrative branches of the Church. Father Maudoux was a secular diocesan priest who answered directly to the Bishop, whereas Father Pain belonged to a monastic order with its own internal rules, funding, and communal archives.

Because secular priests during this era typically treated their day-books and sacramental records as personal operational property rather than a permanent localized archive, Father Maudoux probably took his loose papers and registers back to Québec with him when he departed.

Arriving to a blake slate, Father Pain, thankfully, created the parish register that exists today and is preserved at the Université Sainte-Anne.

“Father [Felix] Pain, priest, inscribed and gave this book: pray for him; may he who wrote this be inscribed in the book of life, aided by your prayers.”

This Latin paragraph on the first page, written in his own hand, asks us to pray for Father Pain who kept this register. Indeed, I’m eternally grateful.

1703 Census

In the 1703 census at Port Royal, Huguette Gougeon, who would have been about 48, lived with her husband, Guillaume, and their 6 boys and 2 girls. The family included 5 arms bearers. Unfortunately, in this census, neither Huguette nor the children are listed by name, and individual ages are not recorded.

All of the 1703 children map to the 1701 children, including Charles, who is counted in 1703 but was missed in 1701. The five arms-bearers would be Guillaume and the 4 oldest boys. René would have been 26, Antoine, 24, Jean, 16, and Guillaume, 14.

Son Jean is accounted for in this census, but is not found in 1707, so he died between the ages of 16 and 20. I can’t help but wonder if he died in 1704 in Petitcodiac.

Was Huguette able to wash and dress her son’s body, and bury him in the nearby St. Laurent cemetery, or was he simply lost to her?

Benjamin Church Destroys Village des Blanchard

By 1704, Queen Anne’s War was two years old, and Acadian settlements became English targets.

We can surmise from other records that Huguette’s two oldest sons would have been living at Petitcodiac, and possibly one of her daughters with her young family as well. Based on the 1703 information, there were two additional families living there too, but we don’t know who they were because those villages were not enumerated separately.

In July, Colonel Benjamin Church sailed into the river basin at Port Royal under the cover of darkness and sailed up to Port Royal. The English planted themselves in front of the fort with their massive fleet of warships and transport vessels fully on display.

Tiny Port Royal would never be able to defend itself against more than 1000 soldiers and sailors. The upriver Acadians were safe for the moment, but of course they had no idea what would happen.

Church captured an Acadian family near Goat Island and forced the wife to act as emissary, hand-delivering a request for surrender. The fort commander refused, and a 17-day standoff ensued.

Once again, Huguette would have set about preparing her family for certain defeat and possible destruction.

Would they have headed into the woods?

Of course, Huguette had no idea that it was actually her family members living at Petitcodiac who were in danger.

While the fort at Port Royal and the Acadians there were pinned down by the looming warships, preventing anyone from leaving, the rest of the English fleet made its way to the other Acadian settlements, including Petitcodiac. They switched to smaller boats to navigate the bore tides and make their way up the river.

Proud of his accomplishments, in his 1716 memoirs, Benjamin Church tells us in his own voice what happened at Petitcodiac, and to the neighbors slightly downstream at Chipoudy. They were clearly taken by surprise.

Church recorded that as they approached Chipoudy, a few Frenchmen and an Indian guide were spotted on the shoreline and his soldiers immediately pursued them into the woods.

He recalled that the settlers had built their homes and outbuildings with distinct frontier craftsmanship. Following his orders to “leave no habitation standing,” his men systematically went from house-to-house, torching them all.

Church then specifically boasted about burning the newly constructed homes and barns at Chipoudy and that the inhabitants fled into the woods or marshes rather than barricading themselves in their homes.

He then recounted moving on upriver where the Blanchard Petitcodiac settlement would have been. He killed their cattle and sheep, destroyed their homes, and tore down the dykes, allowing the salt tides to wash back over the land.

Church bragged that it gave him great satisfaction to break the “substance” of “the French” inhabitants, systematically destroying everything, hoping to also neutralize the assets of their allied “Indian Rebels.”

It was Huguette’s children and grandchildren who were living there – who ran into the woods, thankfully, and escaped.

Huguette would have had no way to know any of that at the time.

At the end of Church’s reign of terror, or maybe raining terror in the northern settlements, he returned to Port Royal.

Much to the surprise of the Acadians and French at Port Royal, Church did not attack – not because of any altruistic reason, but because Port Royal was the capital, and he thought better of actually attacking the capital without permission from England. He had no qualms, though, about destroying the smaller settlements as retribution for the French attack at Deerfield, Massachusetts.

Church had a minor skirmish at Port Royal, killing one and injuring another, then left, much to everyone’s amazement.

We don’t know how the Port Royal Acadians discovered what had happened at Petitcodiac and elsewhere. It’s not unlikely that the rumor mill was already turning, and that either the beginning of a stream of refugees from those settlements, or their Mi’kmaq allies, made their way to Port Royal.

We’ll never know for sure, but given that Guillaume Blanchard owned a boat, and his family members were at Petitcodiac, I’d wager that he immediately set out to check on things – a trip that turned into a rescue mission.

There was nothing left at Petitcodiac. Both sons and any other family members who might have been living there returned to Port Royal.

Huguette must have been terrified when she heard the news, then incredibly relieved. I can only imagine the tearful reunion when she saw her children climb out of a boat onto shore once again.

Maybe all except one. Maybe Jean never came home.

The Final Decree

In 1705, the final decree from Paris arrived, confirming what the 1703 decree had declared about property ownership at Petitcodiac. Any dream of renewing and rebuilding Village des Blanchard was dead.

This was probably a last hurrah for Guillaume, as they were aging. Huguette had reached the half-century mark, and Guillaume was about five years older.

If Guillaume was disappointed, Huguette’s two sons, Antoine and René, must have been devastated. Petitcodiac represented the future and opportunity. Now, instead of being the sons of a seigneur, positioned to become seigneurs themselves one day, they had to readjust to life at Belle Isle as farmers.

But they were young men, with full lives ahead of them.

Antoine’s eyes must have brightened when he saw Elisabeth Theriot. Maybe he developed a sudden interest in helping her father on the farm. Two and a half years later, they married and started a family.

Antoine Blanchard and Elisabeth Theriot

Antoine Blanchard married Elisabeth Theriot on January 31, 1707. I’m sure they would have married at St. Laurent at Belle Isle, because by this time, the congregation was meeting in the building purchased from Villieu – the man who, combined with Benjamin Church, had caused his family’s dreams to be crushed.

Antoine died on October 5, 1750, in Port Royal. They had 10 children between 1708 and 1728.

  • Three of those children did not live to adulthood, so they would probably have been buried at St. Laurent, near where Antoine and Elisabeth lived.
  • One of his children died in Port Royal, Martinique, after having been exiled to New York during the 1755 Expulsion.
  • Another died someplace in Martinique.
  • One died in Quebec.
  • One probably died as a prisoner in Halifax after being held at Camp d’Esperance and Fort Edward.
  • One probably died near Port Royal after 1763 when he returned from Quebec.
  • One died in Martinique after being sent to New York.
  • One died in Louisiana after arriving via Santo Domingo, after probably being held at Fort Beauséjour.

Huguette would have known five of Antoine’s children. One child who did not survive to adulthood was born in 1710, so Huguette might have been present for her funeral as well.

The 1707 Census

In 1707, at Port Royal, Huguette Gougeon, aged 52, lived with her husband, Guillaume Blanchard, aged 57. They had two boys aged 14 or older, two younger boys, and two girls aged 12 or older. The family owned 6 guns and lived on 25 arpents of cultivable land with 32 cattle, 38 sheep, and 14 hogs.

The children living at home would have been:

  • René, age 30
  • Elisabeth, age 18
  • Guillaume, age 17
  • Madeleine, age 15
  • Pierre, age 12
  • Charles, age 10

Jean Blanchard, who was listed in the 1701 census and accounted for in 1703, had died by 1707 when he would have been about 20.

Port Royal Burns, Twice

Aside from the bright spot of Antoine’s wedding, 1707 was a terrible year.

The Acadians lived with intense, unrelenting stress. The situation with the English was constantly on the threshold of becoming a flashpoint, and cumulative raids and threats of raids took their toll.

Everyone was on edge, and with good reason. Captured English told of massive preparations to attack Acadia – and the Acadians weren’t about to forget what the English COULD have done to Port Royal in 1704, and didn’t. They probably had no idea why they had been spared.

On June 6, 1707, Colonel John March sailed up the river, heavily armed and with about 1600 total soldiers and sailors. Governor Subercase sounded the alarm. With all of the available Acadian men, plus the 100 French soldiers at the fort and about that many Abenaki warriors who were visiting, they were massively outnumbered.

This was it, and everyone knew it. The best they could hope for was the most generous surrender terms possible, and mercy.

Fortunately, the English were extremely incompetent and inexperienced with siege warfare. Despite their numbers, the English committed multiple rookie errors and actually failed to take the fort. However, in their humiliation, before climbing aboard their ships and sailing away, they burned the town.

And because once wasn’t enough, they did the exact same thing two months later, in August – with the exact same results.

Unfortunately, they burned nearly every building and farm in and near Port Royal.

Once again, the upriver Acadians, mostly women and children because the men would have been fighting the English, watched as the plume of smoke rose from Port Royal. Not once, but twice.

The first line of defense at the farms was retreating into the woods and mountains with the children for safety. That said, I’d wager that if you cornered an Acadian woman, woe be unto you. The Acadian bravery and perseverance is legendary yet today.

British Governor Samuel Vetch’s correspondence described the upriver Acadians as “intractable.” His soldiers would arrive at farms only to find the houses completely empty, their assets hidden in the forest, and local guerrilla fighters waiting in the tree line to ambush them.

I’m Angry with France

Point of personal privilege here.

Yes, I know this happened more than 300 years ago, and yes, I know it was far away – but I’ve written so many Acadian ancestors’ stories that I sit here right with them as they suffer.

And you know what – that particular suffering was entirely unnecessary.

France established this colony and then neglected them repeatedly from the beginning. No regular supply ships. No regular reinforcements. No maintenance, and often, no pay for the soldiers.

How in the devil did they expect a few hundred men, at MOST, to defend the colony? The majority weren’t soldiers and didn’t even have guns, yet they faced HUNDREDS of English men WITH guns backed by a flotilla of warships with cannons.

The fort at Port Royal was constantly falling apart, then fell apart. It was so bad that most of the time NONE of their cannons were mounted, and could not be.

The Acadian Governor was forever trying to make do and finally partnered with French pirates just to feed his soldiers.

Yes, even though my Acadian roots spring from France, I’m still VERY angry with historical France in the 1600s and 1700s for abandoning their colony to whatever fate the English subjected them to.

And that fate was repeatedly awful, horrible, torturous, and eventually, in 1755, genocidal.

Acadia was slipping away from France by the early 1700s, and they were too daft or shortsighted to do anything about it.

By then, most Acadians no longer considered themselves “French.” They had never seen France and had formed a unique society, fully Acadian, with their own spirit and culture. Not to mention that France had betrayed them repeatedly, abandoned them, and left them to suffer. Over and over.

Rant over. I guess a little bit of my Acadian slipped out there for a minute.

Let’s return to 1708 and attend René Blanchard’s wedding, which was unquestionably held at Belle Isle, because the “church” at Port Royal, such as it was, had been burned in 1707, never to be rebuilt.

René Blanchard and Marie Savoie

On January 18, 1708, René Blanchard, about 31, Huguette’s oldest son who lived to adulthood, married Marie Savoie, whose parents lived in the heart of the Belle Isle community.

René died in 1754 in Port Royal at 78 years of age, but his family was exiled to Massachusetts. His impoverished widow, Marie, recorded at age 77, is listed in Duxbury, Massachusetts, in 1757, where she was living with her daughter, Marguerite, age 34. They are noted as “very poor and unable to work to support themselves.” I’ve always wondered if Marguerite was disabled in some way. Marie is also shown in 1763 with one female child, and is presumed to have died in Massachusetts.

René and Marie had 13 children, five of whom were born before Huguette’s death.

  • Son Jean was deported to South Carolina but made it back to Camp d’Esperance, where he boarded a ship bound for Quebec City. Unfortunately, a smallpox epidemic was raging there, and his wife and 4 children died within weeks of his arrival. Jean died in September of 1759, possibly in the decisive Battle of Quebec on the Plains of Abraham that led to the end of French rule in Canada. The English took the lives of so many Acadians.
  • One of René’s children died in Repentigny, Quebec.
  • One disappeared about the time of the 1755 Expulsion after being found in Memramcook near Village des Blanchard in 1755.
  • One probably died being held prisoner at Fort Beauséjour.
  • No record of René’s namesake son beyond his 1716 baptism appears, and we know an epidemic devastated the Port Royal region about this time. He died before 1724, when a second son by that name was born.
  • One died in Martinique after being sent to New York, where they were listed on Long Island in 1763.
  • One died in Quebec after being exiled to Georgia, then probably sought refuge on Isle St. Jean before making their way to Quebec.
  • Marguerite is never found in any records again after her mother’s death in Massachusetts, so she probably died there too.
  • René’s son by the same name, born in 1724, left Miramichi aboard a ship bound for Quebec City, but smallpox claimed their family after arriving. He died along with his wife and two children within weeks of each other, leaving behind two young orphans.
  • One was shipped to Massachusetts, where they asked in 1763 for passage to France before dying in Quebec 23 years later.
  • Twins died at 2 and 7 days of age in July of 1728 at Port Royal. They would have been buried at St. Laurent at Belle Isle.
  • The youngest daughter married just months before the 1755 Expulsion, apparently losing her first couple of children during that horrific ordeal, before dying in 1767 in Yamachiche, Quebec.

Élisabeth Blanchard and Claude Girouard

On February 5, 1709, Élisabeth Blanchard married Claude Girouard, who lived across the river. He would have rowed over in his canoe to court Élisabeth, and they would have seen each other at the St. Laurent church. Rivers were the highways in Acadia.

Élisabeth’s story is a bit unusual, because she only had four children whose baptisms were recorded, but neither she nor Claude died during her child-bearing years. Her children were born in 1710, 1714, 1717, and 1720, but none after that. Typically, if a woman has children at all, they continue to have children for the duration of their fertile years, which would have been until about 1732, or so.

Looking at the baptismal records for the four children whose records we do have, a pattern becomes clear. All four of those children were baptized by a neighbor or someone other than a priest, although the baptism was eventually recorded in the parish register.

Therein lies our clue. Élisabeth and Claude must have lived remotely, distant from a church, and her babies needed to be baptized immediately. Élisabeth probably gave birth to at least eight other babies, and that’s presuming that each of those children lived long enough to be weaned before she became pregnant with the next child. If that wasn’t the case, then she could have had even more children that perished.

So much grief.

Since all of her children born after 1720 appeared to have died, I can’t help but wonder about a hidden genetic issue, like Rh incompatibility.

Élisabeth didn’t die until sometime after 1760, when she is listed in Gloucester, Massachusetts, at age 72, living with Joseph Doucet, her first cousin’s wife’s brother.

  • One daughter died in Port Royal in 1735, not quite two months after she had married.
  • Another is never found in records again after his 1720 baptism.
  • One child died in Saint-Domingue (now Haïti) sometime after 1763.
  • The only child who positively outlived Elisabeth died in Saint-Ours, Richelieu, Quebec, of smallpox in 1776 after having been exiled to Marblehead, Massachusetts, during the Expulsion.

Elisabeth’s three oldest children were born in Huguette’s lifetime, the last one in July before Huguette passed in October 1717.

Olivier Daigre Dies

Life is tenuous and unpredictable. On September 22, 1709, Huguette’s son-in-law, Olivier Daigre, her daughter Jeanne’s husband, suddenly died. It was so unexpected that he received all three last rites “one after the other” from a visiting priest, not Father Durand. Whatever happened to Olivier, it was very quick and unexpected.

Huguette’s daughter, who lived across the river and upriver a few miles, was left with five children between 18 months and eight years old, plus she was four months pregnant with her sixth child. Jeanne’s son would be born to his widowed mother on the five-month anniversary of Olivier’s death.

Additionally, when Olivier died, they were in the midst of harvest season. He might have been involved in some kind of accident. Regardless, they still had to bring in the rest of the harvest, thresh the grain, preserve the garden food, and hold the fall slaughter.

Jeanne desperately needed help, and Huguette would obviously have stepped up.

A year and two days after Olivier’s death, and when Jeanne’s baby was just seven months old, the English returned to Port Royal. This time, they wouldn’t fail in their mission.

The 1710 Fall of Port Royal

Huguette wouldn’t have worried less as she aged and her children married; she would have worried more, because she had more people to love as sons-in-law and grandchildren were added to the family. Plus, her daughter, Jeanne, was now a widow with six children to provide for.

No one was surprised when the English sailed back into the river basin in late September of 1710, this time loaded for bear with 35 ships and more than 3,400 men.

And like always, the French soldiers at the fort were hungry, neglected, and ill-equipped. The Acadian men came to their aid, of course, along with maybe 20 men from Quebec and as many Mi’kmaq who had the misfortune to be visiting.

Together, they were outnumbered more than 10 to 1. This wasn’t going to end well.

There was no reason for the ships to fire on the fort. The English didn’t actually want to destroy anything, because they wanted as many spoils as possible.

They wanted to capture Acadia and get rid of those pesky French.

And so, they did. The fort fell, but there was no burning and looting. The English simply took control.

This time, everyone acted like gentlemen. The Acadians and French soldiers were allowed to march out with their dignity, flags flying and drums beating.

The French commander gave the English commander the key, quipped that he might pay him a visit in the spring, and the English marched in.

Acadia would never again be in French hands.

The English required an oath of allegiance to the English crown. The Acadians refused, and for the next two decades, the English and Acadians engaged in an economic and political tug-of-war for control.

Initially, the English told the Acadians living within a 3-mile radius that they had to sign the oath, and then gave them two years to move to a “French territory,” meaning outside Acadia.

What happened if they refused to sign the oath? The implication was that they didn’t get two years to move.

What about those Acadians who lived beyond the 3-mile radius, at Belle Isle and upriver? Who knew?

Did they have to leave before that?

Did they have to leave at all?

Everything was in an utter state of confusion.

The Acadians were absolutely determined NOT to leave, at least initially.

To make things worse, the harvest failed that fall. Late spring frosts combined with unusually heavy rainfall and a shortened growing season caused crops to rot in the fields.

And to make things even worse yet, an epidemic of some sort drove the privateers, the very people Acadians had come to rely on for supplies, away. Acadians died, food was in short supply, and Huguette must have wondered if they would survive.

It was small consolation that the English soldiers in the fort at Port Royal were literally starving.

Huguette was 55 years old by now, and she had to be chronically exhausted. And while the actual physical “battle” for political control of Port Royal and Acadia was over – the battle for local control was not. There’s more than one way to fight.

1711 – A Year of Rebellion

Desperate, in January of 1711, Samuel Vetch, the English commander at Port Royal, sent Peter Capon to negotiate a purchase of grain from Pierre LeBlanc, the Acadian militia leader. While the two men were talking in LeBlanc’s house, a group of armed Acadians burst in “with their firelocks cocked,” seized Capon, and dragged him out into the night. Not wanting the entire English garrison to descend upon Belle Isle, LeBlanc quickly went after them and arranged for Capon’s release, paying a ransom of 20 pistoles.

Furious, Vetch sent an officer and fifty armed men to St. Laurent chapel, a half mile upriver from the LeBlanc Village, the following Sunday morning to arrest Father Durand, whom he considered seditious. Huguette and the other Acadians would have been attending services. Vetch also arrested leading inhabitants at the church, including Pierre LeBlanc. So much for his good deed.

They were imprisoned in the “Black Hole,” a torture chamber in the fort. Some were released, and some died.

Could the Acadians hate the English any more?

While the fort was clearly under English control, the upriver Acadians clearly were not. There was no food at the fort.

Food in Acadia came from the farms, most of which were upriver at Belle Isle – and remember, the harvest had failed.

Over the winter of 1710-1711, Vetch had to go to Boston and beg for food for his soldiers. He claimed the Acadians were hostile and uncooperative. Indeed, they were.

When he left, he took the priest, Father Durand, with him as a hostage.

When Vetch returned to Port Royal, his 450 soldiers had shrunk to about 200 through death and desertion, and those 200 didn’t want to be there either.

The upriver Acadians might have been hungry, but at least they knew how to fish and hunt in the environment they had called home for about seven decades.

Full of himself, in June, Vetch decided to send about 70 English soldiers upriver to strongarm the Acadians into providing lumber to repair the fort, and food. This was meant to be a show of force.

He clearly did not know the Acadians yet.

The situation at Port Royal was even more complex than that, because the Native people did not want the Acadians assisting the English, and the Catholic church threatened excommunication if they did. So the Acadians were being threatened by all sides simultaneously, and were caught square in the middle of a no-win situation.

The Acadians would have watched the English on their whaleboat and two flatboats, rowing upriver that summer day, and the human grapevine probably traveled faster than the boat, especially if they had the bad judgment to row against the current.

The Blanchard family lived near the Mass House and beside the LeBlanc Village, shown here on a 1753 rendition of a 1733 hand-drawn map that includes Bloody Creek.

The very out-of-place English would have rowed past all of the homes and villages, including Huguette’s. Their red coats would have been strikingly evident and attracted the attention of literally everyone. Perhaps that was the intention, but what happened next clearly was not.

The English soldiers rowed another six miles or so up the curving river, beyond the houses at Belle Isle, into an even more remote area, near the creek that would soon be named Bloody Creek.

Bloody Creek is narrow just a quarter mile or so upstream, but opens into a plain.

The Creek curves as it snakes its way through the forest, then fields and marsh.

The foliage and vegetation along the creek could easily obscure people from those unfamiliar with the terrain.

The official story says that, in an incredible coincidence, between 50 and 150 Wabanaki warriors, depending on which side’s report you believe, under the leadership of Bernard-Anselme d’Abbadie de Saint-Castin, just happened to be hunting together on that very day, in that very place. Isn’t that just amazing!

Bloody Creek empties into the river at a steep bend, and it was there that the “Abenaki” attacked, killing 16 soldiers, injuring 9, and capturing the rest. Frankly, I’m amazed that they didn’t kill them all.

Father Antoine Gaulin said that the British had planned to attack both the Mi’kmaq and Acadian families and burn the settlements on the upper river, a hotbed of resistance.

Huguette, her four children still at home, and, of course, her children who lived nearby were all witnesses to this event. They would all have seen the soldiers pass by, perhaps with a sense of foreboding. Her widowed daughter, Jeanne, lived perilously close to Bloody Creek. Close enough that she probably heard the battle.

Once again, the official story was that no Acadians were involved, but they were assuredly involved in what came next.

Encouraged, the Acadians and even more Native allies banded together to attempt to retake the fort. Numbering 600 altogether, they were determined and nearly succeeded, but lacked siege equipment and artillery large enough to breach the fort’s walls. It must have felt like breaking into your own house after it had been stolen from you.

Vetch was worried enough that he went begging for reinforcements.

While Vetch was gone, Father Gaulin personally sailed to Newfoundland to obtain the needed artillery and siege equipment, but had the bad fortune to run smack dab into the English fleet on his way back.

Vetch wasn’t about to let this end peacefully. He sent his soldiers to plunder the upriver Acadians, burn their farms and crops, and kill their livestock. He wanted to starve the Acadians and kill the resistance, along with their ability to feed their Mi’kmaq and Abenaki allies.

This time, Huguette’s home would have burned, and assuredly the church at Belle Isle as well. Catholic churches, breeding grounds of rebellion, were symbols the English despised.

As always, the Acadians rebuilt because they were unflinchingly firm in their resolve that they were NOT leaving.

Madeleine Blanchard and Charles Gautrot

Eleven months later, on May 18, 1712, Madeleine Blanchard married Charles Gautrot, probably at a new church at Belle Isle, or at a home where the Acadians were worshiping.

Madeleine and Charles settled at River Gaspareaux at Les Mines by 1715, and later at Grand-Pré. They had eight children.

  • Four children did not survive to adulthood.
  • Four children died in France after the expulsion.

Madeleine, her husband, and all four of her adult children, with their families, were rounded up during the Expulsion and deported to France in 1758, where Madeleine was on the list of passengers who arrived in Boulogne the day after Christmas. I’d wager she fell to her knees and kissed the earth. She died less than a year later at age 67 and was buried on October 30, 1759, at Boulogne-sur-Mer.

Two of Madeleine’s children were born before Huguette died, but given that they were living at Les Mines and Grand-Pré, she would not have known those grandchildren.

It must have been very difficult to say goodbye to your children when they moved to the next frontier for what you knew in your heart was forever.

Guillaume Blanchard and Jeanne Dupuis

Guillaume Blanchard married Jeanne Dupuis on January 16, 1714. His death is recorded in the Port Royal parish on February 20, 1752. They had nine children.

  • Guillaume’s firstborn child died in October 1717 in Port Royal, just four days before Huguette, in the same epidemic.
  • One child probably died in South Carolina.
  • One possibly while held at Camp d’Esperance.
  • Six children died in Quebec:
    • One in 1760 after being held at Camp d’Esperance
    • One at Sorel.
    • One at Saint-Ours.
    • Three within a month during the November/December 1757 smallpox epidemic. Guillaume’s youngest daughter, Madeleine, at 21, had never married and she succumbed, along with her two siblings, Anne Helene and Francoise, and their family members. Francoise’s only child died 24 days before she did. Anne Helene’s daughter died on the same day she did, and her husband died 10 days earlier.

Those who died in Quebec in 1757 likely died within days or weeks after arrival. Smallpox was ravaging Quebec City, and the Acadians had already suffered months of malnourishment and other deprivations following the Expulsion. How incredibly sad to survive nearly two years of extreme hardship in exile and, after finally reaching what should have been safety, to succumb to a virulent disease.

Two of Guillaume’s children were born during Huguette’s lifetime. Their firstborn child, also named Guillaume, died just four days before Huguette in 1717. She probably helped care for him in his sickness.

The 1714 Census

In 1714, Guillaume Blanchard is recorded with his wife and 2 sons. Guillaume would have been about 64, and Huguette, 59.

The boys were Pierre, 19, and Charles, 17.

They were living beside their son Guillaume, who had recently married and had no children yet, and their son Rene, who had 3 sons. They were just a few doors from Antoine, who had 1 son and two daughters.

Not the Blanchard Village they had dreamed of, but a Blanchard Village nonetheless.

The Next Oath Demand

Since the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, things had been relatively peaceful in Acadia. However, that was coming to a halt. The treaty unraveled when King George I came to the throne, and the English at Port Royal had become increasingly concerned about another uprising, or that the Acadians would decide to leave en masse to Île Royale, which was still under French control. In just a few short years, the English had gone from insisting that the Acadians MUST leave, and the sooner the better, to forbidding them from leaving.

Meanwhile, the Acadians had gone from refusing to leave to wanting to leave. They were fed up with the incessant demands. Done.

Once again, they were at a stalemate.

On January 22, 1715, the English demanded an unconditional oath of allegiance to King George. And once again, the Acadians refused, proposing a conditional oath that guaranteed their religious freedom and stated that they would not have to bear arms against either France or the Mi’kmaq.

That made things worse, and the English, whose stubbornness could rival that of the Acadians, decided to impose a trade embargo, of sorts, by closing the fort gates and prohibiting trade with either the fort, meaning the English at Port Royal, or the Mi’kmaq.

This sounds a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Enter Father Durand, who had been returned in a prisoner exchange in December of 1711. He had spent the intervening time operating out of the church at St. Laurent and ministering to his flock up and down the river.

Father Durand, undaunted, told his parishioners that taking the oath would jeopardize their ability to worship as Catholics. He was a legend, a folk hero, in his own lifetime.

The English soldiers at the fort began to starve because they weren’t getting any food products from the Acadians. That’s what happens when you lock them out.

The English in Boston, however, weren’t nearly so picky, and they were glad to help the Acadians set up a smuggling ring, run blockades, and navigate the black market.

It’s no wonder that there are many omissions in the parish registers during this time.

Fortunately, Jeanne’s second marriage was recorded.

Jeanne Blanchard and Jean Le Prince

Jeanne Blanchard married for the second time to Jean Le Prince on January 30, 1715.

Huguette must have been INCREDIBLY relieved that her daughter didn’t have to face life alone. Jeanne’s father and brother signed as witnesses, so the union, even if Jean was 11 or 12 years younger than Jeanne, which was quite unusual, seems to have been blessed.

They lived across the river, upstream near Bridgetown, which was also close to Olivier’s land. We don’t know exactly when Jeanne died, but we know she was alive in Acadia in 1752, and deceased by 1762 when she is noted as such in her son’s marriage record in Quebec. She may have died during some portion of a 1755 escape over the mountains, instead of boarding those doomed ships at the fort in Port Royal.

Jeanne had five children with Jean LePrince, two of whom were born before Huguette’s death.

  • One died either in Connecticut or Quebec in the 1780s.
  • Two died in Bécancour after surviving the smallpox epidemic in Quebec City.
  • One died in Quebec City during the smallpox epidemic in 1756 along with two of his children and a nephew.
  • One died in Quebec City later.

Unlike Jeanne’s Daigre children who settled at Beaubassin and Grand-Pré, her Le Prince children stayed and put down roots near Bridgetown until the Acadians were forcibly removed in 1755.

Unrest and Upheaval

1715, 1716, and into 1717 were filled with unrest and upheaval at Port Royal, and by extension upriver as well.

By 1715, Huguette was 60 years old, and Guillaume was five years older.

Guillaume died during this time of upheaval, with food scarcity, black markets, and clandestine alliances with the English out of Boston.

All this happened while the British soldiers at the fort were starving, and the English were inflicting punishment upon the Acadians – retribution for refusing to provide them with timber and food.

Everything was a huge mess.

One of the omissions in the parish register is the death and burial record of Guillaume Blanchard.

We know he was alive when Jeanne married in January 1715, and he appears to be alive on November 3, 1715, when “Guillaume Blanchard, the son” witnessed a baptism, which implies that Guillaume, the father, was still alive.

By the time Huguette was buried on October 18, 1717, Guillaume was already deceased.

Huguette had become a widow sometime in the two years before her death, which just happens to be when the smuggling efforts, which probably meant plying the river at night, under cover of darkness, were at their height.

Maybe Guillaume just simply died, an older man who had a stroke or a heart attack. Or maybe he succumbed to the epidemic that wreaked havoc upon the population up and down the river. Or, maybe he met with an accident, navigating his boat at night, or maybe he met with an “accident,” and drowned.

We’ll never know. What we do know is that when Guillaume died, Huguette still had two sons at home. Thankfully, they were young men and could certainly handle the farm chores. They were only a few months away from inheriting the rights to farm that land.

Huguette’s Death

Huguette Goujon, widow of Guillaume Blanchard (in the margin).

This eighteenth day of October of the year one thousand seven hundred and seventeen, I, the undersigned performing the pastoral duties at Port Royal in Acadia, solemnly buried with all the ecclesiastical ceremonies Huguette Goujon, widow of Guillaume Blanchard, aged about seventy years, who passed away the preceding day after having received the Holy Viaticum preceded by the Sacrament of Penance, [I] not having been able to give her the Holy Oils because of the shortness of time. In faith of which I have signed the day and year as above.

Friar Justinien Durand, Recollet, Missionary

Huguette was actually about 62, but her life had been difficult, and the priest was quite harried.

This entry tells us that Huguette died rapidly and unexpectedly. In fact, the priest, “because of the shortness of time,” only had time to hear her confession (Penance) and give her final Communion (Viaticum). She passed away before he could complete the third and final step of Last Rites, anointing her with the Holy Oils (Extreme Unction).

The priest may have arrived late in her illness, or because of how sick she was, there may not have been enough time to complete her Last Rites, which consist of three separate rituals.

We know that Huguette was at least partially conscious, because the first two rituals were completed.

  1. The first rite is the Sacrament of Penance, also known as the last Confession. This might normally take 5 or 10 minutes. The dying person must verbally confess their sins to the priest, express genuine remorse, and receive absolution. If Huguette was drifting in and out of consciousness or struggling to speak, this step could have taken up almost all of the precious minutes Father Durand had left with her.
  2. The second rite is the Holy Viaticum, the Final Communion where the priest recites a short scripture verse and prayers, then administers a small piece of the consecrated host (the Eucharist) as “food for the journey” to the next life. This should only take a minute or two. Perhaps Huguette couldn’t swallow or was struggling terribly to breathe by this time, because she died, and Father Durand was not able to perform the third rite.
  3. The third rite, and the one that Huguette missed, is the Extreme Unction, or Anointing with Holy Oils. The priest uncaps his container of holy oil (Oleum Infirmorum) and physically dips his thumb to anoint the dying person’s senses one by one: their eyes, ears, nostrils, lips, and hands. With each touch, he must recite a specific, formal Latin prayer asking God to forgive the sins committed by that specific sense.

As I think about this final act, I also think about the priest touching the very parts of his parishioners’ bodies that would have been highly contagious.

Because Huguette was able to complete her Confession, in the eyes of the Catholic church, her soul was perfectly safe because Confession wipes away all mortal sin. She died reconciled with God, but missed the comfort and grace of the Extreme Unction which was meant to grant spiritual strength to fight off the last-minute terrors of death, when it was believed that the Devil was most likely to launch one last stand. It would also provide physical comfort and erase the lingering “temporal punishment,” lifting the spiritual weight of venial sins, which shortens the soul’s time in Purgatory.

Because Huguette missed this “final erasure” of venial sins, such as a quick temper, minor lie, or selfishness, by anointing the lips (things wrongly said), eyes (things wrongly seen), and so forth, her family would have felt the need to help her through Purgatory. In the following weeks and months, they would have said extra rosaries, offered private prayers, and possibly paid Father Durand to say special Requiem Masses specifically dedicated to Huguette.

It’s obvious that Huguette died very quickly. Had she already been gravely ill, the priest could have heard her Confession four days earlier when her grandson died.

Normally, the body would have been washed and prepared for burial by female friends and family members, and an overnight vigil held. However, these were not normal times. The valley was in the grip of an epidemic. Most people were buried on the same day during this time, or different dates are unspecified. According to the parish register, Huguette was buried the following day.

The final portion of Father Durand’s entry, where he wrote “ay inhumé,” which translates to “I have buried,” tells us that he was in fact at her burial. He would have said her final mass, led the funeral procession outside of the church into the cemetery, blessed her body with holy water, and committed her remains into consecrated land. She was probably buried not far from her husband, Guillaume, and perhaps beside her grandson of the same name who had just died.

Huguette’s family would have marked her grave with a simple wooden cross, perhaps at the same time they marked her grandson’s.

Father Durand wouldn’t have tarried any longer than necessary at any home, although he may well have spent the night if he knew he was delivering mass at a funeral the next day in that same location. He would have eaten meals at the homes he visited, of course, and comforted the families as best he could.

Father Durand was being pulled in every direction at once, and he told us that in his own words.

Epidemic Epicenter

Translating the entries on the same page both before and after Huguette’s entry, and on adjacent pages, it’s evident that some severe sickness was rampaging through the community. Huguette’s grandson, who lived in the household next door, died four days earlier.

Multiple children died and in another case, two adult daughters in one family, ages 20 and 25, died a day apart, and the son of a third daughter just 10 days later. One entry says they died in a “severe fit of sickness” and the priest was not able to get there in time.

A total of 12 people died in just over a month, but the final death may not have been associated with the others.

Several mention the extremely rapid onset of illness and death.

However, there’s a smoking gun that provides insight. In the death record for Anne Roy, who died the day before Huguette, we find:

This sixteenth day of October of the year one thousand seven hundred and seventeen, I, the undersigned performing the pastoral duties at Port Royal in Acadia, solemnly buried with all the ecclesiastical ceremonies Anne Roy, wife of Jean Clémenceau, aged about thirty-five years, who passed away without being able to receive her Sacraments because of the mortality which prevents me from assisting everyone who is in danger, because there are too many of them, and I must tend to the others, and I am alone. In faith of which I have signed the day and year as above.

The translated pages in both directions show a distinct cluster of deaths. One can clearly see when this epidemic both starts and ends, according to the existing entries in the register. Furthermore, these are mostly upriver families, with the exception of Anne Roy, whose mother was Native, and the Le Borgne child whose death I suspect had nothing to do with the epidemic.

The entry prior to the October 13th death was in May of the same year. It was written on the same page, but a gap of five months with no deaths in a community of roughly 900 people is highly suspect.

The priest would not have been carrying a leather-bound book in his boat with him. He would have been making notes and later copying them into the parish register. Obviously, some notes never made it.

Given what the priest’s burial notes reveal, I suspect that this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Known Chronological Breakdown of the Crisis

There are no surviving entries between May 13 and October 13.

  • October 13, 1717 – Guillaume Blanchard, age 3, was Huguette’s grandson and the son of Guillaume Blanchard (Jr.) and Jeanne Dupuis. His death marks the earliest recorded victim of the epidemic.
  • October 13, 1717 – Cécile Comeau, age 20, was the daughter of Pierre Comeau dit de l’Esturgeon and Jeanne Bourg. Cécile received last rites on the same day that Guillaume died, which meant that the priest had to row several miles between locations.

Father Durand reports that he attended the burial for both Guillaume and Cécile, which makes it impossible that traditional vigils prior to funerals were taking place during this time. There is no record that these deaths and burials occurred on different days.

  • October 14, 1717 – Paul Vincent, 6 months old, was born to Clément Vincent and Madeleine Levron in April. They lived on the south side of the river, slightly upriver from Port Royal, near the Comeau family.
  • October 14, 1717 – Catherine Comeau, age 25, was the sister of Cécile Comeau, who died the day before. Father Durand recorded that she “died of a severe fit of sickness (morte de fort de maladie) before I was able to administer the Sacraments to her.”

This entry, in combination with her sister’s death the day before, documents the incredible speed of this fatal pathogen. Given that her sister had just died of whatever was going on, had Catherine been ill the day before, Father Durand would have attended to her then, at least to hear her Confession, just in case.

  • October 14, 1717 – Anne Petitpas, age 35, was the wife of Jacques Giroüer (Girouard). This is the third death on the same day that Father Durand would somehow have had to minister to.

These three families lived in different communities along the river, but he made it in time for Anne’s last rites. The Vincent family lived downstream from the Comeau family who lived near Moschelle. The Girouard family lived at Tupperville, across the River from the Blanchards and upriver a few miles from the Comeau family.

To put this in perspective, one would only row WITH the tidal river’s flow, not against the tide. It was 3 or 4 miles rowing from Port Royal to Moschelle, maybe 8 or 9 miles from Port Royal to Tupperville, and 11 or 12 to the St. Laurent church area above Belle Isle.

If we are to assume the recording order is the same as the death order, Father Durand had to row to the Vincent home, then from the Vincent home to Moschelle, which would have taken 45 minutes to an hour each, assuming he was in top physical condition and both the weather and tides were cooperating. From Moschelle to Tupperville would be about the same. The total distance from Belle Isle to Port Royal under ideal conditions would be a couple of hours. Rowing against the tide would be impossible, as the opposing current of the river’s tidal flow would neutralize forward momentum. And death didn’t operate on a schedule.

Frantic messengers would have been sent up and down the river to summon Father Durand. The tide changed roughly every six hours, so both messengers and the good priest had to time their travel accordingly.

  • October 16, 1717 – Anne Roy, age 35, was the wife of Jean Clémenceau. Her death record is the “smoking gun” where Father Durand laments that the immense mortality (la mortalité) has left him working entirely alone and unable to reach everyone who needs him.

Although Father Durand had attended six bedsides that resulted in death since October 13th, that would not have warranted his verbiage of “because of the mortality [epidemic] which prevents me from assisting everyone who is in danger, because there are too many of them, and I must tend to the others…” Six does not constitute “too many others.” His words suggest that the crisis extended substantially beyond the deaths recorded here. I can hear the pain and agony in his voice 309 years later.

  • October 17, 1717 – Huguette Goujon (Gougeon), who Father Durand said was about 70, but was actually closer to 62. Huguette fell ill and died so quickly that Father Durand only had time for Penance and Viaticum, omitting the Holy Oils due to “shortness of time.” She was buried the following day and is the only record in this group that shows a burial on a different day than her death. Perhaps she died later in the day or during the night, and he stayed to bury her the following morning. He was probably exhausted, as was her family. Many more were probably sick and did not die.
  • October 24, 1717 – Jean Pitre, age 15, the son of Claude Pitre and the late Marie Comeau. Jean was the grandson of Pierre Comeau dit de l’Esturgeon, the father of both Cécile and Catherine, who died on the 13th and 14th, marking the third child or grandchild that Pierre lost in a matter of 11 days.
  • October 28, 1717 – Huguette Vincent, age 50, wife of Jean Bastarche. She is also the aunt of Paul Vincent who died two weeks earlier, on the 14th. Just like Huguette, her fatal illness moved so rapidly that she received the first two rites but missed the final Extreme Unction. Whatever this pathogen was, it was WICKED!

The Bastarche family lived further upstream, just beyond Bridgetown today, but they interacted with the other Belle Isle families. Huguette Gougeon’s daughter, Jeanne, was the Bastarches’ neighbor.

  • November 5, 1717 – Pierre LeBlanc, age 53, son of Acadian founders Daniel LeBlanc and Francoise Gaudet. Pierre’s swift illness (maladie preste) and death prevented him from receiving any sacrament other than Extreme Unction, which probably means he was not conscious. He is believed to have lived at Pre Ronde, 9 miles above the fort, between the Comeau and the Girouard families. His brother was Daniel LeBlanc, the neighbor of Guillaume Blanchard and Huguette Gougeon.
  • November 9, 1717 – François Brossard (Broussard), age 22, son of Francois Broussard and Catherine Richard, received all three Last Rites. The Broussard family were neighbors of the Blanchards and lived on the opposite side of St. Laurent church from them.
  • November 20, 1717 – Joseph Le Borgne, age four months, was the son of Alexandre Le Borgne and Madeleine Doucet, who lived in the town of Port Royal. Given the distance between November 9 and 20, this child’s death may not be related to the epidemic.

Other than Joseph, there was one other known epidemic death associated with the town of Port Royal, Anne Roy. The homes in Port Royal were built close together, essentially side by side, and the soldiers in the garrison lived together in the bunkhouses. One would think that if the pathogen got a foothold there, we would have seen mass deaths. However, we have no view into what happened with the English administrators or soldiers, because the priest was only tending Catholic families.

Joseph Le Borgne was the final recorded burial entry for 1717, and then there are no recorded deaths during the winter. That’s extremely unlikely, so these records are probably lost too. My guess would be that winter weather moved in and water travel became impossible.

The next parish entry is for a 5-year-old child who died on April 14, 1718. Ironically, four days later, the next entry is for Jeanne Aucoin, “aged more than 90 years.” She was one of the original Acadian founders who managed to survive everything else, AND whatever pestilence descended upon the valley in the fall of 1717, to die of what was probably old age six months later. Jeanne was married to Francois Girouard, and we know her grandson’s wife died of the pestilence.

Searching for a Pattern

Is there a pattern to these deaths?

Let’s look at a map.

Click to enlarge

I’ve added the Blanchard surname to the 1733 map where it goes based on the census, earlier maps and other information. The Mass House, which is the St. Laurent Church, is shown at Belle Isle. The various family groups mentioned in the death records are shown with red arrows, and I’ve placed a red star for the various death locations.

Vincent, Pitre and Comeau live at or near Moschelle, close to town on the south side of the river. Girouard is at Tupperville, across from Belle Isle, also on the south side of the river.

Huguette Vincent is married to Bastarche, who lives on the south side of the river across from the Broussards, but several miles further east. However, she is the aunt of Paul Vincent, the baby who died on the 14th and lived just west of the Comeau group.

Anne Roy lived in Port Royal. Her mother was Native and outlived her, so she would have had connections beyond Port Royal. Anne may also have not been at home when she was struck down.

As we see on the map, this epidemic occurred in distinct locations, assuming all deaths during this measurable interval from mid-October to the end of November were recorded in the parish register. These locations are interconnected and formed two primary clusters.

  • The Roy and Le Borgne deaths at Port Royal, if the Le Borgne death was a result of the epidemic – 2 deaths.
  • The Vincent child and Comeau family at and near Moschelle – 4 deaths.
  • The nearby Girouard family, across the river from the LeBlanc, Blanchard and Broussard group – 1 death.
  • The LeBlanc, Blanchard and Broussard grouping surrounding the St. Laurent Church – 4 deaths.
  • The Bastarche family who lived across the river but is connected with the cross-river St. Laurent group and the Vincent family – 1 death.

The common factor among these families, with the possible exceptions of Anne Roy and the Le Borgne family, is the St. Laurent church. In 1717 the Catholic church at Port Royal was not functional, the English trade embargo was in place, and Catholic families would have been attending church together at St. Laurent.

In the fall, they also would have helped each other harvest salt marsh hay into stacks to dry.

The church sits dead center between the LeBlanc, Broussard, and Blanchard families. The Bastarche and Girouard families would have rowed over. Since the Comeaus could no longer attend church in Port Royal, they would have attended St. Laurent too.

The first deaths recorded, Guillaume Blanchard and Cecile Comeau, were probably exposed at about the same time since they died on the same day. Huguette Blanchard would have stepped in to help nurse her desperately ill grandson, receiving a full exposure of whatever he had. She died four days later.

It’s rather amazing that Father Durand didn’t succumb to whatever it was, himself. Although that doesn’t mean he couldn’t have been an infection vector. He went from a critically ill, dying person to the bedside of the next critically ill, dying person. He could have unknowingly spread disease as he went.

Father Durand was born in France and may have had some residual immunity from his childhood or previous exposures. He could, however, have been an unwitting superspreader, as could the family members who frantically traveled along the river to find him when their family member was desperately ill. A loop of frantic desperation that was all tied together in a knot at their beloved church. Services, Last Rites administered, followed by funerals and the cemetery where they buried their loved ones.

I can close my eyes and see the haunting image of Father Durand, a solitary priest rowing alone, trying desperately to get to everyone in time – exhausted and paddling silently through the autumn evening river fog, perhaps even at night, maybe unknowingly carrying death from dock to dock and door to door, along with comfort and religious sacraments.

Then came the funerals where even more people would have been exposed. Perhaps they knew just enough about disease to realize they needed to minimize contact with those who had perished from “the plague.”

Because records are incomplete, we don’t really know when the epidemic ended, but it would have helped immensely when families began to shelter for the winter. The river froze, no one rowed back and forth, and snow isolated families. People probably didn’t attend church very often either. This served as an accidental but fortuitous quarantine.

As virulent as this scourge was, soon everyone would have either died or recovered and obtained some level of immunity. Once herd immunity was achieved, combined with winter’s isolation, the epidemic disappeared as quickly as it had arrived.

What Was It?

Don’t I wish I knew.

There are clues, however.

First, not everyone got sick enough to die, and the majority of the community did not perish. This could have been due to previous exposures to the pathogen. We don’t know if people who didn’t die weren’t getting sick, or they got sick, but recovered. We know pretty much everyone was exposed, certainly within the families whose family members succumbed.

For those who died, the onset was extremely swift, and the outcome deadly – within less than 24 hours from fine to dead.

Incubation could have been 24-48 hours until the first symptoms appeared, with exposure to death being about four days, based on Guillaume Blanchard and Huguette Gougeon.

Based on the symptoms, patterns of deaths and other clues, there are two primary candidates:

Fulminant (Hemorrhagic) Smallpox (Variola major)

While ordinary Smallpox takes weeks to run its course, this horrific and terrifying hemorrhagic variant acts as a hyper-toxic viral storm that destroys the vascular system internally, often causing death within 24 to 48 hours. This generally occurs before the classic, signature “pox” appears.

This could well explain why Catherine Comeau was fine on one day, when her sister died, then suddenly violently ill and dead the next day.

One problem with this option is that not everyone developed the hemorrhagic version of Smallpox, so many other people would have had the normal variant of Smallpox which was also lethal – just not AS lethal. We would have expected to see far more infant deaths since babies had never been exposed and had no prior immunity.

Father Durand mentioned the sickness, but he never says “pox.” People living then assuredly knew what Smallpox was, and they were terrified of it.

Those born in Europe would have had full lifelong immunity after initial exposure and survival there, and anyone exposed as a result of decades of trade with European vessels was protected too. Smallpox surfaced widely enough to be recorded in New England and colonial histories every decade or so.

One piece of evidence that argues against Smallpox is that Huguette’s son, Charles, who lived at home and was very clearly exposed when she died, also died of smallpox in 1757 in Quebec.

So, if the epidemic probably wasn’t Hemorrhagic Smallpox, what else could it have been?

Meningococcemia (Meningococcal Septicemia)

Meningococcemia is a potentially fatal infection that attacks the bloodstream and the brain lining with terrifying speed. It’s caused by the bacterium Neisseria meningitidis, which can also cause meningitis.

A patient can be perfectly fine in the morning and face multi-organ failure and death by evening. It’s excruciatingly painful – as in beg-for-death painful.

Transmitted by respiratory droplets, it thrives in cold, damp autumn weather, which fits this scenario perfectly. The high-velocity, house-to-house spread matches a community interacting closely at church, interconnected families, fall harvesting, and consecutive funerals.

How did Father Durand and others survive?

In any meningococcal outbreak, the vast majority of exposed adults carry the bacteria in their nose and throat without developing symptoms or becoming ill. Father Durand could have carried the bacteria safely in his throat while single-handedly acting as a mobile shuttle service between the upriver docks.

This scenario also explains why some families experienced multiple deaths, but entire families were not wiped out.

Nothing other than these two diseases meets all the criteria that we’ve sifted from the burial records that we have. Based on the lack of infant deaths and later evidence, it seems that we can likely rule out Hemorrhagic Smallpox. Flu and pneumonia don’t kill people immediately, so they can be ruled out too. Meningococcal Septicemia seems to be the best fit.

Huguette’s youngest sons, Charles and Pierre, both lived in the same house with her, and next door to 3-year-old Guillaume, yet neither of them died.

The close-knit, interrelated community would have grieved deeply with the deaths we know about, and probably many whose burials never made it into the parish register. However, life went on, and both of Huguette’s youngest sons married a few months later.

Charles Blanchard and Madeleine Girouard

Huguette’s youngest child, Charles Blanchard, married on June 11, 1718, to Madeleine Girouard, the sister of Claude Girouard, who married Charles’s sister, Elisabeth, in 1709. Charles and Madeleine had 10 children. They assuredly married at St. Laurent, and I wonder if Charles took a walk through the cemetery to speak with his mother, whose grave was still fresh, on that joyful day. She accompanied him in spirit.

In 1756 and 1757, Charles and Madeleine are found on the list of families of Camp d’Esperance. Many families who survived that experience wound up in Quebec in 1756 or 1757. Charles died and was buried on December 22, 1757, in Quebec City during the smallpox epidemic there, but Madeleine never appears in any records again, so we have no idea when or where she was laid to rest.

  • One of his children died as an infant in Port Royal, and two died as adults there.
  • A daughter died during the smallpox outbreak in Quebec just a month before Charles did, and her husband died just three months earlier.
  • One child died either in Connecticut or Louisiana.
  • Two in New York.
  • One probably died in Saint-Domingue (now Haïti) after being held at Camp d’Esperance, then Caraquet with refugees who refused to surrender, then Fort Edward before Halifax where he refused to sign an oath of allegiance.
  • Two simply disappear in the records.

Charles’ son, Pierre Blanchard, somehow found his way to New Hampshire, then to New York, where he fought in the American Revolution against the British and later collected a pension. He carried a letter about 10 miles from François Chandonet in the town of Chazy, NY to Pliny Moore in Champlain, which was situated on Lake Champlain about 2 miles from the Canadian border. Pliny Moore played an outsized role in the family of Marie Josèphe LePrince, the daughter of Jeanne Blanchard, Pierre’s aunt, making Marie Josèphe his first cousin whose family settled in St. Jean sur Richelieu, Quebec, about 30 miles away.

Pierre Blanchard and Anne Robichaux

On November 7, 1718, Pierre Blanchard married Anne Robichaux and had nine children. In 1755, the family was deported to South Carolina, although some children were separated. Pierre died sometime between their deportation and August 12, 1763, when the Acadian census was taken there. Anne died sometime later, and may have made it to Louisiana, but that is uncertain.

  • Three children did not survive to adulthood and died at Belle Isle.
  • One child was at Memramcook in 1754 and 1755, but appears to have died in South Carolina.
  • One either died in Port Royal, during the expulsion, or in South Carolina where his widow is found in 1763.
  • One was at Memramcook in 1752 and 1755, then, at age 27, was separated from her husband who arrived in Georgia alone. She and two daughters later died in Canada. He managed to make his way to Quebec at some point, but apparently not in time to have additional children with Marie, so they may have been apart for at least 15 years, maybe longer.
  • Three died in Louisiana.

Even though the Blanchard family members were widely dispersed during and after the 1755 Expulsion, and many died, at least some of the remnants managed to find their way back to each other.

Huguette’s Family at a Glance

When I began Huguette’s article, I didn’t realize she had given birth to the generation who would suffer the injustices and devastation of the Expulsion. As her story unfolded, so did the journeys of her children and grandchildren, including how they survived, or didn’t. I created this handy reference to keep track of her children who survived to adulthood as I wrote the article, and thought you might find it helpful too.

Huguette’s Child Marriage Settled Huguette’s Grandchildren Comment
Marie Blanchard (c1674-1733/1748) Charles Bourgeois c1692, Port Royal Beaubassin in 1693 10 – All except 1 born in Beaubassin. Huguette knew her first grandchild briefly
Jeanne Blanchard 1681-1752/1762 Olivier Daigle in 1700, Jean Le Prince in 1715 Settled across the river at Bridgetown 6 Daigle, 5 Le Prince – 11 total plus probably two that did not survive 8 children born before Huguette’s death.
Anne Blanchard c1684-after 1755 Claude Bourgeois about 1701 Settled at Beaubassin, burned out in 1750 10 Huguette knew none of them
Antoine Blanchard 1679-1750 Elisabeth Theriot in 1707 Port Royal 10 5 born before Huguette died
Rene Blanchard 1677-1754 Marie Savoie in 1708 Port Royal 13 5 born before Huguette died
Elisabeth Blanchard c1689-after 1760 Claude Girouard in 1709 Port Royal 4 3 children born before Huguette died
Madeleine Blanchard 1692-1759 Charles Gautrot in 1712 Les Mines and Grand Pre 8 2 born in her life but she would not have known them
Guillaume Blanchard c1690-1752 Jeanne Dupuis in 1714 Port Royal 9 2 were born before Huguette died and one died just 4 days before she did
Charles Blanchard 1697-1757 Madeleine Girouard in 1718 Port Royal 10 Huguette knew none of them.
Pierre Blanchard c1695-c1763 Anne Robichaud in 1718 Port Royal 9 All born after Huguette died

Huguette’s Complex Life

We have very few records for Huguette herself. Most of her life’s story is told through the records of others around her and the history of Acadia, Port Royal and Belle Isle.

She was a silent, or maybe not-so-silent partner in her husband’s seigneury aspirations at Petitcodiac.

At least three of her children had planned to make their homes at his newly established Village des Blanchard, and maybe Huguette and Guillaume did too.

We don’t know exactly how many children Huguette had, although we know of at least 12.

We know she buried at least one nameless child who is found on the 1678 census as three years old, but not in the 1686 census. He was between 3 and 11 when he was buried in the cemetery beside the church, probably at Belle Isle.

Her son Jean died after 1703 and before 1707, when he would have been between 17 and 20. He died about the time that their Petitcodiac dream went up in flames, and I fervently hope those two events weren’t connected.

Ten of Huguette’s children married and had children, although three of her daughters settled in Beaubassin or Grand-Pré, so she would never have seen those daughters again, or known those grandchildren as they grew up.

Two of her sons married after Huguette died, so she didn’t know those grandchildren either, although they would certainly have heard stories about her

Huguette’s other five children blessed her life with 23 grandchildren born before she herself perished. One, Guillaume, named for both her son and husband, may well have died in her arms just four days before her own death, both casualties in the same epidemic.

Of Huguette’s 94 grandchildren, I’m surprised that none were named after her. Neither did she serve as a godmother for any of the grandchildren who were born in Port Royal after 1702, when parish records remain. Perhaps Huguette’s children were more interested in younger people who could raise their children should something happen to them.

Huguette had three great-grandchildren when she died, but they were in Beaubassin. She wouldn’t have known those babies either, but she would have heard the joyful news through the Acadian grapevine as boats came and went from both locations, probably with strict instructions to deliver messages to specific people.

Huguette’s husband, Guillaume Blanchard, died sometime after January of 1715, probably after November of 1715, and before her own death. For all we know, he could have been one of the early casualties of the same epidemic whose burial record is lost forever in those five months between May and October 1717.

While Huguette’s death was tragic, I take some comfort in knowing she went quickly and any suffering she experienced was of very short duration.

Huguette couldn’t have known it, of course, but she had given birth to the generation that would suffer horrifically and act incredibly bravely during the 1755 Expulsion when the English rounded up every Acadian they could find during the late fall and winter of 1755 and either forced them onto ships, bound for random destinations, or imprisoned them. The ships that carried those imprisoned people away arrived later, but they sailed into a bleak future, just the same.

Huguette lived under that constant threat of English destruction and retribution for simply being Acadian, meaning French, and Catholic, but her children and grandchildren suffered the unimaginable, horrific reality of that fait accompli.

Of Huguette’s children who reached adulthood:

  • Antoine, Rene and Guillaume died in Port Royal.
  • Marie died in Beaubassin.

The rest were caught up in the Expulsion.

  • Jeanne may or may not have survived to the Expulsion. If so, she would have attempted the crossing of the North Mountain range, on foot, in the winter, only to camp on the frozen beach at Morden until spring. Many died there and in the months to come as they attempted to make their way to Quebec through the woods. Some made it to Quebec to die in the smallpox epidemic there. Others, like Jeanne, simply disappear from the records.
  • Anne was last found in the Chignecto region but disappears from records there. She may have been one of the rebels who set out in the woods on foot, never to be heard from again.
  • Elisabeth is last recorded in Gloucester, Massachusetts in 1760 living with Joseph Doucet
  • Madeleine eventually wound up back in France.
  • Charles died of Smallpox in Quebec City after somehow surviving the actual deportation event in the northern part of Nova Scotia.
  • Pierre died someplace in South Carolina.

Huguette’s grandchildren ranged in age from 13 to 62 when the English exiled the entire Acadian population.

Her grandchildren were scattered to the winds, even those within the same family.

The numbers who died in various known or probable locations were:

  • Port Royal area including Belle Isle – 19
  • Beaubassin – 3
  • Quebec after being deported elsewhere first – 23
  • France – 6
  • Tintamarre – 1
  • South Carolina – 4
  • Drowned when the ship Duke William sank (with their entire family) – 1
  • Saint-Domingue – 4
  • Saint-Pierre et Miquelon Islands – 2
  • Cornwall – 3
  • Liverpool – 1
  • Connecticut – 3
  • Miramichi – 3
  • Haiti – 2
  • Halifax, Nova Scotia – 2
  • Louisiana – 5
  • Martinique – 4
  • Village des Blanchard (Petitcodiac) – 1
  • Fort Beausejour – 1
  • Massachusetts – 1
  • Camp d’Esperance – 1
  • New York – 2
  • Known to be alive in 1755, but completely disappeared from the records, along with their families, during/after the Expulsion – 2

It’s no wonder that Acadians have seeded the earth.

Huguette and her family were plagued with epidemics, both along the river above Port Royal in 1717, and in Quebec after the Expulsion.

The ships transporting starving Acadian refugees to Quebec were known to have been infested with Smallpox, so the prison camps probably had been too.

Including spouses and family members, more than 23 died of smallpox in Quebec, mostly in 1756 and 1757, although one died of the same disease in a subsequent epidemic wave a few years later.

Parish death records that we do have generally don’t provide causes of death, although occasionally, some do. Historical records of specific regions sometimes record terrifying epidemics. Many more of Huguette’s descendants probably died of smallpox and whatever ravaged the community in 1717 than we’ll ever know.

If the English weren’t trying to kill them, some pathogen was.

Guillaume Blanchard (c1650 – 1715/1717), Founder of “Village des Blanchard” at Petitcodiac – 52 Ancestors #485

Guillaume Blanchard was born about 1650 in Port Royal to Jean Blanchard and Radegonde Lambert.

In 1650, the first settlers hadn’t yet been granted land upriver at Belle Isle, so Guillaume would have been born here, in Port Royal, where his parents had been settled for at least a decade. But not settled peaceably.

Acadia was in the midst of its own Civil War where two Frenchmen, Charles La Tour, a Protestant, and Charles de Menou d’Aulnay, a Catholic, fought over who was going to be the administrator of Acadia.

After a 1645 battle, it seemed that question was settled. La Tour was defeated, his wife, who led the defense of La Tour’s fort in his absence, was murdered, and d’Aulnay was in charge of Acadia, with Port Royal as its capital.

Signed. Sealed. Delivered. Right?

D’Aulnay began dyking and draining the 1500 acres of salt marsh at Belle Isle, upriver of Port Royal. Note that Belle Isle is spelled Belleisle today.

However, in 1650 d’Aulnay drowned in an accident, and La Tour returned.

The Acadian men at Port Royal had all been involved in the destruction of La Tour’s fort across the Bay at St. John in 1645, the execution of all of his soldiers, and the death of his wife, so La Tour’s return from exile must have made everyone’s blood run cold.

What would he do? Would La Tour seek retribution?

And of course, Guillaume Blanchard was born in the midst of this upheaval.

Following the death of Governor d’Aulnay in 1650, Emmanuel Le Borgne (Senior), d’Aulnay’s principal creditor, claimed seigneurial rights due to the large debt owed. Le Borgne initially sent representatives to collect, including his son by the same name, but arrived himself in 1653 with a force of armed men to seize d’Aulnay’s estate to satisfy the debt.

Between 1651 and 1654, Le Borgne (Junior) began distributing land allocations upriver at Belle Isle to Acadians. This prime real estate was highly sought after because the salt marshes had already been dyked by d’Aulnay, offering substantially larger fields and a much safer agricultural alternative to the exposed waterfront at Port-Royal.

We don’t know exactly when Le Borgne granted what to whom, in part, because he was known to tipple a bit too much and when inebriated, he granted the same land to multiple people. He was later accused of withdrawing documents that would have incriminated him.

Guillaume was too young to remember any of this, or what came next, but he would have heard the stories as he grew up.

Including this unbelievable tale!

The Most Unlikely Marriage EVER

Are you ready for this?

Sit down.

On February 24, 1653, La Tour returned to Port Royal and married d’Aulnay’s widow, Jeanne Motin. So, yes, La Tour married the widow of the man who executed all of his soldiers, contravening the surrender terms negotiated with his wife before she then “died” after being forced to stand on the scaffold and watch the men hang.

La Tour and Motin sought to unify Acadia, both militarily, politically, and financially.

How well the financial part worked is certainly disputable. La Tour inherited d’Aulnay’s debts, and in August 1653, Le Borgne (Senior) arrived from France with his own brigade of 100 armed men, fully intending to seize d’Aulnay’s lands by force. His own personal brute-force militia terrorized and seized other Acadian forts not associated with d’Aulnay, imprisoning their commanders. Then in August 1653, he forced Jeanne Motin, under duress, to sign a document stating that 206,286 livres were still owed to him.

One benefit to Motin of the marriage was that La Tour became a partner in the fight for d’Aulnay’s lands, complicating the situation for Le Borgne. Jeanne was a “defenseless widow” with eight children, while La Tour was the newly-restored Governor of Acadia. To protect them, Jeanne moved her children to La Tour’s fort across the river, the same fort d’Aulnay had destroyed in 1645. No irony there, but it gets better.

In the greatest of all ironies, Jeanne’s first child with La Tour, Marie, born the following year went on to marry Alexandre Le Borgne about 1675, the chaotic wine-loving son of Le Borgne (Senior).

All of that aside, it’s a good thing that La Tour and Motin healed old wounds and rifts that still haunted the community, because in July of 1654, the English attacked, and Acadia needed to be unified.

We know that the Blanchard family was somehow a beneficiary of the land grants at Belle Isle. However, in 1654, when the English arrived, it’s unclear whether Jean Blanchard and family were still living along the waterfront in Port Royal, beside the fort, or if they had received land at Belle Isle, built a home and already moved upriver.

Things were about to get messy. Very, very messy.

1654

La Tour, Jeanne Motin and her children were living at his fort across the Bay at St. John.

On July 4, 1654, English Colonel, Robert Sedgwick, out of Boston, sailed into the Bay. Before approaching Port Royal, he first stopped at Saint John and captured the unsuspecting La Tour.

Sedgwick then sailed across the Bay, into the river basin, and on to Port Royal where Emmanuel Le Borgne Senior, then governor, was quite friendly with the English. Too friendly. Friendly to the point of being accused of treason.

Sedgwick, with a total of about 733 soldiers laid siege to Port Royal, whose 133 soldiers attempted unsuccessfully to defend both the fort and the town.

On August 8th, the siege ended. Le Borgne surrendered with terms that were “very” generous to the English, and to himself. By this time, 113 Acadians were being held captive by the English, along with 23 cannons, 500 weapons, 50 barrels of gunpowder, and Le Borgne’s own ship, the Chateaufort, which was loaded to capacity with alcohol.

In the surrender conditions that Le Borgne himself had negotiated, he was allowed to keep his ship, plus the alcohol, which was quite valuable, and return to France. His sons were allowed to remain at Port Royal “as hostages” to watch over his property in Port Royal and elsewhere in Acadia, which he was also allowed to retain.

Acadians accused Le Borgne of treason and blamed him for the capture of Port Royal and the ensuing savagery that befell them at the hands of the English. Was this attack truly unexpected, as portrayed, or was it coordinated by Le Borgne?

After the surrender, and contrary to the terms, Sedgwick’s men were unleashed and tore through Port Royal, plundering for spoils, defacing the church, smashing its windows, floors, and paneling before burning it, and then killing the settlers’ livestock just because they could.

Guillaume would have been about four years old at that time. If his family was still living in Port Royal, he would have assuredly remembered the rampaging soldiers and fires. In fact, it could well have been his first memory – one that he carried for life.

If their home burned in Port Royal, they would have moved to Belle Isle immediately, having little other choice.

Based on a reconstruction of the original Port Royal landowners due to a 1705 expropriation of their original lands when the fort was expanded, we know where Jean Blanchard’s land was located in Port Royal.

The original fort is labeled as 1 in Nicole Barrieau’s 1994 thesis, and subsequent forts expand on the original boundaries.

Here, Jean Blanchard’s land is drawn on a current aerial of the present-day fort, with the location of the church and cemetery marked as well. Guillaume’s family lived just 500 feet or so away from the church that went up in flames, just a two-minute walk.

How terrifying for a child. Let’s hope they had already transitioned upriver.

Sedgwick and Le Borgne’s handiwork would not be undone for another 16 years, in 1670, after Acadia was returned to French control through the Treaty of Breda. One of the first things the French did was to order a census. Thank goodness for Acadian descendants that they did!

Life at Belle Isle

In the 1671 Port Royal census, Guillaume is living with his parents and, at 21, is the eldest child living at home. They are enumerated in the Belle Isle community, 15 miles or so east of Port Royal, between Belle Isle and Bridgetown.

Guillaume married Huguette Gougeon around 1672, when he was about 22, which was somewhat young for an Acadian groom.

In the 1678 census, Guillaume and Huguette are living with his parents in a blended household, along with their 3 children – two boys and one girl. The family lives on 6 arpents of land, with 17 cattle and one gun.

By 1686, Guillaume is recorded as 35, Huguette is 27, and they have five children, two boys and three girls.

  • Marie – 12 (so born 1673)
  • René – 8 (so born 1678)
  • Antoine – 6.5 (so born 1679 or 1680)
  • Jeanne – 5 (so born 1681)
  • Anne – 2 (so born 1684)

It looks like they have lost at least two children

The family is living on 5 arpents of land with 16 cattle and 20 sheep in the LeBlanc community at Belle Isle. They live next door to Guillaume’s parents who are elderly. His father, Jean, is 75, and his mother, Radegonde, is 65. Clearly, while they are residing in different houses, they are living on the same farm, and Guillaume is working the land.

MapAnnapolis has mapped the Acadian homestead locations along the river based on censuses, early maps, and other information.

Taking a drive along Highway 1, also known as Evangeline Trail today, where it intersects with Marshland Road, the old homesteads are long gone, burned by the English in 1755, but the land remains substantially the same.

It was right about here that Guillaume Blanchard grew up, sharing a home first with his parents, then with his wife and children.

This landscape is timeless. The Blanchard’s stream still flows, running from the mountains north of the river, beneath Evangeline Trail, visible in the distance, and towards Marshland Road.

This freshwater stream sustained the families of Guillaume Blanchard and his brother Antoine, along with their parents before them. I can feel their souls here.

Standing on Marshland Road, and turning around to face south, we can catch glimpses of the Annapolis River today. It was the Rivière du Dauphin then.

The tranquil beauty belies the upheaval that occurred here three centuries ago.

When Guillaume lived here, the dykes d’Aulnay built and his father maintained held back the river’s salty water. Looking across the wheat fields between his home and the river, Guillaume could see the mountains behind the Girouard land on the south side of the Annapolis River. One of his daughters would marry into that family one day.

Guillaume lived most of his life here at Belle Isle, in the Annapolis River Valley, and probably died here as well.

1690 – Terror at Port Royal

Tensions in Acadia and the colonies in general began to ramp up again when the Nine Years’ War began in 1688 in Europe. The following year and early in 1690, the French capitalized on this turmoil to launch raids with their Native American allies along borders with New England and New York.

After the fall of Fort William Henry at Pemaquid in August of 1689, the English not only sought to retaliate, they also wanted to capture Acadia. Additional 1690 raids spurred a public outcry in New England, and the Massachusetts government authorized a raid against Acadia.

Boston merchant John Nelson had extensive trade dealings with the Acadians, but now he was one of the major proponents of an attack. He offered to lead the expedition but was rejected because of his previous trade relationships.

Ironically, he apparently had been scheming against the Acadians all along. It was John Nelson whom Acadian Jacques Bourgeois had entrusted with all of the Acadian land titles granted by d’Aulnay. Nelson took them to Boston, ostensibly to have them bound, but he never returned them and tried to claim Acadia for himself in 1692. Apparently, the English didn’t trust Nelson, and the Acadians shouldn’t have.

The expedition’s command was finally awarded to Sir William Phips, who, ironically, also had extensive trade dealings with Acadians – Jacques Bourgeois, in particular.

Phips was a Maine native who had no military experience, but who did have motivation. He had survived the French and Wabanaki raids that destroyed his hometown near Portland, Maine during the First Abenaki War in 1676.

In March 1690, Phips was commissioned, and on April 28th, he sailed out of Boston Harbor, bound for Acadia. His flagship, the Six Friends, was mounted with 42 cannons. A total of five ships carried 446 troops plus another 288 sailors and local men.

Eleven days later, Phips entered the basin of the Rivière du Dauphin, stopping at the home of the French Huguenot, Pierre Melanson, who was bilingual and known to be friendly with the English. Phips inquired of Melanson as to the condition of Port Royal, and the fort.

At some point, a sentry, possibly at present-day Digby, alerted Governor Meneval at Port Royal that the English fleet had entered the river.

The fleet spent the night anchored in the river at Melanson’s before pulling up anchor the next morning and proceeding to Port Royal, a few miles upriver, and anchoring there.

After his visit with Melanson, Phips clearly knew of the deplorable conditions at and of the fort, and he must have been thrilled.

Phips could clearly see from his position anchored in the river, in front of the fort, that there were no cannons mounted. This map, drawn in 1686, shows the fort in such poor condition that you can’t even tell it’s a fort.

Phips may or may not have known that there were only 90 soldiers stationed at the fort, which meant the English outnumbered them ten to one. Worse yet, if it could be any worse, only 70 soldiers were there, and the garrison’s soldiers only had 19 guns among them. They were doomed.

If you added every able-bodied Acadian man and their 71 guns to that total, the English soldiers still badly outnumbered and outgunned the Acadians.

Not to mention that the fort had been allowed to deteriorate to the point where it was essentially indefensible.

Phips didn’t even bother firing. He simply demanded that the fort, and Port Royal, meaning Acadia writ large, surrender.

Governor Meneval sent the Catholic priest to negotiate for the best terms possible – essentially to spare the lives and property of the soldiers and residents.

Phips agreed verbally, but the following day when Meneval boarded the Six Friends to sign the agreement, Phips refused.

One way or another, the fate of Acadia, and the Acadians now rested with Phips, and Meneval had no choice but to trust him at his word.

As it turned out, Phips’ word was worthless, and the resulting attack was brutal.

Contrary to his promises, he unleashed his soldiers on the town the following day, where they rampaged through town, plundering as they went. They stole what they could and burned the rest.

What the English did not do was travel upriver beyond Port Royal. That would have required them to leave the safety of their nearby ships in the harbor and fan out into unknown terrain. That was much more risky.

Safety at Belle Isle

In 1690, Guillaume was 39 or 40 years old and had nine or 10 children. Thank goodness his father had moved upriver and settled at Belle Isle in the 1650s when Guillaume was a child. Their location was the only thing that prevented their farms from being burned.

The upriver Acadians were warned about the imminent danger when Governor Meneval discharged the cannon to call the Acadian men to his aid at the fort. Meneval clearly knew he was in trouble.

Unfortunately, 42 Acadians were absent, and Meneval reported that only three Acadian men came to the fort to assist, which sounds absolutely bizarre. Perhaps they were preparing to defend their own farms and families.

Perhaps they wondered if they were walking into a trap by the English.

Maybe they knew the fort, which was in the process of being torn down to be rebuilt, could not be defended, and they weren’t interested in being slaughtered there.

We will never know, but Meneval’s hands were tied. He must have been furious with France, who had allowed her fort and defenses to decay, in spite of his repeated requests, and furious with the Acadian men for essentially abandoning him. Maybe the Acadians felt that France had abandoned them and they weren’t willing to intentionally risk their lives. I wish we knew more, specifically which Acadian men went to the fort, prepared to fight regardless.

Fortunately, Belle Isle was somewhat sheltered by being several miles upriver, beyond Port Royal and the bend in the river beyond which large ships could no longer navigate.

At Belle Isle, the Acadians lived behind the marshes, and in front of the mountains that separated the Annapolis River from the Bay of Fundy.

The mountains north of Guillaume’s lowlands provided safety and a refuge in time of need. A place where the English would not have known how to navigate, or where to find them.

The Oath

At some point, Phips and his soldiers either summoned or rounded up the Acadian men. They were probably held in the church or the fort where they were forced to sign a loyalty oath to the English crown. This document made its way to Boston, of course, where I found it in the Massachusetts Archives in 2008. The 1695 date threw me for a minute, but later correlation with the 1686 census, the oath signatures, the 1693 census, and known deaths confirm that, indeed, this is the 1690 document.

The only men missing were the very elderly, who the English wouldn’t have been terribly worried about causing a ruckus.

On the 1690 oath document, Guillaume Blanchard made his mark that looked something like a “P,” which tells us that he could not write. It says, “Marque de “P” Guillaume Blanchard”, where P is his mark made by his own hand.

Guillaume’s parents, Jean Blanchard and Radegonde Lambert, were living on the same land at Belle Isle with him in the 1686 census, and both were absent in the 1693 census. Jean Blanchard’s signature is missing from the 1690 document. If living, he would have been about 80 years old.

At least Guillaume didn’t have to load his very elderly father into a cart or a canoe and transport him to Port Royal to sign that cussed oath.

It was bad enough that Guillaume and his brother, Martin, had to sign.

The English left, but only a few weeks later, as the Acadians were trying to recover, English pirates attacked, killing the rest of the livestock and taking what little Phips’ men had missed the first time around.

1693

In the 1693 census, Guillaume, 42, is living with his wife whose name is spelled Agate Goujon, 37, and their nine children. Their oldest daughter, Marie, 19, is married to Charles Bourgeois, and they live with Guillaume and Agate. Both couples have a 1-year-old baby. They live on 30 arpents of land and own 30 cattle, 40 sheep, 15 hogs, and 3 guns.

We don’t know when Guillaume’s parents passed away, but they are gone by 1693 and were probably buried in the nearby churchyard of the St. Laurent Church.

Interestingly enough, Guillaume’s daughter, Marie, and her husband Charles Bourgeois were also listed in the Beaubassin census with their daughter, Marie, 4 months. Beaubassin, the next frontier, only had 20 families living there, with a total of 119 people. This tells us exactly when they relocated.

1698

Five years later, in the 1698 census, Guillaume is shown as 48, and Huguette is shown as 47. She was actually closer to 42.

Their 10 children still living at home range in age from son René at 22 to Charles who is listed as ½. They are living on 34 arpents of land with 26 cattle, 24 sheep, and 12 hogs. Guillaume owns 3 guns, and they have 12 fruit trees.

Their neighbor is Laurent Doucet.

By now, two of their daughters have married and removed to Beaubassin, and the rest of the family was considering pulling up stakes too.

1698 and 1699 were watershed years, filled with hope.

The Next Frontier

In July of 1698, Guillaume Blanchard and fellow Acadian Pierre Thibodeau, the miller who lived across the river at Pre Ronde, set out on Blanchard’s boat for what would one day become Chipoudy. Pierre had visited once before and may have already begun dyking marshes there.

The fact that Guillaume had his own boat tells us that he was among the more well-to-do. Not everyone had a boat.

Two of Guillaume’s sons accompanied them as they explored along the Petitcodiac River before returning to Port Royal a few months later. The two sons must have been Guillaume’s eldest, René, who would have been 20 or 21, and Antoine, the next-born child. Neither were married and both lived at home.

Given that both the Petitcodiac River, which empties into Shepody Bay, and the Minas Basin, marked with red stars above, are tidal estuaries, they likely explored both areas looking for the best, as-yet-undeveloped candidate location for a new settlement. Both estuaries suffer from extreme twice-daily bore tide surges. The tide at Les Mines rises suddenly from 46-53 feet, the highest in the world, and at Petitcodiac from 36-46 feet.

Several locations in the Minas Basin (Les Mines) had already been settled, beginning in the early 1680s.

Upon their return, the men would have been full of good news and encouraged their fellow Acadians to consider establishing themselves on the next frontier where land was plentiful and there were no English overlords to harass them.

Village des Blanchard

Guillaume Blanchard returned in late 1699 and founded “Village des Blanchard,” along the Petitcodiac River at or near Hillsborough, NB.

The Petitcodiac River, known colloquially as the Chocolate River, is heavily tidal, with marshes very similar to what the Acadian families had been dyking and farming at Belle Isle. Belle Isle had a tidal rise and fall as much as 25 feet, but minus the dangerous bore tides.

It takes three years after dyking the marshes with aboiteau for the salt to leach out of the soil and the land to become farmable.

Therefore, the Acadians would have needed to select land and invest the labor and time to dyke the land, then wait for three years to build homes and move their households.

In the meantime, they could have maintained some livestock there and traded with the Native people, but not farmed. It wasn’t yet hospitable to families, but sons in their early 20s would be the perfect people to begin transforming marshes into farmland, and molding homesteads from wilderness.

Hopewell is at Shepody Bay, just south of Hillsborough, and this entire area along the river is conducive to salt marsh farming. The fields are evident by the color change.

In 1755, the Battle of Petitcodiac was fought at Village des Blanchard, today’s Hillsborough, NB, where salt marshes line both sides of the river.

This 1755 map shows the location of Village des Blanchard and the Thibodeau village at Chipoudy.

1699

In 1699, after the fall harvest was in, a group of men from Port Royal set forth to establish the next Acadian village.

On November 1, 1699, an extract from a letter from Mathieu de Goutin concerning the founding of Chipoudy says, “Guillaume Blanchard and other settlers from Port-Royal came here two days ago to take up grants …”

Obviously, the men were on a scouting mission, evaluating locations to establish a community similar to Belle Isle.

Not quite two months later, on December 27th, another extract discussed the chartering of a ship by Guillaume Blanchard to his associates Jean Labat and Christophe Cahouet, at a rate of thirty livres per month.

Labat and Cahouet were business mariners focused on trade, such as transporting furs, timber, and provisions. Blanchard was laying the foundation for a profitable future for his new settlement.

Guillaume established a small village at Petitcodiac, reportedly eventually settling two sons and a daughter with her husband there. Guillaume and Pierre returned to Port Royal, but Guillaume returned to Village des Blanchard in both 1700 and 1701 when his sons, daughter, and son-in-law spent the winter.

It’s easy to surmise that the two sons left by Guillaume to overwinter were René and Antoine, his eldest.

Identifying the daughter and son-in-law is more challenging and less evident.

  • Guillaume’s oldest daughter, Marie, born about 1674 had been married to Charles Bourgeois since about 1692, and they were already established in Beaubassin. Did they uproot and move to Petitcodiac? It’s unlikely, but we don’t know for sure.
  • Guillaume’s second-oldest daughter, Jeanne, married Olivier Daigre on August 8, 1700, and their first child was born about 1701. Did they strike out and settle on the frontier with no midwife when they were either expecting a baby or with a newborn? I’d judge that to be unlikely.

They are shown in the 1701 census in Port Royal, but we don’t know when that census was actually taken. Their next child was baptized in August 1703 at Port Royal.

That said, it’s certainly possible that Olivier went with Jeanne’s brothers, and Jeanne stayed with her mother at Belle Isle to deliver her child.

  • Guillaume’s third daughter, Anne Blanchard, married Claude Bourgeois around 1701, when they are shown at Beaubassin in the census alongside her sister, Marie, and her husband, who was Claude’s brother. In other words, Blanchard sisters married Bourgeois brothers. Did they go to Petitcodiac? Their first known child was born about 1704, so we can infer that their first child died.

Both Marie and Anne are shown in the 1703 census in Beaubassin, and Jeanne is living in Port Royal, so which daughter was established at Petitcodiac, even for one winter, cannot be determined.

By 1702, some of the land was arable, and the colony became permanent as settlers began to stay over the winter there instead of returning to Port Royal.

The dykes still restrain the brackish water and the bore tides today. A small dirt road runs between the dyke and the fields, while the houses are located far from the river. This dyke on the left could well have had its genesis in one of the original dykes built by Guillaume, his sons, and son-in-law.

They invested back-breaking labor and believed they were building a rosy future here.

The Early 1700s Censuses

In 1700, Guillaume Blanchard, 49, and Huguette, called Agathe, 45, are living at Port Royal with their eight children.

  • René – 23
  • Antoine – 21
  • Jeanne – 18
  • Anne – 16
  • Elizabeth – 11
  • Jean – 13
  • Guillaume – 10
  • Madelaine – 8

Their two youngest children are not listed, but based on later records, had not died.

Their daughter, Marie, with husband Charles Bourgeois, is living in Beaubassin.

The 1701 census is somewhat confusing. Guillaume, 52, and Huguette, 46, are living at Port Royal with their children on 20 arpents of land. They have 25 cattle, 25 sheep, 17 hogs, and five guns. One man by the name of René Blanchard, has married and is living at Riviere St. Antoine (Les Mines). However, René Richard, age 23, is living with Guillaume and Huguette in Port Royal, as is their son, Antoine, so those boys aren’t settled at Petitcodiac yet. The René Blanchard married and living in Les Mines is not their son.

The 1703 census is much less detailed than the earlier censuses and only gives the name of the head of household, with family members counted by sex. Guillaume is listed in Port Royal with his wife, six boys, two girls, and five arms bearers. If this is accurate, there’s an unknown boy living with them.

The same René Blanchard that was listed at St. Antoine in 1701 is listed in 1703 at Les Mines. Petitcodiac does not appear to be included, or if it is, it’s listed in a broad category. Or, maybe something else is happening.

The new colony at Petitcodiac may not have been included in the census, but the settlers had been noticed, and trouble was looming on the horizon.

Land Challenges

Maybe, just maybe, Guillaume Blanchard spoke too highly of Petitcodiac when he returned to Port Royal. Their settlement came to the attention of the Seigneur of Beaubassin, who claimed all the land was his and threatened legal action for trespass.

Claude-Sébastien de Villieu threatened to file suit on behalf of his wife’s father, Michel Leneuf de La Vallière, who lived at Beaubassin. La Vallière claimed Chipoudy, settled by Thibodeau, and the Petitcodiac settlement founded by Blanchard, as part of his seigneury.

Apparently, Blanchard and Thibodeau initially tried to negotiate, but Villieu refused, so Thibodeau and Blanchard applied to Paris for their own seigneury. Despite the dispute, building and land preparation continued. One report said that a mill had been built with materials out of Boston, probably by Thibodeau since he was a miller at Port Royal.

On October 2, 1702, a report by Mathieu de Goutin, Thibodeau’s son-in-law, concerning the founding of Les Mines, requested that Guillaume Blanchard be granted a half league on either side of the Petitcodic River:

“The said Blanchard has a sailing vessel, and grown sons, sons-in-law, and nephews, who will put the Petitcoudiac land along the Petitcoudiac River to use and will settle there many people, and in three years the colony will draw support from them.”

This request was for a massive amount of land. A French league equates to about 2.42 miles, and a half league is about 1.21 miles. This means that Goutin was requesting half a league on both sides of the river, with no specification for a restriction on distance. The agricultural buffer zone would straddle the river, ensuring that the Village des Blanchard controlled the rich, dykable tidal marshes on both shores.

Guillaume Blanchard had chosen well. On this map of the Petitcodiac River, the white areas along the riverbanks are salt marsh fields. The area near Hillsborough has deep marshes on both sides of the river. The marshes extend even further north to Moncton, while Chipoudy, where Thibodeau’s village and mill would have been located, was on the Cape to the south. Both are outside the picture.

By 1702, there were 7 families with 33 people at Shepody, and 5 families with 13 people at Petitcodiac. Villieu realized the settlers were dug in and had every intention of staying. Now, Villieu was ready to negotiate, but Blanchard and Thibodeau were not, because they were requesting their own seigneury.

Finally, on March 20, 1703, a royal decree was issued from the Conseil d’État in Paris that tried to balance both sides. It stated that the Acadian settlers could retain possession of the land and improvements, a “censitaire du seigneur,” essentially tenant farmers with the right to pass the tenancy of the land to their descendants. But it also established that La Vallière was to have seigneurial rights over the land.

This meant that neither Thibodeau nor Blanchard could grant rights to land to new settlers, could not collect rents, and had to obey the legal jurisdiction of La Vallière’s estate.

A 1705 decree restated the same. Pierre Thibodeau died in 1704, before the final decree. Guillaume Blanchard was about 55 by this time.

This was not at all what Guillaume and Pierre had in mind, and La Vallière’s successful claim destroyed their hope of obtaining seigneurial rights for themselves and their descendants.

Guillaume’s dream was crushed. Those rich farmlands would never be his.

The Blanchard family refused and returned to Belle Isle. Eventually, future generations, including some Blanchard descendants, would settle the Village des Blanchard where Guillaume first sank roots.

Even without the Blanchard family, Petitcodiac had been born and eventually thrived. By 1734, there were 65 families distributed on the Shepody, Petitcodiac, and Memramcook Rivers, and by 1750 the population had more than doubled.

In 1752, two Blanchard families are listed at Petitcodiac, three at Chipoudy, and six at nearby Memeramkook.

However, in the early 1700s, conflicts with the English that escalated into attacks slowed settlement even further.

We don’t know exactly when the Blanchards returned from Petitcodiac, but based on what we do know, I suspect it was either before or shortly after July of 1704 when Benjamin Church attacked.

I doubt that Guillaume ever returned.

Queen Anne’s War

With the outbreak of Queen Anne’s War between England and France, the small French colonial settlements like Port Royal, and the even smaller settlements like Beaubassin and Petitcodiac became English targets.

In 1704, the English set out to punish the Acadians for their attack, along with their Native American allies, on Deerfield, Massachusetts, killing dozens and taking more than 100 captives.

Furious, the Governor of Massachusetts recruited the notorious pirate, Colonel Benjamin Church, who had at his disposal a massive fleet of ships ranging from warships to fishing boats.

If they could not destroy the Acadians, they would starve them out.

It began on July 2nd, before dawn, when two English warships and seven smaller transport vessels slipped into the Port Royal Basin from the Bay. They captured the sentries on guard at or across from Goat Island and proceeded on to Port Royal, undetected.

Church captured the family of bilingual Charles Melanson (the younger) on the north shore of the river and sent his wife, Marie-Jeanne Bourg, as an emissary into the rebuilt stone-and-earth fort to relay his surrender demand to Governor Jacques-François de Monbeton de Brouillan.

The Acadians had no way of knowing that Church had instructions not to attack the fort, since London had not authorized the retaliatory expedition.

Brouillan flat refused to surrender, so the next 17 days were spent in a standoff. The French soldiers waited inside the fort for an attack that never came. Instead, Church simply waited, his warships on full display, anchored threateningly in the river.

For Church’s actual purposes, a blockade was perhaps even more effective, because it pinned down the French soldiers and many Acadians, while the rest of his flotilla moved on to even more-vulnerable targets.

Church rained destruction and fire on the secondary Acadian settlements: Grand-Pré, Pisiguit, Beaubassin, Chignecto, Petitcodiac and Chipoudy.

The Destruction of Petitcodiac and Chipoudy

In his 1716 memoirs, Benjamin Church described what he saw at Chipoudy and what happened there and at Petitcodiac.

Realizing he faced extreme tides, Church split his forces into smaller whaleboats to better navigate the rivers.

Church wrote that as they approached Chipoudy, they spotted a few Frenchmen and an Indian guide on the shoreline and immediately pursued them into the woods.

He recalled that the settlers had built their homes and outbuildings with distinct frontier craftsmanship. Following his orders to “leave no habitation standing,” his New England privateers systematically went house-to-house, torching them all.

Church specifically boasted about burning the newly constructed homes and barns at Chipoudy and that the inhabitants fled into the woods or marshes rather than barricading themselves in their homes.

He then detailed moving on upriver where the Blanchard Petitcodiac settlement would have been. He recounts killing their cattle and sheep, destroying their homes, and tearing down the dykes, allowing the salt tides to wash back over the land. He bragged that it gave him great satisfaction to break the “substance” of “the French” inhabitants, systematically destroying everything, hoping to also neutralize the assets of their allied “Indian Rebels.”

Quite a lovely man he was.

All I can say is that I’m glad the Acadians ran for the woods, because if Jeanne Blanchard was Guillaume’s daughter who was living there and she had chosen to barricade in her home, I wouldn’t be here today.

If three of Guillaume’s children had died on the new frontier, he would never have forgiven himself.

Back at Port Royal

After Church’s dastardly deeds leveling the Acadian outlier communities, he returned to Port Royal, where he withdrew after a minor skirmish. The Port Royal Acadians would have heaved a huge sigh of relief, but their families in the remote settlements were devastated. Their fields and dykes were ruined, and their homes burned. Many flooded back to Port Royal for safety and survival, and to somehow start over – again.

As soon as Church departed, I’m sure Guillaume Blanchard immediately headed for Petitcodiac to rescue his family and the other settlers. What he found probably made him sick. The years of investment, now all gone – but at least his children were alive. He hugged them and headed home, back to the safety of Belle Isle. I can’t help but wonder if everyone lived. Could this be a clue about what happened to Anne Blanchard’s first child?

Church’s scorched-earth tactics created a humanitarian and agricultural crisis in Acadia, followed by the death of iron-willed Governor Brouillan the following year.

By the time Governor Subercase arrived in 1706, he found a desperate colony. The French had ignored both the colony and its defenses, or lack thereof, for years. The former governors had pleaded for funds, the soldiers hadn’t been paid in years, and morale was in the toilet.

Subercase realized that the English would return to finish what they had started. It was nothing short of a miracle that they hadn’t already, and it was only a matter of when.

Subercase knew that the existing fort wasn’t enough to protect either the fort itself, the soldiers, or the town.

He ordered the construction of a new subterranean powder magazine to keep their powder dry and engaged with privateers to secure provisions. What else was he to do?

Those privateers brought captured English soldiers from the ships who revealed that Boston was raising a massive army specifically designed to capture Acadia.

But the intelligence gathering wasn’t one-sided. Disgruntled, unpaid, and hungry French soldiers defected, running away to the English colonies where they helped the English lay out their attack strategy.

Amidst this building anxiety, life in Acadia, along the river and in the marshes at Belle Isle continued somewhat normally.

1707

On January 31, 1707, Guillaume’s son, Antoine Blanchard, married Elizabeth Teriau.

Guillaume is listed as Antoine’s father, and the “P” shaped mark appears to be his signature, as it was in 1690. “Falaise,” beside Guillaume’s mark, is the signature of Louis de Gannes, Sieur de Falais, a French military officer who was appointed Major of Port-Royal in 1704, meaning he was second in command of the entire colony under Governor Subercase.

In 1707, Port-Royal was under immense stress, facing frequent English naval blockades and attacks. Because the colonial government and military elite were close to the local Acadians, high-ranking officers frequently stepped into the nearby Saint-Jean-Baptiste church to act as formal witnesses for notable weddings.

The English Are Coming

The conflict with the English that the Acadians had been warned about, and were dreading, was on the horizon.

The English in Boston had been preparing, but recruitment was difficult and they had to draft men. Eventually, 1,150 soldiers and 450 sailors on 24 ships sailed out of Boston Harbor and headed for Port Royal. One ship carried 50 cannons, and another carried 24.

This time, led by Colonel John March, the English sailed into the river at Port Royal on June 6, 1707.

As soon as Governor Subercase realized what was happening, he sounded the alarm by firing a cannon, summoning the Acadian men to the fort. His 100 French soldiers had recently been reinforced by another 60, and, as luck would have it, 100 Abenaki warriors were visiting too.

Subercase’s call to the local militia mustered about 60 men out of 102 families, bringing the total available men to about 320.

Was Guillaume among them? We don’t know. His sons assuredly were. Guillaume might have been considered too old.

Regardless, the French were vastly outnumbered. The English had more men than the Acadians had sheep! The total population at Port Royal was about 550, including children, and the entirety of all the Acadian settlements was about 1400 – still less than the number of English soldiers.

Imagine the terror of everyone in Port Royal who could see the size of the offensive. There was absolutely NO WAY they could overcome this – and they wouldn’t have if the English commanders had been even remotely competent. They lacked experience in siege warfare.

On the following day, March landed 700 men north of the fort and another 300 to the south – except they were too far away and spent most of the day marching back towards the fort.

The 1710 English siege map shows the 1707 landing locations as well.

This miscalculation allowed Subercase time to mount a defense – not to mention that Subercase’s soldiers were shooting down at the arriving English, making the unfortunate English, looking up into their guns, sitting ducks.

The English camped about a mile and a half from the fort, and of course, Subercase was commanding a group of soldiers who were familiar with the terrain.

A few men in the dark forest can sound like an army, and rumors began to spread among the English that men from the more distant villages were arriving to reinforce the Port Royal Acadians.

The English commanders began to argue among themselves about how they should, or should not, approach taking the fort. Their chief engineer didn’t think they could mount their cannons, and they couldn’t take the fort without them. They tried, on June 16th, and failed spectacularly, although at some point Subercase’s horse was shot out from under him, forcing a temporary retreat.

Governor Subercase’s report sent to Paris that fall tells us that the civilian habitations within the “banlieue,” about a mile surrounding the fort, had been “ravaged by fire” in June.

On June 17th, the English returned to their ships and sailed away – thoroughly humiliated that they had been unable to take the fort, even when they massively outnumbered the enemy. Unfortunately, they self-soothed by burning the surrounding town and nearby farms before leaving.

They stopped at Casco Bay on the way home where the commanders sent letters ahead to Boston blaming each other.

Not only was this a massively embarrassing disaster for the English, the Bostonians agreed, and crowds of women and children met the returning men with jeers. How humiliating.

In Port Royal, the Acadians were devastated about the loses, but also deeply relieved that the primary English goal had been thwarted.

But they had also been reminded once again of the powerful might of the English, and they knew they had to be better prepared. And quickly.

If at First You Don’t Succeed, Attacking Port Royal Might Not Be for You

The English men were ordered to stay put on the ships in Boston while the English commanders tried to figure out what to do next. They decided to try capturing Acadia again. However, roughly half of their men had deserted, so this time they sailed for Port Royal in late August with Commander Wainwright at the helm, but only about 850 men.

The Acadians had been forewarned, and Subercase had taken the opportunity after the June attack to quickly add defensive earthworks. Lady Luck was with him, and a French frigate arrived whose crew was added to their defenses. Not only that, but the captured English prize ships provided much-needed provisions.

The English fleet arrived on August 21st. Brilliantly, they landed their forces in nearly the same locations, which just happened to be where Subercase had reinforced.

Two days later, Wainwright ordered 300 troops to clear a path for their heavy cannons. Men clearing brush and dragging a cannon are easy marks. The French shot from the top of the fort’s ramparts and employed guerrilla tactics, forcing an English retreat.

Another brush-cutting party was attacked, and nine men were killed. They were fortunate the entire group wasn’t wiped out. Perhaps a tactical error.

Confused by the combined military and guerrilla attacks, the English not only retreated to their camp; they eventually moved the camp because they couldn’t defend it.

On the 31st, the English attempted another landing.

Subercase himself led 120 men out of the fort, engaging about 70 English soldiers in hand-to-hand combat. Reportedly, 20 of the Native American and Acadian defensive forces were wounded, and five were killed. Subercase reported that more than 200 English were killed, but British sources reported 16 wounded and 16 dead.

Again frustrated by their inability to take the fort, and with it, Acadia, they set about on an arson spree again.

French colonial records tell us that vast majority of Port Royal’s early land deeds and court registry files were completely lost to “an enemy fire on a single night in August 1707” at the home of Port Royal’s main notary, Jean-Chrysostome Loppinot. His home is later listed on the Labat map as location “O”, which was marked as broullée, burned. The only documents that survived from his office were a small handful of papers that happened to be in the physical possession of Judge Mathieu de Goutin on the night of the inferno.

On the other side, Thomas Hutchinson’s History of Massachusetts records that the English officers proudly detailed the destruction they had wrought, stating that during their retreat on June 7, 1707, their soldiers systematically set fire to the outlying Acadian houses, barns, and storehouses along the riverbank, and slaughtered hundreds of cattle to spoil the French food supply.

Yet, their repeated incompetence combined with Subercase’s experience and smart military tactics prevented the fall of Acadia.

Houses burned, and the Acadians were certainly damaged, but Acadia stood firm.

Click to enlarge

In 1708, Pierre-Paul de Labat documented the devastation on a map, and he appeared to update the map through 1709. In 1710, when the French administrators were expelled from Port Royal, he took his map with him to France.

His invaluable legend details the list of burned properties by resident.

There’s another interesting gem buried here too. The circle drawn on the map that says “Limite de la banlieue” was an important demarcation. By royal decree, the banlieue of Fort Royal extended outward in a perfect geographic arc from the fort’s bastions, measuring exactly one league (roughly 3 miles or 4.8 kilometers) in radius. That circle marks the edge of the banlieue.

Everyone living within the banlieue circle was legally bound to the fort’s defense. That means that if warships appeared in the river, they were required to leave their homes and enter the fort for protection. The men were expected to bring their guns and fight.

Furthermore, if necessary, the garrison had the right to do whatever necessary to those properties to prevent their enemies from taking cover there. What that meant, or could have meant, goes without saying.

The English camped right near the edge of that circle, and when they couldn’t capture the fort, they burned everything they could. Almost all of Port Royal went up in flames, destroying the administrative and economic hub of Acadia.

And for everyone else living beyond that circle – while their property wasn’t burned, this time, they would certainly have seen the smoke rising in the distance. The message was clear – sooner or later, this WILL be you.

I can only imagine Guillaume gathering his family close and planning their strategy for when the English brought destruction to them once again.

While Subercase, the French soldiers, the Acadians, and their Native allies were all extremely relieved that the fort held, the Acadians continued to live in an emotionally exhausting high-stakes drama where no one could ever really relax.

They knew this was not the end of the English incursions, even if they were gone for a little while.

The next assault might be just around the corner, around the bend in the river, the next sail spotted in the distance – and France was doing nothing to protect her colony. Port Royal and the rest of Acadia were caught between two massive powers in a brutal game of ping-pong.

And they had to rebuild, alone.

The 1707 Census

The census was typically gathered over time, in the late spring and early summer months, compiled and bound together, then sent back to France in the fall. The 1707 census was dispatched to the Ministry of Marine in Paris in November, after the August siege.

While one would think this represents Acadia, particularly Port Royal, AFTER the English twice burned Port Royal, it isn’t. Comparing the census entries with the homes listed as burned on Labat’s map makes this contradiction evident. For example Claude Landry (location “I” on the map) could not have amassed 21 cattle, 15 sheep and 20 hogs before November after his home and barns had burned, and his livestock slaughtered in June and August. Nor could his brother, Pierre Landry (location “K” on the map) have amassed 19 cattle, 20 sheep and 13 hogs.

This makes the 1707 census a snapshot of Port Royal right BEFORE the dual English sieges, and shows us just how much those families who were burned out lost.

Guillaume had probably never been so thankful that he lived upriver.

In the 1707 census, Guillaume’s age is not listed, but he and Huguette are aging. He would be about 57 years old. They have 2 boys who are 14 or older, 2 boys who are younger, and two girls who are 12 or older. They are doing well and own 32 cattle, 38 sheep and 14 hogs. They live on 25 arpents of land and have 6 guns.

They have now become the older generation. Their son Antoine is living next door with his wife, but no children have arrived yet. He has a gun, 2 cattle, 3 sheep and 4 hogs, but no land, so they are living on Guillaume’s land and working it as a family.

Weddings

More of Guillaume’s children are marrying.

On January 18, 1708, son René Blanchard married Marie Savoye, one of the local neighbor girls at Belle Isle.

Guillaume Blanchard and Huguette Goujon are listed as his parents, and Guillaume signs with the now familiar “P” that looks something like a flag.

On February 5, 1709, daughter Isabelle Blanchard (also called Elizabeth in the margin and elsewhere) married Claude Girouard, whose family lived across the river.

1710

One would think that by 1710, the Acadians could be breathing a little easier, but that certainly wasn’t the case.

By now, Guillaume was about 60 years old.

First, the harvest failed. Late spring frosts combined with unusually heavy rainfall and a shortened growing season caused crops to rot in the fields.

Furthermore, an epidemic of some sort, probably either smallpox, typhus, or yellow fever, drove the privateers away. Not only were people dying, but their source of provisions dried up when they needed them most. Life was looking quite bleak.

To make matters even worse, the English returned. They might have taken a bit of a respite, but they had not given up on capturing Acadia and were probably aware of the weakened state of the Acadians. The 1707 sieges had failed, but this one would not.

While France was still neglecting Acadia, England was supporting her colony. Thirty-five English ships with more than 3,400 troops reached Port Royal on September 24, 1710.

They faced 300 hungry, neglected, and ill-equipped Acadian men and French soldiers, 20 unfortunate Quebecois who happened to be visiting, and a few Mi’kmaq warriors. The French soldiers hadn’t been paid in years, nor had the soldiers or Acadians been supplied.

Even if you add every Acadian man and boy above 15 to the mix, you’ve only added 100 to the defensive force. There were many times more English soldiers than the entire Acadian population, including women and children, which only totaled about 570 people.

The Acadians didn’t stand a chance, but miraculously, they held out until October 2nd.

After doing their best to defend the fort and town for eight days, facing impossible odds, the best the Acadians could hope for was to obtain reasonable surrender terms and save themselves from being slaughtered.

Guillaume was never one to shy away from conflict, so he was probably among the men in the fort. This was a do or die trying moment.

All things considered, the surrender terms were quite reasonable, at least compared to the alternative.

In addition to being allowed to march out of the fort through the gate, flags flying and drums beating, before handing the keys to the English, the soldiers and Acadians were not to be harmed.

The French soldiers and administration were sent back to France, but things were so bad that General Francis Nicholson, the English commander, had to provide rations for them on their journey.

The Acadians retained the right to worship as Catholics, their personal property, and those who lived within cannon-shot of the fort – about 3 miles – could stay for 2 years IF they signed an unconditional oath of allegiance. They had two years to remove their moveable items to another French-held location.

The 3-mile delineation covered about 481 Acadians, including women and children. Three months later, by mid-January, 57 heads of household had begrudgingly signed.

This little-known 1710 Acadian military census was ordered by Nicholson after Port Royal fell. He needed to know how many households and people fell within his jurisdiction, and within that 3-mile radius.

That partial census consists of 90 households, five of which were headed by widows. That tells us that 85 men were eligible to sign and only 57 had, so that means that 28, or 33% were holding out. That’s pretty remarkable when you think about David staring up into the face of Goliath and refusing.

Those terms left the Acadians beyond 3 miles, which included Guillaume Blanchard, who lived about 10 miles distant from Port Royal, on the far side of Belle Isle, in limbo.

Did that mean those Acadians didn’t have to take the oath, and didn’t have to remove? What did it mean, exactly?

Was Guillaume considering trying Petitcodiac once again, even though everything had been ruined there? If he was going to go that far to start over, he might as well go just a bit further and be outside “Acadia” altogether, but still in French territory.

We know for sure that some people were still living at Chipoudy, because the following year Francois Broussard of Chipoudy was arrested at Port Royal.

Of course, knowing the Acadians, they did everything possible to skirt the requirement to move from the land they had developed and nurtured for decades. Where would they go? How would they get there, and how would they support their families once they arrived?

Did Guillaume still have his boat, or had that been lost in the earlier depredations at Petitcodiac?

Yet, many Acadians weren’t about to take that despised oath, potentially having to fight against their own countrymen, their allies, and family members in the Native community.

And to add insult to injury, their priest, Father Justinian Durand was captured and held hostage in Boston.

By this time, Acadians had to be both physically and emotionally exhausted.

But it wasn’t over.

January of 1711 – Resistance

The Acadians were fighting back.

We can be nearly 100 percent certain that Guillaume Blanchard was involved in this next incident based on Samuel Vetch’s own records. He kept meticulous notes in his book of letters.

In January 1711, Vetch sent the garrison’s commissary, Peter Capon, to negotiate a purchase of grain from Guillaume Blanchard’s neighbor, Pierre LeBlanc. While the two men sat talking in LeBlanc’s house, a group of armed Acadians burst in “with their firelocks cocked”, seized Capon, and dragged him out into the night. LeBlanc quickly went after them and arranged for Capon’s release, paying a ransom of 20 pistoles.

Furious, Vetch sent an officer and fifty armed men to St. Laurent chapel (one half mile upriver from the LeBlanc homestead) the following Sunday morning to arrest Father Justinien Durand, whom he considered seditious. Vetch also arrested leading inhabitants at the church and elsewhere, including Louis Allain and Germain Bourgeois, along with their eldest sons, as well as Jean Comeau, Francois Broussard, and Captain Pierre LeBlanc himself. The men were taken to the fort where they remained in a dungeon for several weeks.

Some of these men were tortured, and at least one never left that completely dark dungeon alive.

  • Germain Bourgeois of Beaubassin was “passing through” Port Royal and was arrested for capturing an English soldier, which would have been Capon. He perished after being held torturously for months in the subterranean “black hole” at Fort Anne after refusing to take the oath of allegiance.

Rest that brave man’s soul.

  • Guillaume Bourgeois of Port Royal, son of Germain Bourgeois, was arrested and eventually released. Imagine having to watch your father be tortured and die slowly.
  • Jean Comeau of Port Royal was arrested and eventually released.
  • Pierre LeBlanc of Port Royal, Guillaume Blanchard’s neighbor, was arrested and eventually released.
  • Francois Broussard, who went back and forth between Chipoudy and Port Royal, was arrested. The Broussard families were neighbors of the Blanchards and lived just upriver. Francois survived his torture in the Black Hole, but barely, dying two years later.

Keep in mind, these are only the men we know about, and there were probably more.

It’s no surprise, given the abuse and torture of the Acadian men held in the Black Hole that two of Francois Broussard’s sons, Alexandre Broussard dit Beausoleil, born about 1699, and more particularly, Joseph Broussard, dit Beausoleil, born about 1702 became legendary freedom fighters and Acadian folk heroes during the 1755 Expulsion.

Both men tried, unsuccessfully, to prevent the Expulsion of the Acadians from their beloved Acadia in 1755. Fighting to the bitter end, Colonel William Foster wrote of Joseph, one of the last Acadians still resisting, “These people are Spirited up in their obstinacy by one BeauSoleil . . .”

Belle Isle was producing a generation of, if not generations of, resistors.

The first uprising was only a few months away.

Uprising – The Battle at Bloody Creek

1711 wasn’t kind to the Acadians, but it wasn’t kind to the English either.

Winter descended on Port Royal shortly after the English took possession. Food shortages developed quickly for the English soldiers at the fort, and assuredly, the Acadians were in no mood to feed them. Several were being held in the Black Hole.

Unsurprisingly, the Acadians were openly hostile.

Geez, I wonder why.

Between death, disease, and desertion, there were only about 450 English soldiers left at the garrison, and none of them wanted to be there.

By January 1711, Samuel Vetch, the British commander, had been reduced to sailing to Boston to beg for food for his soldiers. When he returned, he only had 200 soldiers left.

Vetch considered the Acadians intractable, because they were, and wore it like a badge of honor. Vetch was an evil man, and I’m sure they hated him with every ounce of their being.

It’s against this backdrop that the Battle of Bloody Creek occurred on June 21, 1711. Between 50 and 150 “Wabanaki warriors” ambushed about 70 English soldiers who had been foolhardy enough to travel upriver to attempt to force the Acadians to provide them with lumber and food.

What a bad idea.

You already know this isn’t going to end well.

The Blanchards lived near the Mass House shown on this 1733 map, and the LeBlanc Village. The Battle of Bloody Creek took place slightly upriver.

The site of the Bloody Creek Battle was about four miles as the crow flies from the Blanchard home. The distance as the boat rowed was about 6 miles. The English would have rowed past numerous Acadian homes, including those at Belle Isle, who probably quietly sent messengers upstream, warning of their impending arrival.

The Battle at Bloody Creek was initially described as an ambush of between 50 and 150 Wabanaki warriors against about 70 English soldiers, killing 16, injuring 9, and capturing the rest.

Did I also mention that some of the captured English reportedly had to pay their own ransoms to be released? Pardon my chuckle.

I’ve always been very suspicious of the claim that the Wabanaki conducted the raid – or at least that it was only the Wabanaki.

Following this successful ambush, the Acadians and their Native allies were emboldened. Buoyed by their victory, a large joint force of approximately 600 Mi’kmaq, Abenaki, and Acadian men assembled under the leadership of Father Antoine Gaulin, who was anything but your quiet parish priest, and Bernard-Anselme d’Abbadie de Saint-Castin.

A total of about 600 men attempted to retake the fort at Port Royal. Unfortunately, they had no heavy weapons or artillery and could not launch an effective attack, but they hemmed the sickly English soldiers in for weeks. Gaulin went to Newfoundland and asked the Governor for supplies and reinforcements, which he received. The Acadians needed the heavy ammunition, siege equipment and other supplies being carried on the French ship dispatched by the Governor, but unfortunately, it encountered the British fleet and was captured, effectively ending their hope of dislodging the English at Port Royal.

Still, the English at Port Royal were worried, and Governor Vetch sent for reinforcements. The Acadian effort was abandoned when he returned with 200 English soldiers.

The English were not about to let this uprising go unpunished, and they cracked down HARD.

  • Vetch arrested inner-circle hostages who lived within the 3-mile radius, like Pierre Melanson and Louis Allain. Thrown into the black hole on a rotating basis, they were held under threat of execution if they didn’t force the surrounding communities into submission.
  • The English plundered the upriver Acadians who had openly participated in the ambush at Bloody Creek and subsequent blockade. They burned crops, barns, and killed livestock with the goal of ensuring that the resistance movement couldn’t feed itself, or any “visitors” who might arrive to help. Ummm, wouldn’t that have been every Acadian?
  • Not only that, but Vetch also required an immediate payment of 100 pistoles, gold coins, per month, along with a mandatory levy of timber and logs to repair the fort.
  • Vetch threatened that if any village failed to deliver on any of his demands, it would be burned to the ground.

Vetch and his soldiers wouldn’t have been selective about whose farms he burned, so this time, Guillaume very likely lost his home and farm to fire. Like always, the Acadians rebuilt, because they had no other choice.

Another Wedding

On May 18, 1712, Guillaume witnesses the marriage of his daughter, Magdelaine Blanchard to Charles Gautrot.

Both Guillaume the elder and his son by the same name signed as witnesses.

This wedding would have been held in the local St. Laurent Chapel, because the Belle Isle Acadians were no longer going into the church at Port Royal that had been repurposed as an English barracks.

1714

On January 16, 1714, Guillaume’s namesake son, Guillaume Blanchard, married Jeanne DuPuis, another neighbor.

It’s interesting that while Guillaume the father cannot read and write, as indicated by his signature “P” mark, his son can.

The 1714 census was taken four years after the English takeover. On it, we find two Guillaume Blanchards. One, the father, is shown with a wife and two sons. The second, newlywed Guillaume, is listed with his wife. They are living beside his parents, with his brother, René Blanchard, on the other side with his wife and three sons.

The Blanchard Village, just not at Petitcodiac.

Unfortunately, the 1714 census doesn’t show the amount of livestock or arpents of land being worked, so we can’t compare it to the 1707 census to gain some idea of how much was lost in the upriver community when Vetch went on his retaliatory burning campaign in 1711.

Guillaume’s Death

We don’t know exactly when Guillaume Blanchard died, but we can bracket the date within a couple of years. We know it was sometime after January 30, 1715, and before Huguette died on 18 October 1717, when she is noted as a widow.

On January 30, 1715, Guillaume’s widowed daughter, Jeanne, married for the second time to Jean LePrince. Her parents are shown as Guillaume Blanchard and Huguette Goujon, and neither are noted as deceased.

Guillaume Blanchard signed with his easily recognizable mark, and Jeanne’s brother Guillaume signed with his signature below the elder Guillaume.

On November 3, 1715, Guillaume Blanchard witnessed a baptism where he is noted as Guillaume the son, implying that Guillaume, the father, is still alive at this time.

Assuming the baptism information is accurate and Guillaume is still alive, he died between November 3, 1715 and October 18, 1717. Guillaume would have been between 65 and 67 years of age. Only history knows why his death and burial weren’t recorded in the parish registers, or didn’t survive.

But history also gives us a hint.

By September 1715, the temporary peace following the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht had collapsed into severe local tension. Queen Anne had died, King George I took the British throne, and the British authorities at the fort grew justifiably paranoid about an Acadian uprising or mass emigration to French-controlled Cape Breton (Île Royale). After all, just a few years earlier, they told the Acadians that they HAD to move. Be careful what you ask for.

On January 22, 1715, just a week before Guillaume’s daughter, Jeanne, remarried, the English required an unconditional oath of allegiance to King George. The Acadians refused, saying they would swear a conditional oath that guaranteed their religious freedom and exempted them from ever having to bear arms against their French or Mi’kmaq neighbors.

While initially requiring the Acadians to move, now the English forbade it, because they had come to realize that they needed the Acadians to feed them. Conversely, the Acadians now wanted to leave.

Terrified that the Acadians would move to French-controlled Cape Breton (Île Royale), and also furious at their refusal to take the oath, the English locked the fort gates and prohibited all trade – with them or with the Native people. The Acadians couldn’t even build boats, not even for fishing, nor sell their cattle or livestock outside the river valley.

Father Durand functioned as one of the leaders of the Acadian resistance, so he was targeted and heavily watched as he slipped from farm to farm, ministering to his flock as best he could. He preached that taking the oath would jeopardize their ability to worship as Catholics, and encouraged the upriver Acadians to hold out against the British demands.

The Acadians continued their resistance, and the English became increasingly desperate. While the fort’s soldiers starved, the Acadians developed a smuggling network with New England merchants, bypassing the English at Port Royal and their fort entirely, which made the fort commanders even angrier. Desperate for the Acadian cattle and grain, the Boston merchants were more than willing to bypass the garrison – and they paid with actual silver coins, sugar, molasses and textiles. This made the upriver Acadians like Guillaume Blanchard even more fiercely independent and contravened the effects of the fort’s embargo.

Unable to control the smuggling, the starving English at the fort began upriver expeditions to steal livestock and grain from the Acadians living there, because the Acadians would not willingly relinquish them.

One can rest assured that Guillaume and his neighbors were all hiding their assets from the local English while running a successful smuggling business and navigating the black market.

By 1716 and 1717, the lockdown had eased a bit through administrative paralysis. The British garrison realized their enforcement was an utter failure. The fort was completely out of money, the soldiers were mutinous and malnourished, and Lieutenant-Governor Thomas Caulfeild grew severely ill and died. The garrison simply lacked the manpower, energy, and resources to patrol the entire valley or stop the massive Boston black market. The two sides were effectively stalemated.

The parish records during 1715, 1716 and 1717 are disorganized and sparse. Father Durand was attempting to serve a fragmented population, with services and rites being held in individual homes up and down the river. He was sometimes assisted by other, traveling priests. Everyone avoided the three mile radius around the fort.

It was during this time that a second Catholic church was built at Granville Ferry since the Acadians had lost access to the one at Port Royal. This meant that Father Durand was now serving two churches, plus his other clandestine activities.

Clearly, many events, like Guillaume’s burial, never made it into the registers. Perhaps the officiating priest, if there was one, recorded them on slips of paper that never made it into the official parish register. People had to be buried when they died, and couldn’t wait on a priest, so often the local population leadership simply did what needed to be done.

This also causes me to wonder if Guillaume’s death had something to do with the smuggling operation that operated at night, under cover of darkness. Did he encounter English soldiers and have an “accident” at their hands, or perhaps drown in the river or bay? Did he die defending his property? Is that why his burial is never recorded? Was he part of the active, daily resistance network?

Assuming Guillaume died at or near Belle Isle where he lived, he was probably buried in the graveyard beside the neighborhood Catholic church, St. Laurent, shown on various maps as the “Mass House.”

The Mass House did not survive the fires and destruction following the 1755 expulsion of the Acadians from Nova Scotia, and neither did the cemetery.

However, using maps and other information, we’ve been able to approximate its location.

Guillaume Blanchard doesn’t rest someplace at Village des Blanchard on the Petitcodiac River where he established his short-lived community.

He probably rests in a lost grave beside the lost St. Laurent church, here, at Belle Isle, near his home in the original Blanchard Village.

_____________________________________________________________

Share the Love!

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

Subscribe!

If you haven’t already subscribed, it’s free. You’ll receive an e-mail whenever I publish by clicking the “follow” button at the top of the main blog page, here.

Help Keep This Blog Free

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

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Uploads

Genealogy Products and Services

My Books

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

Jeanne Blanchard (c1681–1752/1762): Perseverance – 52 Ancestors #484

Jeanne Blanchard was born about 1681 in Port Royal, Acadia, the fifth child of Guillaume Blanchard and Huguette Gougeon.

Jeanne’s life was anything but easy, even by Acadian standards, but it all began normally enough.

In the 1686 census, Jeanne is reported as age 5, which places her birth about 1681.

She was living with her parents and four siblings near Port Royal, along the Rivière du Dauphin, on 5 arpents of land, with 20 sheep and 16 cattle. Her father, Guillaume Blanchard, is age 35, and her 27-year-old mother’s name is spelled Huguette Goujonne.

Jeanne’s grandparents, Jean Blanchard, 75, and Radegonde Lambert, 65, lived next door. No land or livestock was listed on their census entry, so one can assume that they were all living as an extended family unit in adjacent homes.

They were living along the rich salt marshes at BelleIsle, near the LeBlanc family, who were their neighbors.

Photo of a portion of the sign at the LeBlanc family marker, located at the red arrow beside the LeBlanc Village on this reproduction historic map.

In the census, Jeanne and her family lived near the LeBlanc village and other families known to reside at BelleIsle.

The local Catholic church, Église St. Laurent, is shown on the map as well, not far from Hebb’s Landing, on the far side of this bend in the river.

This settlement pattern makes sense. The Acadian families had originally lived primarily at and near Port Royal, today’s Annapolis Royal, but by the 1680s, they were already somewhat scattered, in part, due to earlier devastating attacks by the English.

Jeanne’s life is told in chapters along this river – that is – right up until the end.

In 1682, Beaubassin was founded by Acadians from Port Royal, and in 1686, the new Acadian governor reported that “the people had scattered and lived far from each other.”

He said that their homes were built behind the marshes, which were along the river.

That’s a perfect description of BelleIsle, perhaps the most fertile marshland in all of Acadia – and safely located more than 15 miles upriver, as the canoe paddles.

While English soldiers could get there in small boats, their ocean-going vessels with cannons could not venture upriver beyond Port Royal, and therefore, could not attack BelleIsle. Comparatively speaking, Port Royal was vulnerable and exposed, which is why it had a fort, and why families moved upriver, beginning in the 1650s.

By the 1680s, the most productive marshlands had been claimed, and many of the young married couples were moving north to the Minas Basin.

By 1688, there was both a labor and a manure shortage at Port Royal. Maintaining the dykes that held back the saltwater from the fields was labor-intensive work.

In Europe and the colonies, King William’s War between France and England dragged on, a constant source of chronic low-level anxiety for Acadian families, with everyone waiting for the next shoe to drop.

And drop, it did.

The 1690 Depredations

In 1690, Jeanne would have been about 9 years old.

Her day-to-day life probably consisted of attending church, saying her prayers, and joining her mother, aunts and perhaps her grandmother as they harvested vegetables, tended their farm animals, and baked bread.

Jeanne’s carefree childhood, living in the sunshine along the river, would come to an end soon enough.

Back in Boston, the English were determined to take Acadia once and for all, and began planning their offensive in March of 1690.

On April 28th, Sir William Phips, a man with a personal axe to grind, set sail as commander of the English expedition. His flagship, the Six Friends, carried 42 mounted guns, along with a second ship, the Porcupine, which sported another 16. They were accompanied by three additional ships, carrying a total of 446 provincial troops.

The Acadians at Port Royal were both outmanned and outgunned, with only 90 soldiers in the garrison and the fort itself in a horrific state of disrepair.

On this 1686 map, you can’t even tell that the fort is a fort.

The fort’s cannons weren’t even mounted so it stood no prayer of defending itself against the English onslaught. Worse yet, the entire garrison only possessed 19 muskets – about one musket for every four and a half soldiers.

France had long neglected Port Royal, and now the proverbial pigeons were coming home to roost. How could France have allowed this to happen to her colony?

On May 9th by the English Julian calendar (or May 19th on the French Gregorian calendar), the English ships sailed into the harbor and made contact with bilingual French Huguenot, Pierre Melanson, whose home was the closest to the bay, several miles downriver from Port Royal. Phips inquired as to the state of the fort and the town. History hasn’t revealed Pierre’s response, but Phips pulled up anchor the following morning, sailed up to the town, and anchored in the river there.

Phips demanded the fort and town’s surrender. He probably already knew, and could clearly see the condition of the fort, including its lack of cannons, from the river at Port Royal where his fleet was anchored.

Acadian Governor Meneval sent the local priest to negotiate surrender terms because the fort clearly could not defend itself, and doing otherwise would assuredly have resulted in slaughter. Phips and the priest agreed to terms, but when Meneval boarded the ship the following day to sign the agreement, Phips refused to put anything in writing or to sign any agreement. Meneval had little option other than to trust him.

The terms, as agreed to by both parties, stated that the residents would not be harmed or displaced, nor would their property be taken or damaged, and the soldiers would be unharmed and returned to France.

However, what occurred after Meneval surrendered, not that he had much choice, was not at all what had been agreed to in the unsigned agreement, as attested to by multiple witnesses on both sides.

1686 map of Port Royal and vicinity

As a child, Jeanne would have been unaware of what was transpiring downriver, at least until messengers made their way upriver to share the news and alert the residents.

At some level, the Acadian families had to know that they were sitting ducks, inviting catastrophe, without a functional fort.

Forget the fort. How were soldiers and Acadian families supposed to fight or even defend themselves without guns? That’s not administrative neglect, that’s suicide.

Jeanne’s parents probably gathered their children into the house for safety, or even took them into the rugged mountain range behind their homes to hide.

Beyond that mountain range lay the shores of what is today the Bay of Fundy, but between BelleIsle and the Bay lay more than five miles of rugged, mountainous terrain with dense forest that provided places to hide.

The English soldiers were unleashed by Phips upon the town of Port Royal and the surrounding area. They plundered the town and burned much of it, including the church that sat directly behind the fort.

Phips claimed his actions and those of his men were justified because he was unaware of the condition of the fort, so he didn’t receive the spoils he had anticipated. That’s unlikely, given his visit with Melanson.

Regardless, at least 28 homes were burned, almost one-third of the entire Acadian settlement, and livestock was stolen. The men were gathered together, probably in either the church or the fort, and forced to sign a loyalty oath to the English Crown.

The smoke wafting from the homes that had already gone up in flames, and hanging in a thick haze over the town, reminded them that they had little choice.

By now, everyone would have been afraid, and the children were probably terrified. Those four guns that Guillaume Blanchard owned in the 1686 census assuredly came in very handy. In fact, all 71 guns owned by the Acadian families would have been invaluable. But still, they had no chance of fending off 446 fully armed soldiers, with cannons.

Unfortunately, while the Acadian homes were located “behind the marshes,” they were still quite visible to the river, and no match for hundreds of professional soldiers.

In addition to the 90 soldiers garrisoned at the fort, the 1686 census, which was taken the same year that the map was drawn, recorded 95 families, some of which included older sons who could have helped defend the homestead.

Even with all of the men, older boys and soldiers combined, and a total of 90 guns between them, the Acadians still fell far short of the 446 well-armed, professionally trained English soldiers, backed up by cannons. The 1686 census recorded only 592 people in the Port Royal area, including women and children.

At least 28 homes were burned, but the mills and upriver farms were spared – probably because it was too risky for the English to fan out far enough to burn them all. The further they strayed from Port Royal, the more danger they faced.

The English were interested in easier prey.

Fortunately, Jeanne’s parents lived upriver, which made their farm uninviting. The English restricted their pillaging to homes closer to Port Royal. I can see them, running from home to home with their torches, lighting each one on fire before running to the next.

The Loyalty Oath

We don’t know a lot about what happened to the women and children during this attack, but the men were forced to sign a loyalty oath to the English monarchy. The only exceptions seem to be elderly men who may well not have been able to travel to the fort or the church, and who didn’t really concern the English anyway.

Under duress, Jeanne’s father signed the oath with his mark, probably gritting his teeth and swearing an entirely different oath under his breath.

After the Acadians were allowed to return to their farms, English pirates attacked them again later that summer and took what little was left. The remainder of their livestock was killed for sport, and more homes were burned.

Life looked quite bleak. Thank goodness for the Acadians’ dogged perseverance.

I can’t begin to imagine what 9-year-old Jeanne was feeling. I wonder if she ever felt safe again.

The 1693 Census

Three years later, in 1693, the next census was taken and Jeanne, now age 11, is living with her parents at BelleIsle. Their neighbor is Daniel LeBlanc, the patriarch of the LeBlanc family who founded the cluster of homes known as LeBlanc Village.

Jeanne’s father, Guillaume Blanchard, is noted as age 42, and her mother’s name is spelled Agate Goujon, age 37. Jeanne has 7 living siblings, including a baby sister, age 1. Jeanne’s oldest sister, Marie, is married to Charles Bourgeois, and lives with them. They also have a 1-year-old daughter. This combined household is living on 30 arpents of land with 40 sheep, 30 cattle, and 15 hogs.

Karma Bites Back

In 1696, the English attacked Port Royal again, doing the exact same things – except this time, they went a step further, ruining the Acadian dykes and flooding the fields with seawater, which meant that it would be at least three years before they could plant again.

It took that long for the salt to leach out of the soil once the dykes were repaired.

Somehow, Karma took a look and apparently decided that the English needed a lesson in humility. In 1697 and 1698, a devastating smallpox epidemic broke out in Boston, killing about 1,000 of the city’s 7,000 or 8,000 residents, more than 10% of the population by contemporaneous estimates.

Not only that, but the winter of 1697 and spring of 1698 were particularly severe, resulting in a massive shortage of fodder and hay, causing the death of large numbers of livestock in and around Boston. Puritan minister Cotton Mather referred to this crisis as a “terrible Famine” and wrote pleading letters to nearby colonies that had banned transporting corn and grain beyond their borders.

Their resources already depleted by years of warfare, the Bostonians now desperately needed the surplus grain that the Acadians would have been able to provide under normal circumstances. Except they couldn’t, because their dykes and fields had been ruined the year before by the English, and it was all they could do to feed their own families.

At least for a few years, the English left the Acadians alone.

Approaching Marriage Age

In the 1698 census, Jeanne is now 17 and lives with her parents and nine siblings. The youngest, Charles, is noted as ½, so about six months old. Their mother, Huguette Goujon, is 47, and Guillaume is now listed as 48. They have 26 cattle, 24 sheep, and 12 hogs on 34 arpents of land, including 7 fruit trees.

Those fruit trees would have been bearing apples, and Jeanne would have picked those delicious ruby-red apples each fall.

They live beside Laurent Doucet among the BelleIsle families.

Two years later, in the 1700 census, Jeanne is listed as 18, her father is 49 and her mother is 45. Jeanne’s two youngest siblings have died since 1698. They own 39 sheep and 26 cattle and are living on 30 arpents of land.

At 18, Jeanne has been of marriageable age for about four years, but no suitors have won her heart. That would soon change.

Wedding Bells – Olivier Daigle

According to Donald J. Hébert’s book, Acadians in Exile, quoting from the Loppinot Papers, 1687-1710, Jeanne Blanchard married Olivier Daigle on August 8, 1700,

Olivier Daigle, inhabitant of Por-Royal [sic], son of deceased Olivier & Marie Godet, marriage contract dated 8 Aug 1700 to Jeanne Blanchar [sic], daughter of Guillaume & Hugette Gorujar [sic, for GOUGEON]. (Port Royal: Notarial Acts: G3 2040).

In the 1701 Port Royal census, Jeanne Blanchard, 20, is married to Olivier Daigre (d’Aigre, Daigle, d’Aigle), and they are raising his brother Bernard’s two children, who were born at Pisiguit: Pierre, age 5, and Anne, age 3. It’s unclear why, given that Bernard and his wife are both living, and the children weren’t yet old enough to be useful farmhands. Olivier and Jeanne have 9 cattle, 8 sheep, and 6 hogs on 7 arpents of land.

Based on their neighbors, they don’t appear to be living at BelleIsle, but across the river where the Daigle homestead is located.

During my 2024 visit, I stumbled across the Daigle land, unaware at that time that Jeanne Blanchard had lived here with her first husband for about nine years.

The 1703 census contains much less information, but Olivier is listed with his wife, 2 boys, 1 girl, and 1 gun bearer. The gun bearer would have been Olivier himself. This suggests that Bernard’s children, Pierre and Anne, are probably still living with them, and Jeanne has given birth to her first child, a boy.

In fact, that’s accurate, because:

  • Paul Daigre was born about 1701 and died before January 1752, probably in Beaubassin.

Jeanne’s second child, another son, arrived two years later, in 1703, apparently after the census was taken.

  • Olivier Daigre Jr. was born on August 10, 1703, and died on December 9, 1756, in Falmouth, Cornwall. His godparents were René Granger and Magdelaine Broussard.

No Peace

In the 1707 Port Royal census, we find Olivier listed with his wife, along with 2 boys less than 14, 2 girls less than 12, 15 cattle, 12 sheep, and 8 hogs living on 4 arpents of land. They have 4 guns.

Now, it appears that Jeanne has two boys and two girls. Apparently Bernard’s children are no longer living with Jeanne and Olivier. Pierre may have gone back to live with his parents in Grand-Pré, but there are no further records for Anne, suggesting that she died before she was old enough to marry.

  • Marie Daigre was born to Olivier and Jeanne in 1704 and died on December 5, 1756, in Penryn, Cornwall.

By 1704, about the time Marie was born, Acadia was under attack again by the English.

Settlements and the church at Port Royal were looted, and the dams were “dug down,” supposedly as revenge for Indian attacks in New England, instigated by the French.

Jeanne’s next child, her namesake, arrived two years later.

  • Jeanne Daigre was born on February 1, 1706, and died in 1757 in Liverpool. Her godparents were Jean Gautier, building contractor, and Elisabeth Blanchard. Her baptism was not registered until March 19th.

When Daniel d’Auger de Subercase became governor of Acadia in April 1706, he arrived with 160 soldiers, ¾ of whom were young men from the “quays of Paris,” with no training or experience.

Subercase immediately went on the offensive, encouraging Native raids against English targets in New England. He also encouraged the corsairs of Port-Royal to attack English colonial ships. The privateers were very effective, and the English fishing fleet on the Grand Banks was reduced by 80% between 1702 and 1707.

In New England, public outrage simmered, then grew into a fever.

The next English attack occurred in June of 1707 and consisted of 1,000 men led by Massachusetts and joined by men from Rhode Island and New Hampshire. After 11 days, it failed.

If at first you don’t succeed, try again.

A second attack occurred in late August, and it too failed.

Unfortunately, the soldiers at Port Royal were suffering, starving, and in terrible condition. France continued to ignore Subercase’s pleas for reinforcements and supplies that never arrived.

Were it not for the Acadian men, probably including Jeanne’s father, brothers, and husband, and their Native allies, Port Royal wouldn’t have been able to muster any resistance at all.

In 1708, Queen Anne’s War intensified, and hostilities between the English and French did too.

Subercase desperately needed to repair and reinforce the fort, and it was clear that no help was to be had from France.

So, having no other choice, he turned Port Royal into a French pirate hub, financing their needs through captured English booty. In 1708 alone, the privateers captured 35 English merchant ships and brought them back to port, but with that came new problems. By the end of the year, Port Royal was overcrowded with 470 English prisoners who had been captured on those ships. That was more than the entire 1707 census of Rort Royal – 459 people including women and children.

Subercase engaged in negotiations with the Massachusetts governor to arrange for hostage trades in order to reduce the number of English prisoners.

The Acadians were taking this opportunity to shore up their defenses. In 1708, the fort’s store and an additional ship were built, along with a new powder magazine and bombproof barracks. The riverbanks were cleared to remove cover for attackers.

Prisoners taken from English ships reported that the English were planning attacks on Acadia in 1708 and 1709. I’m sure no one was surprised.

Unfortunately for us, there were no censuses taken between 1707 and 1714. However, thanks to baptismal records that began in 1702, we know that:

  • Marguerite Daigre was born on April 2, 1708. She died on Aug 14, 1763 in Connecticut. Godparents were Jean Bastarche and Marguerite Godet. Her baptism was not registered until June 7th. Jeanne Blanchard’s name is mis-recorded here as Anne Blanchard, but Olivier’s name is recorded accurately. Marguerite’s mother’s name is recorded correctly in her 1728 marriage record to Germain Richard, where Jean LePrince, her stepfather, is noted as married to her mother, Jeanne Blanchard, and signs as a witness.

These delayed baptism registrations suggest that they did not live near a church, which is accurate given that they lived far upriver, near today’s Bridgetown.

The nearest church was the St. Laurent Chapel across the river at BelleIsle, labeled as the “Mass House” on this 1733 map, which was also the closest cemetery. The next closest church and cemetery were in Port Royal. The Daigre homestead is not shown on this map but could have been the land labeled with Jean LePrince’s name. Based on later lawsuits, we know it was near and possibly adjacent to the Bastarche land at far right.

Tragedy Strikes

On September 22, 1709, the priest recorded in the parish register that Olivier D’Aigre, around 40 years old, had died and was buried that same day.

This twenty-second of September of the year one thousand seven hundred nine, I, the undersigned, performing the parish functions at Port Royal in Acadia, certify that Olivier D’Aigre, inhabitant of Port Royal, aged about forty years, was buried by Monsieur Gaulin, missionary to the Indigenous people of Acadia, in my absence, with the customary ceremonies; who died after having received with benefit all the last sacraments and having lived with edification during his life. In witness whereof, I signed the present register the same day and year as above.

Brother Justinien Durand, Recollect missionary

We’ll never know what happened, of course, but a 40-year-old man does not die of old age. Was there an accident, or did he succumb to an infection from an injury, or something else? One thing we do know is that there was time for the priest to be summoned and arrive, and for last rites to be administered.

This probably eliminates some forms of death, such as drowning, because if he died immediately, there would not have been time for the priest to be summoned and attend him. I do wonder why no witnesses were listed. That’s unusual.

One thing is for sure, Jeanne would have been heartbroken and terribly afraid.

Her husband was dead, and she was four months pregnant with their unborn child.

How would she live? Who would harvest that fall’s crops? Who would plant the next crop? What would become of her and their five, soon-to-be six, children, all under 8?

  • Jean-Baptiste D’Aigre was born on Feb 22, 1710, and died on November 12, 1757, in Penryn, Cornwall.

Somehow, Jeanne managed.

1710 Depredations

Wouldn’t you know it, the English returned again, but this time with even more men and guns. On September 24th, five English ships sailed into the river, transporting more than 3,400 troops who attacked Port Royal.

Jeanne, now a widow, had a seven-month-old baby, plus five other children below the age of 10.

Her saving grace was that she lived as far upriver as possible, either the most distant or second most distant Acadian home. No one would bother with her there – at least that was her prayer.

It’s possible that the Mi’kmaq people would have assisted her, and I’d wager Jeanne was a pretty good shot with a gun. A widow on the edge of civilization with six children to protect is absolutely the person you DO NOT want to mess with.

This time, Port Royal was not unprepared. The fort had been rebuilt, but they still had few soldiers. Their 300 fighting men would have included all able-bodied Acadian men up and down the river, not just soldiers.

Those brave men held the fort for 19 days, which in and of itself was pretty much a miracle.

Jeanne would not have witnessed the battle, and she was too far upriver to hear anything either. That doesn’t mean that messengers weren’t filling her in, and it’s certainly possible that residents of Port Royal were making their way upriver in boats and canoes seeking safety.

I sure hope they brought some food and supplies along!

This time, the English occupation was complete. The French surrendered the fort and were granted the dignity of being allowed to leave in an orderly fashion, just before the English marched in.

What a sad day for the people of Acadia.

Port Royal was renamed Annapolis Royal, the river’s name was changed to the Annapolis River, and the fort was now Fort Anne.

While the English now controlled the fort, and claimed ownership of all of Acadia, the terms of surrender were confusing and fiercely contested. Even the boundaries of “Acadia” weren’t agreed upon. The English claimed Acadia was all of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and part of Maine, extending to the St. Lawrence. The French claimed Acadian consisted only the southwestern portion of Nova Scotia, leaving everything else as sovereign French territory, at least until the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713.

One of the terms of surrender stated that inhabitants within cannon-shot of the fort, defined as three English miles, could stay for two years, meaning they had two years to either take a loyalty oath to the English crown, or move their “moveable items” to a French-controlled territory, meaning Île Royale (Cape Breton Island) or Île Saint-Jean (Prince Edward Island).

481 Acadians pledged allegiance to the Queen of England, the French troops left, and the English appointed an administrator to manage Port Royal, now renamed Annapolis Royal.

Jeanne clearly lived more than twice that distance away, so she wasn’t covered by this provision. But what did that mean?

  • Could she stay for two years before she had to remove?
  • Did she have any protection at all?
  • Could the English simply take her property now, and everyone else’s at BelleIsle and further upriver?
  • Or did she not have to move in two years?
  • Did she have to move at all?
  • Could she move if she wanted to?
  • Since she was a widow, could she even sign a loyalty oath to preserve her property? There is no known instance of anyAcadian woman signing a loyalty oath.

Why were these Acadian families left in limbo?

We don’t know exactly what went on upriver during this time, but the priests helped organize resistance, just beyond the protection line, of course.

The Acadians did not want to live under English masters, but neither did they want to leave, so they initially resisted.

Finally, given enough time, taxation, and harassment by the English, the Acadians decided they wanted to go, so they were making plans to leave quickly, taking their livestock and possessions with them.

Be careful what you ask for…

By this time, that’s not at ALL what the English had in mind. They (now) wanted the Acadians to stay, grow crops for them, and pay taxes. The English had quickly learned that they needed the Acadians because they didn’t have the first clue how to farm the marshlands.

Resistance was not dead – only hiding – and not well at that.

The balance of power was shifting around like a fish flopping within sight of water.

Then, the French saw another opportunity!

Bloody Creek

After the English captured the fort and Port Royal in 1710, the Acadians refused to feed them, or harvest lumber they needed to repair the fort. That winter was very bleak for the English soldiers quartered there, so the English began sending expeditions upriver to attempt to enforce their demands.

In June of 1711, a detachment of English soldiers from Fort Anne ventured upriver and was ambushed by a band of Indians. Reports varied between 50 and 150. Thirty soldiers, a major, and the fort engineer were killed at Bloody Creek, 12 miles east of Annapolis Royal, and were probably buried in the marshes at BelleIsle.

The Native people were close allies and often intermarried with the Acadians.

Truthfully, I’ve never been convinced that the ambushers were (entirely) “Indians” anyway, especially given that records show that some Acadian men were held in the dungeon in the fort, and died there, after this attempt to ambush the English and retake the fort.

Following their victory at Bloody Creek, the Acadians within the protection zone moved upriver, and roughly 600 men gathered and blockaded Fort Anne. The English fort commander went for reinforcements, returning with another 200 fully armed men, after which the 600 Acadian and Indian men withdrew. They might well have been successful if they had the benefit of artillery or siege cannons to breach the fort’s walls, but they did not – and motivation alone was not enough.

On April 13, 1713, Acadia officially passed to England, with France ceding all of Nova Scotia.

Now, the Acadians were truly ready to leave, en masse, but the English prevented it. The English persistently pressured the Acadians to take another oath of allegiance, but they steadfastly refused. This probably wouldn’t have applied to Jeanne, a female, who was likely doing her best to lay low and remain as inconspicuous as possible.

I’ve often wondered if Jeanne clandestinely took part in the resistance. She would have been in the best possible location to do so.

By now, she had survived as a widow for four long years since Olivier’s death, but the future was anything but certain.

The 1714 Census

The only census under the English was taken in 1714.

In the 1714 census, Jeanne is listed as “Widow Olivier, with three sons and two daughters,” although she actually had three sons and three daughters. Just goes to show that census takers weren’t much different then than they were in other times and places, and they probably didn’t visit her in person – much to her great relief.

“Oh yeah, that’s Olivier’s widow that lives way up there. She has a passel of kids – five I think.”

Jean LePrince

Apparently, Jeanne had been a widow long enough. More than five years. That chapter was about to come to an end.

Jeanne Blanchard married Jean LePrince on January 30, 1715. He was born about 1692 in Minas, according to the 1693 census. Jean’s father died before his birth, a situation similar to that of Jeanne’s youngest son.

It was a rather unusual union, and I’ve always wondered if it was a marriage of love, convenience, or economic necessity. Hopefully at least some of the first.

Jeanne was 10 or 12 years older than Jean Le Prince, the opposite of a typical age gap in Acadian couples where the man is often substantially older than his wife. She would have been about 34, and he was about 22. That’s a big difference, raising questions.

They probably met when he was trading in the Port Royal area given that his family lived in Minas. His mother was raised near what is now Bridgetown, and had married his father there. That’s also where Jeanne’s land was located.

I hope that their bond was one of mutual attraction, and Jeanne was not a victim. Jean was “interesting,” and somewhat unruly, to put it mildly.

Jeanne Blanchard would have been considered a good catch, a widow with land she had owned with her previous husband. She had been a widow for going on six years – an eon in Acadian time. Which begs the question of why she had not already remarried.

A widow who was a decade or more older than Jean LePrince from Minas. A man whose character wouldn’t have been well-known to people living in Port Royal, especially not upriver, in the remotest part of the Annapolis River Valley. I hear alarm bells.

When Jean married Jeanne in 1715, she had been widowed for half a decade, farming on her own in addition to everything else, and was clearly a resourceful and capable woman. That doesn’t mean she wouldn’t welcome a new partner.

At 22, Jean was only eight years older than Jeanne’s eldest child.

Jean hadn’t grown up in Port Royal, so she wouldn’t have known him well. A few years later, this mattered a lot more than Jeanne could ever have imagined, when lawsuits abounded and all hell broke loose.

Did she live to regret her choice?

Jeanne’s marriage record states that she is the widow of Olivier D’Aigre.

Jeanne signed with her mark that looks something like a cow with horns, beneath the signature of Jean LePrince and above the mark of her father.

Her father signed with his mark, and her brother by the same name signed with his signature below the elder Guillaume. I don’t know quite how to interpret this.

Was Jeanne’s father simply a witness, conveying tacit approval or was this a wholehearted family endorsement of Jeanne’s marriage?

Tense Times and a Growing Family

Their marriage was probably timely, because tensions were rising and the situation in Acadia was escalating again. At least Jeanne didn’t have to face the future alone.

The Acadians were preparing to move to Cape Breton, and the English were doing everything they could to prevent it. By September 1715, the fort’s gates had been shut, depriving the Acadians of much-needed resources. They were prevented from trading with the English at the fort, and also with the Indians. Now the Acadians desperately wanted to leave, but they couldn’t, as the English continued to tighten the economic screws.

Jean and Jeanne began their family immediately, with their first child, Marie-Josèphe, arriving just 10 months later.

  • Marie-Josèphe LePrince was born on November 3, 1715, recorded in the Port Royal vestry book which served both churches. She died sometime after 1763. Her godparents were Guillaume Blanchard, the son, and Marie D’Aigre, the daughter of Jeanne Blanchard and Olivier d’Aigre. Marie-Josèphe must have had a special relationship with her older sister, Marie. Unfortunately, they would be separated by 1723 when Marie, with her new husband, Jean Terriot (Theroit), relocated to Grand-Pré.

The Acadian situation with removal versus non-removal flip-flopped back and forth through 1717, when a new English fort commander once again demanded an unconditional loyalty oath. Were Jean and Jeanne simply numb to all this by now, focused instead on raising their growing family?

  • Honoré (Le)Prince was born on August 2, 1717 in Port Royal and died before February 17, 1762, in Quebec. His godparents were his eldest brother, Paul D’Aigre, and Agnes Godet.
  • Joseph (Le)Prince was born on February 9, 1719 in Port Royal and died on May 23, 1781, in Bécancour, Quebec. His godparents were his brother, Olivier D’Aigre, and Marguerite Bourgeois.

1720 – The Loyalty Oath, Again

Conflict between the English and Acadians was a constant state of affairs, but it worsened again in 1720 when the English began threatening to expel the Acadians because they refused to swear their loyalty to the English monarch.

We’ll never know how much of this threat was bluff and how much was real.

On May 9, 1720, those who had become British subjects by taking the dreaded oath were offered free exercise of their religion, a guarantee of their property, and their civil rights.

A secondary offer was made. If the Acadians did not take the oath, they could leave, but could not take any of their possessions with them.

The Acadians replied that they feared the Indians if they took the oath, and they promised to be faithful and peaceful. They explained that they couldn’t leave in the year allotted to them because no one would buy their land. The French had no intention of the Acadians selling their land – they were counting on abandonment.

The French government encouraged the Acadians to move to Cape Breton Island, then called Île Royale, but the land where they were to relocate was rocky and poor. Furthermore, the English government was underhandedly keeping them at Port Royal by holding their possessions hostage. The English didn’t want to lose their supply source. The Acadians, they lamented, were difficult to control.

I think the Acadians took pride in not allowing the English to push them around.

English Governor Philipps pronounced the Acadians ungovernable and stubborn, and stated that they were directed by bigoted priests. He went on to say that the Acadians couldn’t be allowed to relocate because it would strengthen the population of their French neighbors. The Acadians were also needed to build fortifications and to produce supplies for the forts. He said that they couldn’t leave until “there are enough British subjects to be settled in their place,” and he hoped plans were being made to bring in British subjects. Furthermore, he expected problems from the Indians who didn’t want the Acadians to move.

Anyone who knows anything about the Acadians understands that this would simply have made them even more determined and steadfast in their resolve.

This back-and-forth standoff had been going on now for a decade. I can’t count the number of times the players changed their minds – go, stay, no, we won’t go, we’re leaving and you can’t stop us, we’ll stay but you’ll be miserable. You have to leave, get out, you can’t leave, you can leave but not take anything, we need English settlers, what will we do without you. And so it went.

Everyone was probably exhausted, and no Acadian was making any long-term investment in anything because they could lose their land and everything else in the blink of an eye.

Those poor Acadians. This drama never ends. And of course, Jeanne was pregnant again.

  • Jean Baptiste LePrince was born on February 9, 1721, in Port Royal and died on January 11, 1811, in Saint-Grégoire-le-Grand, Nicolet. His godparents were Charles Blanchard and Angelique Richard.
  • Pierre LePrince was born on May 28, 1723, and was baptized by Pierre Godet the elder. His birth was recorded June 24th. He died on January 3, 1758 and was buried the following day in Quebec City. His godparents were Pierre Blanchard and Marguerite, last name unstated.

1729 – Resolution and Deception

The loyalty oath continued to be an insurmountable issue for the next several years, until in 1729 when Governor Philipps ended it once and for all – just not terribly honestly.

Philipps let both parties think they were getting what they wanted by having the Acadians sign an oath they agreed to that was less restrictive.

  1. The oath itself was written on page one.
  2. The exceptions and exclusions the Acadians wanted were recorded on page two.
  3. They signed on page three, relieved that the constant harassment would finally stop.

But Philipps sent only the front page and the signature page back to England, omitting page two. No one, except him, knew the difference, and Acadia lived in relative peace under English rule until 1755, when the English rounded up and expelled the entire Acadian population.

Relative Peace

While the Acadians writ large were now living peacefully, Jeanne’s family was not. Is this woman EVER going to get a reprieve?

By 1730, Jeanne was about 49 years old and Jean, of course, was at least a decade younger.

With peace finally having been reached, meaning they had a future there, the Acadians focused once again on land in the Annapolis River Valley.

There’s some question about where and how Jean LePrince obtained his land.

Of course, we know that Jeanne Blanchard had her husband’s land, but it appears that Jean LePrince may have owned land of his own, or land he somehow obtained, in addition to hers, or both.

Unfortunately, land transactions in Acadia are fuzzy, at best, for a wide variety of reasons.

Some researchers hold that Jean’s father owned land along the river, near the Daigre land, that was never sold after he moved to Pisiguit in 1686, and before his death in 1693. That’s certainly possible.

If this is the case, it would explain why his son, Jean, returned to the Port Royal area when he was about 22 and met Jeanne, whose land lay in close proximity.

Jean refused to allow the English to survey his land in 1729, so we know he had land at that time. But what did “his” land mean? Was it the original Daigle land, or was it his father’s land, or something else?

As it turns out, based on a 1733 map, we do know where Jean’s land was located. I’m presuming this is where Jeanne and Jean lived, at least at some point, but presume is a dangerous word in genealogy, and even more so when dealing with Acadian land.

Gaudet Village is today’s Bridgetown.

Jean was René Forest’s neighbor. Jean’s eldest daughter married René Forest’s son, and his two eldest sons married René’s daughters. René and Jean were also first cousins.

The star in the river identifies the location of the 1711 Battle at Bloody Creek. One of the tributaries sprang forth on Jean’s land.

Jean’s Land Today

Based on these maps, and the shape of the river, when I visited Nova Scotia in 2024, I was able to locate at least the general area where Jean LePrince and Jeanne Blanchard lived and raised their children.

The Button Brook Cemetery is located beside the road today.

The LePrince land is someplace near Button Brook on the south side of the Annapolis  River, but north of the main road.

It’s difficult to pinpoint an exact location using the old maps. Jean and Jeanne would have farmed Olivier Daigle’s land too, further east, beyond Bridgetown.

Acadian homes stood on the high ground, with the saltmarsh dykes draining the land closer to the river. Today’s roads are built on that same high ground too.

An abandoned railroad, now a rail trail, is accessible by foot, bicycle, and some small vehicles, although it’s blocked by center barriers in some areas and the bridges are iffy. That said, it provides a much more authentic view of the lands near the river than the contemporary road.

This is the view north along Bloody Creek, viewing mountains across the Annapolis River in the distance.

Jean’s land along the rail trail had an abundant meadow.

The rail trail runs along the river. It’s no wonder they fought so hard to keep this heartstoppingly beautiful land.

If they did indeed live on Jean’s land, this is the view Jeanne would have seen. If they lived further upstream on the Daigle land, that’s around the bends in the river.

A small creek dividing Jean’s fields, or perhaps those of Jean and René, empties into the river.

You can see it on Google’s satellite view.

What looks like unremarkable pastureland on both sides of the river today required constant maintenance of the dykes and their aboiteaux to keep the saltwater out of the fields.

This land may look peaceful today, but this neighborhood wasn’t exactly peaceful then.

Drama

Jean LePrince may hold the Acadian record for lawsuits, at least for a peasant. This web of interwoven lawsuits, accusations, and people he clashed with is detailed in Jean’s article, here.

That said, Jeanne is mostly silent in these suits, except in 1752, and I’m still not quite sure how to interpret what happened.

I’ve created a chart putting these contracts and lawsuits in chronological order, trying to make sense of these events.

They began not long after the 1729 loyalty oath document, which means the Acadians knew they were staying.

Dates Players/Role Location What
Lawsuit #1 – Jan. 22, 1731 Jean asserted that he had inherited from the estate of the widow Richard at L’Anse-Contre (uncertain reading of place name; appears to read L’Ancontre or similar), notably [the share] of Pierre Dupuis Widow Richard (Isabelle Petitpas died Sept. 1729) had made a will before witnesses, a will that Jean claimed was contrary but whose authenticity was recognized by the Council of His Majesty at Annapolis Royal, on January 22, 1731
Contract #1 – Oct. 1, 1731 Jean LePrince & Jeanne Blanchard purchase land from Jean-Baptiste Préjean Tract of land in the upper of the Annapolis Royal River extending from “the aboiteau that one made to divert the stream of the Lower Meadow situated in the upper of the said river” Contract states that Jean Prince can build a mill along the river in partnership with others
Contract #1 – Oct. 1, 1731 Jean LePrince & Jeanne Blanchard purchase share that Jean-Baptiste Préjean possessed A point that is along the large stream of the earthly paradise*1 of the low land Contract states that Jean Prince can build a mill along the river in partnership with others
Lawsuit #2 – Jan. 28, 1732 Jacques Goupil accuses Jean LePrince of abusing his good faith in a land exchange, that the land Prince had transferred to him already belonged to him. Goupil (1686-1734) is married to Marie Daigre (1677-1719), sister of Olivier Daigre who married Jeanne Blanchard –  suit sent to arbitration, outcome unknown
Lawsuit #3 – Feb. 21, 1735 Jean Prince, Pierre Dupuis and Baptiste Richard, ordered to pay damages caused by the animals of Jean Bastarche to the harvest of Jacques Goupil, because these three neighbors had not maintained their common fence Jean-Baptiste Richard is the son of Alexandre Richard & Isabelle Petitpas.
Contract #2 – April 13, 1742 Sharing or subdivision of Jean LePrince’s property between 5 children One would interpret this to mean he had died, but he was living
Contract #3 – Jan. 19, 1746 New division or redistribution of these same properties among four sons of Jean LePrince Daughter Marie-Josèphe LePrince has married Jacques Forest and is omitted
Contract #4 – July 3, 1752 Settles division of land held in common with Bernard Pellerin*2 and 2 younger sons of Jean Prince Goes with contract #5
Contract #5 – July 3, 1752, appendix to the first contract Jeanne Blanchard, wife of Jean Prince, the share of lands reverted to her*3 of lands acquired by Jean-Baptiste Préjean and Alexandre Pellerin*2, to her two younger sons, Jean-Baptiste and Pierre, for 33 livres, six sols States that Jeanne Blanchard, wife, not widow, of Jean Prince transferred land.

*1 – “earthly paradise” is the same place as Paradis Terrestre

*2 – Bernard Pellerin and Alexandre Pellerin are brothers, but I can find no relationship to the Blanchard, LePrince, Daigle or Préjean families.

*3 – Why did these lands revert to Jeanne?

I think the gist of this is that Jeanne forced Jean to distribute at least some property to all of their children, then redistribute it to the four boys, then the two youngest children, but why? This is so strange.

Let’s look at some of the specific language extracted from Jean LePrince’s article.

1742

    • The second contract is one of sharing or subdivision of the property of Jean Prince between his five children. It is dated April 13, 1742.

Note that this is just 11 years after Jean LePrince, or Prince as it’s written here, acquired the property from Jean-Baptiste Préjean. This is highly unusual. In 1742, Jean LePrince’s children would have been ages 27 (daughter), 25, 23, 21, and 19 (sons). This also doesn’t say whether it’s one property or all of Jean’s property, whatever that might be.

    • As for the third contract, dated January 19, 1746, it makes a new division or redistribution of these same properties among the four sons of Jean.

This is even more unusual and suggests that either none of his sons had actually “taken possession,” or they were all living on the land and farming it jointly. It also appears to cut Jean’s eldest child, daughter Marie-Josèphe Le Prince, who had married Jacques Forest in 1734, out of the land distribution. I wonder if this was a result or cause of family friction.

    • The fourth contract, dated July 3, 1752, settles a division of land held in common up to that time with Bernard Pellerin and the two younger sons of Jean Prince.

Does this mean the two sons held this through Jean, or independently?

    • Finally, the fifth contract, which is in fact an appendix to the first, but with the same date as the fourth, constitutes a transfer by Jeanne Blanchard, wife of Jean Prince, of the share that reverted to her of lands acquired by Jean-Baptiste Préjean and Alexandre Pellerin, to her two younger sons, Jean-Baptiste LePrince and Pierre LePrince, for the price of thirty-three livres, six sols. This appendix bears the date July 3, 1752, the same as the fourth contract.

In 1752, if Jean was living, he would have been about 60 years old. The fact that his wife was involved with this distribution suggests that Jean might have been deceased by this date. But then again, that’s what an earlier researcher thought about the 1742 contract, and we know that he signed as a witness to his son’s marriage in 1747.

If Jean had been deceased in any of these transactions, then why was Jeanne referred to as his wife, not his widow?

It’s a mess with lots of drama… much of which is omitted here because it has nothing directly to do with Jeanne – although she was living through every day of it, and it clearly affected her.

Several of the landowners we’ve been discussing are shown on this map by MapAnnapolis. Jean LePrince bought or acquired land from Jean-Baptiste Préjean. Jean Bastarche is Jean LePrince’s neighbor, as is the Richard family. Alexandre Richard, shown on this map, is the husband of Isabelle Petitpas, whose will Jean LePrince contested in 1731.

We know from the lawsuit that the Richard land, above, lies adjacent to the LePrince land, and the Daigre land too.

Jean LePrince’s wife, Jeanne Blanchard, was the widow of Oliver Daigle (D’Aigre, Daigre), who was the son of an earlier Oliver (Olivier) Daigle (c1643-before 1685). It’s possible that Jean LePrince was farming the Daigle land after their 1715 marriage, until he purchased the Préjean land in 1731. At that point, he would have been farming all of that land.

This also tells us unquestionably that in 1735, these families were sharing a common fence line, so they are clearly neighbors.

Based on these descriptions, it appears that this stream near Bridgetown may well be the mill stream discussed.

This freshwater stream is the only one that appears large enough to have been dammed to power a mill. This view shows the stream on the south side, before it travels beneath the highway.

The stream exits beneath the highway and makes its way north to the river.

All of these photos are along the road where the Daigle, Bastarche, LePrince and DuPuis families lived. Their lands intersected, bordering one another, and this would have been the neighborhood where Jeanne spent her entire adult life.

This original hand-drawn 1733 map shows something slightly different. At far left, we can see Alexandre Richard. I can’t read the next name, moving to the right, but the name with the red arrow shows Jean LePrince, and then further right is Bastarche.

Based on what we know, this appears to be the original Daigle land, shown with four houses. This doesn’t resolve Jean’s land adjacent to René Forest, though, so there could have been 3 parcels of land altogether.

It’s possible that by 1742, in order to protect her children’s future inheritance, Jeanne insisted that Jean divide up his land – if not in actuality, then at least legally. Except for their only daughter, who had married. But why was she omitted?

What about the Daigle children? Did Jeanne insist that Jean divide up his land because her Daigle children would inherit their father’s land? Or maybe they already had? That said, all of her Daigle children settled in Beaubassin or Grand-Pré and didn’t remain nearby.

How was Jeanne involved in whatever was transpiring, or was she at all? Was she complicit in whatever was going on? In particular, the 1731 suit regarding the will of Widow Richard (Isabelle Petitpas). Do these contracts and lawsuits just seem suspect today, but really weren’t at the time? The Widow Richard suit certainly makes it appear that Jean LePrince was trying to pull a fast one. Why would Jean LePrince have inherited from Isabelle Petitpas? There is no known family relationship.

Was Jeanne the long-suffering wife who was embarrassed by her husband’s behavior, but felt she had no control over what he did? Did she roll her eyes and silently go to church anyway?

Or do the glimpses we see of her in these contracts, lawsuits, and disputes show Jeanne standing up and saying, “Nope, you’re not doing that on my watch?”

In other circumstances, this cluster of unusual lawsuits spanning two decades would lead us to believe that Jean LePrince was deceased prior to 1742, but he was not. In 1747, he signed the parish register for the marriage of his son, Jean-Baptiste. Both Jean and Jeanne were listed the parish register in 1750 when their son Pierre married.

It’s likely that Jean was still living in 1752 when the final contracts were executed, because there’s no burial for him prior to that.

This occurred just three years before all of the Acadians would lose everything anyway.

All of this drama and hard feelings involving many families in the upriver neighborhood ironically named Paradise on Earth would have been for naught. Their enemy wasn’t each other, and that common enemy, the English, would be the undoing of all of them.

Here’s what we do know.

Jeanne Blanchard’s last child married on February 3, 1750, in Port Royal. Both Jean and Jeanne are listed as parents, and neither are noted as deceased. There’s no subsequent burial record for either of them either.

So where is Jeanne?

Jeanne’s Death

Jeanne died sometime between July 3, 1752, when she is noted in that lawsuit in Port Royal, and February 15, 1762, the date of her son Jean’s second marriage in Bécancour.

Jeanne was not listed on the burial record of her son Pierre on January 4, 1758 in Quebec, although Jean LePrince was given as his father. It does not state that Jean LePrince is deceased, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that he’s living either.

We don’t know why Jeanne, then about 76, was omitted from Pierre’s burial record. In January 1758. Was she deceased or simply left out of the record?

The priest was assuredly overwhelmed. Quebec was in the midst of a horrific smallpox epidemic, and on the same day that Pierre was buried, so were Acadians Jeanne Landry, Claude Landry, Marie-Isabelle Thibodeau, Isabelle Aucoin, Marguerite Cormier and two others, one who was not Acadian and another unnamed infant. And that’s just one day in one parish.

Smallpox was ravaging the city. The epidemic wave began in November 1757, peaked during December 1757, and lasted through February 1758.

By the end of 1757, approximately 1,500 to 1,800 Acadian refugees were living in Québec City and its vicinity, and were already weakened by two years of displacement, hunger, and severe cold.

André-Carl Vachon’s study provides statistics and additional information.

Month Acadian burials at Notre-Dame-de-Québec All burials
November 1757 38 78
December 1757 179 222
January 1758 71 129
February 1758 18 43

There were 306 Acadian burials in four months at Notre-Dame alone. Contemporary accounts stated that, during December, as many as fifteen to twenty Acadians were being buried each day.

Jeanne’s granddaughter, Marie-Josèphe LePrince, daughter of Joseph, died on the same day that her uncle, Pierre LePrince, was buried.

These deaths just seem grievously unfair. Unjust. To survive countless trials against immeasurable odds, and then succumb just weeks after deliverance. So many had already been lost.

Not all burials were recorded in the parish registers. Burials from the two hospitals were recorded separately, but neither Jean nor Jeanne are found there.

The LePrince survivors moved upriver to Bécancour.

On February 15, 1762, in Bécancour, Quebec, Jean LePrince, Jean’s namesake son, married Marie Madeleine Bourg.

The parish entry says:

Year 1762, the fifteenth of February, after having published three banns of marriage between Jean LePrince, son of Jean LePrince and of Jeanne Blanchard, deceased of Port-Royal, his father and mother, and Marie Madeleine Bourg, widow of Pierre Richard, daughter of Michel Bourg and of Marie Cormier, her father and mother, also deceased, residents of Beaubassin, after having obtained dispensation for the third degree [of consanguinity], we received their mutual consent of marriage and gave them the nuptial blessing, in the presence of the parents and a large number of other persons, they declared not knowing how to sign.

This entry tells us two things.

  • That Jean LePrince and Jeanne Blanchard are deceased by February 15, 1762. It also suggests that they both died in Port Royal, so before the 1755 Expulsion, but that’s not actually what it says.

This doesn’t say either one died IN Port Royal, it says they were “of” Port Royal, in Acadia, which was true no matter where they died.

Jean LePrince, the son who remarried in 1762, was exiled someplace in 1755. His first wife, Judith Richard, died sometime between 1753, when their last known child was born in Port Royal, and September 29, 1756, when their daughter was buried at Notre-Dame-de-Québec.

Jean’s brother, Pierre LePrince, buried two daughters, Marie Anne Josephte on August 5, 1756, and Isabella on September 14, 1756.

So these two brothers were together in Quebec at that time, just eight months after that horrific Expulsion, along with more than 600 first-wave Acadians who are found in the Quebec parish registers beginning about that time. How did they get there between December 1755 and August 1756?

There is no burial record for Jeanne or Jean at Port Royal, in Grand-Pré or in Quebec.

So, what happened?

Can we piece anything together?

Perhaps.

Escape

By December 1755, when the cruel expulsion took place, Jeanne would have been 73 or 74 years old, depending on her birthday. No spring chicken by any measure, but there’s no record of her burial in the parish records. However, the last recorded burial in the Port Royal records was in October of 1754, nearly 14 months before those death ships onto which the Acadians were forced departed. We know people had to have died during that time, so the records are incomplete for that timeframe.

Furthermore, Jeanne was alive in February of 1750 when her son married, and in the 1752 lawsuit, but we know she was deceased by 1762, as reflected by her son’s marriage record in Quebec.

If she was living at the time of the Expulsion, her fate was very probably tied to that of her children.

What do we know about her children?

Name Birth Death 1755 Expulsion Destiny/Comment Children
Paul Daigre Circa 1701 Port Royal Before January 1752 when his wife is listed as a widow in Beaubassin Died before the expulsion 5
Olivier Daigre Aug. 10, 1703 Port Royal Dec. 9, 1756, in Falmouth, Cornwall Grand-Pré to Virginia to England in 1756 9
Marie Daigre 1704 Port Royal Dec. 5, 1756, in Penryn, Cornwall Grand-Pré to Virginia to England in 1756 10
Jeanne Daigre Feb. 1, 1706 Port Royal 1757 in Liverpool, England Grand-Pré to Virginia to England in 1756 8
Marguerite Daigre April 2, 1708 Port Royal Before Aug. 14, 1763, either in Grand-Pré or Connecticut If lived until the expulsion, Grand-Pré to Connecticut 7
Jean-Baptiste Daigre Feb. 22, 1710 Port Royal Nov. 12, 1757, in Penryn, Cornwall Grand-Pré to Virginia to England in 1756 8
Marie Josèphe Le Prince Nov. 3, 1715 Port Royal After 1787, probably CT in New England, or possibly in Quebec Port Royal to Connecticut, possibly went with daughter to Quebec in 1787 9
Honoré Le Prince Aug. 2, 1717 Port Royal After Jan. 7, 1760 and before Feb 17, 1762 in Bécancour, Quebec Port Royal to unknown, in Bécancour by 1760 7
Joseph Le Prince Feb. 9, 1719, Port Royal May 23, 1781, Bécancour, Quebec Port Royal to (probably) Miramichi, NB, then in May 1757 to Quebec 8
Jean-Baptiste Le Prince Feb. 9, 1721, Port Royal March 28, 1787, Bécancour, Quebec Port Royal to unknown, Quebec City by September 1756, when his daughter died 8
Pierre Le Prince May 28, 1723 Port Royal Jan. 3, 1758, Quebec City Port Royal to unknown, Quebec City before August 1756, when his daughter died 3

All of Jeanne’s children with Olivier Daigre made their way to either Beaubassin or Grand-Pré as adults. Four of those six wound up being exiled to Virginia, then on to England the following year, where they may well have died during a smallpox epidemic. One died before the Expulsion. A second may have died before the Expulsion, but her family wound up in Connecticut, and she may have as well.

All of Jeanne’s children with Jean LePrince, with the exception of Marie-Josephe, were in Quebec before the Treaty of Paris, which was signed in February of 1763. That treaty allowed the Acadians to leave the colonies as soon as the various colonial governors agreed. Since her LePrince sons were all in Quebec before that date, we can infer that they were not sent to the colonies and instead made their way to Quebec shortly after the Expulsion, long before the Treaty of Paris was signed. This means they escaped the Expulsion one way or another – probably together since they are found together in Quebec. This makes sense, given that the land distribution to the four boys meant they lived together on the same land, as is also suggested by the 1733 map showing multiple homes.

We know that Jeanne’s daughter, Marie-Josephe LePrince, was in Connecticut and encouraged her family to immigrate to Quebec in 1787 because she was concerned that they were losing their French-Catholic heritage.

Since there’s no record of Jean’s death, Jean LePrince, Jeanne Blanchard’s somewhat irascible husband, who wasn’t about to be told what to do, was probably still alive in 1755 at 62. If so, there’s a very real possibility that he ensured his wife and children had an escape route.

Maybe Jean LePrince’s recalcitrance and the traits that caused him to be somewhat “difficult,” “rough around the edges,” and chronically noncompliant are the same qualities that saved his family.

Given that there’s no burial record for either Jean or Jeanne at Port Royal, it’s certainly possible that Jean devised some method for evading the British. It helped that their land was among the farthest from Port Royal, some 25 miles or so upriver, which meant they were also the least visible to the English and most difficult to monitor. I can’t imagine that he would have taken his family to Port Royal to willingly climb aboard those ships, nor that Jeanne would have willingly gone anyway.

Perhaps no one noticed Jean, Jeanne, and four of their adult children making preparations that far upriver, or if they did, no Acadian was about to say a word. It’s also entirely possible that the Mi’kmaq people assisted the upriver Acadians.

But how might that escape have happened?

The Long Walk Across the Mountain

Maybe after the deportation order was read in Grand-Pré on September 5th, a group of Port Royal Acadians realized what was happening and escaped in the late summer and early fall, abandoning their farms when they saw the proverbial handwriting on the wall.

Perhaps by the time December 8th rolled around and the rest of the Acadians were being forced to walk the snow-covered Queen’s Wharf in Port Royal, leaving their meager belongings stacked there, then herded onto ships, Jean, Jeanne, and most of their family were long gone. In the other direction.

Their daughter, Marie-Josephe, who was married to Jacques Forest and had been excluded from the land transactions in favor of the sons, was their only child who was rounded up and forced onto those ships. Perhaps the rift within the family was real and enduring, although her brothers stood as godparents when her children were baptized.

How I wish we could go back in time and ask questions.

Maybe all the English found of the LePrince family were abandoned homesteads – perhaps those four clustered together on the 1733 map.

Based on the evidence that we do have, I suspect that Jeanne and her family were among the Acadians, primarily from BelleIsle and further upriver, including their Richard and Préjean neighbors, who escaped.

If the LePrince family and their adult children were part of this exodus, why didn’t Marie-Josèphe and her husband, Jacques Forest, go with them instead of waiting to be rounded up and placed on a ship bound for an unknown destination? Perhaps Jacques didn’t believe it would happen, and that everything would blow over one way or another like it always had before. Or perhaps they thought their chances of survival were better on the English ships than in the wilderness.

They may have been right.

On foot, the group traveled upriver and over the brutal North Mountain to Aylesford, where many died, then on to today’s Morden beach where they spent the winter. We don’t know how many began that journey. Reports vary between 300 and 400, but a dowsing survey reported about 406 unmarked graves at the Morden site, so there may well have been more who began the overmountain escape. Using the Quebec parish records between 1756 and 1763, when the Treaty of Paris was signed, and reconstructing those families provides a sort of reverse census of which families escaped, or tried to. Many families found in Quebec were from Beaubassin and Chignecto, but not all.

For those Port Royal families who chose this risky overland route and survived the brutal winter, their Mi’kmaq allies helped them reach Chignecto, across the bay on the border of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, where they eventually escaped to Quebec.

Between inadequate shelter and starvation, many of our Acadian family members did not survive that roughly 30-mile, midwinter trek across North Mountain. Even fewer would have made it without the Mi’kmaq, who guided and helped feed them.

The following spring, when the ice began to melt, with the help of the Mi’kmaq, the group encamped on Morden Beach forged their way to Refugee Cove in today’s Cape Chignecto Provincial Park, where they were then guided by French officer Charles Deschampes de Boishebert.

Some eventually made their way to Camp d’Esperance at Miramichi, and others struck out across the wilderness, walking or canoeing to Quebec.

Without the Mi’kmaq and Wolastoqiyik people, who launched a veritable rescue mission, those cross-country Acadians would have assuredly perished on their 800 mile journey.

Some appear in the Quebec City records as early as 1756, with others in 1757. Many horrifically difficult months are unaccounted for, serving as silent testimony, before our refugees reappear, like holiday lights twinkling back on one by one in the Quebec records. How sad that the way we find them again is due to the massive number of deaths reflected in parish records, as many lights were extinguished forever.

The priest in Quebec and others wrote in journals about the devastating conditions of the Acadians when they arrived. They died in such numbers from smallpox and famine (beginning in October of 1757) in addition to typhus, scurvy and yellow fever that often multiple people were buried in the same coffin.

Morden Beach

Before leaving Morden, the Acadians erected a driftwood cross to honor their fallen family members, known as the French Cross, which stood until about 1820. Residents rebuilt this cross on the beach in 1964, and it still stands today. I can’t help but wonder if Jeanne, then in her mid-70s, is buried nearby or someplace in the Canadian wilderness.

Were the Acadians marking the location of their deceased family members with that cross, or praying for mercy and deliverance?

Probably both.

We will never know positively that this was the LePrince family’s path to Quebec, but after eliminating the other possibilities, it is the most probable known route consistent with that evidence. There weren’t many avenues of escape. Given that these families and their neighbors appeared in the same location in Quebec, at about the same time, it’s probable that the four LePrince families remained together, possibly with one or both parents. There must have been some small comfort in that.

I feel certain that Jean and Jeanne would have chosen this risky route rather than comply. I can envision Jean, even in his 60s, leading the charge alongside Pierre Melanson, the purported leader, although Melanson’s identity is uncertain. Compliance was not Jean’s strong suit. And Jeanne? She was made of steel. These qualities just might have saved their family from the looming English atrocity, but sadly, not from the deadly, invisible smallpox enemy that took hold in their refugee accommodations in Quebec.

The grim reaper seemed to be stalking them.

Acadian historian André-Carl Vachon, based on ship logs, official correspondence, and church records, believes that Joseph LePrince and his four children were aboard one of two ships that left Miramichi (in present-day New Brunswick) in May and June of 1757 with a total of 269 passengers. Unfortunately, no LePrince is on the Camp d’Esperance list there.

Everything in Acadia was in a state of turmoil at that time, and records, where they do exist, are incomplete. Furthermore, conditions at Camp d’Esperance were deteriorating too. If Joseph was there, his other siblings and their families, who are found in the same locations in Quebec, probably escaped from and to the same locations – although apparently not at the same time.

If Vachon is correct about Joseph, and I believe he is, then two of the LePrince brothers, Pierre and Jean, were together, arriving in 1756, and Joseph arrived in the summer of 1757. We don’t know when the fourth brother, Honoré, arrived, but he would not have struck out across an unfamiliar wilderness on his own. There was safety and assistance in numbers.

As for Jeanne, I don’t want to remember her as frightened and shivering, forced at gunpoint down the wharf to board those waiting death-ships in Port Royal on December 8th, 1755. Instead, I prefer to remember her attempting to escape, and encouraging her four adult children, their spouses, and 26 grandchildren as she shepherded them along the frozen trail, perhaps carrying the youngest.

As she prayed for survival, if not for herself, then for them.

I can’t help but wonder where she died.

The map gives us a line, but their journey was not a line. It was brush being chopped ahead of them, canoes slipping into wilderness creeks where the English could not see them, hiding, waiting, portaging, starving, and moving again.

And yes, pausing to dig graves along the way.

Chignecto may have been the terrible dividing point where she had to make a decision. The path ahead diverged. Goodbye may well have meant forever – and she had to say goodbye to someone.

Pierre and Jean LePrince appear in Québec by the summer of 1756, while Joseph apparently went toward Miramichi and reached Québec in the summer of 1757. Honoré’s route is unknown. The family may have stood someplace on the Isthmus of Chignecto and separated, perhaps for the last time, because different guides, opportunities, or dangers pulled them in different directions.

If Jeanne reached Chignecto, which path did she follow? Did she go toward Miramichi with Joseph and his children? Toward Québec with Pierre and Jean? Was Jean still beside her? Or had she already been left beneath a cross at Morden or on North Mountain?

Jeanne’s last known record leaves her at home in 1752. By 1762, she was dead. Between those two points lies an enormous landscape of possible graves: the mountain, Morden Beach, somewhere near Chignecto, Camp d’Espérance, beside an unnamed creek or portage, or Québec itself during the epidemic. Wouldn’t that have been a terrible irony – to have survived so much, only to die in Quebec of smallpox?

My instinct, and it is only an instinct, is that she died somewhere along the escape route. At her age, simply reaching Québec would have been extraordinary. Yet if anyone could have done it, it was probably Jeanne.

Her children reappeared, one by one, but she simply disappears.

If that ordeal claimed her life, that’s alright too. Jeanne was always brave, persisting in the face of adversity, and I’m proud of her.

Her four sons and many of her grandchildren survived.

It’s much better to have died trying.

By Verne Equinox – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=17426250

Lifting the Mius and Guidry Men Out of the Shadows: The Gallows Didn’t Win – 52 Ancestors #483

Say Their Names

  • Jacques Mius (c1688 in Nova Scotia – November 2, 1726 in Boston)
  • Philippe Mius (the third) (c1703 in Nova Scotia – November 2, 1726 in Boston)
  • Jean-Baptiste Guidry Sr. (c1684 in Nova Scotia – November 2, 1726 in Boston)
  • Jean-Baptiste Guidry Jr. (1712 in Nova Scotia – November 2, 1726 in Boston)
  • John Missel (unknown birth – November 2, 1726 in Boston)

Merligueche

The devastating events that snuffed out the lives of these four men and one boy began on July 28, 1723, here, in Merligueche Harbor, now Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, where Jean-Baptiste Guidry Sr. and Philippe Mius (the second) (c1660-after August 25, 1726) lived and were raising their families. Philippe had a trading post nearby.

Both Philippe and Jean-Baptiste were French Acadians. Philippe Mius married two Mi’kmaq women and had lived among the Native people for decades. Jean-Baptiste Guidry Sr. married Madeleine (Madelaine) Mius around 1720, the half-Mi’kmaq daughter of Philippe Mius and his second wife, Marie. They too lived in the Mi’kmaq village at Merligueche.

Jacques Mius and Philippe Mius (the third), sons of Philippe Mius (the second), were half Mi’kmaq, and were called “Indians” by the English, while Jean-Baptiste Guidry Sr. and his half-Mi’kmaq son by the same name were both referred to as “French.”

John Missel was an Indian man, according to the English records. His name is probably substantially misspelled, given that both Mius and Guidry are, and Jacques Mius is called James in the English records.

July 28, 1723

In 1723, New England was engaged in Dummer’s War with the Wabanaki Confederacy, which included the Mi’kmaq, particularly those living in New England as opposed to Nova Scotia. The Massachusetts government, along with the fishermen, were afraid of losing access to their lucrative Nova Scotia fishing waters, so naval galley ships were sent to patrol the Nova Scotia coastal waters.

On July 28, 1723, English Commander Joseph Marjory was patrolling the Nova Scotia coastline when he captured a group of seven people, according to the ship’s log, after anchoring in Merligueche Harbor. This family band, far removed from New England, had not been involved in warfare.

Commander Marjory labeled the three adult men and four children broadly as “Indians,” conveniently ignoring their European or mixed-European heritage. The children were aged 16, 10-12, and two younger children around 7 or 8. Yes, children were taken as hostages for leverage.

Among those kidnapped were François Mius, about 23, the son of Philippe Mius, the second, and Paul Guidry, about 22, the son of two French parents, Claude Guidry and Marguerite Petitpas. Paul Guidry was the brother of Jean-Baptiste Guidry who was married to Madeleine Mius, the daughter of Philippe Mius. The others were probably family members as well, but historical records have not confirmed their names.

François Mius, born about 1700, was one-half Mi’kmaq, and Paul Guidry, born about 1701, was entirely French, although he was born at Merligueche, as confirmed by his Catholic baptism record. He grew up among the Native people and the Mius family.

On October 3, 1723, the Boston News-Letter reported that a provincial sloop had sailed into Boston Harbor carrying “seven of the Cape Sable Indians on board, who were all sent to prison.”

But 1723 wasn’t the first time that both the Guidry and Mius family members had been kidnapped.

Dummer’s War Was Declared

There was another group of Guidry brothers, reportedly Augustin, Paul, Claude and Philippe, and their families who were kidnapped in 1722, shortly after Dummer’s War was declared on July 25th.

Paul Guidry and his wife Anne Marie Mius had their daughter Judith while being held in confinement in Boston, and Augustin Guidry and Jeanne Hebert had twins Hélène and Marie-Josèphe Guidry while confined in Boston in January of 1723.

The Guidry patriarch, Claude, then 75 years old, was also captured and performed an emergency or conditional baptism, called an ondoiement, done when no priest was available. His wife, Margaret Petitpas, about 62, and also French, probably delivered her granddaughters. At least some of these family members were returned to Nova Scotia, one way or another, in 1723, sometime before September 26th when the twins’ baptisms were recorded in the Grand Pre parish records.

If you’re heaving a collective sigh of relief – don’t.

Not everyone was released, and by the time that this powder keg exploded in August of 1726, the families had waited for more than three years.

The Interminable Wait

For three agonizing years, 1,124 days, their families sought their freedom, expecting them to be released anytime, like the Guidry family had been in 1723 after being held for a year. That’s what “normally” happened, but not this time.

Finally, on December 15, 1725, a peace treaty was signed in Maine, and hostilities related to the Dummer War ceased, but that treaty did not include all parties.

When word of the treaty arrived in Merligueche, they were hopeful. Surely their family members would be arriving home soon since hostages were no longer “needed.”

Yet no ship arrived on the horizon.

No hostages appeared.

The days dragged on.

An additional treaty was signed in Nova Scotia in June of 1726, but word spread slowly, and full peace was not reached until the summer of 1727.

The Acadians and Mi’kmaq had lost faith in the promises of the English – their long-time, sometimes clandestine, trading partners.

Still, no one returned, and no word came either.

Day by day, every single day, they waited and prayed to the Catholic God, and the Great Spirit.

Were the hostages even still alive?

Sane?

What had happened?

Were they ever coming home?

Letter to Philippe

My dearest ancestor, Philippe,

I did not understand why you sent the winds to summon me to Merligueche two summers ago.

I learned, as we sailed along the coastline, that this is where your village stood more than 300 summers before. Where you lived, and loved, and grieved endlessly.

Where I walked the very land you refused to leave during the hunting moons because the English ships might return your family – and you wanted to be there, waiting, to greet them and rejoice.

Where you called me to wait for their spirits with you.

Nothing was more important.

I did not know, when I laid my hand, wearing the ring that belonged to your granddaughter, my mother, on Paul’s stone in the cemetery, with 1754 neatly carved beneath the cross, who he was – and what he had endured and survived.

I did not know that Paul Guidry married your daughter Anne Marie Mius.

Paul was known as LaVerdure, which the English heard as “Labrador,” so later in his life they called him “Old Labrador,” before he was buried here on the sacred land at Merligueche.

I did not understand the aching in your soul, the desperation for François. How could you have known that he would one day become a Chief, a leader of his people, and that during his time in Boston he was iron being forged into steel by the fire? All you knew was that he was your son, being held hostage, in the worst of conditions, in a faraway world that he didn’t know and could not escape from.

Now I know why you called me.

I answered then.

I’ve answered now.

Life has come full circle.

Your blood is in my veins.

Two years later, your invisible hand pushed me across the waters to Boston.

To do what you could not.

Kidnappings and Hostages

In August 1726, Captain Joseph Decoy from Cape Breton had been trading in Boston when his son was taken and detained for some reason. Distraught, Capt. Decoy stopped at Merligueche, probably at the trading post. He told the people there what had happened and that he thought the only thing that would secure the release of his son was seizing a Boston vessel and trading it in exchange for his son’s freedom.

That’s the way life worked in the French and English colonies, both of which had been established on Indian lands.

Apparently, the people living in the village at Merligueche, after 1,124 days of fruitless waiting for their relatives to be released, were at their wits’ end too, and Capt. Decoy either planted or perhaps watered a seed.

On August 25, 1726, the English fishing vessel, Tryal, captained by Samuel Daly (recorded as Doty in the trial record), sailed into the harbor at Merligueche, where he invited several villagers, including the Mius and Guidry men, aboard to drink.

Philippe Mius (the elder) did not drink, nor did he stay on board after greeting Daly with a friendly handshake, unlike the others, who remained to imbibe with the crew. Jean-Baptiste Guidry Sr.’s mother also begged the Merligueche men not to stay on board and share the English sailors’ rum, but her warning, too, went unheeded.

One thing led to another, as described in my article, Philippe Mius (c1660 – after August 1726), Disaster, Piracy and the Dead Man’s Jig, and under the influence, it seemed like a good idea to do exactly what Capt. Decoy had suggested.

Who can blame them after more than three years of fruitless waiting for François Mius, Paul Guidry, and perhaps others to be released? By this time, any hope garnered by the 1725 peace treaty in Maine had quickly faded. Days turned into months, and months had dragged into years.

However, things didn’t go exactly as the Merligueche men had anticipated in their alcohol-fueled bravery. The English crew regained control of the ship before even leaving the harbor, tied Jacques Mius, Philippe Mius (the third), Jean-Baptiste Guidry Sr., Jean-Baptiste Guidry Jr., and John Missel below deck in ropes, and headed straight for Boston with their drunken trophy “pirates” that were, in fact, political prisoners. This type of back-and-forth capture, trade, and release of prisoners had been going on for decades. Except that, unlike others, François Mius and Paul Guidry had been held and languishing as prisoners at Castle William for an exceptionally long time and not released.

The English were not playing by the unspoken rules.

In addition to the men being transported to Boston, three other “Indian” men jumped overboard when the English regained control of their fishing sloop. Being about four miles from shore, they may have drowned, although one report states that they survived. Unable to escape, the wife of one of those men described as a “squaw” and two “papooses” remained on board and were taken to Boston with the male captives. If she ever saw her husband again, I’m guessing she had a few choice words.

We don’t know the identities of the woman and children, or what happened to them after the trial a few weeks later.

Philippe was now left staring at the endless horizon, which, in addition to having already swallowed François, Paul, and five others three years earlier, had now consumed two more sons, his son-in-law, grandson, another man, woman, and two additional children.

His heart must have sunk in his chest, heavy with grief and foreboding.

Family Members

Various Mius and Guidry family members were taken hostage in multiple kidnappings. I can’t help but hear the phrase, “If it weren’t for bad luck, I’d have no luck at all.”

Keeping track of the players is confusing, so I’ve assembled a color-coded chart.

The children of Philippe Mius and his Mi’kmaq wife, Marie, who were known to be kidnapping victims in these episodes or were married to hostages, are shown at left.

Claude Guidry and Marguerite Petitpas’s children are shown in a column at right. Both couples had children who were not known to have been involved in the hostage episodes, and those children are not shown.

Two Mius daughters married two Guidry sons. Madelaine (Madeleine) Mius married Jean-Baptiste Guidry Sr. dit Gravois and Anne Marie Mius married Paul Guidry.

The peach background color identifies known captives of the first kidnapping in 1722, where several Guidry family members and their families were taken. At least some were released in 1723, but perhaps not all.

The blue background color indicates known captives taken in July of 1723 who were still being held in 1726. There were more people kidnapped who were assuredly family members, but we don’t know their identities, nor do we know when François and Paul were eventually released. The records are silent until at least 1730 for Paul, and longer for François.

Paul Guidry was either kidnapped twice or never returned from the 1722 kidnapping. We know he was still held in the fall of 1726.

The names in bold red were captured in August of 1726 in Merligueche and hanged in Boston that November.

Boston

Prisoners who had allegedly committed crimes were held in jail while awaiting trial, but hostages, like the men taken in 1722 and 1723, were shipped to fortified Castle William on an island in Boston Harbor, where escape was not only improbable, but nearly impossible. That said, records from 1724 contain details about an incident in which a group of “Indian Hostages” successfully staged an escape from Castle William. Given the currents in the bay, I wonder if they survived, especially considering the physical conditions of the men held there and the island’s isolated location in the harbor. Could any of these brave escapees have been our Merligueche men?

François Mius, Paul Guidry and the other captives were held under deplorable conditions. Paul may have remained from the 1722 captures or could have been recaptured just a month or so after his 1723 return. In other words, by 1726, he had been confined there either three or four years.

Castle William was a stone military fortress, and the hostages were valuable pawns, diplomatic chess pieces, not men awaiting trial. There was no intention of releasing them, and only enough care was taken of them to keep them alive. Dead hostages aren’t useful.

Budgets reflected their fare of bread, salted meat and peas, along with colonial clothing such that they would not freeze to death.

They were fed, but experienced total isolation from everyone and everything they knew.

For three long years, and maybe more.

How did they not go mad?

In 1723, the men on board Marjory’s warship would have watched as they sailed directly into the harbor, dropping anchor at Castle William where their family members had been held after the 1722 kidnappings. Some may still have been languishing there.

Knowing what to expect, fear must have gripped the captives’ throats with its icy hands, but at least they had each other.

They, or their family members, had been here before and had tales to tell.

Their climb up this incline from the sea, with muskets or knives at their backs, was probably the last time they were outside these walls for more than three years – although we don’t know how much more than three years. For all we know, it could have been many more years of unjustified captivity.

Paul Guidry, if he had not been released earlier in 1723, would have been both thrilled and horrified to see his family members being ushered through those doors at knife- or bayonet-point, their hands bound.

How many of the people who entered this door walked out again? How many were carried in a wooden box or whose remains were simply tossed into the sea?

What horrors did they endure?

What about the women and children who were held here?

I shudder to think.

It’s worth mentioning that our last record of patriarch Claude Guidry is the twins’ official baptism entry in Grand-Pré that September where the parish record notes that he had given them ondoyée baptisms after their births here in January 1723.

Hostages were typically not held in dungeons at Castle William unless they were deemed uncooperative or unruly, but they were closely guarded within the barracks and parade grounds.

They probably looked up into the salt air, when they could, and wished themselves to be a seagull, lifting over the tops of the walls and following the waters of the Atlantic back to Merligueche.

Merligueche must have seemed like another time and place. Long ago. A land of their dreams.

Both François and Paul were in their early 20s, and while their more than three years spent here were undeserved and certainly unpleasant, to say the least, they were both honing survival skills that would serve them well for the rest of their lives – not the least of which was learning English.

François and Paul ultimately survived, but we have only silence about the rest.

Photo courtesy of Katherine Borges

How ironic that the flight path for planes arriving at Boston Logan Airport tracks right over the castle, named Fort Independence today. Escape – so close and so far into the future.

Is the reason we never learned the identity of the rest of the hostages because they died here?

I scattered flower petals that I had brought with me on the water, with a white feather that was gifted from above, for the souls who suffered and died at Castle William, perhaps attempting to escape – and for the soul of Philippe, the tortured father, who was suffering on the shores of Merligueche.

Boston

During the first week of September 1726, following the episode in Merligueche that resulted in the eight Acadian and Mi’kmaq captives, the ship Tryal sailed straight into Boston Harbor from the Atlantic, directly past Castle William.

The captives on board the Tryal would have watched as they passed Castle William, if they were allowed above deck. They would have known that their family members that they had been trying to free were suffering there.

Those men, beloved family members, whom they risked their lives to save, were within mere feet, yet they could not see them. In fact, they would never see them again.

The ship passed both Governors Island and Bird Island on their right, both within sight of Castle William and part of Boston’s Logan Airport today.

These two historical 1700s maps of Boston and the harbor are overlaid on a current map showing greyed-out ghostly images of future development, including the airport beneath most of Bird Island. Boston was significantly smaller then. Much of Boston and all of East Boston adjacent to the airport is built on fill.

Bird Island had mostly washed away before the airport development began in the 1930s and 1940s and had evolved into Bird Island Flats. The northwesternmost tip is marked today by an orange buoy in the harbor. The pointed Skyline Memorial is visible behind the buoy, at far left, with the airport runway and shipping terminals behind the tree and to the right.

These are the remnants, beneath the fill, of Bird Island.

Of course, the Boston skyline as seen from Bird Island today looks nothing like it did in 1726, but Long Wharf remains across the harbor, nearly indistinguishable in the picture, just slightly to the left of the buoy.

Click to enlarge any image.

The purpose of Skyline Monument is to orient visitors to what they are seeing across the water.

The ship Tryal with our unwilling passengers anchored along Long Wharf, which is found in the monument section below the white flowers on the railing at right if you zoom in.

The water near the Boston shoreline was too shallow for ocean-going vessels. It was mostly mud flats at low tide, hence the need for Long Wharf to be so, well, long, extending some 2,000 feet into the water, reaching well beyond the low tide mark.

Boston was the center of commerce in colonial New England. Merchants and traders maintained their businesses along the wharf, which transitioned directly into King Street, leading to the Old State House, and past that, the jail, then spelled gaol.

Most of the time, the ship’s captain would go directly to the customs house, unless he was smuggling, of course – but not on that day.

Nope, that day, Captain Daly had something much more valuable than fish to declare. He had pirates, five of them, plus an accidental “squaw” and two “papooses,” but they could be useful barter too.

Indeed, it was his lucky day. He was probably so excited that he “accidentally” forgot to declare his cargo!

The hostages would have been bound with ropes and marched through the street, like trophies, shepherded by proud-as-punch Capt. Daly, straight up King Street to either the State House or the gaol, as shown on this 1722 map.

Minus today’s modern innovations, the harbor as seen from the end of Long Wharf looks much the same. The tall building directly across the harbor to the left of center is the Hyatt, which stands on what was once Bird Island, beside the Skyline Memorial.

A walk down Long Wharf is a stroll through time, past the old Chart House, now a historic restaurant.

Jacques and Philippe Mius, both Jean-Baptiste Guidry Sr. and Jr., father and son, John Missel, and an unnamed Native woman with her two children walked this exact same path.

They were probably justifiably terrified.

Perhaps at night, past the bustling waterfront taverns, in a darkened street, enveloped by fear.

The children cried. The men wanted to.

Perhaps the State House in 1726 held a lantern in the cupola.

Just beyond the State House lay their final destination for the next few weeks anyway: the jail, drawn on the map as the prison.

Where were the woman and her two children taken? Did anyone have mercy, or were they “just Indians,” dispensable and disposable?

Did Jacques and Philippe Mius, Jean-Baptiste Sr. and Jr., and John Missel know that they were going to be tried as pirates? I’d wager that they did, and everyone knew what happened to pirates. Maybe they thought their trial would be different, because they weren’t actually pirates.

The Boston jail was a horrific place, described as a forbidding, dark stone building with “outer walls three feet thick, unglazed windows barred with iron, the cells partitioned off with planks, and the cell doors covered in heavy iron spikes. The passageways like the dark valley of the shadow of death.”

And that was not written by a prisoner. Imagine the experience of someone confined there and what they would have to say.

Daniel Fowle, a Boston printer, in his Total Eclipse of Liberty, said of the gaol, “If there is any such thing as a hell upon earth, I think this place is the nearest resemblance of any I can conceive of.”

I’m sure that Jacques, Philippe, both Jean-Baptistes, and John can attest to Hell on Earth. That, combined with the overwhelming dread of what they had to realize was coming.

The word of either a Frenchman or an Indian would never be believed against the triumphant deliverance of “pirates” to Boston by an English captain for a showy trial.

Today, Queen Street is Court Street, and the entire area from the street to the rear of the present-day 26 Court Street is occupied by the Old City Hall Annex, at far right. You can see the Old State House just a block away, now dwarfed by surrounding skyscrapers, where the Mius, Guidry and Missel men would be taken to be tried.

I use the word “tried” very loosely, because wouldn’t you know it, their case would be heard by William Dummer himself, of Dummer’s War, in the Vice Admiralty Court, which was structured in a way that essentially presumed one’s guilt unless you could prove yourself innocent. Oh, and by the way, jury trials were prohibited.

This is not going to go well.

I realize this is “only a sunbeam,” but I like to think that maybe their spirits were not snuffed out and that they remained to protect others from injustice.

The Eclipse

It was around noon on September 14th, 1726, and people were partaking of their midday dinner when the sun began to grow dim, casting an unnatural gray pallor over the Boston streets. Today, we know it was an eclipse, and nothing to be afraid of, but they didn’t know that then.

People looked up, reacting in fear as the sun was still present in the sky, yet was being swallowed by an evil darkness. The five men in the jail cells would probably not have been able to see the sky, but they would have heard their frightened jailors.

An ominous omen.

However, François Mius and Paul Guidry at Castle William would have seen the eclipse and probably understood its meaning all too well. To them, it foretold death.

In Puritan New England, an eclipse was widely interpreted as a direct warning from God. It was, indeed, just that, an omen that they were about to bloodstain their own hands.

The “Trial”

Witnesses, meaning the crew, were publicly called by the cryer to testify about “acts of Piracy, Felony and Robbery committed on board the Sloop Tryal, by John Baptist Jedre, alias Laverdure, John Baptist Junior, James Mews, Philip Mews and John Missel.”

Not only that, but to further inflame the situation, and justify the results, the devil was brought into the mix.

For that the said John Baptist Jedre, alias Laverdure, and John Baptist Junior, Not having the Fear of GOD before their Eyes, but being Instigated by the Devil, on the Twenty Fifth Day of August last, about the Hour of Two in the Afternoon of the said Day, together with James Mews, Philip Mews, John Missel, Indians, and others, in or near Mallegash Harbour…

Puritans viewed New England as holy ground carved out for them to build a godly society. Crimes like piracy, murder, and witchcraft were viewed as literal covenants with the Devil that polluted the community.

The men assuredly knew the charges were woven around details that may or may not have been entirely accurate. And introducing “the Devil” just inflamed everything.

“I move for dismissal, Your Honor, on grounds of prejudice. The “Devil” has poisoned this trial,” but there was no one to say that, and the Puritans certainly wouldn’t have believed it anyway. Not to mention that no one cared about a fair trial. This took place just over 30 years after the last of the Boston and Salem witch trials.

On the morning of October 4th, the two Guidry men, father and son by the same name, heard the key turn in the lock of their spike-studded jail cell door. They were probably chained as they were marched to the Old State House.

They may not have seen each other in the month since they had been placed in the prison’s dungeon.

The light would have blinded them as they emerged from the darkness.

The Old State House was badly damaged by fire in 1747, with only the brick exterior remaining, so we don’t know exactly what it looked like in 1726, although this 1791 sketch is probably close.

It was here that their fate would be sealed by men speaking a language they did not understand.

Records tell us that they would have been marched inside the building, and up the stairs. They were tried on the second floor where they would have heard the muffled voices of traders and merchants conducting business beneath them, on the building’s ground floor.

By Bestbudbrian – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=51534885

Dummer would have been seated at the head of the table, along with the rest of the wealthy merchants and politicians hearing their case.

Did the accused men even get a seat at the table?

Photo courtesy of Katherine Borges

Were they banished to the side of the room, looking out the window at the freedom they would never know?

Photo courtesy of Katherine Borges

Perhaps staring at the church across the street, wishing it were Catholic, and that they could seek shelter and solace there. Did they pray as they heard the voices that would condemn them drone on in the background in a foreign tongue they did not understand?

Indeed, many people entering the State House, where lives were changed in an instant, needed to pray, either entering or exiting, or perhaps both. Of course, Catholics would not have been welcome in the Puritan church.

Perhaps God, by whatever name, heard them anyway.

The old brick church, long gone, stood diagonally across from the Old State House, where the tall building with the arched windows stands today.

The lintel above the door indicates that this was the site of the first meeting house in Boston, where its replacement, a brick church built in 1712, stood in 1726.

During the trial, we learn that Jean-Baptiste Guidry Jr. was only 13, turning 14 that fall, and that the Guidrys did not understand English and requested a French interpreter. A local Huguenot was summoned.

The court decided that since young Jean-Baptiste was not a “madman,” he was old enough to be responsible for his actions.

The sentence, a foregone conclusion, was then pronounced:

You…are to go from hence to the place from whence you came, and thence to the place of Execution, there to be hanged up by the Neck until you are Dead, and the Lord have Mercy upon your Soul.

After Sentence was given against the Prisoners, the Marshal of the Admiralty was Ordered to remand and keep them in safe Custody within His Majesty’s Goal in Boston.

As the father and son left the State House with the guards, life outside continued as it had that morning. Horses and carts and people making their way along the streets, attending to their business.

Everyday, mundane life.

But they probably sounded different, because the father and son knew they would not hear those sounds for long. They would never hear the precious voices of their family, or the sounds of their beloved woods, again, either.

Someone assuredly informed Jacques and Philippe Mius, and John Missel back in the jail what had happened at court. The guards may have taken glee in the men’s misery.

The next morning at 10 o’clock, their cell doors clanged open, and it was their turn to walk the long block to stand before the tribunal.

Photo courtesy of Katherine Borges

The charges were read, in English, of course:

For that the said Philip Mews, James Mews, and John Missel, not having the Fear of GOD before their Eyes, but being Instigated by the Devil, on the Twenty Fifth Day of August, last, about the Hour of Two in the Afternoon of the said Day, together with John Baptist Jedre, alias Laverdure, John Baptist Junior, and others, in or near Malegash Harbour…

Ironically, the Mius men had an Indian interpreter, not a French one. Their court-provided advocate asked for time to prepare a proper defense, and he was so generously given until 3 that afternoon.

By the end of the same day, two hours later, they too had been found guilty, with absolutely no regard for the fact that at least eight of their family members had been held for a year in 1722-1723, and seven more had been kidnapped in 1723, of which at least two were still being held at Castle William.

If the two Jean-Baptiste Guidrys, Philippe and Jacques Mius, and John Missel were supposed to abide by the December 1725 treaty, which is what qualified their behavior as “piracy,” then why weren’t the Bostonians?

Why hadn’t François Mius and Paul Guidry been released from Castle William and returned to Nova Scotia?

Why wasn’t any of that considered?

Apparently, the “rules” applied only to one side, and not the other.

Why were the accusers allowed to testify, but the accused men’s explanations were discounted and dismissed, along with the circumstances surrounding the hostages?

Was justice ever the goal? Or was this always meant to be an elaborate vengeful performative political spectacle dressed up as justice?

The identical verdict awaited Jacques and Philippe Mius, and John Missel, word for exact word.

This begs the question of how much François Mius and Paul Guidry, confined helplessly at Castle William, knew about what was going on. Humans love to gossip, so I find it difficult to believe they were unaware.

François and Paul were probably equally thrilled that their families hadn’t forgotten them, or given up on obtaining their freedom, and at the same time utterly horrified. Devastated that they had essentially sacrificed their lives for nothing.

This dreadful soap opera wasn’t over yet.

In the words of Marcus Rediker, Boston and other cities “staged spectacular executions” of pirates. Five pirates, all to be hanged on the same day, would be a sight to behold. Top-flight entertainment for everyone to look forward to. A public holiday.

Sickening.

Utterly sickening.

Between the Gavel and the Gallows

The walk from the Old State House back to the prison seemed like it was into another dimension for the four men and one boy whose lives would be ended. Not justice, but injustice, revenge, had been meted out that day. They were dead men walking.

The clock was ticking, day by day, hour by hour, until their lives would be snuffed out.

They probably didn’t know which day they would die. Would it be sooner, or later? Who would decide?

Gallows had to be constructed for five executions. We don’t know whether one executioner’s platform or five separate ones were built while Boston Town watched in anticipation of the blood-sport being prepared for their mass consumption.

Just three months earlier, William Fly only had to wait eight days after his verdict before he drew his final breath.

There were no such things as appeals. Often the length of time between the sentence being passed and execution carried out was dependent on how successfully the Puritan ministers were in their spiritual counseling delivered inside the jail cells of the condemned. But these people weren’t Puritans. They were Native Americans and Catholics. The Catholics had spent the past century trying to convert the Native people. We know the Guidrys were Catholic, but the mixed family members may have practiced some combination of Catholicism and Native American traditions.

Were they afforded any religious comfort, such as Last Rites, or were they treated as less than human?

Was the promise of the Puritan version of life after death powerful enough for them to recant their beliefs?

Ironically, Puritan minister Cotton Mather, who is entombed in Copp’s Hill Burying Ground near the Old North Church, within sight of where they were hanged, was fascinated by pirates and visited them often in the gaol, attempting to extract confessions and convert them. He ultimately published several treatises about piracy and conversion, so it’s unclear how much of his zeal was concern for their souls, fodder for his pulpit and books, or fascination with the spectacle of hanging itself.

Then on the morning of November 2nd, 28 long days later, the cell doors creaked open for the final time.

Did they know in advance that this would be the day?

Their appointed date with the Grim Reaper had arrived.

Were the men hopeful of a final miracle, or were they resigned to their fate?

The Execution

I’ve learned a lot more than I ever wanted to know about executions since writing Philippe Mius’s original article, and I’ve since traced their footsteps on that fateful, final day.

Because Philippe Mius (the third), Jacques Mius, Jean-Baptiste Guidry Jr. and Sr., and John Missel were convicted of piracy in the Vice Admiralty Court, tradition required that they be hanged over the water. The Diary of Jeremiah Bumstead tells us that executions occurred on the mudflats near the Charlestown Ferry between the high and low tide marks.

Execution day was a much-anticipated social event – for the attendees – not for those unfortunate men at the center of this carnival-like spectacle.

Nearby towns were emptied of residents as they flocked to Boston. Businesses closed, except for taverns, of course, and vendors sold food, drinks, and printed copies of execution ballads to the gathered crowds.

Preachers often appeared, using the convicted as examples to convert the flocks.

Everyone lusted for morbid last dying speeches, waiting breathlessly to see what would happen.

Would the men break?

What would they say?

Peasants and laborers watched from the crowded shore or the mudflats, but the wealthy secured prime seating or even watched from their boats in the river for a premium view.

Enslaved people and indentured servants were encouraged, permitted, or perhaps forced to attend in order to internalize the lesson of complete, unquestioning obedience.

Based on historical records of Boston’s pirate executions and admiralty customs, we can glean what their last day would have been like.

On the morning of their executions, the men would have been taken from the Boston gaol and placed into open wooden carts, sometimes alongside their own coffins, then paraded through the packed streets, lined with jeering residents and visitors.

The town drum corps marched ahead of them, beating a slow, ominous rhythm to alert the neighborhoods that the condemned men were approaching so the residents could hurry to watch.

The procession started at the gaol and moved slowly past the Old State House so the authorities could watch, then threaded through the North End’s narrow streets that were most heavily populated.

The condemned men were paraded around the city so everyone could take their turn seeing the spectacle. Hostility and violence were actively encouraged by the Puritan authorities, who wanted the public to vocalize their hatred for “sin” and rebellion – qualities it was believed that these four men (and one boy) represented in the flesh.

What a macabre parade.

People crowded the doorsteps, leaned out of second-story windows, and packed the cobblestones. They aggressively shouted insults, cursed the men, and openly spat on them as the carts rolled slowly past, bumping along the cobblestones, giving everyone ample opportunity to desecrate their bodies.

The lower-class spectators typically pelted the prisoners in the carts with mud, rotting produce, dead animals, and stones scraped from the street’s gutters. The “guards” did nothing to stop this, as it was viewed as part of the public penance.

I shudder to think of the example this set for children. Whatever happened to messages that would be preached from the pulpits on Sunday, like “love thy neighbor,” and being kind?

The merchants viewed pirates as an economic threat, but these men weren’t pirates in the traditional sense. Their “crime” was about something different altogether, and the fact that François Mius and Paul Guidry were still sitting at Castle William was evidence that the English had committed the exact same crime – and that crime was still in progress. Yet, there was no justice, and no accountability for them. Someone needed to hold a mirror!

The regular townspeople saw the prisoners as lawless, bloodthirsty outlaws who had broken both the laws of the King and the laws of God. The crowd felt a righteous, religious duty to mock them and break their spirits before they reached the gallows. Cruelty seemed to be the point, the purpose, and the name of the game.

The men were probably actually relieved to be finished with that unholy gauntlet by reaching the mudflats where their execution would soon occur. And poor Jean-Baptiste Jr. That poor child.

One of the reasons that hangings occurred in the intertidal zone, between high and low tide, was that in Boston, the high tide mark was where the streets and buildings began, but where the mouth of the Charles River entered the harbor was shallow. The low tide mark extended some 1,650 feet offshore in places, nearly one-third of a mile, providing a great deal of real estate for people to gather to witness the gruesome spectacle, along with the day’s entertainment.

The shoreline has changed substantially, but the historical map overlaid on the shadowed contemporary map beneath shows the 1700s shoreline, with the buildings in red, and the subsequent development on filled land on the current map.

The procession would have passed by various cemeteries, then called burying grounds. The prisoners knew they would not be buried there.

Pirates were not wanted in Puritan cemeteries, and neither were French Catholic or Native American men. Nor were they welcome in the Old North Church, either.

As the spectacle passed by the tombstones of Copp’s Hill, descending the steep hillside as they neared the water, the men could see the harbor, river, and the mudflats where their fate awaited.

Their heartbeats must have quickened.

As they approached the streets that ran along the waterfront, they would have been able to see the gallows scaffold, towering above the water, in the distance.

Everyone could find their way to Charlestown Ferry, where the mud flats extended nearly halfway across the river to a narrow channel.

Today, part of the area shown as water along the shoreline on the early map has been filled and is part of Langone and Puopolo Parks, located directly across Commercial Street from the Copp’s Hill Burying Ground lower terraces. The elevation and historic shoreline don’t much matter, though, because the gallows would have been constructed well offshore so that everyone had a good view of the barbaric spectacle that they had come to enjoy.

Oh, the incredible irony of the marker that greets visitors to Langone Park, today.

Thousands of spectators lined the North End docks, and the river was choked with boats, all gathered to watch the horrible gallows performance.

Around noon, typically between 11 AM and 1 PM, the show got underway, with the ministers acting as showmen.

The convicted men, with only minutes left to live, were either forced up on a ladder or sometimes stood in the back of the cart.

With four men and one boy to be hanged at the same time, I’d bet that they were all five forced to climb onto the scaffold or scaffolds and up ladders so that the crowd could see better.

The executioner would place the nooses around their necks.

Then, everyone was “treated to” an execution sermon. Yes indeed, what could possibly have been lovelier or more inspiring? I wonder what God thought.

Next, they were forced to listen to fiery sermons by high-profile rival Puritan ministers like Cotton Mather and Benjamin Colman, often lasting well over an hour, frightening and capturing the imaginations of the attendees.

They exhorted the voyeurs by using the condemned men as “living examples” of what happens if one strays from God’s law.

Finally, the ministers pressured the desperate men standing with nooses around their necks, willing to do almost anything to delay the inevitable, to recant and repent, reading a script pre-written by the minister. This coerced final act of admitting their sins would supposedly “save their souls.”

Of course, the condemned men could have been incredibly brave, stood their ground and refused to participate in the charade, as actual legendary career pirate William Fly, who raided shipping fleets, had done just a few weeks earlier. Fly shocked the crowd with his belligerence, disdain, and refusal to comply – rather spoiling their day.

Fly’s body would still have been “hanging in chains” in a gruesome gibbet cage on Nixes Mate, an island in Boston Harbor, as a warning to others when our men were hanged.

We’ll never know what Jacques Mius, Philippe Mius, John Missel, Jean-Baptiste Guidry Sr., and his 13-year-old son, Jean-Baptiste Guidry Jr., did, or didn’t do – but I’d hazard a guess. At least, I hope they refused. They literally had nothing to lose at that point, except their very last shred of dignity.

I can’t help but wonder if François Mius and Paul Guidry were transported from Castle William to witness this horrific spectacle, perhaps being provided with up-front, close seats as a form of torture for them and the convicted men as well. One last well-planned indignity.

The hanged men’s final minutes of life, sometimes stretching into hours before death overtook them, were scenes of pure torture.

Years later, hangings occurred using the “long drop” method where the floor of the scaffold was dropped from beneath the feet of the condemned, and their necks snapped, providing a blessedly quick death.

Not so in 1726. Death came slowly.

Either the cart was pulled from beneath each man, or the ladder was removed, or the men were “turned off” of it, leaving them swinging by their necks. The weight of their own bodies caused the noose to tighten, depriving them of oxygen.

Death by slow strangulation was neither swift nor kind, but that was anticipated by the voyeurs as part of the spectacle. The men died slowly, struggling for air, while horrible involuntary utterances and agonizing moans escaped their bodies as the transfixed crowd watched in this torture theater.

Sometimes their faces were covered, and sometimes not.

In the Footsteps of the Executed

In August of 2026, 300 years later, I found those mudflats and walked in their footprints.

After passing that horribly ironic marker reading, “By their deeds, measure yours,” I stepped onto the boardwalk of Langone Park.

The bustling city around me faded into oblivion. I could feel the cold iron of the chains, the motion of the carts lurching through the streets, what they endured as their bodies were bruised and abused, and the fibers of the nooses on their skin. The absolute terror of the thirteen-year-old child who died here, the horror of relatives held on an island, so close, but so far away, and the crushing grief of a father hundreds of miles removed.

My body was in the present, but my heart was with them, almost exactly three centuries earlier.

The pain was overwhelming, but I knew I couldn’t look away. I had to stay. I had to finish what was started.

That is why I had been called here.

Summoned.

I walked to the water.

Looking to the left, the beautiful bridge crossing the Charles River to Charlestown belies what happened here.

The bridge and water were lovely in late August 2026, but not when they breathed their last here, on November 2, 1726.

Looking directly across the water, I could see both the Bunker Hill Monument and the USS Constitution, a tall ship similar to what our family members might have seen as they were carted onto the mud flats that fateful day.

Looking to the right was the vast shallow plain of mudflats that stretched out to the heavily trafficked shipping lanes, the gallows scene completely inescapable to any ships passing by.

My eyes were drawn to the shallow water, below.

I knew that it was here.

Here that they had hanged from their necks until they died, choking, deprived of air.

Swinging helplessly.

Deprived of life as thousands reveled in their misery.

These ancient timbers bearing witness.

And these.

I looked up and saw the flats, heard the roaring crowds, cheering for their murders – as they gasped, groaned and perhaps begged for mercy that would never come.

Especially the father for his son.

I found the old seawall, marking the high tide and bearing the footprints of time.

When their last breaths had forever escaped their earthly bodies, the rest of Boston went off to celebrate.

Practices of English admiralty law required the men be left to hang for a full day, as a spectacle, until three high tides had fully washed over them, submerging or battering the swinging corpses.

This ritual symbolized the Crown’s authority over the prisoners, allowing the sea to claim them three different times – because once just wasn’t enough.

The gallows did not just claim their breath; their customs demanded one final, grotesque act in this morbid theater.

The third tide would have receded around noon the following day, exposing their waterlogged bodies. The colonial marshals either rowed out to the scaffolds, or took the carts and cut the men down, hauling their soggy bodies into the bottom of boats.

Denied burial in a burial ground, Philippe, Jacques, Jean-Baptiste, Jean-Baptiste, and John were instead rowed across the harbor to Bird Island. They were buried like so much waste, anonymously, in the wet, marshy soil where no one could honor them, but where their family members, François and Paul, still held at Castle William, could suffer the agony of watching them be buried – fully comprehending the horror they were witnessing.

Not only had they failed to save them, but by trying, they sacrificed their own lives.

Back in Nova Scotia, Philippe awaited the official word, but he probably already knew.

Philippe was never heard from again.

Bird Island

I am here to stand witness and tell you that neither the state, the gallows, nor the mud won.

The pain of standing on this ground was excruciating and tore at the very fabric of my soul. But I did not come to relitigate their staged kangaroo trial that could not be won, grant them quarter for their heinous deeds, or give them yet another win.

I came to answer three centuries’ worth of silence.

Against all odds, I found Castle William, the gaol, the path they traveled, the execution site, and finally, the remains of Bird Island.

I walked there, along the Harborwalk.

I brought flowers to free their souls. The Universe added a feather. I heard the message loud and clear. So did they.

I came for Philippe, to deliver what he had been denied. As a father, father-in-law, and grandfather, he had been robbed of the right to tend his family in death, to observe the sacred rituals of walking on into the next realm, and to lay them to rest in this one.

I walked to the very end of what had once been Bird Island, before the sea whittled it down to Bird Island Flats. The Skyline Monument stands here today.

One bouquet for the graves of Philippe, Jacques, Jean-Baptiste Sr. and Jr., and John, with the buoy marking the end of Bird Island Flats in the water, at right.

One bouquet for François Mius, Paul Guidry, and unnamed others who were held hostage at Castle William, and those who died there.

A third bouquet over the mud and flats. To release their souls.

Philippe, my ancestor, I stand here for you.

We have done a holy thing.

Resurrecting their memories from the mud.

Beyond all doubt, I know the Universe heard.

And answered.

With unbounded beauty.

You were denied the mercy of their funerals and the sacred rituals of burial. You could not touch your boys, your daughter’s husband, or your grandson. You could not comfort them, stroke their faces, and wash away the cruelty they had endured.

You were left alone on the shores of faraway Nova Scotia to mourn an empty horizon for all the rest of your days.

In your stead, I did what you could not.

I brought the ritual to them and returned them to the sacred water that spirited them away.

The judges are all forgotten now, themselves turned to dust, having already answered to God.

The scaffolds, too, are gone, but the water remembers. It’s alive. That which can divide us also unites us.

Together, we brought them out of the shadows and lifted them up to the Creator.

We set them free.

We have spoken their names and honored them.

You are all free now.

Your work is done.

Your time here is finished.

Your tasks complete.

Soar with the Eagles

And touch the face of God.

The gallows did not win.

Reconstructing the World of Philippe Mius’s Unknown Mi’kmaq Wife (c1663-c1685) – 52 Ancestors #480

We don’t know her name.

More than three centuries after her death, she remains elusive and mysterious. No known records reveal her identity. Yet, she appears in the shadows, waiting for us to find her.

She’s Philippe Mius’s first wife. For a long time, that was all we knew. Little by little, we add pieces of evidence.

We must reconstruct her life indirectly. Her life story begins to come into focus through the history of the Mi’kmaq people, Philippe’s life, the lives of her children and descendants, and her mitochondrial DNA.

Most unnamed women disappear completely from history. We’re not letting her do that.

Philippe’s First Wife

Evidence shows that Philippe Mius d’Azy had at least two wives. He had five children born between 1679 and 1684. In the 1686 census, he was living in Port Royal with his father and without either a wife or children. Beginning about 1687, he had additional children with a Native woman named Marie, born about 1670, who was too young to have been the mother of those earlier children.

We know that Philippe lived most of his life among the Mi’kmaq people. The only exception seems to be that 1686 census.

The mitochondrial DNA results from the descendants of daughter, Francoise Mius, and her older sister, Marie, fall into haplogroup X2a2, which is unquestionably Native American. Their mother, Philippe’s first wife, is the woman who remains nameless and about whom we are writing.

There is confusion about the haplogroups of the children from Philippe’s second wife, which is probably a result of confusing genealogy. It doesn’t help that he had daughters named Marie and Francoise with both wives.

To learn more about the mothers of Philippe’s children, we would need mitochondrial DNA tests from the direct matrilineal descendants (female to female to the current generation, which can be male) of each daughter with solid genealogical trees back to Philippe’s daughters, who are:

  • Marie Mius born about 1680, married Francois Viger about 1697. They lived among the Native people at Quimakagan, present-day Robert’s Island, in 1705 when they had their children baptized in Port Royal. They are living at “Cap Sable” in 1708. It’s unclear where they lived after that.
  • Francoise Mius born around 1684, married Jacques Bonnevie, a French soldier. We have her mitochondrial DNA and she matches several other people who descend from Francois and her sister, Marie, born in 1680.

The 1686 census where Philippe Mius is enumerated with his father in Port Royal.

  • Marie Mius, born about 1689, married Jean Baptiste Thomas, who was a Mi’kmaq chief in 1726.
  • Madeleine Mius, born about 1694, married Jean-Baptiste Guedry before November 1708. They lived among the Native people at Merligueche, present-day Lunenburg, and La Heve.
  • Francoise Mius, born about 1697 in La Heve, married an unknown man about 1717, and Pierre Celier about 1733, where she is noted as being from La Have. No documented children.
  • Anne Marie Mius, born about 1705 in Merleguiche, married Paul Guidry/Guedry about 1720, and lived among the Native people.

One of the reasons that we believe Philippe had two wives is that the names of the first two daughters are also included in the second group of children who were born after the 1686 census, where Philippe is living in Port Royal.

Furthermore, his “second wife,” Marie, was born about 1670, so she was not old enough, based on her reported age of 38 in the 1708 census, to be the mother of Philippe’s first child, Joseph, born about 1679.

I have not listed Philippe’s sons, above, as they are not relevant to his wives’ mitochondrial DNA. Males don’t pass their mitochondrial DNA on to their children. Only females do. However, there were no known children between Francoise in 1684 and a son born about 1688. In other words, it appears that his first wife died between 1684 when Francoise was born, and 1688 when his next child was born.

Sadly, she would have died quite young. Probably just 21 or 22.

Aside from mitochondrial DNA testing for Philippe’s first wife, which we have today, the original information that both of Philippe’s wives were Native comes from a letter from a priest to his bishop, documented in the late Stephen A. White’s book, Dictionnaire généalogique des familles acadiennes, and reported on WikiTree, stating:

Unknown Amerindien married about 1678 and (married) Marie Amerindien married date unknown (to) Phillipe d’Azy Mius.

Unfortunately, the date of the letter is not known, but there’s no reason to doubt the authenticity of the information.

In addition to that, in the 1708 Indian census, Philippe Mieusse, age 48, is living with his wife, Marie, age 38, and their children, beginning with their oldest son, Jacques who is 20. The location is “Indians from La Heve and surrounding area.” This tells us that Philippe has been living among the Native people for more than 20 years, or since 1687 or so. Most people have French first names, which suggests they have been baptized, but Native surnames.

Early European Encounters

We know frustratingly little about Philippe’s first wife. However, we do know a great deal about the world in which she lived. To understand her life, we need to understand the Mi’kmaq people among whom she was born, raised, married, and ultimately buried.

We may not know her name, but we can reconstruct her world

How did the history and relationship between the Mi’kmaq people and the French evolve? While Philippe’s wife hadn’t been born yet when that relationship began, it profoundly influenced what happened over the next century.

In 1604 and 1605, Pierre Dugua, Sieur de Mons, along with cartographer Samuel de Champlain, explored Nova Scotia and the surrounding region.

DeMons established the first mill on the Lequille, now Allain River, above Port Royal, where a replica stands today, and a habitation or fort was designed by Champlain and built across the river.

On Champlain’s map, you can see the mill in the bottom right hand corner, labeled with letter “I”, or roman numeral “1.” I’m not sure which it is. Across the river, the habitation is labeled by “X.”

The original habitation was burned in 1613 by English raiders from Virginia, but a faithful reproduction has been built to welcome visitors and demonstrate life in an early French fort in Nova Scotia, where trading took place with the Mi’kmaq people.

Trading between the French and Native people took place at the habitation.

Marc Lescarbot, a lawyer and one of the earliest French explorers, first wrote about the Mi’kmaq in 1606, recording details of their daily life. It’s interesting that he recorded that the Mi’kmaq greeted the French and Basque traders by saying “Nikmaq!”, meaning “my kin-friends” or “my brothers” and the French referred to the Mi’kmaq as their “nikmaqs.”

He was particularly impressed by their welcoming nature, recording in his diary that they warmly greeted any stranger who was not a known enemy, and possessed “mutual charity” towards others. Resources, including food, were shared with their entire community to ensure survival.

During a time when Native people were often viewed as savages, or worse, by Europeans, Lescarbot said that they were highly intelligent, had “deep eloquence” of speech along with “much judgment and good sense.”

The French were particularly interested in furs, which were harvested primarily in the winter. Initially, the Mi’kmaq people only hunted enough animals to address their immediate needs, so they didn’t have furs, skins, or pelts to trade – but before long, that changed.

The Mi’kmaq established a trade relationship with the French, but that led to the Tarrateen War between the Mi’kmaw and their rivals, the Abenaki in Maine. The worst part lasted for eight years, but tensions and raids persisted for more than a quarter century.

In 1606, Lescarbot and Champlain wrote that Chief Membertou held a funeral for his son-in-law Panoniac, a Mi’kmaw sakmow, or grand chief, who had been killed by a member of the Passamaquoddy tribe. Seeking revenge for this and other acts of hostility, in July, 1607, Membertou led 500 warriors in a raid on the Passamaquoddy village in present-day Saco, Maine, killing 20 of their warriors and two leaders.

Extrapolating from later census information, if Membertou had 500 warriors, that would suggest the tribe consisted of around 1,500 or maybe as many as 2,000 people – assuming he took all the warriors with him. No warrior would have wanted to be left behind.

In 1607, the French left Port Royal because King Henri IV revoked the fur trade monopoly that had been fueling the settlement. Upon their departure, the French entrusted the fort to Membertou’s care. He faithfully guarded it until they returned in June of 1610.

On June 24, 1610, Membertou was baptized in the Catholic faith as a gesture of alliance, taking the English name of Henri after the French King. However, he appeared not to comprehend the scope of what Catholicism meant. The following year, on his deathbed, Membertou stated that he didn’t want to go to Christian heaven because he wanted to be with his people. He died in September, 1611, someplace between 80 and over 100 years of age. He was reported to be between 102 and 104, but that age is greeted with some skepticism.

Although Membertou’s age is unclear, he recalled that he was a fully grown married man with a family when he met French explorer, Jacques Cartier during his first voyage in 1534. That would place his birth year well before 1514, and probably around 1504. Membertou’s son was over 60 in 1610, so we know he was at least 80.

In 1612, the Mi’kmaq raided the Abenaki villages in Maine, but tragically, they returned with a plague or illness of some sort that killed about three-fourths of the Mi’kmaq people.

In genetic parlance, this is approaching a bottleneck event, and it’s why knowing that Membertou had 500 warriors in 1607 is important.

By 1620, when the Pilgrims arrived in what would one day become Massachusetts, King James of England granted Acadia to Sir William Alexander, who named it New Scotland, the name that would morph to Nova Scotia.

Philippe Mius’s first Native wife was probably born about 1663, a few years after his 1660 birth, in the Pobomcoup areas, the region near today’s Pubnico, or in other known Mi’kmaq villages.

The Mi’kmaq people who met these early French explorers would probably have been two or three generations older than her, and there’s no evidence to indicate that she was directly or recently related to Chief Membertou.

However, given the level of endogamy that exists within a closed population, everyone in the tribe was probably related to Membertou in multiple ways. Before European arrival and colonization, there were no other people available to marry and have children with.

By Michka B – Own work à partir des images bitmap (Mikmaq), CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=67251179

The Mi’kmaq were regionally migratory, semi-nomadic people, and both the Port Royal and Pobomcoup bands were part of the Gespogoitnag or Kespu’kwitk district that encompassed southwest Nova Scotia. Kespu’kwitk means “land ends” or “end of flow.”

Although trading slowed somewhat after 1613 when the English attacked and burned the fort, it didn’t stop, as the French never completely left.

In 1631, when France regained control of Nova Scotia, Charles St. Estienne de La Tour built Fort Sainte Marie at the mouth of the Saint John River, across the bay from Port Royal.

The following year, Isaac de Razilly established a fort at Le Have, and three or four years later, the first French families arrived.

In 1635, Razilly died, and Charles d’Aulnay took his place as Governor, moving the seat of Acadia to Port Royal, a more sheltered and agriculturally more productive area, between 1636 and 1640. D’Aulnay drowned in 1650.

In 1651, La Tour, the new governor, brought Philippe Mius d’Entremont (Sr.), with his wife, Madeleine Helie, and their first child, to Acadia, to be his second-in-command.

In 1653, Mius selected the area known as Pobomcoup, today’s Pubnico area surrounding the harbor, to establish his seigneury, which elevated him to the status of Baron of Pobomcoup.

A year later, 1654, the English retook Nova Scotia and retained it until 1667.

Philippe Mius’s grant area, and where he likely built his manor house near Pubnico.

Philipp Mius d’Entremont Sr. built a manor house someplace at Pobomcoup, probably within the red square above, and expanded his family.

Philippe Mius Jr., who eventually married into and lived among the Mi’kmaq, was born around 1660 in Pobomcoup. The only other residents in this remote outpost were the LaTour family, at least 22 miles away by water, and the Native people who lived at and had frequented Pobomcoup for generations.

In the 1671 Acadian census, Philippe Mius d’Entremont is shown as a child with his family, and only his family, in “The settlement of Pobomcou near the Island of Tousquet.” Their only neighbors would have been the Mi’kmaq people.

In that census, Philippe is age 11. His oldest sister has married and lives in Port Royal, his oldest brother, Jacques, is missing from the census, his brother Abraham, 13, is shown, as is his baby sister, who is 2.

Perhaps the most important thing about this census is that there are no other European children, so Philippe’s playmates, aside from his siblings, are the Native children living nearby.

Philippe’s father, the Baron of Pobomcoup, had built a manor house that would have served as a gathering place and trading post. Everyone would have come there to trade, and the Native people may have made their summer encampment nearby. Or, perhaps Philippe built his home intentioinally close to the Mi’kmaq village to facilitate easy trading.

Trade goods would have included skins in return for metal objects, specifically knives, hatchets, awls, kettles, and sometimes woven cloth.

Some skins, mostly moose and deer, were scraped with shells to remove the fur. These are beautifully painted today with paint made from natural dyes, but we don’t know whether the skins they traded then were decorative.

While not specific to Nova Scotia, French chroniclers reported stunningly beautiful painted hides, collectively called Matachees.

Within the tribe, painted objects weren’t simply decorative, but served a larger purpose, integrating spiritual protection with social identity and survival. Depending on the size of the hide, painted skins provided robes, cloaks, blankets, leggings, detachable sleeves, and of course, moccasins. Ceremonial clothing, including moccasins, were even more festive and decorative.

Additionally, painting the hide honored the animal that gave its life to feed and clothe the community’s members. Absolutely nothing was wasted.

Special occasions, like weddings, political councils, important feasts and sacred ceremonies were marked with elaborate, bleached moosehide robes that were painted with red and black ochre.

This might provide a clue about the wedding of Philippe Mius (Jr.) with his Mi’kmaq wife. I can’t help but wonder if, given his father’s status, he married a high-status daughter as well. Traditionally, Mi’kmaq marriages were family arrangements that focused on mutual cooperation, but included the consent of the bride. If the families agreed and the couple consented, they were expected to develop a lifelong bond. Did Philippe ask his father to approach her father to discuss a possible marriage? In traditional Mi’kmaq society, the young man would avoid looking at or speaking directly to his future wife until his father had spoken with hers – although no doubt there were numerous furtive glances to indicate interest combined with the local grapevine.

Philippe would have spent his formative years with the Native people mastering the skills necessary to survive in the maritime wilderness and along the shoreline.

He would have been able to handle a canoe, just like the Mi’kmaq children. He would probably not have dressed in European clothes, which would simply have been in the way.

He would have learned to find, harvest and braid sweetgrass, along with other skills such as how to construct a birchbark canoe.

The next Acadian census isn’t until 1678, at which time Philippe Mius d’Azy would be about 18. His father has been appointed as the King’s Attorney and now, the family is living in Port Royal – except – Philippe is not living with them.

He was probably living with his brothers in Pobomcoup. He may never have made the move to Port Royal when his father, as the King’s Attorney, moved, sometime after 1671.

It’s not surprising that Philippe, who came to be known as Philippe d’Azy as his dit name, would marry into the Mi’kmaq tribe. I’m referring to him by “d’Azy” to differentiate him from his father at this point.

The Mi’kmaq have fished at Pobomcoup from time immemorial, and the word Pobomcoup is taken from their language, meaning something similar to, “Place where we drill holes in the ice to fish.”

Philippe grew up with only his siblings and the Mi’kmaq children as playmates. He would have learned to hunt and fish with the boys, and when old enough, clearly a young lady caught his eye.

Philippe may have been missing in the 1678 census because he was living with his future wife’s parents, performing the trial of “bride-service.” A suitor typically lived with the bride’s parents for some time, up to a year, before a wedding was agreed to, demonstrating that he could hunt and work sufficiently to provide for the daughter and his own household.

Given the status of Philippe’s father, this arrangement could have been somewhat different. He would still have been expected to gift her parents with beaver pelts and other goods.

Weddings were communal, celebratory feasting events. People ate blueberries and meat, sang traditional songs, and danced in ceremonial regalia. Sacred rituals would have included smudging with sweetgrass, a sacred pipe ceremony, and tying a feather to the side of each other’s heads – an act equivalent to contemporary wedding rings.

To close the ritual, the couple was wrapped in a single blanket, symbolizing both visually and spiritually their new life together and the journey they were undertaking as a single unit.

Weddings bonded more than the couple, they formed alliances between families and sometimes villages.

In this case, they symbolically connected both worlds.

We do know that these traditions continued despite Catholic conversion. The Mi’kmaq eventually blended aspects of both.

Philippe and his wife probably married at Pobomcoup, since that’s likely where they met. It would be interesting to know if both families attended, or how they handled the very different European and Mi’kmaq traditions and expectations.

The only way we know where Philippe d’Azy was and what he was doing with his life is by piecing his life together, and by extension his wife, the Mi’kmaq mother of his children.

Let’s see what we can infer about her life from his story and the lives of their children.

Philippe d’Azy’s mother died between 1677 and 1678, probably in Port Royal given that’s where his father and younger siblings were living in 1678.

Based on the birth year of their oldest child, named Joseph d’Azy Mius, around 1679, Philippe d’Azy had married a year or so earlier.

Philippe was young, only about 18, so his wife was probably around the same age, or perhaps slightly younger. Based on the ages of the Mi’kmaq women in the 1708 census, 15 or 16 seems to be the most common marriage age, so let’s say that in 1678, Philippe’s bride was 15 or 16, so born about 1662 or 1663.

We have absolutely no idea what her name was, but it could have been either Marie or Francoise, because her two daughters were given those names, in that order.

I feel badly that I have to refer to her namelessly, but I’m not going to “assign” a name, because that’s how incorrect names become part of legend. We already have that problem with Philippe’s second Native wife, Marie, who, at some point got labeled with the surname CoyoteWhite or Coyote Blanc. Nope, no documentation whatsoever to support that.

Philippe’s oldest children, born prior to 1686, so to his first wife, were:

  • Joseph Mius born about 1679 and married a Native woman named Marie about 1699
  • Marie Mius born about 1680 and married Francois Viger about 1697
  • Mathieu Mius born about 1682 and married a Native woman named Madeleine about 1706
  • Maurice Mius born about 1682 and married a Native woman named Marguerite about 1702
  • Francoise Mius born about 1684 married Jacques Bonnevie, a soldier, about 1701

It’s presumed that the woman Philippe married around 1678 is the same woman who gave birth to Francoise about 1684, but that could be in error.

It’s possible that Francoise’s older siblings had more than one mother, but it’s unlikely given that descendants of both Marie born in 1680 and Francoise born about 1684 carry Native American haplogroup X2a2 and match exactly.

However, given that we know there weren’t many Mi’kmaq, and that they had survived at least one bottleneck event in 1612, Marie and Francoise could possibly have the same haplogroup and not share the same mother. In other words, their mothers could be siblings, cousins, or otherwise share the same direct matrilineal line ancestor.

I would also assume that because all five children have “French” first names that they were baptized at some point, either at birth by Philippe, who we know baptized children born in 1702 and later, or by a visiting missionary priest.

The children probably also had Mi’kmaq names used within the family and community.

We also know that Marie was a favorite Catholic name, as in Marie, the mother of Christ.

When Mi’kmaq people were baptized, they were given European, in this case, French names, so Philippe’s wife probably had a French biblical name. For that matter, we really don’t know if Philippe’s family was Protestant or Catholic when they arrived in Acadia. The La Tour family was Protestant. Eventually, the Mius family was Catholic, certainly before 1702, but we don’t know when that occurred.

There are no parish records prior to 1702. Earlier records were lost or destroyed.

Their first child, Joseph Mius was born around 1679, probably in or near Pobomcoup, the general area surrounding Pubnico Harbour today.

Joseph, like his father, lived among the Native people.

The 1708 Indian Census

The November 1708 census is known as “The Indian Census” and lists the Mi’kmaq people by location, name, age and by wigwam. This is the only census in which at least some are listed by their Native names. The census records all of the Indians who reside on the coast of Nova Scotia, including Port Royal and along the western and southern coastlines, plus at Pintagouet (Castine, Maine) and Canibeky (the Kennebec River area). It includes a summary of the number of men and boys capable of going to war, meaning those 15 or older, which may have been the motivation for taking the census in the first place.

The Indians at Port Royal include several widows and orphans, for a total of 102 people. Cape Sable has 97 people. Port Razoir has three families with 15 people. La Heve has 127 people. Les Mines has 59 people. Mouscoudabouet has 196 people. Chiguenictou has 100 people.

There’s a note that the Indians of Pintgouet were enumerated by wigwam and not by family by Father de la Chasse, their missionary. Twenty-six wigwams housed 388 people, or about 15 people per wigwam.

This is probably insightful as to how Philippe’s wife’s family lived, and how they lived together after they married. Communal living would explain why, after Philippe’s wife died, their children were raised by their Native relatives, not taken by their father to Port Royal in 1686. Philippe must have been utterly miserable there, because he was gone soon after.

Another note says that the Indians from Canikeby were not in their villages, so the census-taker could not know the names of their family members or the number of children, they “being sometimes in Canada and sometimes on the other coast.”

On the St. Jean River, they counted only the 82 men and boys capable of carrying arms.

The “Indian Census” totaled 1305 people, with 439 being classified as “warriors”. That’s not very many people. I wonder how many there would have been if three-fourth of their population hadn’t perished a century earlier. For adults old enough to have completed their family, the number of surviving children seems to be someplace around four. That means their population roughly doubled in every generation.

Backing the census number up by generation, there would only have been about 650 people in 1673, 35 years, or a very long generation, earlier, and about 325 in 1638. The plague occurred about 1612, which tells us that the population was probably reduced to around 165 people, or maybe between 165 and 325. This is close to our earlier approximation of about 1500 people before 75% died, which would have left about 375.

Some estimates of Indigenous “plague deaths” between 1612 and 1619, known also as “The Great Dying”, reach as high as 90-95%. Given that the affliction did not seem to affect the French fishermen, it was likely a result of exposure to European diseases, or the disease carried by the rats on their ships. Unfortunately, the Europeans viewed this unfortunate epidemic as “God’s hand” in freeing up the lands for European colonization.

It’s hard to imagine that only around 300 people, or maybe even fewer, stood between the Mi’kmaq and extinction.

Perhaps their scattered locations along the coastline, as reflected in the 1708 census, helped to save them.

Under the title, Cape Sable Indians, which is not close to La Heve where Philippe and his second wife are living, we find:

  • Mathieu Emieusse, 26, Madelaine, 20, with Joachim, 1

This is Mathieu, born about 1682, Philippe Mius d’Azy’s son with his first wife.

Under the title, Indians from La Heve and surrounding area:

  • Philippe Mieusse, age 48, is listed at Le Have and surrounding area in the 10th wigwam, with his wife, Marie, age 38, son Jacques 20, son Pierre, 17, son Francois, 8, son Philipe 5, daughter Francoise, 11, and daughter Anne, 3.

This is Philippe Mius d’Entremont Sr.’s son, Philippe Mius d’Azy, born about 1660, living at Le Have, with his second wife, Marie, a Mi’kmaq woman.

Under the title, Indians from Mouscoudabouet:

  • Maurice Mieuse, age 26, is living with his wife Margueritte, 27 and their two children in the 5th wigwam at Mouscoudabouet.

Mouscoudabouet was an early combined French and Native settlement located about 80 miles northeast of La Heve by water, about 20 miles further east of present-day Halifax.

Maurice, born about 1682, is Philippe d’Azy’s son with his first Native wife.

Following that, we find a list of “the French settled on the East Coast – the French of Cape Sable.”

The couples, with the spelling remaining unchanged, include:

  • Julien auboiss, 67, and Jeanne aimee, 45
  • Gabriel mouleson, 23, and Marie aubois, 22
  • francois Vige, 46, Marie mieusse, 28

Marie is Philippe’s daughter by his first wife, who married Francois Viger. This suggests her birth about 1680.

  • Francois Tourangeau, 66, Marie Pitre, 42
  • Marc Pitre, 37, Jeanne brun, 36
  • Joseph dazy, 35, Marie tourangeau, 24, with son Joseph, 8, Charles, 6, francois, 5, Angelique, 4, Marie Joseph, 2

This is Joseph, born about 1679 (although this subtracts to 1673), the son of Philippe Mius d’Azy with his first wife. In 1715, Joseph received land, where he is described as “part Indian who dwelt at Port Le Tore,” and is the son-in-law of “Tourangeaut”. In this census, Tourangeaut is probably Francois Tourangeau, with his wife Marie Pitre.

  • Jean Pitre, 33, francoise Babin, 25

At Port Rasoirs:

  • Claude Bertram, 50, Catherine Pitre, 40
  • Etienne Chicau (no age or other people)
  • Jean Guy, 70, Marie Lureau, 40

At La Heve:

  • Pierre Briart, 55, Marie Thibaudeau, 46
  • Joseph Boutin, 32, Marie Briart, 22
  • Martin Briart, 5, Marie Godet, 28
  • Jean Godet, 58, Jeanne Briart, 62
  • Rene Labauve, 30, Anne Briart, 21
  • Jean Petit, 58, Jeanne Fauueau, 60
  • Claude Guedry, 60, Marguerite Petit pas, 48
  • Jean baptiste Guedry, 24, Madelaine Mieusse, 14

Madelaine, born about 1694, is the daughter of Philippe and his first wife.

In 1726 Jean Baptiste Guidry, and his namesake son, who was about 16, were both kidnapped by the English in the harbour at Merligueche, present-day Lunenburg, and hanged for piracy in Boston, on November 13, 1726. Philip Mius d’Azy’s son, Philip, about age 23, by his second wife, Marie, and his son Joseph from his first marriage, about age 53, were also kidnapped and hanged on the same day.

They had all probably been living as a family, here, at Merligueche.

Philippe d’Azy was still living at that time, although I wouldn’t be surprised if losing two of his sons, his son-in-law, and his grandson killed him. We never find him again in any record. He would have been about 66.

Philippe’s first wife, whoever she was, had “walked on” some 40 years earlier and was waiting to greet and comfort her son, Joseph Mius d’Azy, his half-brother, Philippe Mius d’Azy, her son-in-law Jean-Baptiste Guidry and grandson, also Jean-Baptiste Guidry.

Say their names.

While their death was astoundingly tragic, traditional Mi’kmaq belief is that death is a natural transition, and one’s ancestors are waiting to guide and embrace those who are passing into the spirit realm where the spirit lives on.

In the 1708 Indian Census, Philippe’s children were scattered over 300 miles along interlinked coastal villages in the southern and southwestern portion of Nova Scotia, and Philippe Mius d’Azy’s fifth child, by his first wife, Francoise, had married Jacques Bonnevie about 1701 and was living at Port Royal.

Even though these families lwere enumerated far apart along the coastline, they clearly sailed back and forth, given how many were in the same place on that fateful day in 1726. Various records place Philippe along a very long stretch of coastline throughout his life – all the way from Port Royal to Musquodoboit Harbour.

Francoise Mius is the only one of Philippe’s first Mi’kmaq wife’s children who did not retain a Native lifestyle and live among the Native people as an adult. Born about 1684, she and Jacques Bonnevie, a soldier, lived with their family in Port Royal among the French families.

Courtesy Nova Scotia Archives

Prior to that, Francoise is not found in the census, so would have been living among the Mi’kmaq.

Given how scattered the family is in 1708, it’s impossible to tell whether Philippe lived at Pobomcoup or elsewhere along the coastline with his first wife. They were only married for six or 7 years before she passed on – but that was half a dozen summers and winters where they would transition from their summer village to a winter location.

The Mi’kmaq people led a lifestyle in tune with nature, moving to where hunting and fishing were abundant and where safe shelter could be found during the various seasons of the year.

The Mi’kmaq people were seasonally migratory and moved from place to place.

Their wigwams, consisting of five or six poles, lashed together and covered with birch bark sewn together with spruce were easily assembled in less than a day by the women. Floors were covered with boughs, animals skins and furs.

The Mi’kmaq had few personal belongings, but they packed up their wigwams and hunting tools each season as they moved to the next location.

They lived in villages near Canso, Rivere Sainte Marie, Chebucto, La Heve, Port Medway, Port Rossignol (Shelburne), Ministiguesch (Port La Tour), Merligueche, Ouimakagan (near Pubnico), and other locations. For a more detailed discussion of their village sites, see Bill Wicken, “Encounters with Tall Sails and Tall Tales: Mi’kmaq Society, 1600-1760”.

The Port Royal Parish Register

The Port Royal parish register, on October 22 and 23, 1705, shows that several mixed Native/Acadian children were baptized who had previously been baptized at Cape Sable, or nearby. Residences of their parents include Outkrukagan, Pombomkou, Puikmakagan, OneKmakagan, Mirliguish, Petite Riviere, Merligueshe, Port Multois, and Kayigomias.

This cluster of 1705 baptisms within a day or so of each other makes me wonder if there was some kind of community baptismal event where everyone who wanted their child officially baptized climbed into a canoe or fishing boat and set out for Port Royal, where they had access to a priest. Conversely, the gathering could have been a harvest festival, Mawio’mi (powwow), or celebration of some type. One thing is clear, lots of non-resident people were visiting Port Royal that weekend and they probably didn’t visit regularly since the children being baptized were born across several years.

Conversely, it’s also possible that the priest visited Pobomcoup or someplace along the coastline and baptized everyone there, recording the events in the parish register. Have church will travel!

Many people were recorded with place names as their surnames, like Anne de Pobomkou.

There was only one Catholic church on the western shores of Acadia – at Port Royal. We know that children were born elsewhere and baptized at birth by someone nearby when no priest was present. Sometimes, they were later baptized by a priest and the baptism was recorded in the parish register.

It’s interesting that “Philippe de Pobomkou,” who signed as Philippe Muis, baptized children in 1702. This identifies him, but it may also indicate where he’s living at that time. Or at least during that part of the year in 1702.

  • In 1704, Philippe’s daughter, Francoise, the one born in 1684, had a child baptized where her name is recorded as “Françoise Muis dit Beaumon.” Her husband, Jacques Bonnevie, was a soldier.
  • In February 1708 Francoise Mius the wife of Baumont stood as Godmother to a baptism.
  • In June of 1712, Jacques Mius de Pobomkou and Agathe de la Tour stood as godparents at a baptism, both French who lived at Pobomcoup. This is Philippe’s brother and his wife.
  • In 1730, a baptism took place at the house of “Sieur Poboncour at Cape Sable”, which would be Philippe d’Azy’s brother, Jacques, where Joseph Mieux was listed as deceased. Joseph was one of the men hanged in 1726 in Boston.

Some years ago, Fran Wilcox extracted the Mi’kmaq marriages from the parish registers of St. Jean-Baptiste Church of Port Royal, and they are published, here.

Many of the Native people are listed under the French names they adopted or were bestowed upon them at baptism, along with their family members.

The balance of Mius family records, meaning those not shown above, seem to be from Philippe d’Azy’s marriage to his second wife, although I can’t identify everyone. There is obviously a deeper history, and perhaps more children and grandchildren, than we’ve been able to document.

Some families can be correlated to the 1708 Native census, but others are mysteries.

  • On June 20, 1726, Marie, the wife of Francois Mieux, Philippe’s son by his second wife, stood as a godmother. Marie has no surname, which, based on other entries, probably indicates that she is Native. Francois was appointed by the French in 1742 as Chief. He lived at Merligueche but in 1761, he signed as chief of the Indians at La Heve. This probably reflected seasonal travels.

Some baptisms and marriages state that some of the people involved were “Mi’kmaq of Cape Sable.” However, that does not mean they stayed in one place from season to season.

  • In March 1728, Gabriel Thomas was baptized. He was born to Jean Baptiste Thomas, a Mi’kmaq “of this river” (Annapolis River), and mother, Marie Mius (daughter of Philippe Mius and his second wife, Marie). Francois Mius, Marie’s brother, and Anne Thomas, the daughter of Jean Baptiste Thomas, stood as Godparents.
  • In February of 1730, Marie, the 30-year-old wife of Jean Baptiste Mius, of the Mi’kmaq Nation was buried. This would be very young for the Jean-Baptiste Mius born in 1713, the son of Joseph Mius, to have married, but I don’t know of other candidates.
  • In October 1732, a baptism of a Mi’kmaq child was witnessed by Charles Amiraux and Claire Mieux, relationship not stated. Claire’s identity is unknown.
  • In April of 1733, Marie Mieux is noted as a Mi’kmaq mother. Husband Baptiste Thomas, daughter Clere born in 1732 and baptized. Marie Mieux is Philippe’s daughter with his second wife, Marie. Jean-Baptiste Thomas was a Mi’kmaq man and future chief of the Mi’kmaq “of the river at Port Royal” in 1726.
  • In April of 1734, a Mi’kmaq child was baptized with Madeleine Mius listed as the Mi’kmaq mother, along with Baptiste Pierret, a Mi’kmaq father.
  • In August 1735, Francoise Myus, widow of the second time of the late Rene grande Claude of La Heve, Mi’kmaq bride, married Pierre Ceiller, a Mi’kmaq from the Annapolis River. This Francoise is the daughter of Philippe and his second wife, Marie.

Robichau family members witnessed many of these events

Philippe’s Wife’s Death

We don’t know when Philippe’s first wife died, but she had her first child, Joseph, in 1679 when they were newlyweds, followed by Marie in about 1680. Mathieu and Maurice are estimated to have been born about 1682 and may have been twins. Finally, Francoise was born about 1684, but assuredly before the census was taken in 1686.

If was born about 1663, married in 1678 at 15, and had her first child the following year – she would have only been about 21 when daughter Francoise was born in 1684. We don’t know exactly when she died, but it could have been anything from Francoise’s birth to the 1686 census where Philippe is found in Port Royal with his father.

Given that there is no child, or no child that survived in 1685 or 1686, and Philippe remarried sometime in 1687, she probably died in 1684 or 1685, leaving her five children behind. It’s certainly possible that she died in childbirth with the next child, who also perished along with her.

Communal living makes so much sense in circumstances like this.

What do we know about her short life?

From 1679 until 1685, Philippe was engaged in the fur trade and eel fishing at Ouikmakagan, a summer village on or near Robert’s Island, an eel-fishing settlement near the Tusket River.

The Mi’kmaq people fished for whales and porpoises along the shore, and gathered shellfish.

This is also where their eldest daughter, Marie, lived with François Vignee (Viger), so this must have been very familiar territory.

During those years, before her passing, Philippe’s first wife would have resided here with him, among these pristine islands, moving seasonally, as was the Mi’kmaq tradition.

We also know that in 1685, Philippe lived in a town called Ministiguesche, a native village, with his brother Abraham, near present-day Barrington Head. Barrington Head is near Fort LaTour, and Abraham married a LaTour.

That makes sense, as Ministiguesche wasn’t far from Pobomcoup, may have been in or near its eastern boundary, and was the known site of a Mi’kmaq village. Philippe’s wife would have accompanied him here, too.

The two cultures coexisted harmoniously, with the French settling the salt marsh lands, and the Mi’kmaq people living along the coastline in the summers, then in the woods and uplands in cold weather. They hunted and fished together, sharing the bounty of the woods and sea, and intermarried.

Given that the Mi’kmaq moved from place to place with the seasons, we don’t know when or where Philippe’s wife perished.

We presume that she was deceased before 1686 when Philippe was living with his father, also a widower, in Port Royal. I know how much trouble “presume” can get a genealogist into. However, I doubt that he would have left his family otherwise. Perhaps after her death, he decided to try living in the white world again. Based on what we know about Philippe, I’d wager that he was very unhappy there.

By 1687, he was on a trader’s list of European men in Indian villages, and his next child, born to Marie, arrived the following year.

Mi’kmaq Life

During my visit to Nova Scotia in the summer of 2024, I returned home to the sacred places of my Mi’kmaq ancestors.

No story of the Acadians would be complete without the Mi’kmaq people, so every museum includes documentation and references to the Native people and the role they played in Acadian settlement. The Mi’kmaq people lived throughout Nova Scotia for thousands of years.

Two locations were devoted to telling the story of the Mi’kmaq people, by the Mi’kmaq people themselves. Kespukwitk is the entire SW Nova Scotia region in the Mi’kmaq language. Today the Kejimkujik National Park and National Historic Site at Maitland tells the story of the Mi’kmaq people.

The second location is the Millbrook Cultural and Heritage Center, located on tribal land at Truro where they educate us about Mi’kmaq life.

Birth, Life and Beyond

All cultures have unique customs for commemorating life’s milestones, be they birth, coming of age, marriage or, finally, death. Some of the ways in which the Mi’kmaq observed these occasions remained unchanged for centuries. With the introduction of Catholicism, others gradually changed or died out completely.

For the Mi’kmaq, large families were means of forging alliances, and practically speaking, the more kin one had, young or old, the better. Polygamy was once common and parenting began early. Nicholas Denys, observing Mi’kmaq ways in the 1600s, remarked that, “The greatest persons give way to the little ones. The father and mother draw the morsel from their mouths for a child asks for it. They love their children greatly. They are never afraid of having too many, for they are their wealth.”

There was no pampering of expectant mothers. Writing in 1616, Father Pierre Biard noted that women gave birth outdoors and then with newborns warmly wrapped and secure inside a type of wooden backpack (a cradle board), the mothers resumed everyday tasks within hours. If a birth was particularly difficult, a shaman (puoin) was summoned to assist by blowing sweet tobacco smoke around the tree where the expectant mother stood, her hands grasping a branch.

Parents welcomed the new baby by hosting a birthing feast. The guests danced in a circle around the infant, offering up thanks and blessings. Families celebrated a youngster’s first tooth and first steps. Increasingly, after 1600, children were baptized.

A boy was considered a man when he killed his first moose. The last moose-kill feast ever held was at Shubenacadie for Max Basque in 1937. A young girl’s coming of age meant that she was ready to marry and this too was a milestone. Menstruating women retired to be alone so as to “…recite certain formularies of invocation to the Manitou …that they might obtain blessing of fruitfulness.” (Abbé Maillard, 1758)

Courtship meant that a young man and woman lived with the girl’s family for an extended period. Each demonstrated their prowess with respect to carrying out specific day-to-day tasks. The young man proved himself a hunter and fisherman and made tools, weapons, a canoe, a sled, and other items. The young woman demonstrated her butchering and cooking skills, made clothing and containers, wove webbing for snowshoes, and prepared herbal remedies.

If the twosome were compatible and the families willing, there was a wedding feast. The couple painted their faces in hues of red and blue and adorned their hair. The bride wore an elaborately-decorated white robe. There were speeches and much singing, dancing, storytelling, and eating. Festivities lasted several days.

Sadly, accidents and death occurred, although death was merely a transformation or shape-change, the last movements a passing over of protective power from one being to another. Burial customs varied and included primary burials, sky burials and secondary burials. A primary burial took place when a grave could be easily dug in a communal burying ground. The person was buried intact in either a horizontal or a flexed position.

A sky burial involved the placement of an intact body on an elevated outdoor scaffold so it could dry in the sun. This took place during winter or when death occurred at a remote place. A secondary burial meant that, following a sky burial, the bones were placed in the ground, months or years later.

Labor was divided, and everyone participated.

“The boys aid the father on the hunt and help in the support of the family. Girls work aiding the mother; they go for the wood, for water, and to find the slain animal and carry it to the wigwam. There is always some old woman with the girls to conduct them and show them the way, for often these animals are killed at five or six leagues from the wigwam and there are no beaten roads. Sometimes they camp where the animal is. They make broiled steaks and return next day.” [Adapted from Nicolas Denys, Concerning the Ways of the Indians, 1672]

Other sources tell us that the Mi’kmaq people utilized toboggans and snowshoes during the winter months, especially in conjunction with hunting.

Moose was prized, and along with any other forest animal, was a staple. Moose butter known as “cacamo” was a great delicacy made by boiling crushed moose bones in a large wooden vat. The fat was skimmed from the top of the water, congealed, and packed in birch bark boxes to be taken on hunts or given as a treasured gift. It was both high energy and portable for long hunting trips in the winter.

Salmon were speared from canoes by torchlight at night.

Brush weirs were utilized in tidal estuaries. Stakes were driven into the mud and then brush was used to make an interwoven netting, trapping fish and marine life as the water flowed out, back towards the sea.

Hooks were carved from bone and attached to moosehide lines. Larger fish were harvested using bone-tipped lances. Even larger lance-type harpoons were used to hunt seals, walrus, and small whales from seagoing canoes.

I can only imagine harpooning a whale from a canoe. The terror, but also the glory, if one was successful and did not die in the process!

The Mi’kmaq people were highly mobile and semi-nomadic, but returned to the same areas year after year, just as their ancestors had done.

Families camped by estuaries in the spring to take advantage of the spring fish runs. They moved closer to the coast in the summer to harvest cod and shellfish. Hunting in the forest took place in the fall and winter months, and fishing was done through holes in the ice.

Wild resources such as nuts and berries were harvested when ripe, and maple and birch sap were collected and boiled to make syrup or sweet drinks.

Some plants were used as medicine and others were woven into cloth. Lescarbot reported that the cloth made of hemp by the Mi’kmaq people was “finer, whiter and stronger than that of France.” Porcupine quills were used generously for decoration, and plants were used for dye.

As with many Native peoples, the Mi’kmaq were one with nature, considering many locations as sacred. The abundance of nature was understood as a gift from the Great Spirit or Creator. Nature was not a separate thing, but interwoven with them, and they with it. All was one. The Mi’kmaq people were stewards of the land and took only what was needed, wasting nothing. To do otherwise would be disrespecting Nature and the gifts bestowed upon them. Nicolas Denys kept a journal and said that they killed animals only in proportion to their need for them. As a trader, he was interested in skins and mentioned that “they never make an accumulation of skins of moose, beaver, otter, or others, but only as far as they need them for personal use.”

The Native people had no concept of “private property” as everything was shared communally, and the earth could not be “owned.” This vast difference in perspective led to many clashes and disagreements that persist to this day.

Nothing was wasted. Meat was eaten. Bones were used as implements, skins as clothing and wigwam covering, and so forth.

The Native people felt a responsibility to, and a kinship with the forest and sea animals, even those they harvested. They held the animals in great respect – thanking them for allowing themselves to be caught to nourish their bodies. It would be a “sin” of sorts to waste any part of them, or kill them needlessly, which constituted waste. Animals were considered to be persons, with souls.

The concept of massive harvesting of natural resources like trees and animals, only for their furs to be shipped back to European markets, was entirely foreign to the Mi’kmaq people.

Within a generation or so, the Mi’kmaq embraced hunting for trade, beaver was over-hunted for their lucrative pelts, and life was forever changed. Life as they knew it disappeared quickly, and with it, much of their equilibrium with Nature.

The arrival of Europeans in the early 1600s seemed innocent enough at first, but over the next few decades, the onslaught of new settlers with their very different cultural expectations and beliefs would destroy life as the Mi’kmaq people knew it.

If Philippe and his Mi’kmaq wife, whose name is unknown, welcomed their first child around 1679, based on what we know about the Mi’kmaq culture, we can estimate that his mother was maybe 16 at the time, so born about 1663.

Given what else we know about the habits of the Mi’kmaq people, and that they were know to freqent Pobomcoup, indicating that it was the place where they ice fished, it’s reasonable to surmise that area is where Philippe met his first wife. They married around 1678, probably in the Mi’kmaq tradition, given that Philippe lived among the tribe, and not the reverse where she lived among the French.

Furthermore, just a few years later when she died, their children were already an integral part of the communal family unit of their band – so taking them away from their family to be raised elsewhere by their father was simply unthinkable.

Based on Philippe’s appearance in Port Royal with his widowed father in 1686, Philippe may have tried to return to “French life,” but quickly found that he needed to follow his heart, back to nature and the Mi’kmaq people – where he remarried and lived the rest of his life.

Returning Home

During my 2024 trip back to Nova Scotia, I visited the Habitation at Port Royal, the Museum at Fort Anne, Kespukwitk and the Millbrook Cultural and Heritage Center at Truro. Each of these tells a different chapter and explains different aspects of Mi’kmaq life in Nova Scotia.

Lake Kejimkujik, today a National Park, is the spiritual center of Kespukwitk, the ancient home of the Mi’kmaq people for thousands of years, “since the beginning of time.”

Ancient petroglyphs, the traditional written Mi’kmaq language, are heavily protected within Kejimkujik.

Stone, like any other element of nature, is considered to be a living entity. Therefore, these petroglyphs are considered to be living as well, and need to be afforded respect.

Petroglyphs are found in locations across the traditional Mi’kmaq land, many disappearing due to the ravages of time. This petroglyph was part of a cliff face at Red Bridge Pond near Dartmouth, but was unintentionally displaced during road construction. It fell into a lake, then was recovered some years later and placed in a grassy area beside the road. Normally, artifacts like this cannot be moved, but in this case, given the circumstances, it was moved to the Millbrook Cultural and Heritage Center, on tribal land, for its own protection.

Upon arrival in Kejimkujik, we began in the museum where we saw a beautiful birchbark canoe.

An incredible amount of skill is required to achieve balance and symmetry when crafting these watercraft so they track straight and don’t roll over. The seams must be sealed to make them waterproof.

An inside view of the hand-hewn ribs of the canoe, with its brace. Canoes are built from the outside in, and the wood must be curved and bent without breaking. Today, locating and harvesting perfectly flawless birch trees, free of knots, is increasingly difficult due to disease, over-harvesting, and habitat destruction.

Chief Charlie Labrador was a traditional canoe builder, Elder and Spiritual Healer who lived at Kejimkujik.

You can read his interview about his younger life, his parents and grandparents, along with the traditional Mi’kmaq ways, here.

Reproductions of Native tools discovered by archaeologists.

Beautiful traditional woven basketry.

After leaving the museum, I spent some time walking along the lake’s shore, communing with the spirits of my ancestors. I can always feel them.

Anytime you see two red wooden chairs in Parks Canada, there’s something historical of interest, and those chairs are an invitation to sit and enjoy the scenery.

I was too excited to be there to sit very long.

After walking a little further, we noticed a demonstration area.

Todd Labrador, son of Chief Charlie Labrador, was giving demonstrations on traditional canoe-building – a nearly-lost art.

Todd is an incredible artist.

Todd, working in his workshop beside the photo of his grandfather, Charlie Labrador, born in 1874.

Tools lay on a table in front of another canoe underway.

I would have LOVED to bring that birchbark box home.

I wonder what Todd is going to do with these huge moose antlers. They can have a spread of up to six feed and weigh 80 pounds or more.

From the canoe workshop, I noticed a path along the lake that beckoned to me.

I could not resist hiking the same path that my ancestors did. We walked past a few other people doing the same thing.

The path took us along the lakeshore.

Eventually, opening into a clearing with a path down to a sandy beach.

Here, one can look, unconstrained, across time. Into the past, and perhaps into the future

I wasn’t quite ready to leave, but eventually, the mosquitoes convinced me otherwise.

Making our way back to the car, we noticed a lovely little picnic area, purchased a light lunch, and enjoyed ourselves immensely.

The road that traverses the park has several places to stop, though some are easy to miss.

“What’s that? Over there! Let’s stop!”

Poor Cousin Mark had at least one back-seat driver. Sorry Mark. I was so excited, and what we discovered next was the best part.

Secluded behind some trees, down a barely noticeable trail was what looked to be an abandoned Mi’kmaq camp.

Fortunately, there was a ranger who I think was very glad to have someone to explain things to. We were equally as grateful.

I spotted the wigwam and simply could not stop myself. It was calling to me.

I absolutely HAD to crawl in there, just like my ancestors did. Well, not just like they did because they were MUCH more agile.

I remembered my manners and asked if it would be alright, and yes, it was fine.

My cousins were kind and did not take a picture of me actually sort of crab-crawling inside, as I’m absolutely positive that I was no place near as graceful as my ancestors were.

In fact, I’m sure they were all collectively laughing from someplace over the lake.

I’m determined, though, and I made it.

I was simply gleeful. So, so, happy.

My cousins went back to discussing whatever they were discussing with the ranger, which gave me a chance to marvel at the experience.

This is the view that my Mi’kmaq ancestors woke up to every morning. Their front door.

People milling around outside – the village coming to life. Maybe children playing already.

I began to look around. The sides of the wigwam are waterproof.

Looking up and out through the center smoke hole.

Close up of the very top, where all of the poles join together in a cone. This is what every person woke up seeing, warm weather or cold.

During inclement weather, the hole was covered by a birchbark collar, which could also be adjusted for ventilation and heat regulation through side vents. You can read more, here.

The smoke hole is more than just for ventilation. It symbolizes the pathway of the soul, where the soul leaves the body and exits, tethering the earth and sky with the spirit realm.

Mom couldn’t come with me in person on this journey, given that she lives in the spirit world, so I wore her ring that descended from this side of her family. Here’s “Mom” in the wigwam on her ancestral land. Philippe’s wife was here, and so were her ancestors for time immemorial.

We’re home Mom.

The poles, with the hoops lashed to the poles along with the protective birchbark.

Reassembling the wigwam was the woman’s job. I can’t imagine accomplishing this in a day.

Hmmm, what’s that red thing, and what’s the ranger saying?

I can’t hear from here.

Should I embarrass myself and make an undignified exit?

Sooner or later, I have to.

As it turns out, this is a traditional Mi’kmaq game of chance called Waltes or Woltes. You can watch a champion player in a YouTube video, here.

That stunning wooden bowl is carved from the burl of a tree. The six beautiful moose or deer bone dice are carved on one side and rounded on the other. They are kept in that leather pouch when not in use.

The sticks are counting sticks. The goal is to win all of your opponents sticks by landing matching combinations of dice as the bowl is bounced against the blanket by players who take turns.

Having been played for thousands of years, Waltes is both cultural and has a spiritual aspect as well. It’s not only fun, but teaches counting, patience, and how to handle defeat. In earlier times, the bowl was often used by medicine men and women for divination and healing.

Of course, because it’s a game of chance, or more specifically, probability, wagers are sometimes involved too.

This is not a reproduction, but the real deal. No place did I find anything like this to purchase. I would have been happy with just one original piece.

Looking around the camp, I asked about this strange-looking skin. Turns out, it’s an eel’s skin lying on a pelt.

This is particularly relevant for Philippe and the Mi’kmaq people, given that they moved from the area near Tusket where they fished for eels during warm weather, to this interior lake in the fall and winter.

The benches were covered with furs and pelts, perhaps as they would have been displayed when trading.

The ranger explained how the skins and pelts were prepared, with the tools lying on the bench with the pelts.

Furs and pelts curing and drying.

Bearskin at the right, and I think the lighter pelt at left is caribou.

A log hollowed out for cooking.

Hunting and food preparation were a year-round affair.

When the tribe was encamped along the coastline, children collected eggs from the nests of seabirds, some of which were eaten as well. In season, berries, nuts, tree sap, and other plants supplemented their fare.

Fats and oils from moose and harbour seals were important dietary staples. Absolutely every part of the animal was utilized. Whatever couldn’t be eaten was used for clothing, utensils, or jewelry.

Moose bladders stored seal oil. Moose butter, a cherished treat, was rendered from boiled bones and marrow. Intestines were used for rope, or to stuff with a combination of meat, often organ meat, fat, and berries before smoking to preserve it for the lean winter months.

Salmon ran in the spring and fall. Sturgeon was caught at night by groups of men in canoes that would harpoon one fish and haul it to shore.

Moose were hunted mostly in the winter when snow slowed the animal, making it easier prey. Not only are moose huge animals, reaching from 5 to 7 feet at the shoulder, they also weigh from 600 to 1600 pounds, depending on their sex and age.

With bows, arrows, and lances, multiple men were required to harvest a moose, often having to track it for a day or more after it was initially wounded.

Meat was boiled, roasted, smoked or dried, depending on the season and if it was going to be eaten immediately or preserved for future use.

The Mi’kmaq people were not farmers. They were opportunistic hunters, but also tended to hunt certain things based on the moon under which it fell.

  • January was for seal hunting.
  • February and March were for beaver, otter, moose, bear, and caribou hunting.
  • April ushered in smelt and gaspereau season, along with salmon and sturgeon. Children began gathering eggs.
  • Fishing began in May and continued all summer.
  • Roots and edible plants began to be gathered in June.
  • July added berries to the diet, along with hunting partridge and pigeons.
  • August was for rabbit hunting.
  • They fished for eels in September.
  • Snow began to fall in October, and hunting for ducks, moose, and beaver began and continued through November.
  • December saw fishing for tomcod and the gathering of turtles.

Campfires, the center and heart of the community served many purposes and was tended primarily by the women. Fire, along with the other elements, is considered to be a living relative that transforms, cleanses and heals, and served many purposes. It was around the campfire that Elders passed on the sacred stories and laws.

Fire was also used for communal cooking. Men were responsible for procuring the meat. They would field-dress the animal to make it lighter or easier to transport, if necessary, but women were responsible for cleaning and preparing what the men brought home. Women also gathered berries and plants.

Aside from food, the women prepared hides for use or trade, including cleaning, brain-tanning, chewing them for softness, and sewing them into their final form.

Fire and heat are used for cooking, preparing hides and skins, rendering dyes, and, of course, for teaching, warmth and socializing.

Who doesn’t love to gather round a campfire?

I knew that our time had come to depart, but I didn’t want to leave.

One more walk to the lake to say “so long.” Not goodbye, because I’ll join them one day on that side of the spirit world.

Lifted by the wings of the sacred eagle.

Of all the locations and exhibits in Nova Scotia, our day at Kejimkujik was by far the most authentic, filled with a bone-deep spiritual connection and meaning. Knowing that my ancestors had unquestionably been here, stood here, slept here, and entered the spirit realm here made this a deeply personal experience.

They spent their winters on this lakeshore, and canoed on these waters. They loved, made love, and birthed babies here.

My ancestors. My family. For thousands of years.

I may not know her name, but I felt her presence. I can’t help but wonder what cut her time on earth so short. I hope she didn’t suffer.

Some 340 years later, I shared her world for a little bit, and I could almost, almost see through her eyes.

_____________________________________________________________

Share the Love!

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

Subscribe!

If you haven’t already subscribed, it’s free. You’ll receive an e-mail whenever I publish by clicking the “follow” button at the top of the main blog page, here.

Help Keep This Blog Free

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

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Uploads

Genealogy Products and Services

My Books

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

Untangling the Life of Madeleine Hélie (c1633-1677/1678) – 52 Ancestors #479

Madeleine, Madelaine, and sometimes called Magdelaine or Magdeleine Hélie, the wife of Philippe Mius d’Entremont, was born about 1633 in France, probably in Normandy. For consistency, I’ll refer to her as Madeleine. To confuse things further, she also had a daughter by the same name AND a daughter named Marguerite. Of course she did! To throw fuel on that fire, census takers were anything but accurate, omitting the exact information we need today.

Madeleine arrived in Acadia in 1651 with her husband and their first child, Marie Marguerite Mius, who was born about 1650, according to several later census records.

Based on the age of her daughter, Madeleine Hélie married Philippe Mius no later than 1649 or maybe in the first few months of 1650.

No record of their marriage, or either of their births, has been found in France, but two contemporaneous records state that they were from Normandy. One official record sent by Sieur Mathieu de Goutin, the King’s Secretary, in 1707 stated that Philippe Mius, from Normandy, had died in 1700. Another 1762 record created by their descendants who had been exiled and wound up in Cherbourg, Normandy, in 1760, stated the same, but unfortunately, neither record says where in Normandy.

I considered the possibility that they married earlier and lost a child or children before Marie Marguerite’s birth, but a 1678 census record indicating that Madeleine Hélie’s last child was born in 1677 tends to contraindicate that possibility. By 1677, she had been bearing children for 27 years. Assuming she was 44 or 45 in 1677, that suggests her birth around 1632 or 1633.

Given Philippe’s age in 1650, which, based on various documents, would have been between 41 and 50, so born between 1600 and 1609, it’s also possible, and I’d say probable, that Madeleine Hélie was not Philippe Mius’s first wife.

You can read more about Philippe Mius in the following articles:

Arriving in Acadia

Philippe Mius was brought to Acadia as the second-in-command to Acadian Governor Charles St. Etienne de LaTour, who was a Huguenot.

Philippe, Madeleine and their baby probably left from La Rochelle, which was the departure port for ships bound for Acadia.

As they sailed out of this harbour, shown here in a 1762 painting, Madeleine, about 18 with a small baby, probably shed a few tears. She knew she would never return and would never see her family again.

Or, perhaps she was too young to fully grasp the magnitude of what she was leaving behind and viewed it as a grand adventure.

The trip from La Rochelle to Acadia would have lasted approximately 6 weeks, give or take a few days or weeks, based on the weather the ship encountered.

Arrival in Acadia

We don’t know exactly where they first landed, but given that they had to pass right by La Heve, the original seat of Acadia, where a fort and a few families remained, it’s likely that they stopped there for a few days. At least for fresh water and food. Imagine how good fresh-baked bread or a hot, buttered biscuit would have tasted after all those weeks at sea.

This was probably where Madeleine first set foot in Acadia. Looking down the beach from where the fort stood, the habitations, or village, where Acadian families lived before the seat of Acadia was moved to Port Royal between 1636 and 1640, was located on the point in the distance.

They would have checked on the fort, perhaps delivered supplies, taken on clean water and food, and given the passengers the opportunity to stretch their legs for a few days before boarding again to continue sailing along the Nova Scotia coastline.

Fort LaTour

Charles St. Etienne de LaTour established Fort LaTour on Cape Sable, which was “on the way” to Port Royal, so they presumably would have stopped here too, especially if LaTour was on board. Nothing remains today, except this marker.

In 1651, the fort was the domain of Charles LaTour, but it’s unclear whether he actually lived here at the time, or simply maintained a trading post where he traded with both the Mi’kmaq and English traders out of New England. Regardless, this outpost was quite remote, and the seat of Acadia was in Port Royal where they were headed next.

The ship would have rounded the land on Cape Sable that Philippe and Madeleine would one day own. Pobomcoup was labeled only as “Micmacs, Indene du Cap de Sable,” although the word “Indene” is very difficult to make out. No Europeans had yet settled there.

As they rounded the point in 1651, Philippe and Madeleine would have had no idea that this inlet, today’s Pubnico Harbour, the peninsula, and surrounding land would define much of their lives.

Madeleine’s son, Philippe, would one day marry into the Indian people, not once, but twice, although he would not be born for another nine years.

Did they stop to trade in the sheltered bay on the way before continuing on to Port Royal, the seat of Acadian government?

Had Philippe and Charles been discussing Philippe’s eventual compensation package, and did it include land of his choosing?

Did Charles suggest that Pubnico would be a good choice? Could they have stopped not only to trade, but to meet the local Native people, who were clearly very friendly, with the idea that this would be an excellent trading post?

We don’t know where Madeleine and Philippe lived for their first couple of years in Acadia, although we do know that LaTour was gone on business and trading, and Philippe Mius governed in his absence. That was exactly why Philippe was brought to Acadia.

My wager would be that Philippe needed to be in Port Royal during LaTour’s absence, and that Madeleine had their second child there about 1652.

That child did not survive to 1671, so would have been buried in the graveyard at the fort in Port Royal, overlooking the Riviere Dauphin, if it perished as a baby.

Land Barons, Literally

Philippe apparently served well in LaTour’s absence, because on July 17, 1653, Charles St. Etienne de LaTour awarded a large land grant referred to as the “Baronnie de Pombcoup”, which is today’s Pubnico Harbour and surrounding land, to Philippe Mius and Madelaine Hélie, jointly.

They probably didn’t settle there right away, because it would have taken some time to build a proper mansion house – or a house of any kind. Their second child to survive to adulthood, Jacques, could have been born in Port Royal or Pobomcoup sometime around 1654.

A 1762 document found in the French archives details the land history and says, in part:

Concessions granted at Port Royal on July 17, 1653, by the high and powerful lord Messire Charles de Saint-Étienne, Seigneur de La Tour, Knight of the Order of the King, Governor and Lieutenant General, to nobleman Philippe Mius, esquire, Sieur d’Entremont, and to Demoiselle Madelaine Hélie, his wife…

The grant itself is missing, but the Nova Scotia Archives provides excerpts from the now-missing grant:

There was present and personally certified the high and powerful seigneur Charles de La Tour, Lieutenant General in all of Acadia. He voluntarily acknowledged the receipt and avowed that he had, by these presents, given and relinquished in perpetuity the title of baron and noble fief having the administration of justice, high, mean and low as paramount fief to the nobleman Philippe Mius, Esquire, sieur d’Entremont and Madame Magdeleine Hélie, his wife, who were present and accepted it for themselves and their heirs. In consideration of the particular merit of said Sieur d’Entremont and of the good and faithful services which he has personally rendered to us, we have given and granted and do give and grant by these presents to the said sieur d’Entremont the extent of one league in width and four in depth in the place called Pobomcoup to be enjoyed by the said grantees and successors with the title of baron, in consideration of an on condition of homage and a quichipoly (an Indian word meaning “a small bag” or “purse” made out of an animal skin) of beaver with two bouquets on the days and feasts of St. John Baptist for each year, and on condition that he occupies and establishes the said places. The said seigneur LaTour has today granted and placed in possession of the said seigneur d’Entremont the said land, fief and barony of Pobomcoup, promising and binding himself accordingly. — These renunciations were made and passed at the fort of Port Royal on July 17, 1653.

As a result of this substantial land grant, Philippe’s status was elevated to Baron, a Noble title, just above the gentry class who were high-status landowners – “gentle folk” who did not perform manual labor. This meant that Madeleine shared that status. Her official title would have been either Madame, La Baronne, or Madame la Baronne, which technically means “My Lady.”

However, in Pobomcoup, for a very long time, there was no one other than her family, the Mi’kmaq, and traders to address her as anything. Given what we know about early life in Pobomcoup, I’d wager they lived primarily from the bounty of the sea and established a trading center for Native people and English traders out of Boston.

Capture!

You might think that high drama in Port Royal had nothing to do with Madeleine in Pobomcoup, but it assuredly did. Some events occurred before Madeleine arrived, but the balance formed the chapters of Madeleine Hélie’s life in Acadia.

It’s also worth remembering that Madeleine wasn’t living in Port Royal during most of this time, so she would have anxiously awaited word of what was happening there, which was anything but dull. I wonder whether a woman there would have written her letters, assuming any of the women could write, or if she had to depend on sailors for news.

Philippe’s position as lieutenant governor didn’t last long, because the following year, on July 31, 1654, the English attacked and took Acadia, including Port Royal, Pubnico, and Cape Sable.

On their way to seize Port Royal, the English captured Fort Pentagouët in present-day Castine, Maine, and Fort St. Jean, on the Saint John River, across the Bay from Port Royal.

While the “taking” of Pobomcoup would have been largely symbolic, because there was only one European home there to “take,” all of Acadia fell under English rule. At one point, the English had supported LaTour in Acadia, in part, because they were both Protestant.

It’s unclear whether Philippe and Madeleine were Catholic or Protestant, but they were close to the LaTour family, and eventually, the two families would intermarry.

I strongly suspect that when the English arrived that July, Philippe Mius and Madeleine Hélie were already in Pobomcoup, and if not, they assuredly would have high-tailed it right home, where it was much safer than in Port Royal. There is no report of the English in either Pobomcoup, Fort LaTour, or La Heve.

Part of the reason I don’t think they were in Port Royal at that time is because they weren’t captured.

Charles LaTour was captured in Port Royal and taken to England as a high-profile hostage, but was treated more like royalty. He wasn’t thrown in prison but was placed under house arrest while the English tried to figure out what to do with him, and Acadia. In 1656, he talked his way out of his predicament and was returned to Acadia as the English-appointed Governor, having sworn allegiance to the English crown and agreed to sell his assets to Thomas Temple to pay his debts.

LaTour returned to Acadia in 1656, but soon realized he really wanted no part of governing the now-English colony of angry Acadians. He “retired” and returned to Fort LaTour at Cape Sable.

A lot is uncertain about this time in Acadia, but prior to the 1654 English attack, LaTour had already had his Governorship challenged by Emmanuel Le Borgne, a Catholic, who had a claim to LaTour’s holdings based on his marriage to Charles d’Aulnay’s widow in 1653.

The Backstory

Charles d’Aulnay governed Acadia until his death in 1650 and was LaTour’s vehemently despised arch-rival. They waged war for a decade, both claiming the governorship of Acadia. In truth, their valid claims overlapped, thanks to the French government.

In 1645, d’Aulnay’s men from Port Royal captured LaTour’s fort across the bay at Saint Johns while LaTour was in Boston seeking additional English support.

LaTour’s wife, Françoise-Marie Jacquelin, only 23, commanded the defensive battle to defend the fort, but eventually lost and surrendered. D’Aulnay then executed all of LaTour’s men after agreeing not to harm them in the surrender agreement. D’Aulnay held Françoise-Marie captive, and three weeks later, she suspiciously died in his custody.

The brutality of this event widely divided the Acadians’ loyalty.

D’Aulnay drowned in 1650, leaving his wife, Jeanne Motin to manage the colony he commanded, their eight children, and d’Aulnay’s massive debt.

If you’re thinking to yourself, “What a mess!”, you’d be exactly right.

Philippe and Madeleine Arrive

Philippe Mius and Madeleine Hélie arrived in Port Royal in 1651, just in time for the next chapters. Did they know any of this before accepting this assignment? We’ll never know.

In 1653, Charles LaTour returned to Acadia from his self-imposed exile in Quebec following his wife’s untimely death at d’Aulnay’s hands, and d’Aulnay’s widow married him in Port Royal. There could not have been a less-likely couple.

They hoped their marriage would heal the bitter feud between families, along with the resulting decade-old rift among Acadians. The added benefit (and maybe the overarching reason) was that they had competing legal claims. Regardless, the marriage did serve to heal the colony, at least somewhat, smoothing the way forward, although it wouldn’t last long.

After the English took Acadia in 1654, they ruled it as a colony, with Emmanuel Le Borgne being appointed as absentee Governor by the French in 1657. He “governed” from France and retained the title until 1667, when Acadia was officially returned to France by treaty.

However, it took three years of conflict on the ground in Acadia for the physical turnover to actually occur, with the English King finally commanding Thomas Temple to surrender the territory. However, instead of returning the governorship to Le Borgne, the French assigned a new governor.

Ironically, Le Borgne’s son, Alexandre Le Borgne de Belle-Isle had remained in Acadia the entire time and about 1675, married Marie Saint-Etienne de LaTour, Jean Motin’s daughter with LaTour.

Alexander reportedly had a significant drinking problem and was heavily addicted to wine. He would regularly become quite intoxicated and create havoc by granting the same tract of land to multiple settlers.

By this time, LaTour had died, in 1666, at Cape Sable – and there’s still no mention of Philippe Mius and Madeleine Hélie in any records – so we presume they are quietly going about their lives in Pobomcoup. Out of both harm’s way and the limelight. Sometimes, the best plan of action is to keep your head down.

In 1670, Acadia was actually returned to French control.

One of the first official French acts, aside from ordering a census, was to appoint Philippe Mius as the King’s Attorney.

Madeleine had been living in Acadia for almost two decades now, mostly in Pobomcoup. I wonder if she ever questioned her decision to leave France. Life had certainly not turned out how she would have expected.

The First Census

The 1671 and later censuses provide us with information about the ages of Madeleine’s children.

In 1671, the family was living in Pobomcoup and the ages of family members are listed as follows:

  • Philippe Mieux, squire, Sieur de Landremont – 62, so born about 1609
  • Madeleine Hélie, no age listed
  • Daughter Marguerite Marie is noted as married to Pierre Melanson, no age listed
  • Son (Jacques, listed by age but not by name) – 17, so born about 1654
  • Abraham – 13, so born about 1658
  • Philippe – 11, so born about 1660
  • Madeleine – 2, so born about 1669

We don’t know if Father Laurent Molins, the Franciscan Priest who signed the census and listed Philippe and Madeleine in Pobomcoup actually visited, but it’s unlikely since her age was missing, and their oldest son’s name was missing. I can just hear the conversation between Father Molins, who had probably never met any of the family, and someone else in Port Royal. “What was that oldest boy’s name, anyway? I can’t remember.” “I don’t know, but I think he’s about 17. He’s just younger than Marguerite.”

Census takers, priests or not, haven’t changed a lot. Father Molins could have asked Philippe and Madeleine’s daughter, Marguerite, who lived in Port Royal with her husband, Pierre Melanson or Melancon, but it seems they were, um, one would say, “uncooperative.”

Father Molins recorded that, “Pierre Melanson, tailor, would not give his age nor the number of animals, but his wife’s answers concerning their possessions were just as crazy.” This alone should tell us that in 1671, they were not a Catholic family.

One of the reasons I’ve wondered if Philippe Mius and Madeleine Hélie were Huguenots is because LaTour was, and one would think that he would select someone as his second-in-command whom he trusted completely. At that time, Catholics and Protestants were literally at war in France.

The second reason I wondered is because Madeleine’s oldest child, Marguerite, married Pierre Melanson, who was also a Protestant.

Pierre Melanson’s father, also named Pierre, was French, but Pierre (the younger) was baptized in London in 1632, and was well-educated and fluent in both French and English. The Melanson family arrived with the English, via Boston, in the company of Sir Thomas Temple in 1657. They supposedly converted to Catholicism in Acadia, based partly on the fact that their son, Pierre, married Acadian Marguerite Mius, who was presumed to be Catholic. However, based on that 1671 census reply, I’m not convinced.

Madeleine’s daughter Marguerite is shown in the 1686 census as 36 years old, which would have placed her birth about 1650, so she would have been about 21 in 1671 when the French census-taker, who just happened to be the local priest, arrived asking “nosey” questions. It appears that the Melanson family might not have been terribly happy about the French regaining control of Acadia.

The 1678 Census

In the 1671 census, Madeleine Hélie is accounted for, but her age is not given.

The 1678 census throws us a curveball. The family is enumerated in Port Royal instead of in Pobomcoup, which means that Philippe’s position as the King’s Attorney has required his presence in Port Royal. I don’t know how he could possibly have fulfilled his duties living remotely in Pobomcoup, so they probably moved to Port Royal not long after the 1671 census, which was signed and returned on November 8th that year.

Philippe and Madeleine would have lived on the main street of town, among the other administrators and officials of the colony.

In 1678, Philippe owned 12 cattle and had 9 arpents of land under cultivation.

Overlooking what’s left of the Queen’s Wharf today, before the fort expansion of 1705, where I am standing to take this photo, would have been 5 or 6 houses east of the Governor’s house. In other words, in the center of town, between Michael Boudrot and BelleIsle.

This is the area where they lived. In fact, I might be standing “in their house,” and if no, assuredly within sight. The main street of town was only a block long.

The 1678 census only listed children’s ages, not their names, but the Myus family was a rather strange mix of both named and unnamed children. The census showed the following, in order:

  • Philippe Myus
  • One girl age 10 (Madeleine, but not listed by name)
  • Jacques Myus, Abraham Myus and Anne (no ages listed and no surname for Anne who is presumed to be Madeleine (the daughter) born in 1669)
  • Marguerite (no age or surname – daughter Marguerite would be the wife of Pierre Melanson who had married about 1665)
  • 1 girl (age) 1 (which means she was born in 1677)

The 1678 census was transcribed by Tim Hebert, here, and Lucy LeBlanc Consentino, here. On their documents, Father Clarence d’Entremont had reconciled the children with their names and birth years based on other censuses and documents.

Who was this baby girl born in 1677? We have no idea.

But there’s something else.

Madeleine Hélie is Missing

Madeleine Hélie is missing.

This strongly suggests that the baby girl, who is age 1, was Madeleine’s last child, and Madeleine died between 1677, when the little girl was born, and 1678, when the census was taken.

Of course, I wonder if Madeleine died in, or as a result of, childbirth.

I can only imagine how Madeleine felt, knowing that she was dying, and leaving a baby behind.

Madeleine’s daughter born in 1677 would have been 9 in 1686 if she were living, but she is not listed, so she too had perished by then.

Calculating Madeleine’s Birth Year

We don’t know exactly when Madeleine Hélie died, but her last child (that we know of) was born about 1677 and Madeleine is gone by late 1678. If Madeleine was 44 at the time her last child was born, she would have been born about 1633 and married when she was about 16.

Between fourteen and seventeen would be a normal age for a French bride of that era.

Therefore, Madeleine was probably between 43 and 45 when she died between 1677 and 1678.

Babies Born, Babies Lost

There are a lot of blank spaces between Madeleine’s children where we know babies would have been born. Assuming a child was born every 24 months, and not closer, Madeleine buried more children than she raised. If a child died at or near birth, the next child generally followed a year later, if that long. So, if anything, this list is incomplete.

I’ve shown Madeleine’s children’s births on a timeline adjusted to accommodate her children who were born and died prior to the first census in 1671:

  1. Marguerite Marie or Marie Marguerite, born about 1650, probably in France
  2. Unknown child born about 1652, probably in Port Royal, died before 1671, probably in Pobomcoup
  3. Jacques – 17 in 1671, but not named in the census, born about 1654, probably in Port Royal. The 1686 census in Pobomcoup shows his birth year as 1659, but I doubt that was correct because he married about 1678 and, as the eldest son, inherited his father’s Barony. He is also shown visually as the firstborn son on the pedigree chart provided by Mius/d’Entremont/LaTour descendants in France in 1762.
  4. Unknown child born about 1656, died before 1671, probably in Pobomcoup
  5. Abraham – 13 in 1671, so born about 1658
  6. Philippe – 11 in 1671, so born about 1660
  7. Unknown child born about 1662, died before 1671 in Pobomcoup
  8. Unknown child born about 1664, died before 1671 in Pobomcoup
  9. Unknown child born about 1666, died before 1671 in Pobomcoup
  10. Unknown child born about 1668, died before 1671 in Pobomcoup
  11. Madeleine – 2 in 1671, so born about 1669, probably in Pobomcoup. Also listed as Magdelaine (in 1686, age 16), and died before 1693, probably in Port Royal.
  12. Unknown child born about 1671, died before 1678 in Port Royal
  13. Unknown child born about 1673, died before 1678 in Port Royal
  14. Unknown child born about 1675, died before 1678 in Port Royal
  15. Unnamed daughter born about 1677, age 1 in 1678, no name given, and died before 1686, probably in Port Royal

1686

In 1686, Philippe, listed as the “Royal Prosecutor,” is still living among the Acadian elite in Port Royal, listed between Michel Boudrot, the Lt. General of Port Royal, and Claude Petitpas, the Clerk of Court.

We know that Madeleine had already passed by 1678, and only two children are listed with Philippe Mius Sr.

  • Philippe Mius (the son), 24, who is himself a widower
  • Magdelaine, who was 2 in 1671 and is 16 in 1686.

This 1686 map shows the Governor’s House, #7, and Le Bourg’s House, #8, so Philippe Mius would have lived in one of the homes near his colleagues of similar social stature.

Magdelaine, the daughter born in 1669 is listed in this census at 16 years old. She would be expected to marry about this time, but she is never found in any records again, so she apparently died between the 1686 and 1693 censuses.

Madeleine Hélie’s children are being picked off one by one.

By 1686, Philippe Mius d’Entremont Sr. owned 40 arpents of land in Port Royal, which is twice as much as the next two most wealthy landowners, his neighbor Michel Boudrot and Jacob Bourgeois, each with 20 arpents.

Jacob Bourgeois, whose 20 arpent section of land was just at the end of the street on Hogg Island, would sell some of his land to Etienne Pellerin a few years later.

It’s really quite remarkable to realize that we are looking at a drawing of the home where Philippe and Madeleine lived 350 years ago. It has to be one of these larger homes – and there are only 17 shown in total, with three identified.

Given the amount of land that Philippe is credited with, he may have lived in one of the homes with the most garden space, or perhaps that “extra” lot was his, too. Or, maybe the field behind the fence on the right.

Given the sheer size of his holding, Philippe almost had to have been awarded land up the road leading away from town, or across the river.

In 1708, the Labatt map shows the Pleinmarais land, his son Abraham Mius’s dit name, above, at right. It’s nearly double the size of Port Royal, at left, which makes sense when you compare it to the 20 arpents of land on Hogg Island at the end of Port Royal extending down into the river.

It’s probably unlikely that Philippe lived in anything less than a “mansion house” when he moved to Port Royal as a Nobleman and as the King’s Attorney, sometime after the 1671 census.

Furthermore, it would have been very unlikely that he moved in Port Royal after arriving and becoming established. There wasn’t much land available there, on the waterfront where the administrators lived, so few houses to choose from. Therefore, if he had 9 arpents of land in 1678, and 40 in 1686, he had to have been awarded land elsewhere in addition to the 9 he had under cultivation in 1678.

It’s possible that the only land shown adjacent to the homes of the colony’s Administrators were their gardens, and the rest of their land was tended by others elsewhere.

No matter how much wealth and worldly goods Philippe and Madeleine Hélie accumulated, nothing could save Madeleine or her children from early graves.

The graveyard where her children rested was only a few steps away. The good news, if there was any, was that Madeleine could visit them often. The bad news was the same, and she would join them much too soon in unmarked graves.

Did Philippe and Madeleine Return to Pobomcoup?

Did Philippe and Madeleine ever move back to Pobomcoup? I don’t think so.

We know that Philippe was the King’s Attorney until about 1688. Given that he’s still living in Port Royal in 1686, and has, by 1686 standards, a massive amount of land, it’s unlikely that he ever returned to Pobomcoup.

By 1686, Philippe, then in his 80s, had conferred the Barony upon his son, Jacques, who was one of only five families living at Cap Sable, which is the name under which Pobomcoup was enumerated in 1686.

Philippe probably conveyed the Barony because one typically must live upon a Barony to retain it. In the rough archives translation of the now-lost 1653 deed, we find “on condition that he occupies and establishes the said places,” although the documents found in the French archives specifically state that continuous inhabitation was not a condition of land retention. Perhaps this was a bone of contention.

Regardless, both Jacques and his brother, Abraham, married daughters of Charles LaTour, and they would both have been quite comfortable with their families at Cape Sable. Trade there was probably very lucrative as well, with no competition.

Madeleine’s Known Children

Marguerite Marie Mius, Madeleine’s oldest daughter, married about 1665, when she was about 15, to Pierre Melanson, a Huguenot who lived in Port Royal. Even though the English were holding Port Royal at that time, the Mius family clearly visited Port Royal, or Charles Melanson visited Pobomcoup, because otherwise Marguerite would not have had the opportunity to meet Charles’s son, Pierre.

Marguerite and Pierre settled across the river from Port Royal, present-day Annapolis Royal, in the Melanson Village, near Pierre’s parents. Two years later, in 1667, they left for Boston, but Pierre and his brother remained in Acadia.

This map shows the Melanson Settlement with a red star on the 1686 map, across the river from Port Royal (red arrow).

In 1682, Pierre Melanson led one of the pioneering expeditions to Les Mines, where he and Marguerite settled sometime before 1686 and lived the rest of their lives.

After Pierre and Marguerite had relocated to Les Mines, the Melanson settlement itself continued to grow, fueled by Pierre’s brother, Charles. All three of the Melanson boys maintained close ties with Boston throughout their lives. After Pierre’s parents and brother, John moved to Boston in 1667, when Acadia was returned to France, both Pierre and his brother, Charles, remained in Acadia on their father’s land.

The Melanson family was an interesting bunch. Charles, the son, while living in Acadia, requested and received a militia captain commission in Massachusetts. He was also a pirate.

Perhaps the Melanson allegiance to England and connection with Boston lends more perspective to Pierre and Marguerite’s reaction to the 1671 census taker, especially given that Acadia had just been returned to the French.

There’s more too.

While Pierre Melanson and Marguerite Mius left for Les Mines and settled in Grand Pre, Pierre apparently went back and forth. They may not have sold their land in Port Royal.

In 1690, when the English sailed into the River on their way to attack Port Royal, they stopped at Pierre Melanson’s to check on the condition of the fort and of Port Royal. Pierre’s was the first homestead encountered after entering the mouth of the river.

This 1708 map shows the location of the Melanson settlement land, homes and fields. They were the most distant settlement, towards the sea, across the river from Port Royal.

I don’t think there’s any question that the Melanson family was loyal to the British, and retained their Protestant faith as well. At some point, they may have hidden their leanings, but that hadn’t happened by 1690.

This situation must have been awkward for Philippe Mius and by extension, Madeleine. I wonder how she navigated those waters, or perhaps she was Protestant herself. There’s so much we don’t know.

The Melanson settlement constituted a small village as it expanded over the years.

This drawing shows typical Acadian life in the Melanson Village, based on archaeological excavations there and elsewhere. The layout is strikingly similar to the 1686 map of Port Royal, with enclosed gardens.

The apple orchards were planted behind the homes and gardens, and the salt marsh fields were between the homes, protective dykes, and the river.

Excavations have unearthed several structures and the remnants of village life.

The bustling village of yesteryear, where Madeleine would have visited Marguerite and her family, lies abandoned today, having returned to nature – with no hint of the turmoil that was once found here.

Marguerite had five children that lived before her mother died between 1677 and 1678, and probably two or three who died, based on birth spacing. Tiny coffins would have been constructed for the children who perished, the pounding of the hammer ringing in the ears of Marguerite and Madeleine with each blow. Madeleine would assuredly have been with her daughter at this most devastating of times.

Mother and daughter would have washed their tiny bodies one last time, wrapped them lovingly, and placed them in their caskets for their final sleep.

What happened next is debatable.

If Catholic, they would then have been carried to the canoes or small boats and rowed across the river to the church.

Services were held in the church where a funeral Mass was celebrated before they were buried in the graveyard beside the church, either the same day or the next.

If they were not buried as Catholics, they would either have been buried in the same cemetery, without benefit of a mass, of course, or buried in a cemetery near where they lived.

We know that the Stoney Beach Cemetery, very close to the Melanson Settlement is the site of burials in the late 1700s, and it may well have been used before that by the residents on the far side of the river, especially Protestants.

Eventually, the family did convert, because they are found in the Grand Pre Catholic Church records, but we don’t know who converted, when, where, or why. They may have simply acquiesced to the traditions of their neighbors.

Marguerite’s five children who lived are probably the only grandchildren Madeleine Hélie was able to welcome and enjoy, even if only for a short time. We know that Madeleine died sometime between her last child’s birth in 1677 and the 1678 census, and that at least five grandchildren were born before 1678: in 1666, 1668, 1670, 1673, and 1676.

For several of those years, Madeleine and Marguerite were having children at the same time, likely helping each other through the process. It looks like two of Marguerite’s children died during that time, and five of Madeleine’s. Mother and daughter would have drawn strength from each other in their darkest hours.

Even though we know that they died before the next census where they should have been found, they may not have been stillborn.

Catholic babies were baptized as soon as possible after birth, and in emergencies, sometimes even in the birth canal by the midwife. Sometimes provisional baptisms occurred if a priest wasn’t readily available, the baby was in distress, or inclement weather prevented the trip to church.

Baptisms were events to be celebrated.

The family, including the mother if she was able, made their way to the church with the baby later that day or the following day, depending on when the baby was born. They gathered beside the baptismal font in the Catholic church in Port Royal as their babies were baptized. Perhaps Marguerite stood as godmother for her younger siblings, knowing that of the two women, she was more likely to outlive her mother.

In 1682, when Marguerite, then 32 or so, and her family said goodbye to Port Royal and sailed north, her mother had been gone for between four years and a decade.

Madeleine and Philippe’s children apparently didn’t all live in Port Royal, at least not full time during this period, because their son, Philippe (Jr), born about 1660 married a Mi’kmaq woman about 1678. He may well have been living with his older brothers, Jacques or Abraham, in Pobomcoup. They all married between 1676 and 1678.

Jacques Mius d’Entremont, born about 1654, Madeleine’s oldest son, married Anne Saint-Etienne de LaTour about 1678, and they lived in Pobomcoup. That’s probably when Philippe Mius (Sr.) conveyed the Barony to him. It’s possible that the Anne, with no other name, in the 1678 census with Philippe Mius Sr. is Jacque’s wife, Anne.

Although Jacques lived in Pobomcoup, he must have traveled back and forth to Port Royal, because he made a deposition in 1685 that James Taylor of Boston has stolen from him and others in Port Royal. Jacques is connected to fishermen, specifically Jean Le Roy dit Laliberte who is a shoremaster for both Jacques and Charles St. Etienne de LaTour at a location with a Mi’kmaq name. This makes sense, since in the 1696 census, La Liberte Le Neigre is living by himself at Cap Sable, but by 1698 was back at Port Royal, living in the Melanson settlement.

Jacques had nine children, most of whom used the surname d’Entremont and remained in the Pobomcoup, now Pubnico, area.

He inherited the Barony and maintained it until his death in 1735 or 1736. The manor house location continues to be widely debated, given that it was destroyed when the English expelled all of the Acadians beginning in 1755. I documented possible locations in this article.

Regardless of where the manor house stood, a mill wheel was found in Hipson’s Brook, indicating that this location was of primary importance, grinding grain for the Pobomcoup families.

Pubnico Harbour, where the Philippe and Madeleine established their Barony and where Jacques spent his life is stunningly beautiful.

I wrote about my experience returning home to Pubnico, complete with pictures, here.

The English began the expulsion of the Pubnico Acadians in 1756 and finished their dirty work by burning everything. Some of Jacques’ descendants were sent to the English colonies and a few made their way back to Pubnico a decade later. Others were tracked through the woods, eventually caught, and imprisoned at Halifax in 1659, then were subsequently sent back to France. I wrote about that, here, including their petitions to return. It’s heartbreaking.

Abraham Mius or Mius de Pleinmarais, his dit name, Madeleine’s second-oldest son, was born about 1658 and married about 1680 to Marguerite Saint-Etienne de LaTour. In 1686 and 1693, they are living in Pobomcoup aka Cap Sable.

By 1703, Abraham is living in Port Royal where he spent the rest of his life. Unfortunately, that census does not show the amount of land in each household. However, given that he is listed second in the census, called “Mr. Plemarais, and they are living beside his wife’s sister, Marie Saint-Etienne de LaTour, the widow of Alexander Le Bourg de Belisle, this makes sense. Owning land, especially for the wealthy did not equate to actually living on and farming the land. This also causes me to wonder if Abraham’s parents, Madeleine Hélie and Philip Mius, were living beside the Le Bourg home back in the 1670s.

If so, that may narrow the location to the homes beside #8 on the 1686 map.

If that’s the case, then that restricts the candidates to a few that I can correlate to contemporary locations.

My cousins and I just happened to have dinner along the boardwalk, behind what is today a wine bar, in this same location or at least nearby, looking out over the beautiful river.

Obviously the Acadian buildings are gone, burned in 1755, but the waterfront is every bit as beautiful now as then.

It makes sense that Abraham would have wanted to reclaim his father’s home in Port Royal, since Jacques had the manor house in Pobomcoup, and Philippe Jr. was living with the Native people.

We don’t know if that’s what happened, and the O’Dell House map shows that Abraham’s widow was living south of Port Royal along the road headed out of town, at location #9 in 1710. I tend to doubt that, in part because she is enumerated beside her sister in the 1707 census, assuming it was in procession order, and we know where her sister who was married to Le Bourge lived. Those outlots are also far from the elite part of town. Abraham’s widow was, after all, a LaTour, and the widow of a Mius, both Noble families.

Regardless, we are moving far from Abraham Mius and his widow – and with the passage of time and each subsequent step, it’s more difficult to discern what actually occurred.

Abraham Mius Pleinmarais died towards the end of 1707, after his daughter’s August wedding and before the census where his wife is listed as Madeleine Plemarais, with her five children.

At this time, she is living on only one arpent of land, which is confusing, especially given that Abraham’s holding shown on the 1708 map is extensive. She may well have moved back to town, and that’s assuming they weren’t already living in Port Royal proper.

Abraham’s land was not far from the Melanson settlement, and I suspect this is the land originally owned by Abraham’s parents. It’s even more likely given that Abraham was clearly the “second son” in Pobomcoup, but opted instead for this large parcel of land in Port Royal. His father died in 1700, leaving him a Sieur in his own right, according to the 1762 French depositions.

This 1708 Labatt map, which was drawn the year after Abraham died, still shows his land, and also states that Bernard Bourg is living at the place called Plemarais, although that word is difficult to see.

The 1707 census for Bernard shows him cultivating 8 arpents of land. In 1686, he has 3 arpents, in 1693, 30 arpents, in 1698, 35 arpents with 45 fruit trees, in 1700, he was cultivating 30 arpents. This is suspiciously close to the 40 arpents claimed by Philippe Mius Sr. in 1686, especially since he had 9 arpents in 1678. At 80 years of age, and a man of letters, Philippe was clearly not farming this land himself.

If Abraham moved back from Pobomcoup after his father died, Bernard may have released the majority back to Abraham. Born in 1648, Bernard was over 50 years old and probably no longer up to maintaining more land than any other landholder in Acadia. Abraham Mius Pleinmarais was a decade younger.

Philippe Mius Jr., born about 1660, spent most of his formative years learning to hunt and fish among their neighbors in Pobomcoup, the Mi’kmaq, so marrying a Native woman wouldn’t have been anything unexpected.

Philippe Jr. and his first wife, whose name is unknown, had about four children before she died sometime after 1684, when daughter Francoise Mius was born, and before the 1686 census when he is found in Port Royal with his father. By about 1688, son Philippe the younger had returned to his beloved forests, married again to a second Native woman named Marie, indicating that she had been baptized as Catholic, and lived the rest of his life among the Native people.

Madeleine would never have met any of those grandchildren, given that Philippe married about the time she died, and they lived far away, at Pobomcoup or maybe even further, at Merligueche, near present-day Lunenburg.

Philippe’s descendants generally used the surname Mius, and are found among the Mi’kmaq. Philippe’s son, Francoise Mius, born about 1700 and who died after August 1763, was appointed Chief of the Mi’kmaq and resided at La Heve.

Conclusions

What conclusions can we draw here?

This evidence, taken together, means that Madeleine Hélie most likely lived in Port Royal beginning after the 1671 census, and died there between 1677 and 1678, given that they appear to have never returned to Pobomcoup. It also means that the children born in 1671, 1673, 1675, and 1677, along with daughter Madelaine, born about 1670, are all likely buried with her in Port Royal, while Madeleine Hélie’s half dozen children who died before 1671 are buried in a lost cemetery somewhere near where they lived in Pobomcoup.

By accounting for her known children, we can tell that Madeleine was born about 1633. She married about 1649 to a much older husband.

Depending on which records we have more confidence in, Philippe was between 40 and 49 in 1649, when Madeleine was between 14 and 16. Despite a quarter-century age difference, he went on to outlive her by a substantial margin. Life was especially treacherous for women. Every childbirth was a tug-of-war between life and death for both mother and child – a battle Madeleine may have lost.

Madeleine buried at least six children between 1652 and 1671, and three more by 1678.

That’s a minimum of nine children buried during her lifetime, and likely more.

Her namesake daughter, Marguerite, as she was listed in the 1678 census, and called Madeleine in the 1686 census, outlived her mother by a few years. She is never found in any records beyond 1686, so likely died between 1686 and 1693, joining her mother in the Port Royal Cemetery.

And the one-year-old baby in 1678? She joined her mother and siblings before 1686.

That means that of the 15 children that Madeleine brought into the world, and possibly more, only four survived to adulthood, and none of the nine born after 1660.

How absolutely crushing.

Madeleine’s four surviving children could not have been more different.

  1. Daughter Marguerite married a Huguenot, acted “crazy,” and refused to answer the Priest’s questions in 1671, and was one of the founders at Les Mines.
  2. Son Jacques became the second Baron de Pobomcoup, continuing his father’s legacy, and established the Mius d’Entremont family of Pubnico.
  3. Son Abraham settled in Pobomcoup, but then returned to Port Royal where he lived for the rest of his life. He had a substantial piece of land, probably his father’s 40 arpents, across the river from Port Royal.
  4. Madeleine’s youngest son, Philippe, married into the Mi’kmaq Tribe, twice, and lived his life among the Native people. His son became their Chief, but Philippe’s descendants would suffer immense heartache.

Madeleine’s Journey

I can’t help but think about Madeleine Hélie as a carefree young girl in France, running and playing in the sun-drenched golden fields.

Acadia hadn’t yet been settled, so even if she had known that Acadia existed, she would never have dreamed of going there. Travel then, such as it was, was pretty much a one-way, no-return ticket.

Yet, she did sail to Acadia and became a Noblewoman there, elevated to the status of Madame of the Barony of Pobomcoup.

But she would not breathe her last in her barony.

If Madeleine’s life story were a book, one would swear it has to be fiction.

She traveled to La Rochelle as a young bride. Having not yet seen her 20th birthday, she climbed aboard a rocking ship with her husband and embarked on the adventure of a lifetime.

She arrived at La Heve with a babe in arms and perhaps pregnant for her second child who would perish in a foreign land. How did she feel, burying that baby, with no family surrounding her as those clods of dirt thudded on the tiny coffin?

Surveying her new world, maybe she wondered where the rest of the people were, because the land was densely forested and barren of European women, at least in La Heve and Fort LaTour. From a bustling community, established for millennia, someplace in Normandy, to unbroken forest dappled with Native villages that moved with the seasons – the contrast must have seemed surreal, and unreal.

She assuredly cried for her family, but there was no going back.

When they finally arrived in Port Royal, she probably expected a city, but what she found were dirt cart paths, a beleaguered earthen fort, and 38 or 39 families consisting of about 270 people, scattered up and down the river. That would have meant only 38 or 39 adult women in the entire colony.

Did she think, “Good Lord, what have I done?”

Two years later, her status was elevated when they were awarded a massive land grant in Pobomcoup, where she would live even more remotely, with NO European women for company. She didn’t speak the Mi’kmaq language and would have been terribly isolated.

After 18 or 19 years in Pobomcoup, they moved back to Port Royal. By then, it had grown substantially, doubling in size, and probably seemed quite busy by comparison.

Madeleine died there a few years later, before she was even 50. She buried 9 or 10 children, and left behind her last child – an infant daughter less than a year old who desperately needed her mother.

On the other hand, Madeleine’s life was astounding, especially for a woman in the mid-1600s. She saw unheard of places and prayed in the cathedral of the forest. Her life of adventure probably seemed like a dream to many, and evolved into something she could never have imagined. She was unique among women of her time.

Madeleine inhabited the most remote yet starkly beautiful stretches of the Atlantic coastline, with few, if any, other European women nearby, and later lived among the elite of Port Royal.

Her blood runs in the veins of the Mi’kmaq people, the Cajuns of Louisiana, the American colonies, many people who settled in Quebec, exiles in Cherbourg, Normandy and the people who returned to Pubnico in the 1660s.

The price was dear, though – having to leave her family behind in France forever.

In Acadia, she survived untold drama, including the 1654 capture by the English, and Acadia’s rocky return to the French sixteen years later. She became a Noblewoman and lived in a manor house on the shores of the Atlantic.

Regardless, Madeleine’s life was still cut short. She wept at the graves of far too many children and probably would have traded everything to be able to raise the children she could not.

_____________________________________________________________

Share the Love!

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

Subscribe!

If you haven’t already subscribed, it’s free. You’ll receive an e-mail whenever I publish by clicking the “follow” button at the top of the main blog page, here.

Help Keep This Blog Free

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

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Uploads

Genealogy Products and Services

My Books

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

Philippe Mius d’Entremont: Y-DNA Provides Amazing Information – 52 Ancestors #478

In 2012, Pauline d’Entremont and Clark Robbins founded the Mius-dEntremont DNA Project at FamilyTreeDNA. Denis Beauregard later adopted the project after Pauline retired and Clark passed away.

I want to thank all three administrators, but especially Pauline and Clark. Without their early recruitment efforts, we would not be able to view these results and compare the Y-DNA of the project participants who have granted permission for public display.

When the Mius-d’Entremont DNA project was first launched, the administrators documented the theories about the origins of Philippe Mius d’Entremont and his wife, Madeleine Helie, that they hoped to either prove or disprove. I’ve summarized them in the following section, but you can read them in detail, here and here.

With several theories about who Philippe Mius d’Entremont was, and his origins, Y-DNA results of his descendants are critically important. Thankfully, several of his direct male-to-male descendants, who carry his Y chromosome, have taken Y-DNA tests at FamilyTreeDNA.

The Mius-dEntremont DNA Project holds a wealth of information. We’ll review the genetic information and clues after the theories.

We enter this mystery with little information about Philippe prior to his arrival in Acadia.

Based on two original sources, we know Philippe and his wife were reported to be from Normandy. A 1762 legal document in France stated that the Mius d’Entremont family was “originally from Normandy,” and on December 3, 1707, the King’s Secretary wrote to the ministers in France that “Sieur Philippe d’Entremont, a native of Normandy, died seven years ago at the age of 99 years and some months.”

We know that Charles St. Etienne LaTour, governor of Acadia, brought Philippe from France in 1651 as his second-in-command, and awarded him a large grant of land in 1653 that includes today’s Pubnico Harbour and surrounding land on both sides.

I wrote about Philippe in the following articles, laying the groundwork for his DNA results.

The Theories

I have summarized the various theories, as I know many people will wonder if the DNA results support, or refute them. I’ve also incorporated information discovered after the original theory was proposed. Theories 1 and 2 were proposed and evaluated by Father Clarence d’Entremont (1909-1998) in his book, The Acdians and their Genealogy, published in 1975. Theory 3 is a combination of his work and the original administrators’ thoughts, and Theories 4 and 5 are derivatives of the other theories.

The only reason I mention these theories at all is because they remain in the public domain, and if we don’t address them, they are certain to be viewed as “undiscovered evidence” by future researchers. I have also documented what would be required to prove each theory.

Theory 1: Nicolaus Mousche/Mius, the Student – Lacks Evidence

From Father d’Entremont’s book, pages 803 to 813.

This theory, based on the work of Father Clarence Joseph d’Entremont, proposed that Philippe Mius d’Entremont may descend from a man named Nicolaus Mius, a 16th-century student at the University of Orléans and possibly the same person as “Nicolas Mousche,” an interpreter and loyal follower of Gaspard de Coligny. Both men were killed during the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre in 1572.

The theory suggests that, in recognition of Nicolaus’s loyalty and sacrifice, the family of Coligny’s widow, Jacqueline de Montbel d’Entremont, may have adopted one of his sons. This child could have taken on the combined name “Mius d’Entremont,” linking both biological and noble associations.

The theory explains the dual nature of the surname: “Mius” as a patronymic and “d’Entremont” as a noble territorial name. However, issues with this theory are:

  • No indication that Mousche is Mius
  • No connection between the student and Gaspare de Coligny
  • No evidence for this hypothesis
  • Philippe Mius d’Entremont cannot be the son adopted, because he was born between 1600 and 1609, based on various later documents

Despite these uncertainties, Clarence d’Entremont considered this the most plausible explanation among competing theories at that time.

Proof Standard:

What would be needed to prove this? Either documents connecting the parties, and/or Y-DNA results from someone proven to descend from Nicolaus Mius or Mousche that match the Mius d’Entremont testers. The same DNA tests could also disprove the theory. I would want to see a test from a descendant of both men.

Theory 2: Alias François Virgine d’Entremont – Disproven

Pages 791-792.

This second theory proposes that Philippe Mius d’Entremont was actually François Virgine d’Entremont, a member of a prominent Savoyard noble family and descendant of Gaspard de Coligny. According to this hypothesis, François Virgine may have changed his name and fled France around 1651 to escape political or religious persecution, eventually settling in Acadia under the name Philippe Mius d’Entremont. A perceived similarity between their wives’ names—Madeleine Hélie in Acadia and Madeleine Élie du Tillet in France—has also been cited as supporting this identification.

Substantial documentary and chronological evidence strongly contradicts this theory.

  • Archival records place François Virgine d’Entremont in France between approximately 1653 and 1670, actively managing or declaring feudal holdings, while Philippe Mius d’Entremont is independently documented in Acadia during that same period.
  • François Virgine appears to have died before 1671, while Philippe Mius d’Entremont lived until 1700 in Acadia.
  • A 1671 record confirms that Madeleine Élie du Tillet was in France at that time and already widowed, whereas Madeleine Hélie, wife of Philippe, was living in Acadia.
  • Madeleine Élie du Tillet is documented as having married in 1631 and died in 1692 in France, whereas Madeleine Hélie was born around 1626 and married Philippe around 1649, making it chronologically impossible for them to be the same person.

Taken together, these records demonstrate that the two men – and their wives – were living separate, overlapping lives in different locations, conclusively disproving this theory.

Theory 3: Theory 1 But Without Coligny – Lacks Evidence

Original Project Administrator’s supposition from pages 790-791, 792-797.

Theory 3 proposes that Philippe Mius d’Entremont and his immediate ancestors were simply part of a “Mius” family with no known connection to Gaspard de Coligny or the de Montbel d’Entremont lineage. In this scenario, Philippe may have been descended from Nicolaus Mius (as in Theory 1, but without any adoption into a noble family), loosely related to that Mius line, or even from an entirely separate Mius family of possible German or Dutch origin that later settled in Normandy or the Lorraine region.

The “d’Entremont” portion of his name is explained not through noble inheritance, but as a geographic or “nom de terre.” It may have come from a place name in Normandy, from “Landremont/Lendremont” in Lorraine (possibly reflected in early records), or even evolved from a similar surname like “d’Autremont.”

Landremont is far from Normandy, about 550 km from where known Mius family Y-DNA matches are found.

While this theory neatly accounts for both “Mius” and “d’Entremont,” it lacks any direct evidence.

Proof Standard:

Need documents connecting the parties, and/or Y-DNA results from someone proven to descend from Nicolaus Mius, the student, that matches the Mius d’Entremont testers.

Theory 4: Theory 3 But Philippe Was a Commoner – Entirely Speculative

Theory 4 builds on Theory 3 but suggests that Philippe Mius was not originally a nobleman at all, but rather a commoner who adopted “d’Entremont” as a kind of “fantasy” surname. This name may have reflected a place of origin in France (such as a village named Entremont) and could have been assumed either before or after his arrival in Acadia, even prior to receiving any formal title.

Under this view, the “d’Entremont” name was not inherited but self-selected, later becoming legitimized when Charles de Saint-Étienne de la Tour granted Philippe the barony of Pobomcoup (Pubnico) in 1653.

While this explanation accounts for how the name could arise without noble lineage and is a possibility, it remains speculative and lacks any supporting evidence.

Proof Standard:

Same issues as Theory 3. Need a matching male or males in France with derivatives of the Mius surname, or find evidence of Philippe in France.

Theory 5: Theories 1 & 2 Plus Adoption – Disproven

Another theory, proposed by Michael Talbot, combines elements of Theories 1 and 2. It suggests that a son of Nicolaus Mius (Philippe’s proposed father in this theory) was adopted not by the de Montbel d’Entremont family, but by the d’Albon de Montauban de Meuillon family—possibly at the request of Jacqueline de Montbel d’Entremont’s lineage. As an adult, this adopted son would then have married into the family of Gaspard de Coligny, producing descendants such as François Virgine d’Entremont. Through this chain of relationships, the theory attempts to explain both the “Mius” patronymic surname and the “d’Entremont” surnom de terre.

This theory is disproven for the same reasons that Theory 2 is disproven.

Comparative Evaluation of Theories

Theories 2 and 5 are entirely disproven, based on evidence that has become available since Father d’Entremont wrote his book, and Theories 1, 3, and 4 are speculative, with no evidence. At this point, we can effectively dismiss all of them by simply saying that we need either connecting records or Y-DNA tests, or both.

Y-DNA evidence, or previously undiscovered records, may shed light on the origin of Philippe Mius d’Entremont. Cousin Mark checked again recently for the possibility of new records having become available, with nothing new appearing for Philippe.

Does Y-DNA testing provide any insight?

Yes, as a matter of fact!

A French Mius Match

Quoting the original administrators of the Mius-d’Entremont DNA project:

Many years ago, the late Father Clarence d’Entremont, Acadian genealogist and historian, was in contact with the family of this matching French Mius during one of his visits to France for research. At that time, it was not possible to know if that family was related to the Acadian Mius d’Entremonts or not. Now, thanks to DNA testing, we know that they are, one way or the other.

The earliest known person in the confirmed (verified) portion of the paternal line of this family, named Robert Mius, was born prior to 1702, in Theuville aux Maillots, Seine-Maritime, Haute-Normandie, which is at least 53 years before the fateful ‘Grand Dérangement’ of 1755.

We already established in the earlier articles that about 100 of Philippe’s descendants escaped the roundup by the British in 1758 by hiding in the woods.

In 1759, after barely surviving a brutal winter, they were tracked down, captured, and sent first to Georges Island in Halifax Harbor, then to England, and then in 1760 to Cherbourg, Normandy, France.

Being able to track the ancestors of the Mius DNA tester in France to around 1702 removes the possibility that he is a descendant of Philippe Mius d’Entremont’s family members who were exiled in the mid-1700s.

It also answers the question of whether Philippe’s heritable surname was Mius or d’Entremont. It was clearly Mius.

D’Entremont came from someplace else, possibly a place name or a description of some sort. In any event, the French ancestors of the Mius man whose Y-DNA matches that of the descendants of Philippe Mius d’Entremont do NOT carry the d’Entremont portion of the name.

Now that we have a location, let’s see what we can discover.

Theuville-aux-Maillots

The village of Theuville-aux-Maillots is a small rural village in the upper portion of Normandy, far from La Rochelle where ships for Acadia departed, and almost as far from Poitiers where many Acadian families originated.

Charles St. Etienne de LaTour, born in 1593, was from Champagne, which was 220 miles east, about 100 miles the other side of Paris. Not to mention that LaTour spent most of his life in Acadia from the time he was a teen, first arriving with his father in 1610, although he did travel back and forth. This casts doubt on the “rumor” that Philippe and Charles were childhood friends, given that Philippe, born sometime between 1600 and 1609, was younger than Charles, and Charles sailed for Nova Scotia in 1610 when Philippe was still a child.

Theuville-aux-Maillots, with a population of about 500 people, remains an agricultural community today. The village is mentioned in the 12th century, with aux Maillots added as a descriptor by 1336. Richard des Malloz was seigneur as early as 1210.

The village would have grown up around the castle and the St. Maclou Church. The chancel dates to the 1500s. The earliest residents after the church was built would have been buried here, probably including Robert Mius and his family.

This central tree, gone today but not in this 2019 image, was quite large, it’s trunk being supported at least a century earlier. The red brick home, at right, above, is seen below, at left, along with several others that probably date to the church and castle’s era.

The intersection, in front of the church, along the main street, would have been the center of the village. I can’t help but wonder how old this tree was, and if it stood when Robert Mius lived here.

Par Havang(nl) — Travail personnel, CC0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=84525701

The castle was built during the reign of King Louis XIV, between 1650 and 1715 by the d’Auber family, but only two towers remain today, just behind the church. There was clearly a manor house or castle prior to that time.

This Google Street View from 2010 shows the church, cemetery, castle turrets, and what’s left of the roof of the main building, along with the castle’s barns to the right.

Records from the mid-1700s spanning 30 years in this small village show that people practiced several trades and professions:

  • 29-34 people: farmers, day laborers, weavers
  • 9-17 people: linen weavers, carters, wheelwrights, spinners
  • 5-6 people: shepherds, carpenters, butchers, masons
  • 3-4 people: barn threshers, shoemakers, tailors
  • 2 people: surveyors, builders, coopers, thatchers, turners, and midwives
  • 1 person: merchant farmer, miller, haberdasher, baker, carpenter, gardener, spinning wheel maker, rose seller, priest’s clerk, cooper, blacksmith, clog maker, drying rack, horse dealer, carter, stonemason, and cook

I really hadn’t thought a lot about the wide variety of services needed for a village to be self-sufficient. There sure were a lot of weavers, but then again, everyone had to wear clothes – and winters were cold on the shores of the North Atlantic.

I do find it interesting that there’s a haberdasher, but no barber surgeon, who would be the person attending to “health care,” such as it was – in addition to cutting hair and beards. Perhaps tasks such as tooth-pulling, blood-letting, suturing wounds, setting bones and lancing boils were taken care of by the midwife, or maybe the villagers had to rely on traveling, itinerant “healers”, although clearly emergencies couldn’t wait.

Par Havang(nl) — Travail personnel, CC0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=84525701

Today, the castle’s dovecote remains. Only the wealthy were permitted to own doves through the 1700s.

The manor house or castle, which no longer exists, was apparently built in the same era as the castle at Saint-Martin-aux-Buneaux. I’m unclear about copyright, so you can see a vintage postcard, here, as well as the church and castle turrets, here.

It’s interesting to note that red clay vases have been found that date from the Roman era, indicating Roman occupation and settlement some 2000 years ago, predating the Middle Ages when the Maillot family were the lords of the land.

By the 1700s, the families who farmed these fields had probably been farming them, or at least land nearby, for centuries. Peasants didn’t tend to move far. They were legally tied to the land and the seigneur for whom they worked. Generally, they worked within the manor’s radius of a town, maybe five miles in either direction. If granted permission, workers were occasionally allowed to leave for a nearby market or fair. Maybe once in a lifetime, if that, they took a pilgrimage, a privilege for which they had to both obtain permission and pay a fine to the seigneur, called a chevage. Robert Mius’s ancestral family had to have lived nearby.

The Mius match provided the information that his ancestor, Robert Mius, born before 1702 was married to Margueritte Patris. Because genealogists gotta do what genealogists gotta do, I attempted to track them back in time.

I found several trees on MyHeritage and in other locations, but without attached source information, such as church records.

  • Robert Mius, born before 1702 was reported as the son of Charles Mius, born in 1663 in Saint-Martin-aux-Buneaux, but I have been unable to verify that connection.

The Acadian Museum in Pubnico has the genealogy records that Robert’s descendants provided, which would presumably include his children’s names, but I don’t have that information either.

FamilySearch records confirm that at least some parish records exist for Theuville-aux-Maillots from about 1603 through the mid-1700s. Unfortunately, these have not been digitized or transcribed using their full-text search feature. Hopefully soon.

Saint-Martin-aux-Buneaux records are available intermittently from 1541, but many years appear to be missing, and they are not transcribed or indexed either.

Given the rarity of the surname, and the fact that these locations are around five miles apart, there is surely a connection, even if we can’t connect all of the dots yet today.

  • Charles Mius was reportedly born on January 9, 1663 in Saint-Martin-aux-Buneaux, married Marie Raby, and died on June 27, 1706 in the same location.
  • His father, Charles Mius, was born on April 12, 1632 and died on October 25, 1711 in Saint-Martin-aux-Buneaux. He married Florimonde Roussel.

On this Geneanet tree, Charles and his wife, Florimonde Roussel show several children with exact birth and death dates, including the day of week. This certainly suggests these records come directly from the parish register.

  • Charles Mius born in 1632 was the son of Marin Mius who was born around 1600 in Saint-Martin-aux-Buneaux. In addition to Charles, Marin and his wife, Nicole, had daughter Suzanne Mius on Thursday, April 13, 1628.

There is nothing further listed, which I presume means one of three things:

  • The parish records ended
  • The parish records are incomplete
  • Marin was born, died or was baptized elsewhere. Unless either he or his wife died, it would be quite unusual to have only two children.

I reached out to Cousin Mark, who is much more adept at searching French records than I am. He reported that on Filae, there are several trees, but none produced by local Genealogy Societies with information extracted directly from the parish records, as is sometimes found elsewhere in France.

Short of literally sifting through all of the records written in archaic French script, one by one, there’s no way to make that connection yet today.

Let’s take a walk down the road to neighboring Saint-Martin-aux-Buneaux.

Saint-Martin-aux-Buneaux

Saint-Martin-aux-Buneaux is an Atlantic village of about the same size as Theuville-aux-Maillots. Its sixteenth-century fortified castle, Chateau de Saint-Martin-aux-Buneaux, is associated with the Toustain family. Also from the 16th century, a way-marker stone cross is located on the main road where it intersects with the road that leads directly to the Saint-Martin Church, behind which stands the castle.

This heavily fortified and walled castle may date from earlier, as it is reported to have been damaged during the Hundred Years’ War, which took place from 1337 to 1453 between France and Britain.

The castle’s walls and surrounding buildings, which date from the same era, still stand all along Rue du Chateau from Rte d’Auberville, past the castle, around the church, and halfway down Rte du Val, shown above. You can see where the wall turns away from the road, along with the building across the road that appears to be constructed of the same materials, and the church in the distance.

Once cart paths, these are all narrow, mostly-paved rural roads today, but with no center line.

Quaint is an understatement, although at one time, the castle was the center of commerce and justice for the fiefdom. Every resident worked for the manorial or seigneural family, one way or another.

The area is still heavily agricultural, with some forest. The castle is privately owned today.

The “main road,” Le Grand Rue, slightly wider but still with no center line, intersects with the cross that directs visitors to the church and castle. A medieval stone road sign in a neighborhood where most of the homes harken back to the days of peasants and manor houses.

Did our Mius ancestor sit here to rest on his journey, waving and calling “Bonjour!” as local farmers rode by with oxen pulling their wagons or carts?

Following the road from the cross leads directly, and I do mean directly, to the door of the church.

Approaching along the wall from Rte du Val, we see the north side of the cemetery, where Marin Mius and many other Mius family members were assuredly buried.

Viewing the churchyard from the other side, just outside the castle gate, reveals the rest of the cemetery.

Every inch of the graveyard is packed, and the ossuary at the rear indicates that the graves have since been reused.

Of course, this church would originally have been built by the manorial family, and their entrance would have been through the small gate, but this view is what the Mius family would have seen as they approached the castle beside the church.

Is this perhaps where they worked, or did they approach with trepidation because they were here seeking, or receiving, justice?

Did they perchance stop in the church to visit their ancestors and pray first?

Beyond the gate on Rue du Chateau, today you can easily see the castle over what’s left of the wall.

Did the Mius men or their ancestors help build this castle?

Then, as now, it probably required many people to maintain the building and grounds.

Looking slightly to the right, the barns and outbuildings still remain.

Was it here that the Mius men labored?

Moving slightly away from the main chateau entrance, we see buildings that were built into the original castle wall.

The large building in the field to the right is the back side, or maybe front side, of what looked to be a barn beside the castle.

It’s difficult to tell if this was a barn originally, and is now a home, perhaps the caretakers of the castle. Based on the structure of the building, it’s from the same time period as the rest of the castle’s outbuildings.

You can see the edge of the castle at left.

Continuing down Rue du Chateau, this building looks like it had windows at one point. I’ve seen some buildings with a single, lower arch that was the original oven where the baking for the chateau was done, but this building and the next have several evenly spaced higher arches that look to have been filled in.

I so wish we had a drawing of the original chateau and estate.

Marin Muis and other Mius family members would have approached the church from this perspective if they arrived from along Rue du Chateau instead of along the Rte de Val or the road leading from the cross.

I wonder if the castle was a visual representation of safety and security to the family, or if the sight evoked a sense of dread.

Did they think fondly of the seigneurial family, or were they viewed fearfully. Were they even-keeled and fair, or something else?

How were the peasants treated?

We don’t know how far away from the village the peasants who farmed the fields lived. Using the list of trades from Theuville-aux-Maillots, we know that the majority of residents were farmers or laborers of some sort.

I’m going to assume here that the land within the seigneury included the land reaching all the way to the coast. It’s not far, and it wouldn’t seem logical for that area to be included in a different manor.

However, it’s also unclear how close to the coast people would have lived, and whether they attempted to farm that land. Not only is the weather harsh, but if the area were to be invaded by England, it would be from the coast, with soldiers approaching through the valleys between the cliffs or up the rivers.

Either way, lookouts and fortifications would have been essential.

Looking at this aerial view, you can see that none of the roads or farms today extend to the coast, which in most places here are cliffs with sheer, vertical drops of about 200 feet. The edges are subject to collapse, and it wouldn’t take long for the first people living there to learn to keep livestock and people away from the precipice.

Archaeological surveys ahead of local infrastructure projects have documented Gallo-Roman remains, suggesting that “smaller” villas or farmsteads (aedificia) were present along the cliffs at Veullettes-sur-Mer, about 2.5 miles away.

The Norman coast was fortified by the Romans, with a fort at the mouth of the Durdent River at Veulettes-sur-Mer. This coastal area was part of a highly developed Gallo-Roman network of roads, with many smaller, secondary paths called vicinal roads that connected smaller locations like these to the main Roman roads.

Romans inhabited this area from about 2000 years ago, when Julius Caesar conquered Gaul, to about 300-400 CE, when Roman authority began to wane, and power passed to the Franks. However, the established Roman populations were not replaced and remained in their villages. The Franks led politically, but assimilated into the community and adopted much of the Roman culture, including Catholicism and Latin. Life continued, and the existing fabric of society was not destroyed when the Franks assumed power. Four hundred years later, that wasn’t the case when Viking raids devastated the region.

This coastline was inhabited much earlier, too. Neolithic sites have been discovered in caves along the cliffs, dating to around 7000 years ago.

The Cliffs Along the Coast

We’re going to take a drive to two destinations.

First, there’s a beautiful view from the end of the path indicated by the blue arrow on the map above, and along the blue road on the map above that, called Impasse des Gabions.

But there’s even something better – a surprise!!

As you turn down this tiny road, note that Earl Mius, crop grower, lives at this intersection.

A large agricultural farmer today, there’s a home on this property, located on the curve, that shares the type of Medieval construction in the houses and walled areas found in the church, castle and associated buildings, located just 3/4th of a mile away.

How long has this farm been in the Mius family?

How old are these buildings? They have obviously been here for hundreds of years – probably the closest farm to the actual coastline.

Is there any possibility that this is the original Mius land, or at least some of the land the Mius family farmed in Medieval times? And could this possibly be where Philippe’s ancestors were from too?

Have we accidentally found our way home?

We literally turn right after we pass this house, angling back towards the curve as we descend to the sea. For all the world, it looks like this is Earl’s farm. Mius land.

The intersection of this road with Rte du Val carries the warning “Descente a la Mer”, or descent to the sea.

This tiny road threads its way between the cliffs where sheep graze.

At the end of the road, we’re treated to a stunning view of the sea and distant horizon framed by the hillsides. You can see that water has been carving its way through those cliffs from time immemorial.

This aerial close-up shows the jagged cliff edges and the stone and pebble beaches directly below.

This satellite image shows the walking path from the church to the Mius farm beside the turn towards the sea, and the end of the road beside those stunning cliffs.

This literally makes me cry. How is it even possible to be this lucky?

Philippe, are you helping?

I need a minute…

Walk Along the Cliffs

We can’t walk along the top of the cliffs here, but just a mile away, as the seagul flies, we can.

There’s a “road”, of sorts, along the clifftop that I’m positive the Google vehicle was not supposed to travel. This vista provides us with a magical view of what the residents and shepherds would have seen when the Mius ancestors lived along this shoreline.

Our adventure begins with another descent to the sea via a slightly wider but still-winding road.

At the bottom of the road, looking to the right, in the distance, we can see the cliffs where we just came from – about a mile away.

Just stunningly beautiful, and knowing that we are viewing Mius land in the distance makes this ever so much more meaningful.

On the way, about half a mile above the beach, we passed the entrance to a cave system where Neolithic human activity has been documented.

Looking left, those cliffs in the distance are the ones we’re going to drive on top of, so let’s get started.

This tiny little street climbs pretty much straight up. Notice the difference in the elevation of the house from one end to the other.

We reached an overlook and turn in the road before continuing on the path beside the bench. What, you can’t see the path? It’s there, but you have to know where to look.

Did the Google car really drive here? Let’s go around the bench and see.

This is the road across the cliffs. Seriously, I’m not kidding. This is much more authentic to the Mius family experience than today’s roads.

Turned around, looking back at the parking area beside the beach below. The cliffs between the village and the Mius land are visible just across the way. Note the landslides near those jagged edges!

To give you some perspective, we’re nowhere near the top.

The fields on the other side of the fence, at left, explain the reason for this “road.”

There are muddy places and a couple of “wide spots”, but most of this path along the top of the cliffs looks just like this. I’m sure the fence is to keep livestock in and away from the cliffs, not people out. I would not want to be here in a storm.

The right side, above the cliffs, is overgrown with brambles and scrub the entire distance, often obscuring both the beauty and the danger of the view.

Then, the descent down the other side, begins, and cliffs on the other side of the next valley come into view.

The descent winds through the forest, in some places so dark that I could literally see nothing but blackness. If it wasn’t already clear before, this “drive” across the clifftops had to have been filmed by someone walking with the Google camera, which you could see in the shadows from time to time. It could not have been driven. Once again, so incredibly lucky to be able to “see” this view that our ancestors very probably saw too.

The descent ended here with this tiny path emerging from the bushes. We’re back from visiting the Roman defenses 2000 years ago, the peasants of the 1600s, and the Mius fields of today.

It’s here, along these stark limestone cliffs of Normandy, that our Mius family is found in Medieval times, and yet today.

It feels like we’ve come a long way, but we really haven’t. From end to end, through Saint Martin aux Bruneaux, the entire trip would only have taken the Mius family members an hour and a half to walk about 3.6 miles.

You can view incredibly stunning photos of the church, including the interior, cemetery, castle, soaring chalky white cliffs and stone beaches, here. Be still my heart!

If this is your family, I really, really encourage you to use Google maps and “drive” along the coastal roads near this village. Most buildings have been remodeled, but their ancient bones still show, and the original structures date from when Marin, Charles, Charles and Robert would have lived there. The countryside probably remains much the same, and the cliffs are forever, never changing.

Of course, we don’t know if our ancestor lived exactly here, but Philippe Mius was recorded, twice, as being from Normandy. Our DNA matches, our Mius cousins got here somehow, and it’s not exactly on the way to anyplace.

Surname Adoption in Normandy

Surnames in Normandy began to be adopted in the 11th and 12th centuries by the nobility and elites. Many were preceded by “de” meaning “of”, so Philippe of <place name>.

Given what we know about the original Philippe Mius d’Entremont and his descendants’ DNA matches, we’ve confirmed that Mius is his actual surname, and d’Entremont is a nom de terre, meaning a place name or something else.

General French surname adoption for most of the population began in the 13th century and was widespread in Normandy in the 14th century. People selected their own surname which often reflected a craft, occupation or even a nickname. Small rural, isolated, or seafarer communities sometimes adopted fixed names later, and that could have included these coastal areas in upper Normandy where the Mius family was found from about 1600 through the mid-1700s.

If they adopted the Mius surname in either the 1200s or 1300s, they were passing it down until Phippe Mius was born around 1600, 300 or 400 years and maybe a dozen generations later, the same time that the Mius men were living along this coastline.

In 1539, King Francis I issued orders requiring priests to record a surname in baptismal registers, so we know the Mius name was adopted either by or at that point.

Mius is believed to be a local Norman or Seine-Maritime regional variant of the word mieux meaning better, or superior. Alternatively, it has also been suggested that it could be an old Breton word for muis, meaning mouse.

Where Are We?

We’ve proven several things:

  • Mius is the genetic surname of Philippe Mius d’Entremont.
  • The French Mius tester’s descendants, tracked back to about 1702, lived in Normandy too early to be a descendant of Philippe Mius d’Entremont whose descendants were exiled to France around 1760 during the Explusion.
  • D’Entremont is not found in the early records of this Norman Mius family or in this part of France.
  • Y-DNA of Philippe’s descendants unquestionably matches with the Mius family found around 1700 in Theuville-aux-Maillots, with the same surname appearing earlier just 5 miles away in Saint-Martin-aux-Buneaux.
  • Families with this surname are still found in both communities, today.

Remaining questions include:

  • Where did d’Entremont come from? Did Philippe or his ancestors adopt that name in France, or did he adopt that additional name when he was awarded the Barony of Pobomcoup?
  • Why did he select d’Entremont?
  • Where in Normandy was Philippe Mius born between 1600 and 1609?
  • Where was he married to Madeleine Helie about 1649, based on the birth year of their first known child? It’s possible, and I’d suggest probable, that Philippe was married more than once if his first child was born about 1650. He was between 40 and 50 by then.
  • Who were his parents?
  • Was Philippe of minor nobility or of the upper bourgeois class, meaning merchants, professionals and townspeople who were well-to-do and respected, but lacked land privileges?
  • Given that Philippe was appointed the King’s Attorney in 1670, he clearly knew how to read and write well, and was trusted by the King.
  • How was Philippe known to the king? Did the king appoint him, or did someone else? If so, who, and why?
  • Where did Philippe meet and how was he acquainted with Charles St. Etienne de LaTour whose family was from Champagne, and why did LaTour select him as his Lieutenant Governor?
  • Where did Philippe Mius’s family come from before Normandy?

Big Y-700 DNA Results

I’m incredibly grateful for the Mius d’Entremont gentleman who agreed to upgrade his Y-DNA results to the Big Y-700 test. Thank you immensely!

Those results, and matches to other men who descend through all males from Philippe Mius d’Entremont, or other men from that genetic lineage by different surnames, are incredibly important

There are two very important aspects of these results.

  1. Matching, at any level, to other men.
  2. Information we can learn about Philippe and his lineage from the results of the Big Y-700 test.

The Mius d’Entremont DNA Project groups testers who descend from Philippe together.

Several Meuse/Mius/d’Entremont men who carry the same surname by various spellings match as expected, but unfortunately, most have only taken the introductory 12-marker test.

Historically, men could order tests that tested a specific number of STR (Short Tandem Repeat) markers:

  • 12
  • 25
  • 37
  • 67
  • 111

Today, only the 37 and 111 marker tests are available, and all testers can upgrade to higher-level tests if there’s enough DNA left from their original swabs. Of course, they can always swab again for the upgrade, but sometimes early testers have passed away or are unreachable.

Several years ago, FamilyTreeDNA introduced a much more sophisticated test called the Big Y-700 that tests all of those locations plus scans roughly 22 million locations of the Y chromosome for mutations called SNPs that define branches in the Y-DNA phylogenetic tree. Not only does this test detect mutations that define known branches, but it scans the Y chromosome for novel or new mutations that were previously unknown and uniquely define family lines. These types of mutations are estimated to occur roughly every 80 years or so, but can vary substantially.

All higher-level tests include the lower-level tests.

A man who descends from Jean-Baptiste Mius, born around 1800, probably in Tusket, Nova Scotia, has taken the Big Y-700 test, which provides significantly more information than the earlier STR tests. I’m extremely grateful to him for upgrading.

His haplogroup, E-Y260948, is our key to understanding the Mius family past. This haplogroup originated in a man born about 2700 years ago.

To be very clear, if additional Mius/Meuse/d’Entrement men would upgrade to the Big Y-700 test, we would assuredly receive a much more refined, granular, and closer haplogroup, probably originating in the sons of Philippe Mius d’Entremont. If you’re a Mius male, please consider upgrading!

Our Mius male has mutations known as private variants just waiting for another man with those mutations to take the Big Y-700 test and match. When they match, a new haplogroup is named and added to the tree. If all Mius men tested, we would probably be able to assign at least high-level lineages by haplogroup.

Testers receive lots of information on their dashboard, including matches to other testers at each level, plus more than a dozen different reports through Discover.

Every Y-DNA tester receives Discover as one of the options on their dashboard. Clicking on Discover opens another menu with lots of options – each one revealing something new about your DNA results. Thank of these as chapters in your book.

Discover can only report on the level of data provided with the test taken. Big Y-700 testers receive MUCH more information than men who take only the 12-111 marker tests.

Let’s review some of the most enlightening information for our Mius line!

Using the Discover Timetree to review haplogroup E-Y260948, we discover that there are two men who have a descendant haplogroup from our Mius haplogroup.

Haplogroup E-FTE73963 split from E-Y260948 sometime between 2700 years ago when our Mius haplogroup was born, and about 1200 CE when the descendant haplogroup E-FTE73963 originated. Today, the ancestors of the two men who have tested and belong to the descendant haplogroup originated in Macedonia.

This means that our Mius ancestor, and the two men with Macedonian ancestors shared an ancestor someplace around 2700 years ago.

This is getting very interesting.

Macedonia is a Balkan country and borders Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Albania and Kosovo.

The Discover Migration Map shows the path out of Africa for haplogroup E-V13, a parent haplogroup of our Mius haplogroup, E-Y260948. Those men migrated through Turkey, probably crossing from Asia to Europe at Istanbul, then moving across the Balkans. This map shows the general migration path for haplogroup E-V13. The circle indicates where E-V13 was located about 5200 years ago when that mutation first emerged.

The map reflects the genetically constructed haplotree which is informed by EKA (earliest known ancestor) locations of testers, Ancient Connections of sufficient quality, along with the least cost migration path from point to point. “Least cost” means that migrating people would select a protected valley with a water source over crossing dangerous high mountains.

The little brown trowels mark the locations of Ancient Connections which are archaeological excavations of burials. We’ll get to those in a minute.

Another tool, Globetrekker™, provides more granular pathways for ancestors more recently than E-V13 but prior to migration to the Americas.

The Mius lineage split 10 times between when E-V13 emerged in the Balkans, 5200 years ago, and 2700 years ago when E-Y260948 is found in or near the southern border of Germany.

But the Mius line was from France – you might ask what are they doing in Germany. Good question. The software can only work with the information it has.

Remember that today there are only three men who have taken the Big Y-700 test and carry the mutation for E-Y260948, and two of them are in a downstream haplogroup found in Macedonia. The third, our Mius family representative, shows his earliest known Ancestor in Canada – so the only locations that Globetrekker™ has to work with for E-Y260948 with are the locations of its parent haplogroup E-Y3183, and Macedonia. France doesn’t even enter into the picture, although it clearly should. If multiple Mius men took the Big Y-700 test and entered France as their EKA location, that would modify the location of E-Y260948 in Globetrekker™. Not to mention that we would likely receive a closer Mius-specific haplogroup.

According to Globetrekker™, our Mius ancestor, two haplogroups earlier, crossed over the mountainous border between Italy, Austria and Germany sometime around 3500 years ago. As you can see, those three haplogroups are closely clustered in that region.

This is an important intersection, because as we will see, not everyone went in the same direction. Some clearly went on to France, some to eastern Europe, some to Macedonia, and some turned left and found themselves in Italy.

Between 2700 years ago, maybe in southern Germany, and 425 years ago in Saint-Martin-aux-Buneaux, the Mius family line made their way from the border region between Italy, Austria, and Germany to the cliffs of Normandy.

Is there anything in Discover’s Ancient Connections that might be enlightening?

Ancient Connections

Ancient Connections, which displays the results of burials from archaeological excavations, is one of my favorite features of Discover. I wrote about using Ancient Connections for genealogy in the article, Ancient Connections: Where Archaeology Meets Your Ancestors.

We may not know where our ancestors were at a specific point in time, but we absolutely know when and where these people died and were buried.

There’s always an untold story just waiting for us – before surnames were adopted and written records became available. The record we are reading now is genetic.

With the free version of Discover or if you have not taken the Big-Y test, you can view about 10 Ancient Connections for the haplogroup you enter.

When clicking through from Big Y-700 results to Discover, you’ll see the closest 30 or so Ancient Connection matches, with the closest being shown first, plus the most ancient match in the database shown last.

I encourage everyone to read each of the academic papers listed under “Reference” for each Ancient Connections sample to learn more about the culture and grave goods of each excavation.

As you receive closer matches, your more distant matches roll off your Ancient Connections match list.

I created a table few weeks ago, but several new matches have since been added, while an equal number of more distant matches fell off the end. Note that the samples styled as I###### are from the massive Ikbar paper that includes just under 16,000 ancient genomes from West Eurasia, Europe, and the Middle East, and stands to double the number of Ancient Connections. FamilyTreeDNA is processing this information as rapidly as possible. Some of the information about the burials is still embargoed by the authors.

One of the reasons I maintain a table is so that I don’t lose track of the information as new samples are added.

Location Their Haplogroup Age/Culture Shared Haplogroup Haplogroup Age/ Birth Location
Rathewitz, Burgenlandkreis, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany E-A7136 500 CE – Thurnigan culture E-Y3183 3450 years ago. Probably in Germany
I465561 (no further information yet) E-Y3183 E-Y3183 3450 years ago. Probably in Germany
Altheim 157, Altheim, Biberach, Baden-Württemberg, Germany E-BY152516 400-800 CE, Medieval German culture E-Y3183 3450 years ago. Probably in Germany
Rákóczifalva–Bagi, Szolnok, Hungary E-BY152516 650 CE – Avar culture E-Y3183 3450 years ago. Probably in Germany
Hajdúnánás, Hajdú-Bihar County, Hungary E-A7136 725 CE – Avar E-Y3183 3450 years ago. Probably in Germany
Csokorgasse 79. Wien-Csokorgasse, Vienna, Austria E-BY5293 600-900 CE Avar E-Y3183 3450 years ago. Probably in Germany
Rákóczifalva–Bagi, Szolnok, Hungary E-BY40534 800 CE – Avar E-Y3183 3450 years ago. Probably in Germany
I37963 (no further information yet) E-Y3183 c 850 CE E-Y3183 3450 years ago. Probably in Germany
I37965 (no further information yet) E-Y3183 c 850 CE E-Y3183 3450 years ago. Probably in Germany
I38363 (no further information yet) E-Y3183 c 1000 CE E-Y3183 3450 years ago. Probably in Germany
Śródka, Poznań, Greater Poland, Poland E-Y3183 1100 CE – Slavic E-Y3183 3450 years ago. Probably in Germany
Tjærby, Randers, Denmark E-Y3183 1200 CE – Medieval Danish E-Y3183 3450 years ago. Probably in Germany
Korolówka, Ternopil Oblast, Ukraine E-A7136 1250 CE – Old Ruthenian culture E-Y3183 3450 years ago. Probably in Germany
Coimbra 23241, Castelo de Montemor o Velho, Coimbra, Portugal E-Y3183 1550 CE – Historical Portuguese E-Y3183 3450 years ago. Probably in Germany
I41604 (no further information yet) E-BY116895 1750 CE E-Y3183 3450 years ago. Probably in Germany
I43570 (no further information yet) E-Z16659 c150 CE E-Z16659 3500 years ago, Probably in Austria
Gerulata 21935, Gerulata, Bratislava, Slovakia E-BY5499 230 CE – Roman Age Slovakian E-Z16659 3500 years ago, Probably in Austria
I42272 (no further information yet) E-Z16659 c 300 CD E-Z16659 3500 years ago, Probably in Austria
I42273 (no further information yet) E-Z16659 c 300 CD E-Z16659 3500 years ago, Probably in Austria
Masłomęcz, Polesia, Poland E-Z16659 300 CE – Wielbark Culture E-Z16659 3500 years ago, Probably in Austria
Béndekpuszta, Hács, Hungary E-FT109005 475 CE – Gothic E-Z16659 3500 years ago, Probably in Austria
Crypta Balbi, Rome, Italy E-Z38770 500 CE – Roman E-Z16659 3500 years ago, Probably in Austria
Kettőshatár I, Kiskundorozsma, Hungary (3 samples) E-B Y193951 675 CE – Middle Avar E-Z16659 3500 years ago, Probably in Austria
Wien-Csokorgasse, Vienna, Austria E-L241 750 CE – Avar E-Z16659 3500 years ago, Probably in Austria
Rákóczifalva–Bagi, Szolnok, Hungary E-MF657677 750 CE – Avar E-Z16659 3500 years ago, Probably in Austria
Székkutas 70, Kápolnadűlő, Székkutas, Hungary E-BY5617 775 CE – Late Avar E-Z16659 3500 years ago, Probably in Austria
Líbivá, Břeclav district, Southern Moravian region, Czech Republic E-MF657677 725 CE – Medieval Moravian E-Z16659 3500 years ago, Probably in Austria
Cifer-Pac, Trnava, Slovakia (2 samples) E-BY199965 875 CE – Slav Avars E-Z16659 3500 years ago, Probably in Austria
Końskie, Świętokrzyskie voivodship, Poland 1100 CE – Slavic E-Z16659 3500 years ago, Probably in Austria
Groenmarkt-2, Sint-Truiden, Limburg, Belgium (Flanders) 1325 CE – Flemish cultural group – died from Black Death E-Z16659 3500 years ago, Probably in Austria

To help organize this information meaningfully and understand what these samples and haplogroups mean to our research, I created a descendancy spreadsheet using the Ancestral Path and Ancient Connections.

The Ancestral Path in Discover shows the genetic path from the tester’s haplogroup directly up the tree.

Many of the Ancient Connections belong to branches off of our upstream haplogroups, not terminating with those haplogroups themselves. That’s fine, but it’s an important distinction because those individuals found on branches cannot be our ancestors.

Haplogroup E-Y260948, our Mius haplogroup, formed about 700 BCE, or about 2700 years ago and the next upstream haplogroup, E-BY174450 was formed about 3300 years ago.

Before that, E-Y3183 was formed about 3450 years ago, and so forth.

I started with Philippe Mius at the bottom of the spreadsheet, and built my way “up”, meaning back in time. The apricot column is the trunk of the tree, from which branches can form.

The first thing I wanted to know was whether our Mius line could potentially be descended from any of these burials. I wrote about this more broadly in the article, Ancient Connections: Where Archaeology Meets Your Ancestors.

There are always four things to consider:

  1. When the haplogroups were formed
  2. When the people lived, as compared to haplogroup ages. If the burial lived 200 years ago, but my ancestor lived 300 years ago, my ancestor is clearly not descended from the burial.
  3. Location
  4. History

In our spreadsheet, the branched lines with their haplogroups are in blue, so they are our haplo-cousins, and our Mius line cannot descend from them. We can only potentially descend from someone whose haplogroup is found in the apricot trunk column.

The samples in the apricot column have the same haplogroup as our Mius ancestor. However, a new mutation, E-BY174450 formed in the Mius line, so unless these men who are members of E-Y3183, lived BEFORE E-BY174450 was formed about 3300 years ago, then we cannot be directly descended from them either. None of these burials date between 3432 years ago when E-Y3183 was formed, and 3300 years ago when E-BY174450 was formed, so we cannot descend from any of these burials.

However, and this is a BIG HOWEVER, that does not mean that all is lost, because the cumulative information in these ancient burials carries a story, especially when viewed together.

History is our friend.

History

Let’s look at the history of the region and the burials.

Rome conquered Gaul, which was comprised mostly of Celtic tribes at that time, about 2000 years ago, establishing their capital at Rouen in what is now France. The Romans killed one third of the population and enslaved another third, leaving only about one third of the families in their homes and not displaced. The enslaved people served individual Roman soldiers and worked on the Roman villas and estates, providing essential services, sometimes alongside free peasants and tenants. Roman villas and fortifications were found in upper Normandy, along the coast, where trade once occurred with England.

Late in the fourth century, Roman power waned. In 486, the Franks consolidated power after battling throughout what would become Normandy with Saxons and Germanic tribes. The Franks adopted Roman customs and controlled the land until the Vikings invaded in the 9th century. The Vikings also converted to Christianity, adopting the Frankish language, laws, and many customs, and became Normans.

In 1066, William the Conqueror, Duke of Normandy, invaded England, launching a period of Norman rule that began when William was crowned King of England. English monarchs ruled both England and Normandy until 1204, when Normandy was recaptured from English rule. Normandy was controlled once again by France until the Hundred Years War when hostilities erupted between England and France.

You can see from this history that France, and Normandy in particular, became quite the melting pot.

Viewing the Ancient Connections of the Mius line, in combination with haplogroup E-Y260948, which is of African origin, it becomes clear that our Mius ancestors weren’t Vikings, very probably weren’t Celts, probably not Angles, Saxons, or Danes either.

That leaves the Franks and the Romans.

Working backwards in time by haplogroups:

  • E-BY4877, born about 4400 years ago has two testers from Italy,
  • Moving further back in time to about 5200 years ago with E-V13, we find testers and burials in Italy, Greece, Turkey, Serbia, Croatia, along with the Slavic and eastern European countries, as well as Germany, Austria, and Ukraine.
  • By 9500 years ago, we have a present-day tester from Egypt, with ancient burials in the same locations as before, but by 13,000 years ago, with haplogroup E-Z1919, we begin to see Ancient Connections in Jordan and Sudan.

The further back in time, the fewer burials that are contemporaneous. Most are much more recent.

The majority of the burials the Mius line is related to are Avar, although we do see some identified as Roman, Goths who raided Roman territory, the Weilbark culture associated with the Goths, Slavs who intermixed with the Avars, the Thuringians who were Slavs and overtaken by the Franks, and the Old Ruthenian culture which was Slavic and Baltic.

Based on the history of our haplogroup, and the history of the settlement of the northern-most portion of Normandy, it looks like our ancestor probably either arrived with the Romans who conquered the Gauls, or with the Franks who conquered the Avars and Slavs and took control of future-Normandy from the Romans.

There seem to be four potential ways our ancestors arrived in Normandy. The first two seem more likely than the bottom two:

  1. As Avar slaves to the Franks who displaced the Romans
  2. As a Roman soldier
  3. As conquered Gaulic slaves to the Romans, which is unlikely given that the Gauls were a Celtic tribe
  4. As slaves to the Romans, brought with them from Italy. While the Romans did travel with slaves, some of whom were conscripted into battle, in the case of the Gauls, they simply enslaved them instread of bringing their slaves from Rome.

There seems to be a lot of Avar history in our Ancient Connections, so let’s pull on that thread for a minute.

Avars

Wikipedia tells me that there are two groups of Avars. One group is a mountainous ethnic group that currently resides in the North Caucasus, between the Black and Caspian seas.

That doesn’t seem to fit, so let’s look at the other Avar group.

The historic Pannonian Avars are defined as an alliance of several groups of Eurasian nomads of various origins, spanning the Pannonian Basin and parts of Central and Eastern Europe. Yep, that’s the right group.

The Avars are first found on the Pontic-Caspian Steppe as a group of people who were trying to escape the rule of the Göktürks and greatly influenced the Slavic migrations to the Balkans.

By Wario2 – Own workOmeljan Pritsak The Slavs and the Avars. The victorious refugees established themselves in the Northern Caucasus, near the Byzantine holdings in the Crimea. In 558, through the good services of the Alan ruler, they established relations with the Byzantines and soon were granted the status of foederati on Byzantine territory in Scythia Minor, that is, Dobrudja, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=124091844

The Avars were a nomadic Central Asian Turkic Steppe tribe of warrior horsemen who controlled the Danube and Carpathian Basin, primarily in modern-day Bavaria, Hungary and Austria.

In both the maps above and below, please note the proximity of the regions where our haplogroups were found, near the border of Italy, Austria and Germany.

By Ramsey Muir – Muir’s Historical Atlas–Mediaeval and Modern ( London, 1911), Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=17019845

The Franks appeared in Central Europe during the 3rd to 5th centuries. They joined ranks with the Romans to defeat Atilla the Hun in 451, then settled in Normandy after the Romans had abdicated power in 486. The Franks then conquered the Avars between 788 and 803 CE. The Avars converted to Christianity and were assimilated into the Frankish kingdom as vassals, generally in the Southeast part of France where the Avars lived when it was their territory.

The Romans

It’s worth considering that our ancestor may have arrived with the Romans, either as a soldier or as a slave, although arriving as a slave is probably less likely. Romans simply enslaved the Gauls, who had not assimilated the Avars or Slavs, as they had not yet moved that far east.

A more likely possibility is that our ancestor was a Roman soldier. In the early history of the journey of the Slavs, and with them some branches of haplogroup E, across Asia, Eurasia, and Europe, it’s clear that some Avars and Slavs settled in Italy. At that time, Rome was the largest urban center of the ancient world and controlled territory on three continents spanning the Mediterranean shores – including Italy and Istanbul, which was then Constantinople. Rome traded extensively with North Africa, so finding haplogroup E is not uncommon among Italians.

There is one burial found in a crypt in the center of ancient Rome, dating from 500 CE, which is after Rome conquered Gaul. This burial could have been from a descendant someone brought back to Rome from what would eventually be Normandy. Or it could have been a descendant of a man who turned left and went to Italy when his cousins turned right and continued on into Europe.

Hopefully future burials and testers will clarify the migration path of our Mius ancestors.

Whether Roman or Avar, it appears that our ancestors were probably in bondage one way or another in Medieval France, if not before.

Regardless of how they arrived, they stayed. In Medieval France, control of peasants was baked into the land, and when we find the Mius men in 1702 in Theuviille-aux-Maillots, they were not bourgeois or lesser nobility.

The Roman and Frankish system of slavery gradually transitioned into serfdom, then into feudal estates. The serf was literally owned with the land and could do nothing, including marry, without their owner’s permission. They were sold with the land.

Serfdom was abolished in 1315, but feudal society continued.

In the somewhat less restrictive feudal society, choices and movements were still controlled by the landowner, but not to the same degree. Labor was exchanged for protection. The seigneur of the manor still controlled the peasants and workers who lived on their land, dispensed justice, and ruled over their mini-kingdom, small though it may have been.

The Avar history is tightly interwoven with Eastern European peoples, but it is impossible without additional information to sort this out further. As more burials are discovered, and more men test, we’ll be able to refine our knowledge.

The Mius Line

Our Philippe Mius unquestionably arrived in Acadia from France, and two contemporaneous sources tell us that he was from Normandy. This information combined with Y-DNA test results and Norman history tells us a lot about how and when his ancestor likely arrived in France. It also eliminates several possibilities.

  • He’s not Jewish.
  • He’s not Anglo or Saxon.
  • He’s not Viking.

He’s most likely:

  1. A Roman soldier, or a slave brought with a Roman soldier from Italy
  2. Frankish via the conquered Avars

A lesser possibility is that he was a Roman slave taken in Gaul, but that’s significantly less likely because the Gauls were Celtic, not Slavic. 

Thanks to our Big Y-700 tester and the anonymous French Mius man who tested all those years ago, we know that Philippe Mius and the men who lived in Theuville-aux-Maillots and Saint-Martin-aux-Buneaux on the Norman coast shared ancestors sometime since the adoption of surnames, which probably occurred in the 1300s or 1400s, during the time of feudalism.

The Norman tester’s ancestors didn’t move far, only from field to field, about 5 miles in hundreds of years – and their descendants continue to farm the same fields just above the cliffs.

Philippe Mius boarded a ship and sailed for Acadia in 1651. It would take another 360+ years to reunite the two lines of the Mius family, thanks to Y-DNA testing.

In the greatest of ironies, in far distant Acadia, in 1653, Philippe Mius d’Entremont became a seigneur himself, owning and controlling the land of the people who farmed and lived in and around Pobomcoup, today’s Pubnico. In 1671, the census shows us that there was no one living there except his wife and children, but by the mid-1750s, when the Acadians were expelled by the English, his seigneury had expanded to include about 300 people, most of whom were his descendants.

Beautiful Normandy

Cousin Mark did a deep dive at Filae for us, slogging through myriad unsourced trees and other information, first focused on Theuville-aux-Maillots and Saint-Martin-aux-Buneaux. He then expanded to other regions along the Norman coast, then expanded again to anything within 200 km. After slogging through more than 660 trees looking for actual sources, he was able to confirm that there were Mius families along the Norman coast in the Seine-Maritime department in the early and later 1700s. One 1745 burial was from as far north as Steenwerck in French Flanders.

He was not able to reassemble families, and of course, we don’t know if all of those people were part of the same Mius family. Some unsourced trees did reach back into the mid-1600s.

Mark mentioned that Filae includes very few original records from the 1600s, depending instead on local genealogical societies to transcribe parish records and post them in large, reassembled trees. Unfortunately, that has not happened with the Norman records we need, but hope springs eternal.

Thanks to Philippe Mius’s descendants’ Y-DNA matches, we know that our Mius family lived in Theuville-aux-Maillots in the early 1700s and very probably neighboring Saint-Martin-aux-Buneaux in the early 1600s. We also know that moving from place to place was difficult, if not impossible, and that our shared ancestor lived sometime after surnames were adopted in Normandy. This narrows that timeframe to 1300-1400 CE, 200 or 300 years prior to the early 1600s when Philippe was born.

We also know that the Mius family still resides just above the Norman coastline, farming those ancient fields, within easy walking distance of Saint-Martin-aux-Buneaux.

There’s no question that we belong here, in beautiful Normandy!

As fate would have it, Mark traveled in that region a few years ago and was kind enough to share his stunning photos of the cliffs along the Norman coast. I’d like to thank Mark for his research and photos.

Please let these photos transport you back in time as you think about the lives of our ancestors as they established their homes here.

Courtesy of Cousin Mark

Saint-Valery, Varengeville-sur-Mer

Courtesy of Cousin Mark

Veules-les-Roses

Courtesy of Cousin Mark

Varengeville sur-Mer

Courtesy of Cousin Mark

Pourville sur-Mer

_____________________________________________________________

Share the Love!

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

Subscribe!

If you haven’t already subscribed, it’s free. You’ll receive an e-mail whenever I publish by clicking the “follow” button at the top of the main blog page, here.

Help Keep This Blog Free

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

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Uploads

Genealogy Products and Services

My Books

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research