Guillaume Trahan (c1601-c1684), More Than Meets the Eye – 52 Ancestor #452

Guillaume, oh Guillaume! Wherefore art thou, Guillaume? Or more to the point, where were you born, where did you grow up, where the heck did you live – and what about that forest thing? What was going on there?

Let’s begin by summarizing what we know about Guillaume Trahan’s life in France, and then we’ll discuss what we think, or think we know. And what we don’t know. That list is a little longer.

  • We know that Guillaume Trahan wed Francoise Corbineau in Chinon, on July 13, 1627. We have those original records, and that’s fact.
  • Guillaume’s marriage record provides the names of his parents as Nicolas Trahan and Renee Desloges. That’s fact too.

  • We know that on April 1, 1636, Guillaume, his wife, and two children set sail from La Rochelle on Charles Menou d’Aulnay’s ship, the Saint-Jehan, for Acadia. The roster, held in the archives at La Rochelle, is somewhat confusing, but he’s listed after six other men and his servant as being from Bourgueil. The following six were from Chinon. Guillaume was listed as an “officer of the cavalry.” That’s all fact.

But where was Guilluame Trahan from?

It Takes a Village or Maybe a Small Army

Apparently it takes a small army, because that’s who has provided the necessary puzzle pieces.

Before I go any further, let me thank several people. Unknown and unnamed contributors at WikiTree, especially the one who included a link to Guillaume’s marriage record in Chinon, contributors at WeRelate, historian Genevieve Massignon (1921-1986 to whom I’ve been indebted over and over for her research, Karen Theroit reader’s wonderful notes in her tree, Lucie LeBlanc Consentino’s website, my friend Maree from down under who located and fed me several resources, and Stephen White who included at least some information in his book.

It’s important to note that with actual records, it’s possible to correct earlier postings or information that was either incomplete or in error. We are all humans. It happens.

A very special thank you needs to go to my Cousin Mark who so generously ran MANY hints to ground and surfaced the actual parish documents in Montreuil-Bellay, Bourgueil, and elsewhere.

If I’m on a wild goose chase, Mark is the wild goose herder – and Heaven knows I needed one. He’s probably infinitely tired of hearing me say, “I’m confused,” and providing him with conflicting information that can only be resolved in records held in French archives that I can’t find, navigate, or read.

Not all of the information from various sources is or was accurate. To begin with, I was searching for specific source references because that’s where to start. In one case, two reliable sources provided conflicting information, one citing the other. It’s no wonder I was confused. I’m glad I didn’t take either at face value and incredibly grateful that Mark was able to sort it out – and this isn’t even his family line

Early records, when they exist, are challenging in multiple ways, and there’s so much erroneous information out there.

As genealogists, it’s our obligation to seek records, verify everything, then make sure the narrative really fits the rest of the story and makes sense. Yes, it’s exhausting, BUT THEN THERE’S THAT NEW DISCOVERY! And we’re ready to stay up all night all over again!

Here’s another discrepancy we had to sift through. Guillaume Trahan clearly was not born in 1611, then married at age 16 in 1627, and certainly not as an officer in the military. At age 16, neither thing happened, let alone both. Let’s get on with the rest of our story, now that I’m pretty sure we know where Guillaume was born.

And thank you, Cousin Mark, for helping to preserve what smidgen is left of my sanity!

Acadian Players Map

Speaking of villages, each of these locations play a vital role in the Trahan and wider Acadian history.

  • Charles Menou d’Aulnay’s mother, Nicole Jousserand held the seigneury in Martaize.
  • Both Aulnay and La Chaussee were just a couple of miles, if that, from Martaize, where many Acadian families originated.
  • Montreuil-Bellay was where Guillaume Trahan’s parents lived.
  • Chinon is where Guillaume was married and some Saint-Jehan passengers were from..
  • Richelieu is the town Cardinal Richelieu built after pilfering some of the stone from Chinon’s castle, which he controlled.
  • Bourgueil is the location of the Acadian Pierre Martin family, and also where some passengers on the 1636 Saint-Jehan hailed from. It’s also were Guillaume’s brother lived, and where Guillaume witnessed several events.
  • The Razilly family estate is located about 10 miles north of Loudun. Isaac de Razilly founded La Hève in 1632 at the behest of Cardinal Richelieu, his cousin. Charles d’Aulnay was Razilly’s cousin, too, as well as his right-hand man in Acadia.

Razilly’s father, Francois (1545-1600), was the Governor of Loudun, and his grandfather, Gabriel, probably born about 1520 and died in 1579, was the Governor of Chinon, so this entire area was very interconnected and intertwined.

Loudun

The beautiful medieval city of Loudun, with its hills, churches, towers, and ancient carved walls, functioned as the heart of this region. But beneath the surface, a darker history lingers, weighted in heavy silence – long buried but not entirely forgotten.

In 1632, plague struck the city, followed by allegations that demons had possessed several nuns in the local convent.

That spawned, for lack of a better word, witchcraft hysteria, including public exorcisms, torture, and burning a priest, Urbain Grandier, at the stake in August of 1634.

Grandier was quite popular with his parishioners but did not support Cardinal Richelieu’s policies and favored retaining the town’s wall, which Richelieu opposed. Considered a handsome man, there was also gossip about Grandier having fathered a child.

Many believed that this entire episode, known as the Loudun Possessions, was spurred by political rivalry and jealousy, and that Cardinal Richelieu was heavily involved.

Guillaume Trahan would have known about this. Everyone knew about this for miles in every direction. And the message was unequivocal in the end. Do NOT mess around with Cardinal Richelieu. He’s a powerful, dangerous man. You’ll see why this matters in Guillaume’s story later. Just tuck it away for now.

You’d never guess any of its sordid past by walking through Loudun today, although the ivy-covered walls of the Crossroads of the Sorcerers remain for those who know where to look.

Secrets still carved into knowing stones that witnessed it all.

I just happened to be passing by this house wall when I realized that it held numerous interesting carvings. Zoom in. There are several stars, one that might be masonic, some that look like roman numerals, horseshoes perhaps, plus a clear date of 1666 with a man.

I desperately want to understand this history and the message, or messages, that the drawings were meant to convey.

Who carved them?

When?

And why?

Was it simply medieval graffiti, or something more?

I wonder how many other carvings are secreted in the alleys and byways, their stories lost to time as the ancient walls, patched up with mortar, blending with the new.

Me, touching the stones, wearing my mother’s ring from the Acadian side of the family, trying to absorb whatever history those stones on the side of this medieval house have to tell.

Loudun was also the location of the first newspaper, or “gazette,” in France, published by Theophraste Renaudot, who is honored by a statue in the center of town, and financed by Cardinal Richelieu.

On July 16, 1632, Renaudot’s article reported:

The sorrow that there is to solve the difficulties which are in the large companies made differ two months, and opiniatreté of the wind of downstream two other months later than I had not told you the loading for the Company of New France. But finally the loaded vessel from La Rochelle arrived to join two others from Morbihan that Commander de Razilly having the commission of the King to control in the extent of the country in the absence of the Cardinal Duke de Richelieu, brought there at the beginning of this month, charged with all things and three hundred elite men. It carries the assent of the King of Great Britain to remove the Scots out of Port Royal and take of it possession in the name of the Company, which sends to it three Capuchins for the conversion of the people of Acadie, in addition to five Jesuits that it already sent in the other dwellings of Cap Breton, the Gulf and the St. Lawrence River. The embarkment of this noble force returning there illustrates the beginning of colony which will make an easy passage to all the French, for the honor of their nation and their peace, that it will be from now on easy for them to comply with the King, that the great businesses of its kingdom do not prevent it from going across the seas the concepts to increase the Catholic faith, by a procedure quite distant from that which was practiced until now in the discovery of the Indies, where one was satisfied with spoils and to captivate the people.

And with that, Acadia as we know it, was born.

Montreuil-Bellay

Cousin Mark followed Karen Reader’s citation and found Genevieve Massignon’s article for me, in “Les Trahan d’Acadie,” in Cahier de la Society Historique Acadienne; no. 4 (1964); p. 16, which I had translated.

From Cousin Mark:

I can see why Massignon references the records of parish Saint-Pierre at Montreuil-Bellay as “anciens mais incomplets,” ancient but incomplete.

Attached is the screenshot from the Maine-et-Loire Archives showing what records are available. They date back to the early 1580s, but there is indeed a gap, about page 62, where there are none between October 1588 and 1602, and where the size of the record book changes. Obviously, there is one or more missing books. And thus, it is likely that Guillaume’s baptism is from the missing books.

Mark located the unindexed baptisms of Guillaume’s sisters, Renee born in 1612 and Lucrece in 1614, by searching page by page through the mixed Latin and old French records, trying to decipher 400-year-old script. (Bless his patient heart!)

French men typically married when they were between 25 and 30, so about 30ish.

Given that Guillaume Trahan married in 1627, a birth year between 1597-1602 is reasonable. “About 1601” has been used by others, so I’ll certainly not quibble about that. Based on the record availability, we know his birth was probably after October 1588 and before 1602. He could have been born substantially earlier than 1601, but probably not much before 1590 given his mother’s age when his youngest sister was born.

Thanks to other researchers, we know that Guillaume’s parents, Nicolas Trahan and Renee Desloges, baptized children in the now-defunct church of Saint-Pierre in Montreuil-Bellay, then located in Anjou, but now in Maine-et-Loire, in France.

  • Guillaume Trahan, born when records no longer exist, between 1588 and 1602.
  • Daughter Anne Trahan was baptized on February 4, 1605. (Event by Massignon, date by White, original record unable to be confirmed by Mark after reading all records from December 1604-March 1605.) Massignon reports that she married Pierre Molay and they baptized four children between 1624 and 1633.
  • Son Nicolas was reportedly born about 1608 and married Lorande Billiard around 1633, but I have not seen records or sources other than “church record” for either event. Massignon reports the baptism of their child in 1633.
  • Son Francois Trahan was born somewhere in this timeframe. His engagement contract was dated the 14th Sunday of Pentecost in 1621 (in Montreuil-Bellay, according to White), and he married on the 14th Sunday after Pentecost in 1632 in Bourgueil, (according to Massignon, confirmed by Mark). Engagement contracts often occurred between ages 8 and 12, or sometimes older. The minimum age for both children was 7. So, Francois was born in 1610 or before, based on the other children’s births.
  • Daughter Renee Trahan was baptized on February 28, 1612 (confirmed by Mark).
  • Daughter Lucrece Trahan was born on November 14, 1614 (confirmed by Mark).

Guillaume’s parents were probably married in the same place, or at least nearby. In a feudal society, people were generally restricted to living within the domain or seigneury of the feudal Lord.

While we will probably never know exactly, it’s nearly certain that Guillaume was born in Montreuil-Bellay where his siblings were born.

Furthermore, per Massignon, who very clearly viewed the original records in person:

A second branch [in Montreuil-Bellay], likely related, includes Anthoyne Trahan and Barbe Barault, with three children baptized between 1610 and 1616.

I’d wager this was a brother of our Nicolas Trahan, or maybe a cousin.

The Trahan family was very clearly active in the Saint-Pierre Parish church, adjacent the Prieure des Nobis, tucked just beneath the castle.

The great irony is that I visited this location, quite by accident, a roadside stop at a beautiful castle along the Thouet River, completely unaware. We knew that the Trahan family was from “someplace near here” because the Trahan winery, our destination, was a few miles on down the road – assuming it’s the same Trahan family. (A Y-DNA test would answer this question.)

Montreuil-Bellay is a historic French town surrounding a fairytale-like castle, so it was the perfect and logical place to stop for a quick walk and travel break.

I had no idea how close I was, literally feet from where Guillaume was baptized and where he lived. As I walked through the ancient village, I trod the same streets and cobblestones as Guillaume, his brothers and sisters, and his parents before him.

Who knows how long the Trahan family had inhabited this location and this region? For all we know, they may have lived here before the castle and the churches were built. People didn’t tend to move far. Their ancestors may have labored to construct the holy structures in which their descendants worshipped.

Montreuil-Bellay began as a Gallo-Roman fortified town built on the hill beside the Thouet River. Around the year 1000, Foulques Nerra, Count of Anjou, known as the Black Falcon, built a citadel on the foundation of the Roman village. What would become Montreuil-Bellay was an impregnable fortress on the front lines of the battles between England and France, eventually falling to the Plantagenet family. King Louis VIII held court there in 1224.

Were our ancestors there too?

Montreuil-Bellay was surrounded by immense forests and hosted lavish festivals for hunting and falconry.

The Camino de Santiago

Not only is Montreuil-Bellay significant to the Trahan family, it’s also a pilgrim’s stop on the Camino de Santiago. Pilgrims then and now typically walk the entire distance of the Camino as a spiritual journey, an expression of devotion, or other personal reasons, especially today.

By Manfred Zentgraf, Volkach, Germany – Manfred Zentgraf, Volkach, Germany, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=748316

Known as the Way of St. James, in English, the Pilgrim’s Path begins from several European starting points, traverses through France, and ultimately ends in the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela in Galicia, Spain, where St. James is supposed to be buried.

Scallop shells serve as waymarkers for the Camino de Santiago, placed were pilgrims can see them to navigate the path, and also on buildings indicating places of shelter. Historically, pilgrims wore shells attached to their clothing, fostering a sense of community. After completing the pilgrimage, pilgrims picked up a scallop shell along the Galician coast, serving as proof of completion of the arduous and hazardous journey.

Pilgrimages to Galicia began in the 800s when Saint James’s bones were discovered, and Montreuil-Bellay is on one of the four major pilgrimage routes. The old l’hopital Saint-Jean, within the castle walls, served as an overnight for pilgrims and probably other travelers.

While I will never finish trekking the entire Way of St. James, I have walked many portions, and didn’t realize until I saw the clamshell markers that I, once again, had found my way or been guided to the Pilgrim’s Path while also a pilgrim on the path of my Acadian heritage. This only seems fitting.

The stylized shell’s rays represent the diverse paths pilgrims take from start to finish, both on the physical path, and in their lives. The sun or convergence of the lines represents the spirit, the universal center of all life forms, and our own sacred path that unfolds into our life journey.

Now, a year later, I discover that my ancestors lived on the St. James Way in Montreuil-Bellay. For all I know, they sheltered pilgrims and listened to their stories, hopes, and dreams as they made their way on the next leg of their great pilgrimage.

And maybe, just maybe, some of them were moved to join the pilgrim’s trek.

Let’s unravel more about the history of Montreuil-Bellay.

History of Saint-Pierre in Montreuil-Bellay – It’s Complicated

The Church of Saint-Pierre in Montreuil-Bellay, also known as the Saint-Pierre-des-Nobis church, lies in ruins today, shown by the red arrow, below.

By Lieven Smits – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=8543404

The L’Église Saint-Pierre should not be confused with the castle chapel, shown in the forefront of the photo, built between 1472 and 1484 by Guillaume d’Harcourt, Lord of Montreuil-Bellay. The castle’s chapel became a collegiate church served by canons and was named the Collégiale Notre-Dame.

While Guillaume and his parents probably visited the castle church from time to time, it was not their home church.

Their church, Saint-Pierre, now in ruins, was located just on the far side of the castle, at the foot of the keep, where the earliest portion of the village was located.

The remains of L’Église Saint-Pierre are located beneath the castle on the river, accessible by descending the Saint-Pierre staircase from the Place du Marché, and was known to exist here in the 10th century.

I can just see young Guillaume taking these steps two at a time, running on his way to church, or perhaps on his way back if his mother made him walk and stay clean on the way “to” church.

A priory entrusted to the monks of the Saint-Nicolas d’Angers Abbey was established between 1097 and 1103, and church reconstruction was completed around 1140-1150. The ruins of the choir include a group of capitals from this period.

During the Hundred Years’ War (1337-1453), the castle was captured by the English and used as a military stronghold, but the French took it back again in 1443.

Probably related to that war, part of Saint-Pierre collapsed, leading to the restoration and construction of the north aisle. After being rebuilt, the church was reconsecrated on January 31, 1485, as both the parish and priory church – an event that must have been joyfully celebrated by all the townspeople.

In the 1500s, the castle was rebuilt in the style of the Renaissance and became the residence of French nobility.

Saint-Pierre was just over a century old and still in full use in the early 1600s when Guillaume was baptized there. The church later declined, especially during the French Revolution.

In 1850, when the nave was destroyed, parish worship was transferred to the castle chapel. The church of Saint-Pierre was entirely abandoned and has continued to deteriorate. What was once the church floor is now carpeted with grass inside the ruins.

Descending the Saint-Pierre staircase from the upper portion of the town, you can see the roof of the Maurist Benedictine Priory, known as the Nobis, hidden somewhat behind the ruins of the Church of Saint-Pierre. You’ll find beautiful photos and even a video, here.

The walls of the choir, the transept, and the north wall of the side aisle still stand. Romanesque sculptures and painted walls are tucked within, hailing from the past.

The road along the church runs behind the castle, past the castle church along the Thouet River to the medieval mill.

The castle church, towering over the mill, would have been reserved for the nobility and aristocrats, and Saint-Pierre, the neighborhood church, served the townspeople.

Rumors exist about tunnels between the castle, the former priory, and Saint Pierre, but as far as I know, they are just rumors. Tunnels might have been as much for escape from the castle during a siege as protection for clerics inside the castle. Tunnels do exist within the castle complex, but their paths and full extent remain mysteries. Some may have collapsed, but others can be toured.

Saint-Pierre has never revealed all of her secrets, including the location of the medieval cemetery. Normally, it would be located beside the church, so it must be very close.

I’ve been eyeing a greenspace behind the church ruins and nobis suspiciously, but it would take cadastral maps between then and now to see if houses at one time occupied that greenspace, or if it could be the cemetery.

We don’t know how large Montreuil-Bellay was, but in the 14th century, when the Hundred Years’ War began (1337), the population was starving and took refuge in the castle mote and the neighboring monastery.

The Castle on the Hill

Guillaume Trahan grew up in Montreuil-Bellay in the shadow of the castle on the hill.

The castle dominated the landscape from near and far.

Tradesmen lived in the village, and vineyards surrounded the castle along the fertile river valley.

Thanks to Mark, we know that the church records before the early 1580s no longer exist, and the records after that are substantially incomplete, at least through 1602.

However, we also know that Guillaume’s siblings were baptized in 1605, 1612 and 1614, and additional records for Guillaume’s siblings are found in the 1620s and 1630s, after Guillaume had already departed for Acadia.

Let’s take a walk through the village.

The old and new are woven seamlessly in Montreuil-Bellay.

The Wisteria was in full bloom, climbing ancient walls in narrow streets.

Stepping out from the medieval streets into the plaza reveals the castle unexpectedly.

The Montreuil-Bellay castle is breathtaking, as in catch-your-breath-in-your-throat breathtaking. I can only imagine how impressive it was in the 1500s and 1600s when we know our ancestors lived here.

I involuntarily drew in my breath sharply – as if I had inadvertently stepped back in time into a Disney fairy tale.

The bridge across the mote was constructed in the 1800s to allow the townspeople to worship in the chapel after Saint-Pierre was abandoned. The castle stood to the left.

The church stood straight ahead – but our ancestors probably never worshipped here.

A passage in the wall to the left beckoned, but the gates were closed.

Was there a gate here when Guillaume frequented these streets? Was the castle gate closed to the Trahan ancestors, or did they freely come and go, providing some type of service to the nobility?

While Guillaume’s siblings were being married and living in Montreuil-Bellay, Guillaume had moved on, in one way or another, to Chinon.

Chinon

How did Guillaume manage to leave Montreuil-Bellay and find himself in Chinon?

This 1649 map shows both locations, about 21 miles apart.

We know, unquestionably, that Guillaume was in Chinon on July 13, 1627, when he married Francoise Corbineau, in the beautiful Saint-Etienne church. This assuredly would have been where the bride lived, but if Guillaume wasn’t living there, how did he meet and come to know Francoise?

Between ChatGPT and Cousin Mark, we finally obtained a reasonable translation of their marriage document.

The 13th day of July 1627 were married Guillaume Trahan, son of Nicolas Trahan and of Renée Desloges (or Deslonges), and Françoise Corbineau, daughter of the late Corbineau and of Françoise Poret, the said Trahan and Corbineau assisted by Pierre Ligné, Pierre Aubry, Suzanne Ligné, daughter of Master Guillaume Ligné, and other witnesses, this I have signed.

Piget, priest

Well, that was one interpretation of this document, but there’s also another, posted by Karen Theriot Reader, that Cousin Mark reviewed painstakingly, and seems to be more likely the case.

I am leaving this original version here, just in case – in part because some people may have used it, and I don’t believe in just “disappearing” something without stating why it was changed.

The 13th of July 1627 was married Guillaume Trahan, son of Nicolas Trahan and Renée Deslonges with Françoise Corbineau, of this parish St. Etienne. Present Nicolas Trahan, father of G. Trahan, Pierre Ligier, Pierre Baudry, dame Anne Ligier, wife of M. Gilloire, attest, and declare they do not sign.

ChatGPT and Transcribus gave me multiple different translations of the names involved, which made the situation even more confusing. Hint – don’t use AI for documents you can’t verify.

Acadian researcher and now-deceased historian Stephen White stated that Francoise’s parents were not named, so I weigh that heavily as well.

Given that Guillaume was later noted to be both a toolmaker and a Captain in the military, he may have been in Chinon on business or errands related to his occupation when he met the lovely Francoise. He may also have been an apprentice.

It’s unlikely that the couple moved away from where she lived, although it’s possible.

They traditionally would have married in the bride’s church and would have lived nearby in the parish – probably within a block or two, at least at first.

Many of Chinon’s medieval homes still stand and are residences and businesses –  and sometimes both, with families living above their shops – probably a lot like 400 years ago.

Between their marriage and the departure of the Saint-Jehan on April 1, 1636, from LaRochelle, Guillaume and Francoise probably had at least five children, given that they were married for 9 years, but only two survived, one of whom was Jeanne Trahan, born about 1629.

Where was Guillaume between 1627 and 1636, and why did he decide to leave with his young family for New France – L’Acadie?

Bourgueil, It Appears

Guillaume was in Bourgeuil, but we don’t know if he lived in Bourgeuil, or nearby, or visited often. We do, however, have hints – and a mystery.

In this 1699 drawing, you can see the Saint Germain church, at far right, the village, and the Abbey at left, with the Loire river on the horizon above the town.

In April 2024, I visited Bourgueil while on an Acadian tour. While I appreciated the history, I really didn’t think this stop pertained to me.

I was dead wrong.

The local volunteers from the Saint Germain church greeted us warmly. Claude Boudrot, one of othe tour operators (and owner) is at left.

Sales of and donations towards these black slates are being used to raise money for desperately needed repairs to the roof of this ancient church, parts of which are over 900 years old. These are the actual slate pieces that will be used.

At the time of the visit, I had absolutely no idea that one of my ancestors had walked and worshipped here. But that has all changed now.

Let’s get some help from a historian

Excerpts taken from the book by R. Ranjard: “La Touraine archéologique” (1975) and modified slightly, photography mine:

Bourgueil like Chinon was located on the Roman road between Tours and Angers and dates to at least 977. Later, Bourgueil became a domain of the Count of Anjou, due to the château at Chinon. The town was destroyed and rebuilt several times and suffered greatly during the wars between 1482 and 1586.

The parish church, dedicated to Saint Germain was consecrated in 1115 and cited in a papal bull by Pope Innocent III in 1208.

The front door of the church opens into the center marketplace of the old town. Directly across from the church stands a winery, now occupying one of the town’s historic buildings that probably stood when Guillaume walked there.

The western portion, with its latticework construction, is visible from the outside and stands out from the rest of the church, which has been more frequently modified.

Gargoyles grace the front and a pump and watering trough stand on cobblestones beside the entrance.

They would have been here when Guillaume graced these doors.

Life-sustaining water for both man and beast.

The structure is composed of three naves forming a single main nave. The outer walls bear heavy buttresses.

The choir, in line with the central nave but set slightly off-axis, is a fine example of late 12th-century Angevin style. Built on a square plan, it consists of three bays, each with three vault compartments.

The ribbed vaults are supported by crossed ogives (ribs) and tiercerons (intermediate ribs). Four elegant columns, with foliated capitals, support the inward-falling arches.

The keystones of the vaults are especially elaborate and richly decorated with figures, allegorical characters, and scenes from the Holy Scriptures.

The stained-glass windows in the chevet (east end of the choir) beautifully color the choir. The windows of the apse are topped by pointed arches.

The bell tower rises to the north, flanked by a stair turret topped with a small dome shaped like turtle scales. The upper floor was converted into a prison, as noted by local tradition. On the second floor, four squinches support four small vaults, the remnants of an earlier structure [that probably supported a dome]. The floor below contains the bells and was rebuilt in 1888. The octagonal spire, capped with a crown of small triangular openings, is characteristic of 12th-century design. It does not rest on the choir as is often the case, but on a tower. This design is rare and contributes to the distinct silhouette of the church.

As luck would have it, the Bourgueil churchbells rang when I visited. Guillaume would have heard these very bells, but of course, I didn’t realize that then.

In the alley to the right, you can see some of the original foundation stone, plus one of the additions, part of the roof, and a few windows.

Given that we find records of Guilluame and his family in Montreuil-Bellay, Chinon and Bourgueil, he may not have lived in Bourgueil itself.

The nearby countryside blossoms with vineyards and farms.

Scattered farmhouses dot the landscape.

Some more prosperous than others.

The French idea of “old” vastly differs from the US. People live in medieval homes everyplace, and this farmhouse along the road isn’t even “old” yet.

This medieval barn is still in fine shape.

It may be in one of these locations with the ancient farmhouses and barns, church steeple more distant but within walking distance, beckoning like a beacon, that Guillaume Trahan and Francoise Corbineau lived with their children.

Nearly every event in the life of a Catholic is tied to a ritual within the church, in addition to regular church services. Birth, baptism, first communion, marriage, holidays, last rites, and burials.

Wherever Guillaume lived, and whichever church he attended, his faith and religious practices would have been a guiding force.

Services Inside Saint-Germain Church

Pierre Martin, one of Acadia’s founding settlers, and his wife, were married in Saint-Germain church in Bourgueil. It would have been here, at this altar, that Pierre and his beloved took their nuptials that bound them for life.

Text from Massignon, image from Mark:

The parish registers of Saint-Germain de Bourgueil, which survive back to the 15th century, help trace the origins of both Pierre Martin and Guillaume Trahan.

One of the earliest relevant entries is from January 6, 1629 (written as 1630), recording the marriage of Pierre Martin and Catherine Vigneau. Witnesses included François Dubreil, “nobleman” and captain of the Château of Monseigneur de Chartres, who later became godfather to the couple’s first son, Pierre, in 1630.

The elegant and complicated signature of “Guillaume Trahan, marshal” appears, a few lines further along, on these same registers, on April 11, 1632, as a witness to a marriage.

On December 14, 1632, he signed as witness to the betrothal of his brother François Trahan, son of Nicolas Trahan and the late Renée Desloges of Montreuil-Bellay, to Renée Pineau of Bourgueil.

Guillaume witnessed another marriage on October 29, 1635—just months before departing for Acadia.

I think the date was actually September 7th, not December. Massignon’s right, though, that Guillaume’s signature is incredibly beautiful, which tells us that the clergy at Saint-Pierre in Montreuil-Bellay taught him to read and write – and to scribe his name with great flourish, as an artist.

This document also reveals that Guillaume’s mother died sometime between his marriage in July 1627, when she is not noted as deceased, and September 1632, when Francois married, and she is listed as deceased.

Now that we know Guillaume was in Bourgueil, often, even if he didn’t live there the entire time, let’s take a closer look at the Bourgueil that Guillaume, his brother, and fellow Acadian Pierre Martin, knew.

Every Catholic church has chapels tucked away that are dedicated to saints or the Mother Mary. Saint Germain is no different.

Pilgrims, parish members and visitors light candles and offer prayers. My husband is Catholic. I am not. So, our own ritual is always that he lights a candle for both of us.

This simple act of faith is incredibly meaningful and beautiful, bringing me closer to my ancestors by allowing me to share this devotional act.

This giant clamshell, which probably originally functioned as a holy water font, is mounted beneath a sign detailing the history of the church restorations.

Rimmed and mounted in brass today, with the holy water held in the bowl stabilized by pebbles, this massive shell may or may not have been in the church when Guillaume attended.

While the church is not directly on the St. James Way, which is associated with the scallop or clamshell, this shell could certainly be associated with pilgrimage or a prized relic from the Age of Exploration, given that the shells of this size typically originated in Asia and the Pacific.

I really wanted one of those pebbles as a memento, although I didn’t understand why at the time. I wasn’t sure it was appropriate and didn’t see anyone to ask, as we had stepped away from the group into the side chapel, so I left all of the pebbles there.

When I visited Bourgueil, I was unaware of the Trahan connection to that location. Now I recognize the allure of those pebbles.

I may not have “known” about that connection, but I assuredly felt it. I think my ancestors were shepherding me around.

Somehow, I was transported back in time, or maybe into a timeless realm would be a more apt description.

What else happened here, in this ancient church?

Did Guillaume visit because he lived nearby, or were his daughters baptized here?

What about his children who didn’t survive?

Guillaume and Francoise were married for 9 years before setting sail for Acadia with two children. They would have brought forth probably 5, and possibly more.

Are those children buried here?

Were their funerals held here, their mother sobbing her eyes out?

We don’t know where Guillaume’s two surviving children who sailed on the Saint-Jehan to Acadia were born and baptized – nor do we know where the children who were surely born and died are buried.

We know Guillaume was active in this church, so those events would either have taken place here, in Chinon, or in a small church or chapel someplace in between. Perhaps near the woods of Bourgueil.

I followed in Guillaume’s footsteps, treading on stone steps worn smooth by centuries of worshipers, and stepped out into the sunlit plaza. Just like he had.

Was this the final place he prayed before leaving everything behind to set forth for Acadia? What, and how much was he leaving behind? What did the future promise?

Did he ask himself those questions here?

Did he pray for guidance in this holy building?

Perhaps in the chapel where we lit those candles?

Did he turn around and look back, wondering if he was making the right decision?

Maybe he needed a pebble too.

Bourgueil, Chinon and Montreuil-Bellay were not the only churches in the area, as shown by this poster at Bourgueil.

The St. Pierre de Bourgueil Abbey with its beautiful gardens, was only a few blocks from Saint-Germain. This drawing reflects the layout circa 1600, before the fire of 1612, although the entire abbey was not destroyed.

Guillaume would have walked these grounds in reflection, perhaps, or visited to purchase anise, coriander or liquorice cultivated by the monks and especially prized when candied in sugar. The daughters would have loved that!

The front of the Abbey today.

The Abbey is quite large and includes several buildings.

Portions of the oldest part of the Abbey lie in ruins, but some buildings are in use as community resources.

This beautiful wall encloses something, but what?

I desperately wanted to open this door and find out.

And this one too.

Guillaume’s time in Bourgueil is marked by three church records, indicating that he was a Catholic in good standing or he would not have been allowed to sign as a witness. From all appearances, everything seemed to be going well for him.

However, appearances can be deceiving, and that’s not all of the story…

Trouble in the Forest

As it turns out, Guillaume might have gotten in a bit of trouble, or maybe quite a bit.

Massignon reveals a crucial secret:

While leafing through the Report of the Departmental Archives of Indre-et-Loire, in the name of the parish of Bourgueil, I found a record reporting in 1634 “a certain number of inhabitants of Bourgueil.” The list of their names includes those of François Dubreil (friend, as we have seen above, of Pierre Martin) and of Guillaume Trahan.

Now François Dubreil already appears in the List of Fines for feudal dues made by Messire Léonard d’Estampes de Valençay, commendatory abbot of the royal abbey of Saint Pierre de Bourgueil, for a piece of land adjoining that of Nicolas Simon, in October 1618.

The sentence, rendered by the court of Chinon in 1634, cites as plaintiffs “the inhabitants of the parishes of Saint Germain and Saint Nicolas of Bourgueil [church within the Abbey], the joined prosecutor” and “further Messire Leonor d’Estampes,” [Abbott of the Royal Abbey of St. Pierre of Bourgueil], and as defendants, three religious, two squires, a “warden of the forest of Bourgueil,” François Dubreil, Guillaume Trahan, and a few other persons. This sentence orders that “everything which has been undertaken usurped and cleared by the said defendants from the appurtenances and dependencies of the said forest of Bourgueil during forty years in the said conserved land by the proceedings of visitation and surveying and alleged leases for rent, which we declare null and of no effect — shall in the future belong to the body of the said forest of Bourgueil… making express prohibition to the said defendants and all others to in future cut or fell any wood in the said forest, nor change the nature of it on pain of a fine of five hundred livres.”

The sentence then lists the fines incurred by the defendants: “The said Dubreil, in fifty livres of fine for having had the said pieces containing twelve arpents cleared to go there to take the wood which was there in the last forty-eight years and a half, in two hundred livres for half the damages and interest and restitution of the fruits…”

“The said Trahan, in twenty livres of fine and in sixty livres for the value and estimation of a young ox and for the expenses of two arpents which he had torn from the forest and which were found at his house and in forty livres for damages and interest…”

It is observed that this sentence struck as defendants men of various occupations: religious, squires, captain of guards… and simple inhabitants.

The heavy fines may have influenced some of those involved to leave the region. By April 1636, Guillaume Trahan’s name was on the Saint-Jehan passenger list bound for Acadia.

Moreover, Guillaume Trahan was still in Bourgueil the following year (1635), since he appears there as a witness to a marriage; in which disposition of spirit did this “feller of forest” — excessively judged, perhaps — find himself, when emissaries (perhaps Claude de Launay-Razilly himself?) came to him charged with recruiting volunteers to go to Acadia, Chinon and in Bourgueil? Did they envision before them a country with a freer system, with intact forests where one could be able to cut wood as and when it seemed good?

For Guillaume, fined so heaving in 1634, the promise of a new life in a land of free forests may have been quite appealing.

Note the year here – 1634. The same year that the priest in Loudun was burned at the stake. The message was clear. Richelieu, who ruled Chinon where this court was located, was rich, powerful, and not someone to be crossed.

Forests played a vital role in the region’s climate, landscape, and economy, particularly in relation to winemaking. Wine was an important commodity.

From this, we know that Guillaume was living at least near Bourgueil, probably in one of those two parishes, and perhaps in or near the forest. Was the land he cleared to build his house? If so, was he allowed to remain on the forest land. Given the nature of the sentence rendered at Chinon, it would appear not, but it’s difficult to interpret these ancient documents. I’m also curious about how the young ox was involved in the situation.

There are also challenges with this information. The Bourgueil forest was near Bourgueil, especially given the connection with the Abbey and two churches, and this event clearly occurred someplace between Chinon and Bourgueil. Chinon was part of the Richelieu family landholdings, but neither Bourgueil itself, nor Montreuil-Bellay were directly controlled by Richelieu. But let’s face it, Richelieu was the Cardinal, and perhaps he did not need to “directly” control anything.

I wish we could pinpoint the area of the infraction more closely, because it’s probably an important clue as to where Guillaume lived.

There were other small churches sprinkled along the road South of Bourgueil that Guillaume and Francoise may have attended. Regardless, this is the path Guillaume and his fellow forest conspirators would have traveled as they made their way to court in Chinon. Today, a 10 mile walk that would have taken about 4 hours, assuming a bridge or available boat across the Loire.

Guillaume was levied a hefty fine, 120 livres in total. I can only imagine what his wife, Francoise, had to say to him. Or maybe it’s best if I don’t imagine that. Wives probably haven’t changed much when their husbands do boneheaded things.

This infraction clearly wasn’t an accident, and it didn’t just happen once. What were Guillaume and the others thinking? This was serious.

If Guillaume was clearing land to build a house, he clearly knew that activity would not go unnoticed. This had to be more than a misunderstanding. What were the others doing?

I’d bet there’s more to this story too, but regardless, Guillaume paid dearly.

In 1642, the monthly salaries were listed for the passengers on the Saint Francois, -another of d’Aulnay’s ships that transported families to Acadia. That list showed that laborers earned between 6 and 15 livres a month. Other than the surgeon, Jacques Bourgeois, the highest paid person was the baker who made 200 livres a year, a carpenter made 16 livres per month, the gunner, 15, the ship’s pilot, 12, and soldiers, 10. So, if the wages were comparable with 1634, that wood harvesting adventure in Richelieu’s forest cost Guillaume about a year’s worth of income. How would he ever have paid that much?

How would he feed his family?

Where would they live?

Not only was Guillaume shamed, publicly humiliated, fined, and probably broke, he would also have been hurt, angry, and embarrassed. Everyone in all the nearby farms and towns knew, and I’m sure he saw the looks people gave him, eyes averted, or muted whispers behind hands. And those were the nice people. There were assuredly others. Not to mention that his wife’s family lived in Chinon.

Indeed, Acadia might have seemed like the perfect doorway to a fresh start.

Recruitment

By HRDarr – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=46137362

Isaac de Razilly, a member of the French nobility, pictured above, at right, was appointed a Knight of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem. An explorer and member of the French Navy, he founded La Hève in Acadia in 1632 with 300 men and 3 monks at the request of Cardinal Richelieu. The Razilly estate in France was located at Roiffé, about 10 miles north of Loudon. The Razilly fief was part of the castle of Loudun.

After Razilly’s untimely 1635 death in La Hève, his cousin, Cardinal Richelieu, reached out to Charles Menou d’Aulnay, Razilly’s right-hand man, to continue expansion efforts in Acadia.

We don’t know if Guillaume Trahan paid his fine and was in good standing once again, or if Richelieu suggested he would be a good fit in Acadia and maybe waived part or all of the fine if Guillaume sailed for the New World. Or maybe Guillaume didn’t have much choice. Richelieu needed settlers, and Guillaume needed a graceful exit from his predicament.

We also don’t actually know what Guillaume did for a living. Several people have interpreted his occupation differently: a captain in the military, an edge-tool-maker, a knifemaker, a ferrier, a marshall (listed both in 1632 and 1671), and a blacksmith. One thing seems certain – his occupation had something to do with metals and was a skill that would have been needed in Acadia. There were no other men on the Saint-Jehan listed with this type of trade.

We just don’t know what happened, and probably never will, but it does seem like his departure is probably more than just a coincidence. I’d love to compare the other names on the list of residents fined, the amount of their fines, and the passenger list of the Saint-Jehan – although Massignon says they were not on the list.

But once again, things may not have been exactly what they seemed.

La Rochelle

Regardless of why, Guillaume and Francoise, along with young Jeanne and her unnamed sibling, (probably a daughter who later married Germain Doucet in Acadia), boarded the Saint-Jehan along with their servant, who was “also from Bourgueil.” The roster is unclear whether the entire family group, or just the servant was from Bourgueil.

“Guillaume Trahan, officer of the cavalry, with his wife and two children and a servant, also from Bourgueil”

Wait?

What?

Servant?

How could a man who was just fined a full year’s worth of wages possibly manage to have a servant?

If you’re looking for an answer – I don’t have one. I have no idea. Part of me wonders if the “servant” was perhaps one of the laborers fined in the forest incident who also wanted a way out.

The only other servant is with the six members of the noble Motin family.

Another family is noted as being from “the parish of Bourgueil near Chinon.”

Pierre Martin, laborer, his wife and one child are listed from Bourgueil.

Nine other passengers or families are listed as being from Bourgeuil, and six others are from Chinon. It doesn’t actually say if Guillaume is from Bourgueil or Chinon. His name is placed exactly between the two groups, and the words “also from Bourgueil” are after the unnamed servant.

The people from Bourgueil all seem to be laborers, but some of the passengers from Chinon are craftsmen – a cooper, two tailors, and a cobbler, in addition to two laborers.

This entire group from this area probably traveled together to La Rochelle. Perhaps Razilly or Richelieu bought their possessions and livestock in France, providing them with an incentive and cash for the journey.

La Rochelle

In La Rochelle, passengers preparing to board ships for New France often camped in the grass beside the quay.

Did Guillaume, Francoise and their children walk into town, near the harbour, to attend mass one last time?

To pray for safe passage?

Was Francoise happy to be leaving, or was she already grieving having to leave her family?

Whose idea was this journey to a new land?

It would still have been chilly on April 1st when the Trahan family sailed through the twin towers of the La Rochelle harbour.

The family would have stood on deck, watching the horizon until the shores of France shrank to a spec and finally disappeared. Then, there was no place to look except forward.

Had Guillaume gone back home, to Montreuil-Bellay, to see his siblings, nieces, nephews, and elderly father? Did he visit his mother’s grave one last time before packing up and setting out for La Rochelle?

Did he have the opportunity to say one final goodbye?

Soon, very soon, he would be an entire world away.

La Hève – Fort Sainte Marie de Grace

La Hève, now LaHave, was established by Isaac Razilly in 1632, but we really don’t know if there were any families or only soldiers and traders at the fort’s garrison. We believe that there were only “300 men” and 3 priests before the arrival of the Saint-Jehan in 1636.

Razilly died in 1635 and was buried in the cemetery beside the fort, but the dream of Acadia did not perish with Razilly. It was carried full-steam-ahead by Charles Menou d’Aulnay.

Thirty-five days after leaving La Rochelle, the Saint-Jehan delivered her passengers in their new home, the tiny outpost settlement of La Hève on the southern Atlantic coast of what we know today as Nova Scotia.

Did the Trahan family have any idea what to expect?

Cobblestone streets in French villages, stunning churches with stained-glass windows that echoed with the chants of monks, and medieval houses gave way to mud, a community well, and an outdoor oven for everyone to share.

Before embarking on this journey, they had never seen the ocean, or beaches before.

The La Hève beaches were rocky and the shoreline battered by wind, rain, and storms. Nor’easters, hurricanes, and biting, driving blizzards. It seemed like the Atlantic was always angry about something.

The tiny settlement planted apple trees fertilized with hope, some of which remain today.

Today’s museum stands where the lighthouse stood, which stood where the original fort was built by Razilly’s men.

One wonders why Razilly named his Le Havre de Grace after a location of the same name at Cap del La Heve in Normandy, France

The settlers constructed their tiny village of a few homes above the fort, clustered on the next outcropping, pictured above and at right, below.

LaHave is starkly beautiful today.

The fort’s remains could still be seen eroding into the sea in the early 1900s, but the only remnants today are in the museum, and these two pieces from La Hève, found in the Acadian Museum in La Chaussee.

Guillaume and his family wouldn’t be in La Hève long, because d’Aulnay moved the seat of Acadia from La Hève to Port Royal at the end of 1636.

They probably barely had their house built, then they were packing up and boarding a ship once again. Ironically, no one cared how much timber you cut here.

Still, they were probably glad to be heading for a more sheltered, forgiving location.

Port Royal

When Guillaume and family arrived in Port Royal, he would have been about 36 years old, maybe 37.

While La Hève is on the fully-exposed Atlantic coast, Port Royal is in the more-protected Rivière du Dauphin, now the Annapolis River.

Not only is the location easier to defend, but it’s also much less exposed to the elements.

The first several years at Port Royal are marked by a lack of records.

Some survive in governors’ and administrative notes, some as records of war, some in England, and eventually, in 1671, more than three decades later, a census which helps us piece the families together.

Unfortunately, no parish records exist until 1702. Based on the fact that no one arriving on the Saint-Jehan except for Pierre Martin, Guillaume Trahan, and their families was later found on the census, nor descendants with their surname, it appears that either most people died or returned to France.

Buried in various Port Royal records are tidbits about Guillaume’s life.

Massignon tells us that on September 21, 1639, Guillaume’s daughter, Jeanne Trahan, is noted as being the godmother to the child of Charles d’Aulnay and Jeanne Motin, a fellow passenger on the 1636 ship. Furthermore, the record states that Jeanne’s parents were Guillaume Trahan, a blacksmith (others interpret this as toolsmith), and Francoise Charbonneau, his wife. Massignon consistently reported Francoise’s surname as Charbonneau, not Corbineau. More important to this record is that Guillaume was noted as Jeanne’s father, and with an occupation.

Life Was Not Peaceful

Life was not peaceful in Port Royal. Charles d’Aulnay and Charles La Tour were dueling governors of different parts of Acadia. In reality, much of the confusion rested at the feet of the officials in France, but nonetheless, the animosity grew into what has been termed an “Acadian Civil War” lasting from 1635 when Razilly died until 1653 when La Tour married d’Aulnay’s widow.

Guillaume wasn’t just a witness or bystander, but was involved, one way or another, with all of this. There were no disinterested parties.

In 1640, La Tour sailed across the bay from Saint John, now the Fort Howe National Historic Site, and attacked d’Aulnay at Port Royal, killing one of his Captains. La Tour surrendered, but unhappy with that, d’Aulnay sailed back across the bay to blockade La Tour’s fort.

On July 14, 1640, Guillaume represented the residents of Acadia, inhabitants at Pentagouet (in Maine), La Hève and Port Royal, alongside Germain Doucet and Isaac Peseley who testified at an inquiry against Governor Charles La Tour.

In 1642, d’Aulnay blockaded the river at Saint John for five months while La Tour was gone. In July, La Tour returned from Boston with four ships and 270 men to retake his Fort Sainte-Marie, chasing d’Aulnay back to Port Royal, but not actually catching him.

The next year, still angry about d’Aulnay’s blockade of his fort, La Tour chased d’Aulnay to Penobscot Bay where d’Aulnay was forced to run two of his ships aground. In the resulting skirmish, d’Aulnay lost another smaller ship, and three men from each side died. Satisfied with his damage, La Tour proceeded on to Boston to trade. D’Aulnay was left licking his wounds and fuming.

Later in 1643, La Tour, on his way back from Boston, attacked Port Royal again, killing three men and injuring seven, while La Tour only lost one man. La Tour’s men rampaged through Port Royal, burned the mill, stole furs and gunpowder, killed livestock and pillaged homes. For some reason, La Tour did not attack the fort directly, which was only defended by 20 men.

Guillaume’s home was unquestionably affected. Pillaged – but if he was lucky – not burned. His family must have been terrified. I’d wager that he was furious.

About 1643, Guillaume’s daughter, Jeanne Trahan, married Jacques Bourgeois, the local surgeon, merchant, and trader. This was a very good marriage for Jeanne and Jacques, both. In 1643, there were few eligible partners.

Port Royal was quite small, with only a few homes along the waterfront. In 1654, there were only about 270 people in total, but most had moved up the river to the BelleIsle area. Nicolas Denys noted of Port Royal that “all the inhabitants there are the ones whome Razilly brought from France to La Hève.” In other words, the original founding families. Later arrives settled upriver or across the river

In the 1671 census, families averaged about 5.5 people per family, so if that holds true in 1654, there were about 50 families total, most of whom did not live in Port Royal proper. In 1643, there were many fewer.

This 1686 map, more than 40 years later, shows the general layout of Port Royal, with Jacques Bourgeois living at Hogg Island, a few homes along the waterfront, the mill, the (then-ruined) fort, and the church shown. Even in 1686, there were few homes along the river.

On Easter Sunday, 1645, d’Aulnay gathered every man possible, 200 in total, and attacked La Tour’s fort across the bay at the mouth of the St. John’s River. La Tour was in Boston again, but his young wife valiantly commanded the soldiers who defended the fort for five long days.

Outnumbered and outgunned, she agreed to surrender terms that specified giving quarter to and not harming the soldiers. D’Aulnay agreed to those terms, but immediately broke them by hanging every soldier in La Tour’s garrison while his wife was forced to watch with a rope tied around her neck. Taken hostage, then “punished” for trying to send a letter through a Mi’kmaq trader to her husband, she died in captivity three weeks later.

Given their status in the community and military experience, Guillaume Trahan,  Germain Doucet and Jacques Bourgeois would clearly have been involved in this unfortunate chapter in history.

Charles d’Aulnay, penning his will in 1649, writes of his wife that “She will not forget the wife of Guillaume Trahan.” This version of his will was replaced in 1650 wherein he mentions how kindly Germain Doucet has cared for his nieces and nephews and leaves to him and his wife both money and free rent for the rest of their lives. Doucet’s wife was Guillaume’s other daughter, whose name is not known.

D’Aulnay unexpectedly died in 1650 in a boating accident, leaving a power vacuum in Acadia – and an opening for La Tour. Acadia had been at war internally, with La Tour on one side and d’Aulnay on the other, essentially since the beginning of Acadia – by this time nearly 20 years. The warfare and warring factions were siphoning the resources and sapping the energy of the Acadian people. It had gone on for too long.

Acadia needed to heal.

In 1653, La Tour returned – and are you sitting down – married d’Aulnay’s widow. La Tour’s brave spouse and d’Aulnay were both probably turning in their graves.

Everyone was probably shocked, but this union offered the healing Acadia needed – and just in time. A united Acadia was much stronger than a divided Acadia. And the English were coming.

Acadia Falls

On July 14, 1654, the English unexpectedly attacked Port Royal. English Colonel, Robert Sedgewick was prepared to attack New Netherlands when peace was unexpectedly reached. “All dressed up with no place to go,” Sedgewick decided to attack Acadia instead.

He first reached La Tour’s fort at Saint John on the 13th and took that, capturing La Tour in the process. He then sailed across the bay where Port Royal’s governor, Emmanuel Le Borgne, was known to be quite friendly with the English and had been accused by La Tour of conspiring with them.

Entirely unprepared for an attack, especially of this magnitude. Sedgewick had 533 New England militia members, plus 200 professional soldiers sent by Oliver Cromwell. About 130 soldiers at Port Royal attempted to defend the fort, but the English killed 5 and forced the rest to retreat into the fort.

The resulting siege lasted until August 8th when Le Borgne surrendered with conditions very generous to the English – perhaps “too generous”. By this time, 113 Acadians were being held by the English, along with 23 cannons, 500 weapons, 50 barrels of gunpowder, and Le Borgne’s own ship, the Chateaufort, that was loaded to capacity with alcohol.

In the surrender conditions, Le Borgne was allowed to keep his ship, and 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 allowed to retain. Many Acadians accused him of treason and blamed him for the capture of Port Royal and the savagry that followed.

Sedgewicks men tore through Port Royal, defaced the church, smashed windows, floors and paneling before burning the church and killing the settlers’ livestock.

Sedgewick and Le Bourgne’s handiwork would not be undone for another 16 years.

Guillaume signed the Act of Capitulation as “Mr. Guillaume Trouin, syndic of the inhabitants” in the “opposed” column. Given that Germain Doucet was the Commander of the Garrison at Port Royal, he and his wife, Guillaume’s daughter, and their children, if they had any, would have been shipped back to France along with the French soldiers and any Acadians who wanted to leave.

It must have pained Guillaume greatly to sign that agreement, understanding that it meant he would never see his daughter, or grandchildren if there were any, again. Doucet’s wife was one of only two children that Guillaume had with Francoise known to survive to adulthood.

The English had no plan to govern Acadia, because they had no plans to take Acadia in the first place, so they formed a council of Acadians to govern on their behalf, with Guillaume Trahan at its head.

A Second Family

We don’t know exactly when Guillaume’s wife, Francoise, died, other than she was alive in 1639 and was deceased by about 1666 when he remarried.

Given his position within the community, and that most widowers remarried fairly quickly, it’s likely that Francoise died about 1665, because Guillaume remarried about 1666, based on the ages of his children with his new wife, in the 1671 census.

Guillaume married 21-year-old Madeleine Brun, daughter of Vincent Brun and Renée Breau of La Chaussée, south of Loudun, not far from Chinon.

Forty-five years, give or take – that’s a BIG difference in age, but Guillaume was a “good catch”, a respected man of power and influence, and they began a second family.

In 1667, Acadia was returned to the French by treaty, but not effectively until 1670. In 1671, the first census was taken, which reflects Guillaume with his new wife and family.

In the 1671 census, Guillaume’s occupation is listed as “Marshal”, the meaning of which is questionable, but Karen Reader suggests it may be a farrier. We saw that same word back in the 1632 Bourgueil record too, so it’s at least consistent.

Guillaume might have been a bit sensitive about the 45-year age gap, because he is listed as 60 “or thereabouts”, when he was approximately 70. He’s listed with his wife,  Madeleine Brun, 25, son Guillaume, 4, clearly his namesake, Jehan-Charles, 3, and Alexandre, 1. They were living on 5 arpents of land with 8 cattle and 10 sheep.

Three sons. Guillaume must have been thrilled. We have no idea how many children Guillaume and Francoise lost, but given that we know of only two who survived to adulthood, and women were of childbearing age for about 24 years – they would have had at least 12 children, if not several more.

Perhaps this second family, even if he was the age of grandparents or even great-grandparents, was just what he needed.

In the 1678 census, Guillaume is listed with 3 boys and 3 girls, although children’s names and ages aren’t given.

One unknown Trahan child who was born about 1673 was reflected in the 1678 census, but had died by the 1686 census.

In the 1686 census, Guillaume has died, because his widow, Magdelaine Brun, age 47 (actually 41), has remarried to Pierre Bezier, and her children with Guillaume are listed as:

  • Guillaume, 19
  • Jean, 17
  • Jean-Charles, 15
  • Marie, 14
  • Jeanne, 12
  • Magdelaine, 9

The next child is Susanne Joan, 2 months, who is her child with her new husband, Pierre.

Guillaume’s last child, Magdelaine, was born about 1678, and his wife had remarried by 1686, so Guillaume died sometime between 1678 and 1685 when Magdelaine became pregnant for Susanne Joan.

As is typical, it’s more likely that Guillaume died closer to her remarriage, so perhaps he died about 1684. He may have been ill between 1678 and his death in his mid-80s, if not older.

Guillaume lived a very long life for someone born around the year 1600, or perhaps earlier, when medical care as we know it was entirely nonexistent.

Guillaume would have been buried in the Garrison Cemetery after his funeral service in the church, just a short walk from where he lived in Port Royal. Every single person in Port Royal would have attended. Guillaume wasn’t the oldest resident in Acadia, but only two or three men, one of whom may have been his old friend, Pierre Martin, were older. Today, the Acadian graves are unmarked, and their beloved church is long gone.

This humble marker commemorates the location of the Catholic church, with the fort’s bastions and the river in the background. “Mother” and I visited and stood on this hallowed ground, exactly a year ago, today.

Where did Guillaume Live in Port Royal?

It’s somehow ironic that for all the things we don’t know about Guillaume, we do know approximately where he lived in Port Royal.

The Simon Pelletret profile in WikiTree provides the following information:

On the list of expropriations of 1705 appear the names of François Gautrot, Guillaume Trahan, Jean Blanchard, Simon Pelletret and Michel Boudrot, as owners of the locations “joining the side of the old fort”. Four of these five names are those of the first settlers of Port-Royal. Trahan for example having arrived on board the Saint-Jehan in 1636 and Boudrot having been trustee at Port-Royal in 1639. In 1705, all four had long since died and it must be assumed that their heirs were the current owners of these locations at the time of the expropriations. We believe that it was the same with Simon Pelletret. Given that there was no male of this name on the censuses of Acadia from 1671, we think that this Simon must have been the first husband of Perrine Bourg. Simon Pelletret would therefore have received, like François Gautrot, Guillaume Trahan, Jean Blanchard, and Michel Boudrot, one of the first concessions at Port-Royal, very close to the fort.

This makes perfect sense because these were the first settlers, and many of the descendants of these men were assigned compensatory land just across Allain’s River, side by side.

Cousin Mark sent me a map that shows the land of the men whose land was  expropriated when Fort Anne was expanded in 1705.

You can see the familiar landmarks of the fort, the river, today’s Rue Saint-Antoine, and the long, skinny strips of land that would provide everyone a tiny bit of waterfront.

You can see the various properties, overlaid with the dimensions of the larger 1705 fort extension. The Trahan land (79) falls inside and outside of the upper star point.

I was able to use contemporary landmarks to “true” this map and my location when I visited. The approximate location of Guillaume Trahan’s land is marked with the red broken arrow.

Once again, when I was there, I had no idea I was standing on his land.

I am either standing on or right beside Guillaume Trahan’s five arpents of land in this photo. You can see the fort’s bastions and the Edge of the Queen’s Wharf where the Acadians were forced to board the expulsion ships in 1755.

I wonder if Guillaume’s descendants, generations later, knew that they were actually being forced to leave from the ground that their original Acadian settler ancestors were given after arrival.

Guillaume would have surveyed the Rivière du Dauphin towards the sea to watch for approaching ships, and to determine whether they were friend or foe. Here, in 1654, he watched the English warships approach. Here, in 1670, he watched a French ship approach with a French governor, once again. Guillaume probably wondered if he would live long enough to see this day.

Acadia would fall to the English again, but not in his lifetime.

Cannons eventually stood on Guillaume’s land, defending Port Royal, or at least trying.

The portion of the Rue Saint Antoine that became part of the fort runs beneath this culvert today.

Guillaume Trahan’s land abutted the street and was located between where I’m standing and about where that white statue stands.

It was here, overlooking the river, fort, and town, that Guillaume spent nearly half a century, raised his families, attended church, saw his daughters married, fought wars, waved goodbye to one daughter forever, buried his wife and a few grandchildren, remarried, and added a second family to his legacy.

All he had to do was turn around to visit the church and parish cemetery where he would join Francoise and rest for all eternity.

A Final Wink

Guillaume lived an incredible life. While he must have been frightened from time to time, none of that is evident in his legacy of leadership.

He was, after all, human, though.

I have felt throughout the process of walking with my Acadian ancestors that I have been guided, or perhaps shepherded, or maybe dragged kicking and screaming by some.

Sometimes, I felt like they were trying so hard to communicate something to me, and I was strolling along obliviously as they were SCREAMING, “Over here, look over here!”

Guillaume has, perhaps, one of the more persistent voices. Thankfully, I finally heard him, even if he did have to drag me across an ocean, two other countries and several provinces for me to hear him clearly.

Guillaume, I’m listening if you have something else to say. Please, please whisper in my ear.

And right on queue, Guillaume spoke up.

Last year, when I was in Bourgueil, I was disappointed that Pierre Martin wasn’t my ancestor, and he was the only Acadian ancestor with roots there.

Nonetheless, I felt an incredibly strong “pull.” I don’t know how to explain it, other than I felt I belonged there, to that place. Part of me was there and had returned home. I kept asking if there were other Acadians from there, and of course, the answer was “no.”

I very much wanted to help preserve the Saint-Germain church, even though it wasn’t “mine.”

The tour guides, Claude and Anne-Christine always donate on behalf of their tour groups to the places that so generously make themselves available so that we can appreciate the history first-hand.

Anne-Christine, shown above, holds the roof slate that the folks from Bourgueil had created to commemorate our group’s visit.

We all donate to the “pot” to be divided among the various locations, but I felt the need to contribute something more. I have no idea why.

Jim and I were digging around in our billfolds to see how many Euros we had between us.

I don’t remember how much we came up with, but after the tour, I handed it quietly and privately to the very kind lady, in the center, above, who had explained about the urgent need for the roof restoration.

This lady clearly loves this church, and facilitated the tour inside. Now, I wonder if she, too, is a cousin.

A few weeks later, I received a text on my phone from Anne-Christine.

It made me cry.

Thanks to that very kind lady, Jim and I now have our own roof slate, waiting for its moment to be anchored in place, an unbroken thread from the day Guillaume last worshipped here 11 generations ago.

A piece of me will forever remain in Bourgueil, held fast under the sky, while centuries of clouds turn above it. Long after we are gone, the names will still whisper — perhaps puzzling those who will one day look up and wonder about those white marks on the roof – some 300 or 400 years into the future.

I hope Guillaume will explain.

Guillaume spoke. He called to me, and even though I had no idea at the time, his voice clearly reached me across the centuries. Three times I had stood exactly where he had – without knowing it until months later. Three times, he had guided me.

I had some catching up with Guillaume to do, but now, everything makes sense.

_____________________________________________________________

Share the Love!

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

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

You Can Help Keep This Blog Free

I receive a small contribution when you click on some of the links to vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase your price but helps me keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the 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 Trahan (c1629-c1699), Life in Chinon, La Hève, Port Royal, and Beaubassin – 52 Ancestors #451

The first glimpse we have of Jeanne Trahan that provides any hint about her age is the 1671 census, where she is listed as 40 years old, living with her husband, Jacob (Jacques) Bourgeois, a surgeon, age 50, in Port Royal with their 12 children, two of whom have married.

This provides her birth year about 1631.

The 1678 census doesn’t state ages, but the 1686 census gives her age as 57, suggesting her birth about 1629. The 1693 census shows her as 64 which tallies to 1629. The 1698 census shows her as 72, which subtracts to 1626.

Censuses give us one 1626, two 1629s, and one 1631.

Jeanne’s first child was born about 1644, so any of the two earlier dates could work. If Jeanne was born in 1631, she would have married at 12, and that’s too young even for Acadian brides.

Her last child was born about 1667, which means that if Jeanne was 42 when this child was born, she would have been born in 1625. If Jeanne was younger than 42, say, 40, she would have been born about 1627, so that works. We know this is the youngest child that lived, but we don’t know if Jeanne had a later child or children that perished.

Further research revealed that Jeanne’s parents had married in July of 1627 in Chinon, France, so it’s very unlikely that she was born before 1628.

Based on this information, I would think that Jeanne was probably born right around 1629, as two of those dates indicate.

Jeanne’s Parents

We know who Jeanne’s parents were through a very unusual resource, at least for that time in Port Royal.

Prior to 1650, Charles Menou d’Aulnay, a very influential figure in Jeanne’s life, was the Governor of Acadia.

In an article by Geneviève Massignon, published in 1963, she reports the baptism of d’Aulnay’s daughter, thus:

Stating that Marie, daughter of Sir Charles de Menou, squire, Sieur d’Aulnay, Lieutenant General for the King on the coast of Acadia, land of New France, was baptized around 4 o’clock in the evening on the same day she was born—at about 1 o’clock in the afternoon, Wednesday, September 21—and that she was consecrated to the Holy Virgin by Claude Petitpas and Mr. Boudrot, first syndics of Port Royal. Her godfather was Pierre, son of Pierre Cachet, and her godmother was Jeanne Trahan, daughter of Guillaume Trahan, a blacksmith, and Françoise Charbonneau.

Marie d’Aulnay was born in 1639, in Port Royal.

Not only does this provide us with the name of Jeanne’s parents, it also confirms that they were both living in 1639, or they would have been noted as deceased.

So far, we know positively that Jeanne’s parents were very early arrivals to Acadia.

As it turns out, we are very fortunate that the arrival of Jeanne Trahan, with her parents, is documented on the passenger list of the Saint Jehan, d’Aulnay’s ship.

The Saint Jehan left La Rochelle on April 1, 1636, with 78 passengers and 18 crew aboard, although few stayed in Acadia. On board were Guillaume Trahan, “officer of the cavalry”, his wife, two children, and a servant, from Bourgueil. Many of the laborers, with whom he is listed, are from Bourgeueil or Chinon. A translated list can be found, here and here.

I wonder about the identity of the servant. Who were they, and why were they were chosen for this journey?

Jeanne’s Birth

In a feudal society, people married where they lived, and they didn’t have children far from that area.

Chinon is located about two miles from the Loire River, as the crow flies, on the banks of the Vienne River, just upstream, 5 or 6 miles from where it joins the Loire. The old town was much smaller than it is today, with the medieval village below the castle on the north side of the river.

By Graphisme_Agnes_Dahan.jpg: Agnès Dahanderivative work: Nev1 (talk) – This file was derived from: Graphisme Agnes Dahan.jpg:, FAL, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=18585582

A strategic location, given that rivers were trade routes, Chinon was fortified by the 5th century. Fortresses and castles servicing both English and French Kings were added and expanded in later centuries.

By Neige19 – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=16671278

The castle, once home to King Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine, passed to Richard the Lionheart in 1189, who was childless, and then to their youngest son, who would become King John of England, He lost the castle in 1205 to the French King Philip II Augustus.

No machine-readable source provided. Own work assumed (based on copyright claims)., CC BY-SA 2.5, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=335359

In 1307, French King Philip “The Fair” ordered the Knights Templar arrested. Jacques de Molay, the Grand Master, along with others were held in the castle tower above the keep, as a prison, before they were tried and executed.

In 1429, Joan of Arc, then just 17, climbed the path up the hill and met with the future King Charles VII of France and, as an emissary of God, acknowledged him the rightful heir to the throne.

Louis XII, waited in the castle at Chinon for the papal legate to deliver his annulment papers that would allow him to marry Anne of Brittany in 1498.

No machine-readable source provided. Own work assumed (based on copyright claims)., CC BY-SA 2.5, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=335335

Although steeped in history, Chinon fell out of favor as the royal residence, and in 1631, Chinon became part of the estate of the Duke of Richelieu. Cardinal Richelieu not only neglected both the city and the fortress – he partially dismantled the castle, using the stone to construct the nearby town of Richelieu.

Cardinal Richelieu, along with his cousin, Isaac de Razilly before his 1635 death, and Razilly’s cousin, Charles d’Aulnay recruited Acadians from within their family territories, which very probably explains the connection between Jeanne Trahan’s parents, d’Aulnay, and their decision to leave Chinon for Acadia.

The Medieval City

Given that Jeanne’s parents were married at Saint Etienne in Chinon, I’d wager she too was born in Chinon, although she may have been baptized in a different church.

We know that Jeanne was born approximately two years later, so her birth could have taken place anytime in 1628 or 1629, and anyplace in Chinon.

Chinon was not a small town, even then. Located on the river Vienne, not far from the Loire, Chinon borders the Poitou and was an important Medieval transportation gateway. By the time Jeanne’s family lived there, Chinon had been in existence for more than a thousand years.

The stately Chateau Chinon and her fortress stand on the hill in the perfect defensive position. The Riviere Vienne in front, with white limestone bluffs rising behind the city.

As a child, would Jeanne have been allowed to climb the hill to overlook the old city from the castle gate, following the path that Joan of Arc walked in 1479?

Jeanne’s home probably still stands in one of Chinon’s ancient, medieval streets, yet today. Many of these buildings date from the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries.

The front of Saint Etienne church which is much deeper than it is wide. This church was reconstructed in the 1400s, except for the bell tower. By the time Joanne’s parents were married here, the remodeled church was already 200 years old.

Little Jeanne would have held her parents’ hands as they walked to church, stepped inside, and took their seats to pray.

You can view an absolute treasure trove of photos, both interior and exterior, here. Turn the lights down, listen to some Gregorian chants which would have been the music echoing in the church in the 1600s, and slowly transport yourself into the pictures.

Become Jeanne. Become her parents. Worship with them in their church.

The medieval streets with their half-timbered homes were wagon cart width then, and there’s no way to widen them without tearing out entire streets of historical homes. Thankfully, that hasn’t happened. Small cars can thread their way through, carefully.

The old city is woven into the new, and medieval homes aren’t torn down, but incorporated into life in Chinon today. The bricks of the church show wear, but this is the same stone that little Jeanne passed, and probably touched, tracing outlines of centuries past, on her way to worship.

Jeanne’s family would have lived within a few blocks of the church which was located in the eastern part of Chinon. The entire town wasn’t very large, and each of the four historic churches would have had its designated parish surrounding the church itself.

By the time Jeanne and her parents sailed to Acadia, they had a second child, which tells us that Jeanne had lost at least one, if not two, siblings.

The cemetery in Chinon would probably have been someplace close to the church, initially in the churchyard, but there’s no trace today. Maybe it was in what was undeveloped, open space between these two closely located churches.

At some point Jeanne’s parents had a difficult decision to make. Were they going to take their two children and set out for New France?

Given that they lived in a city, Jeanne’s father would have been a craftsman or tradesman of some type, and not a farmer, so he would have found that the new world offered opportunities not present in France. The roster of the Saint Jehan listed him as a military officer, so perhaps he was doubly useful on the voyage.

La Rochelle was the gateway to the New World then, at least from France. First, they had to travel from Chinon to La Rochelle.

La Rochelle

In 1636, Jeanne would have been 6 or 7 years old, certainly old enough to remember a grand adventure. Chinon must have been buzzing about this new opportunity, because six other men on the Saint Jehan were from Chinon. Six families are listed as being from Bourgueil, including Jeanne’s parents, along with another five men.

I can’t help but wonder if they were related.

It’s only about 100 miles to La Rochelle, today, but then, the path was much less straightforward. The group that was preparing to depart may have taken the Vienne or Loire River partway, then switched to an overland route – or perhaps it was overland all the way.

By Jack ma – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=6931687

There was really no good way to get there from Chinon. Perhaps they took the old Roman road network. They main street through the oldest part of Chinon had originally been a Roman road.

Jeanne must have been wide-eyed. An entire world opened up for the little girl who had probably never ventured more than a few blocks away from home.

Was she excited, or frightened, or maybe a little bit of both?

Once in La Rochelle, the Acadia-bound group would have gathered near the wharf before departure.

Would-be passengers camped on the grass together, sometimes for several days, before boarding the ships bound for New France

Jeanne’s mother probably didn’t let her play along the waterfront, both for fear of losing her in the busy port, and for fear of her falling into the ocean. Jeanne might have been excited about their adventure, but her mother was probably much more reserved in her enthusiasm.

It would still have been chilly on April 1st when they boarded the Saint Jehan, someplace between 45 and 55 degrees, not to mention the strong, biting Atlantic winds that chilled their bones. Maybe it wasn’t just the wind sending a shiver up their spines.

Jeanne’s parents probably went to church one last time.

Once on board, there really was no going back. At least not easily.

Getting settled below deck, where it was more comfortable, was probably a relief, although they would have heard the unfamiliar creaking of the ship and it rocked to and fro as they sailed between the twin towers, past the church’s steeple, into forever. .

The trip would normally have taken someplace between 6 weeks and 3 months, depending on the weather, the design of the ship, and the experience of the crew. For comparison, the Mayflower took 66 days in 1620.

La Hève

However, the Saint Jehan was speedy. Nicolas Denys, agent for the Saint Jehan, was responsible for the passenger list and recorded that they arrived in La Hève on May 6th, just 35 days after their departure.

Compared to either Chinon or La Rochelle, La Hève must have seemed like an incredibly foreign world. Maybe another world altogether.

There were no streets, castles, or churches. There might have been one small chapel, perhaps in the fort, but we aren’t sure.

They were one of only seven families at La Hève, a harsh, windswept peninsula protruding into the Atlantic. There were no other Europeans, and the Native Mi’kmaq must have seemed very strange to Jeanne.

Instead of stone castles and ancient buildings lining medieval streets, they had a small fort where the museum now stands, on the end of the cape.

The families lived down the beach, on the next point, in the distance, where they would have built their own homes.

Jeanne probably was allowed to play along the beach here, collecting shells and rocks. Perhaps. At least eventually.

What child doesn’t love pretty rocks?

The sea must have seemed endless to a little girl. If she remembered much about France, it was fading into the distance.

They didn’t stay long at La Hève, as d’Aulnay was in the process of moving the families and workers from La Hève to Port Royal, where they would be settled by the end of the year.

Port Royal

Port Royal was yet different again.

The next glimpse we have of Jeanne was in 1639 when she was allowed to stand as godmother for Charles d’Aulnay’s daughter.

This is somewhat unusual, because normally a godparent would need to be 16, because their role is to support the child’s spiritual development, which a child as young as 10 would not be prepared to do. An exception would have to be made by the local priest, which might have been done if there was an urgent need – but with at least a few Acadian women available, why would the exception have been made to allow a 10 or even 11-year-old child to act in that capacity? The oldest she could have been, if she were born the same year (1627) that her parents married, was 12.

The identity of the other godparent, Pierre, son of Pierre Cachet, is a mystery. Perhaps Pierre Choiseau from the Saint Jehan roster, who arrived with a wife and two children from Bourgueil?

And why were two children selected? Did the fact that the baby was baptized at 3 hours of age, at 4 in the afternoon, have something to do with the selection of the godparents? Was it because that’s who was available? Was the baby distressed?

Probably so, because there was no priest present, and the baptism was performed by two Acadian men.

Marriage

We know that Jeanne Trahan married Jacques Bourgeois about 1643 in Port Royal, so she was considered an adult by then, or at least adult enough to marry. Her first child in the 1671 census is shown as having been born in 1644.

Catholic church law allowed girls as young as 12 to marry. That and the fact that she had a baby the following year suggests that she was at least 13 or perhaps even 14 when she married, and 15 when the first baby arrived. This correlates with the 1629 birth year.

In 1643, there probably weren’t many marriage candidates in Acadia, so the pool was limited. Perhaps the family focused on finding a good match and not so much on the couple “falling in love.”

Or maybe you fell in love with whomever opportunity placed in front of you – maybe in the literal pew in front of you in church. Or the neighbor next door.

Jacques Bourgeois, the surgeon and also d’Aulnay’s right-hand man would have been considered not only a good marriage candidate, but the best possible candidate in all of Acadia for young Jeanne.

It’s probably not a coincidence that Jeanne married early. No one was really secure on the frontier. Life was short – sometimes much shorter than expected. Live it while you can!

Needles and Pins

In 1643, 1644, and 1645, there’s no question that Jeanne’s father, as a military officer, was involved in both the raids on LaTour’s forts, and the defense of Port Royal. Both of the men Jeanne loved were at risk.

The most harrowing episode was in July of 1643 when Port Royal was attacked, three of d’Aulnay’s men were killed, and seven injured. La Tour rampaged through Port Royal, burning the mill and pillaging homes.

In the midst of all of this, Jeanne had her first baby, a little girl. Daughter Jeanne Bourgeois was born sometime in 1644. She never married, at least not that we know of, and died in her late 20s or early 30s sometime after the 1671 census, but before the 1678 census.

In 1646, Jeanne’s second child, Charles Bourgeois, arrived. He married Anne Dugas around 1668 and would eventually settle in Beaubassin, where he died sometime around the birth of his last child in 1678. His widow remarried the following year.

Given the four-year gap between Charles’ birth and Jeanne’s next child, she assuredly brought a baby into this world in 1648 who died before the 1671 census.

Jeanne’s children who passed from this world too soon in Port Royal are buried someplace in the Garrison Cemetery, in what are today unmarked graves

Hogg Island

We don’t know exactly where Jeanne’s parents lived in Port Royal, but the early settlers were given land near the fort.

When the fort was extended in 1705, Guillaume Trahan’s descendants were expropriated. Jeanne was living on what is today Annapolis Royal’s main street.

Sometime in this timeframe, and before 1650, d’Aulnay awarded Hogg Island to Jacques Bourgeois and Jeanne Trahan, a prime piece of real estate adjacent the fledgling outpost, fort, and village of Port Royal.

This 1686 map shows two structures on Hogg Island. Jeanne’s parents would have lived in one of the houses along Main Street, very close to the fort, before she married Jacques and set up housekeeping on Hogg Island.

This 1753 map shows Hogg Island more clearly.

Not only was Hogg Island large and well-positioned along the river, it was much larger, 20 arpents, than the typical land grant of around 6 arpents – and was surrounded by the river on three sides. Perfect for a merchant trader like Jacques.

Jeanne would live on Hogg Island most of the rest of her life – probably at least 50 years. In the above photo, I’m standing on a part of Hogg Island on the causeway crossing the river, photographing the river towards the ocean, which shows another portion of Hogg Island, along with Port Royal, to the left.

Mom’s ring that descended from her Acadian line traveled with me to find her ancestors.

Today, Hogg Island looks very different and is the home of Canada’s first tidal power generation station. Ironic that the Bourgeois land here, and in Beaubassin, would eventually both be involved in different types of natural alternative energy production.

As a businessman, Jacques would have loved that idea! Making money from the tide!

Hogg Island would be unrecognizable to Jacques and Jeanne, today, but it’s still the land where she lived and loved and grieved.

I didn’t realize when I was having this little picnic on the pulloff on the bridge that I was actually on the end of Hogg Island. Jeanne was welcoming me home with a seagull chorus, and I didn’t even realize it.

Community

We know that Charles d’Aulnay had confidence in Jeanne, because she became his daughter’s godmother at a very early age, so when d’Aulnay unexpectedly died in 1650, it may have affected Jeanne deeply.

Port Royal parish registers from this timeframe don’t exist, but I’d wager that Charles d’Aulnay was the godparent for Jeanne’s second child and first son, Charles Bourgeois, born in 1646.

By 1650, Jeanne and Jacques had a daughter, a son, and either a baby born in 1648, or a baby born in 1648 who had died. Because there was never a male child named after her husband, Jacques, I’d bet this baby that died before 1671 was named Jacques.

Jeanne’s fourth child, Germain Bourgeois, joined the family in 1650. Again, without parish registers, we’ll never know, but I’d wager that the Germain Doucet de la Verdure, who was married to Jeanne’s unidentified Trahan sister, stood as Godfather to Germain Bourgeois.

Germain would marry twice, first to Madeleine Belliveau in 1673 and then to Madeleine Dugas in 1682, both in Port Royal. Germain was involved in the founding of Beaubassin with his father, but died in 1711 in Port Royal

In 1652, the family expanded again, and Marie Bourgeois joined her siblings. She married Pierre Cyr in 1670. The couple founded Baubassin, along with her father. She married a second time in 1680 and died in in Beaubassin in 1741.

The Unexpected Wedding

Charles d’Aulnay and his rival, Charles LaTour had been engaged in skirmishes and outright battles for years in Acadia, attacking each other’s ships and holdings, laying seige to each other’s forts and villages, and attempting to run the other out of Acadia.

D’Aulnay’s unexpected death in 1650 opened a power vacuum in Acadia and set the stage for Charles La Tour to return. In 1653, to everyone’s surprise, he married d’Aulnay’s widow, which assuredly had to be quite the scandal since the two men were mortal enemies, and d’Aulnay certainly had a hand in the death of La Tour’s wife in 1645.

Acadia needed to heal its internal wounds, and that’s what their marriage served to do. It’s a good thing, because just a year later, Acadia would be attacked from the outside.

The 1654 English Attack

The attacks just kept coming, except this time, the English were the aggressors, not a rival French faction. And, Jeanne was either heavily pregnant, or had a newborn baby. Either way, both Jeanne and the child were extremely vulnerable.

The Acadians had been trading with the English out of Boston, so the last thing they expected was an attack.

Yet, that’s exactly what happened.

Robert Sedgewick had been ordered to attack New Holland (New York), but after a peace agreement was unexpectedly signed, he decided to attack someone else. The Acadians – yea – what about the Acadians? Let’s go there and attack them!! Tally ho!!!

Because it was peacetime, the Acadians were not expecting the English ships sailing up the Riviere Dauphin to be “enemies,” bent on doing them harm.

Sedgewick, with 300 armed men, sailed up the river to Port Royal in July 1654, facing about 130 Acadian men and soldiers who were caught entirely by surprise and valiantly attempted to defend the fort. Not only were the brave Acadians outnumbered, more than two to one, but the 200 English soldiers were professionals.

Once again, Jeanne’s father and her husband would both have been involved in defending Port Royal, as much as was possible.

The Acadians did their best and holed up in the fort, but the English held them and Port Royal under siege.

This is where things get really ugly.

On August 16thGermain Doucet de La Verdure, Jeanne’s brother-in-law, surrendered to the English, having negotiated what the Acadians felt were reasonable surrender terms under the circumstances. Acadians were provided at least some protection. The settlers were to keep their land and belongings, the French soldiers in the fort were to be paid in pelts and transported back to France, not killed, and the Acadians could worship as they saw fit – meaning as Catholics – without interference.

The French officials would also be sent back to France, and an Acadian council was put in place to function on behalf of the English during their absence. “French officials,” in this case, probably included Germain Doucet and his Trahan wife and children, if they had any.

Those terms could have been much worse since both the English and the French knew very well that the Acadians stood no prayer of winning a battle against the English who outnumbered them, were far more experienced, and who had not been caught by surprise.

The Articles of Capitulation:

It was concluded on board the Admiral’s ship, the Augustia, anchored in the river and before the fort of Port Royal, “and for the greater security of the contents of the above articles the said Sieur de la Verdure has left for hostage Jacques Bourgeois, his brother-in-law and lieutenant of the place, bearer of his procuration for the present treaty, and the Sieur Emanuel le Borgne, the son, until the completion of the present agreement which was begun at the first sitting held yesterday and concluded today, August 16th, 1654.

The reference to Jacques as Doucet’s brother-in-law means he was married to either Jacques’ sister, or Jeanne’s sister. Jacques was not known to have any siblings in Acadia and immigrated alone. On the other hand, we know that Jeanne Trahan had a sister who was listed on the ship’s roster. Germain Doucet and his wife were not known to have had any children themselves, and we never hear from them again – so it’s presumed that they returned to France.

While this capitulation agreement spared the Acadians’ lives, it would have pained Jeanne greatly to watch her sister climb aboard that ship destined for France, knowing she would never see her again. Her sister would have probably been between 20 and 25.

During this time, it must have been a bit touch-and-go, an emotional roller-coaster. Jeanne’s father, Guillaume Trahan, was a syndic at Port Royal, meaning an official of some sort, and signed the capitulation agreement on behalf of the Acadians. Would Jeanne’s parents be forced to leave too?

Apparently not.

Following the signing of the agreement, the English soldiers immediately broke the agreement, burned and pillaged Port Royal and the surrounding homes. They torched the church and the priest’s home, ransacking the area for days. There’s no way that Hogg Island, nor Jeanne’s parents’ home near the fort, were spared. In fact, being some of the more well-to-do families of Port Royal, they were probably targets.

The settlers were offered passage back to France, if they wished. It’s unknown how many, if any, went.

In addition to all of this, Jeanne had either four or five young children at home between the ages of 2 and 10. Given that her youngest child would have been about 2, Jeanne would have been expecting in 1654 – or newly delivered.

Jeanne and Jacque have another “blank space” in the 1671 census, where a child’s name should have been.

This baby probably died at or shortly after birth in 1654, because their next child was born a year later in 1655.

Was the death of their child in 1654 connected in any way to the August attack?

While Hogg Island was prime real estate, an island separated from Port Royal only by a small stream, it could also have been a death trap. Where were they to go? How could they stay safe? There was river on three sides.

What did Jeanne do?

Guillaume Bourgeois was born the following year, probably named after Jeanne’s father, who was most likely his godfather. The church had burned, so this child would have been baptized wherever the priest happened to be that day, with whomever could stand as godparents. Jeanne’s father was a good choice.

Guillaume Bourgeois eventually left Port Royal for Beaubassin where he married in 1686, having only one child before his death between 1690 and the 1693 census.

Another child would have been born to Jeanne about 1657, with that child passing as an infant, because Jeanne’s next child was born the following year.

Daughter Marguerite Bourgeois was born in 1658, first married in 1676, and settled in Beaubassin where she remarried in 1679. She remarried again in Port Royal in 1707, but returned to Beaubassin where her final child was born. She lived until 1732, passing away in Beaubassin.

Francoise Bourgeois was born about 1659, married Claude Dugas in 1673 in Port Royal, died after the 1693 census but before 1697 when Claude remarried. She probably lived near her mother in Port Royal, and they would have enjoyed one another’s company, especially since so many of Jeanne’s children departed for Beaubassin. Francoise’s husband was in Beaubassin in 1682, but they are listed in Port Royal in the census, so it’s unlikely that Francoise and Claude ever actually settled in Beaubassin.

Anne Bourgeois was born about 1661, married Rene LeBlanc in Port Royal about 1678, and had settled in Grand Pre by 1688. Their children were born there and also in Les Mines (Minas). Anne died in Grand Pre in 1747.

Jeanne would have given birth to another nameless child about 1663 who probably didn’t die immediately, because there’s a full four years between Anne and Marie, born in 1665, suggesting that the unnamed child born in 1663 lived at least long enough to be weaned before Jeanne became pregnant again.

Marie Bourgeois, Jeanne’s second daughter to be named Marie, was born about 1665 and married Antoine LeBlanc about 1680. They lived in Port Royal in 1686, but had made their way to Les Mines by 1693 where she died sometime after 1703 and probably after 1714.

1665 was a year of incredibly mixed emotions for Jeanne. She welcomed a new daughter, but bid farewell to her mother, Francoise Corbineau who was about 56 – certainly not old by today’s standards.

We know that Jeanne’s mother died about 1665 because her father remarried about 1666, at age 65. Of course since Jeanne’s mother’s death date is calculated based on the approximate year that Guillaume remarried, we really don’t know how long between the death and the nuptials.

Perhaps a Scandal

Jeanne’s father was about 65 years old when her mother died.

Jeanne must have been shocked by what transpired soon thereafter.

Around 1666, Guillaume Trahan married Madeleine Brun.

That’s not so unusual, but what is rather surprising is that Madeleine was born on January 25, 1645, in La Chaussee, France. We have an exact birth date from the parish registers, documented by the church in LaChaussee, and yes, Madeleine was 21 years old in 1666.

Since Acadian parish registers don’t exist from that time, the best we can do is to calculate the year of their marriage based upon the year of the birth of their first child as recorded in the 1671 and later censuses.

While many grooms were substantially older than their brides, a gap of 44 years is quite remarkable. It may or may not have been considered a bit scandalous at the time. One reason why I suspect it might have been is because in the 1671 census, Guillaume has reduced his age to 60, from 70, so perhaps the situation was a bit “sensitive”.

This turn of events may have been difficult for Jeanne to wrap her head around. Jeanne’s new step-mother was dead-center in age between Jeanne’s two oldest children.

Madeleine Brun may well have come over to play with Jeanne’s daughter, Jeanne when they were both little. Then not so many years later, Madeleine married Jeanne’s widowed father.

Madeleine would give Guillaume seven more children, beginning in 1667 – Jeanne’s half-siblings.

Both Jeanne’s last child, a second daughter named Marie, and Madeleine’s first child, a boy named Guillaume, were born about 1667.

Jeanne’s daughter, Marie Bourgeois (the younger) married Pierre Comeau about 1689, spent her life in Port Royal, and died in June 1716 there.

Jeanne went from having only one known living sibling who married Germain Doucet and either died or traveled back to France, to having seven half-siblings who were all a generation or more younger than her. Jeanne’s last half-sibling was born about 1678, when her father was about 77 and Jeanne was about 50, so she was half a century older than her youngest sibling. I might have a difficult time wrapping my head around this one, too.

In 1668, the year after Jeanne’s youngest child was born, her children began marrying, which meant that in short order, grandchildren began arriving. She must have been overjoyed. Who doesn’t love babies?

However, many of Jeanne’s children founded the distant colony of Beaubassin, so while Jeanne welcomed her first grandchild in 1670 thanks to son Charles, a little girl named Marie, she wouldn’t know most of her grandchildren, and certainly did not see them on a regular basis, if at all.

It’s possible that Jeanne had one or two additional children who perished before the 1671 census. If Jeanne was born in 1629, she would only have been 38 in 1667 when her last known child was born, and clearly had more time to bring additional children into the world, at least in 1669 and 1671. Many women bore children into their early or even mid-40s, so Jeanne could have buried two or even three more children.

Port Royal Becomes French Again

In 1667, Port Royal was returned to France by treaty between France and England. Functionally, the transfer didn’t happen until 1670 when a new French governor arrived. He immediately ordered a census be taken in the spring of 1671.

THANK GOODNESS!

The 1671 census is incredibly important to genealogists, because it’s the first glimpse of families, complete with ages, occupations, wives surnames, and other critical information.

The 16 years spent under English rule had been good to the Bourgeois family. Jacques and Jeanne were listed first in the census and were the wealthiest, most prosperous family in all of Acadia.

  • Jacques Bourgeois, surgeon, 50 and his wife Jeanne Trahan, 40. One son and one daughter are married. Then the list of children:
    • Jeanne, 27
    • Charles, 25 (also listed as a farmer under his own household with his wife and a daughter who is one and a half)
    • Germain, 21
    • Marie 19 (also listed as gunsmith Pierre Sire’s wife, age 18, with a 3-month-old son)
    • Guillaume, 16
    • Marguerite, 13
    • Francoise, 12
    • Anne, 10
    • Jeanne, 4
  • They have 33 cattle, 24 sheep, and 20 arpents of land in two different locations.

It’s hard enough to lose a baby or young child, but I can only imagine how soul-crushing it must have been for Jeanne to lose her oldest child, a daughter by the same name, sometime after the 1671 census, where she was 27, and before the 1678 census, where she is absent.

I’ve often wondered why daughter Jeanne never married. In a land of scarce marriage partners, it has occurred to me that she may have been disabled in some way. Her birth could have been difficult, or a myriad of other reasons. Regardless, unless she married after 1671 and left no trace, she died as an adult between 27 and 34. She was the first adult child that Jeanne had to bury. I hope Jeanne was able to bury her daughter beside her mother in the cemetery just up the hill.

If daughter Jeanne had married and died in childbirth, then Jeanne would have buried her daughter and grandchild both someplace in the garrison graveyard..

Beaubassin

In 1672, the year after the first census, Jeanne’s husband, Jacques, and some of her adult children founded Beaubassin, the first Acadian colony extension beyond Port Royal.

In addition to being the local doctor-of-all-things, Jacques had been actively trading for decades. Under English rule, trading furs obtained in Acadia with New Englanders, especially out of Boston, was quite profitable. In exchange, the Native people would barter for manufactured items, such as axes, kettles, and guns.

Jacques, a savvy man, had long ago learned the importance of strategic locations.

The Missaguash River connected the Baie Francoise, today’s Bay of Fundy, with the greater Atlantic, 15 miles across the isthmus of Chignecto to the Baye Verte. Jacques recognized that as a strategic location, and that’s where he established the village of Mésagouèche, later Missaguash, eventually renamed Beaubassin in 1676.

Beaubassin was described as “the first swarming of the Acadians to establish their hive,” by one historian, but I’m not so sure that Jeanne was the queen bee of that hive. In fact, I don’t think she was there at all for more than 20 years.

Beaubassin was between 9 and 12 days away by boat, one way, and someone had to maintain the home fires. Raise the rest of the children in Port Royal and keep an eye on Jacques’ business ventures there.

It seems that Jeanne wasn’t only Jacques’ wife, but was also his business partner.

However, that doesn’t mean Jeanne wasn’t heavily invested and involved in Beaubassin. Not only was it an increasingly important aspect of her husband’s life and  trade, her children had set out to become the first settlers in Beaubassin.

More land, less supervision, the ability to trade freely with the English – lots of benefits.

But for Jeanne’s mother’s heart, Beaubassin must have been incredibly bittersweet.

Of Jeanne’s children:

  1. Eldest child Jeanne died at some point between 1671 and 1678, presumably in Port Royal.
  2. Charles married about 1668 and probably helped his father establish the initial colony of Beaubassin.
  3. Germain married in about 1673 in Port Royal and had three children before his wife died. He married a second time in 1682, and the newlyweds made their way to Beaubassin.
  4. Marie married about 1670, and the newlyweds left for Beaubassin.
  5. Guillaume married in Beaubassin in 1686, but seems to have been going back and forth, as there are records of him in Beaubassin and Port Royal, both before and after his marriage. In 1686, he was living in Port Royal, owned land in Beaubassin, and had died before the 1693 census when his only child is found living with Jeanne in Port Royal. This has tragedy written all over it.
  6. Marguerite married about 1686 and made her way to Beaubassin with her new husband. He died there, and she remarried in 1680.
  7. Francoise married Claude Dugas about 1673, and by 1679, they were living in Beaubassin. However, after some intense drama in Beaubassin between 1682 and 1684, Françoise and Claude returned to Port Royal, where they lived the rest of their lives. In the 1686 census, they still owned land in Beaubassin.
  8. Anne married about 1678 and was living in Port Royal in 1686. By 1693, they were living in the Minas Basin, and in Grand Pre by 1701. She had a set of twins among her children, born in 1688, but Jeanne probably never was able to meet them and may never have known.
  9. Marie married about 1680, lived in Port Royal in 1686, but by 1693, they were in Les Mines.
  10. Jeanne’s youngest daughter, Jeanne, married about 1689 and is Jeanne’s only child to spend her entire life in Port Royal.

Yes indeed, Jeanne’s offspring were the life-well of Beaubassin. She essentially lost her first adult child to death, second through fourth children and her sixth to Beaubassin. Her fifth and seventh children went back and forth, apparently, between Beaubassin and Port Royal, but by 1686 were living back at Port Royal.

Jeanne’s eighth and ninth children left Port Royal by 1693, possibly as a result of the horrific 1690 attack, and landed in the Minas Basin someplace, then Grand Pre. Neither place was close to Beaubassin, each other, nor Port Royal.

Only Jeanne’s 10th child stayed in Port Royal, living her entire life there. Francoise died in Port Royal about 1697 after returning from Beaubassin and may have died before her mothre.

Germain returned before his death in 1711, although to the best of our knowledge, he never lived in Port Royal as an adult.

Jeanne’s children not only founded and settled Beaubassin, some died early deaths on that frontier. While Port Royal was somewhat sheltered from the open Atlantic by the surrounding hills and river valley, Beaubassin was not.

Beaubassin’s settlers endured the direct westward Atlantic winds that ushered in brutal storms powerful enough to uproot trees, and horrific Arctic winter blizzard conditions.

For Jeanne, even though she may never have visited Beaubassin until her later years, her heart was clearly split between the two locations. She assuredly thought and wondered about her children and grandchildren living there every single day. Thankfully, she eventually had some grandchildren in Port Royal.

Jeanne’s second child, Charles, died not long after Beaubassin was established. Documents tell us that some sort of plague occurred in Beaubassin in 1678, and perhaps Port Royal as well – possibly accounting for Charles’s death at only about 33.

Jeanne’s father, Guillaume Trahan, died sometime between the 1678 census and 1684 when his widow remarried. His last child was born in 1678 when he was about 77.

The 1678 census is less specific, but shows Jacques and Jeanne living in Port Royal with two girls at home, 15 cattle, and 20 arpents of land. Son Guillaume isn’t shown, but, to the best of our knowledge, he also hasn’t married. I’d wager he was on his way back and forth between Beaubassin and Port Royal when the census was taken.

In the 1686 census, Jacques (called Jacob) Bourgeois and Jeanne Trahan are living in Port Royal. Their son, Guillaume Bourgeois, 31, is living with them on 20 arpents of land. However, at the bottom of the census document, Guillaume is listed as a resident of Port Royal, but owning land in Beaubassin. He has 2 guns, 30 arpents of land, 8 cattle, and 3 sheep. He clearly left shortly after the census and married in Beaubassin.

Guillaume Bourgeois, died about 1690 in Beaubassin, about the time his only child, Jeanne, was born. Something happened to his wife at about the same time, because they only had one child, his wife did not remarry, and their daughter, age 3, is living with her grandparents, Jacques Bourgeois and Jeanne Trahan in 1693 in Port Royal. Let’s hope that Jeanne’s granddaughter brought her comfort and was a ray of exuberant sunshine in the Bourgeois home.

Guillaume would have been the third of the first five of Jeanne’s children who grew to adulthood to pass over to the other side – and those deaths around 1678 and 1690 occurred in Beaubassin, so Jeanne would not have been able to attend their funeral. No closure. No comforting rituals. Just a cold message on the next ship or boat to arrive between the two locations. By the time Jeanne received word, her child had been gone from this realm for at least two weeks, probably more. Maybe somehow she “knew.”

On one of those ships, the return letter would have said that Jeanne’s daughter, Jeanne had died, then her father, Guillaume, the grandfather of many Beaubassin founders, had passed over too.

By 1690, Jeanne would have been about 60 or 61, and Jacques about 70 or 71. Their last child had married in 1689, and their granddaughter, Jeanne Bourgeois, who eventually lived with them, would have been born about this time. She may or may not have already come to live with them in Port Royal. We don’t know exactly when her parents died, but no second child was born in 1692 that lived, so one if not both of granddaughter Jeanne’s parents would have been gone by then. Young Jeanne, her grandmother’s namesake, knew her grandparents for a few years, but she never knew her parents.

I do wonder if Jeanne stood as her granddaughter’s godmother, which is why, or at least part of why, Jeanne was living with her grandparents in 1693.

By now, Jacques and Jeanne should have been enjoying something akin to retirement – looking out over the beautiful tidal river coursing past Hogg Island. Watching sunsets and enjoying the fruits of their labors. Letting someone else do the heavy lifting, as it were.

Perhaps they were. I hope so, for even just a short time. A blink and a minute.

Their life was about to change. Maybe change is too weak a word.

The 1690 attack

In 1690, the English brutally attacked Port Royal. Again.

Even though Jacques founded Beaubassin, he and Jeanne were recorded in Port Royal in every census through 1693. Even if Jacques happened to be on his way back and forth that fateful May day in 1690, Jeanne would assuredly have been at home in Port Royal

The British fleet, consisting of seven ships, with 78 cannons, manned by 736 men, sailed up the river and anchored in front of the Fort Royal. The night before, alerted by a sentry, Governor Meneval had discharged the cannons at the fort, not just to warn the residents, but to call them to assist.

Only three men responded. 42 were reported absent, although we are left to wonder if absent means literally gone from the immediate area, or absent means that they did not respond to the summons.

Would it have made a difference in the end? Probably not.

Meneval attempted to defend the fort and the town of Port Royal, but he only had 90 soldiers, and only 70 were available. Worse yet, between them, they only had 19 muskets.

How did this even happen?

These numbers are a bit baffling in numerous ways, because the 1686 census shows a total of 103 households with a total of 71 guns. A few households, 9, were widows or listed without a spouse, but do not underestimate these women. About half of them had guns, and I’d bet every single one of them knew exactly how to use them.

Nevertheless, Port Royal was outnumbered, outgunned, and overwhelmed. They weren’t just outgunned, their fort was in a complete state of disrepair, and their cannons weren’t even mounted. They couldn’t defend themselves – at all. 19 guns against 78 cannons.

Meneval had been begging for resources from France, but to no avail.

And now the chickens had come home to roost. Well, actually, the English had come to take over – but same thing!

Meneval sent the priest to negotiate surrender terms on the English warships anchored in the river in front of Port Royal. I’m guessing that Jeanne, then about 60 or 61, had already vacated Hogg Island upon seeing the arrival of the fleet, followed by the warning cannon shot.

Mutually acceptable surrender terms were reached, including that:

  • The Acadians could retain their property and continue to worship unmolested
  • The French garrison and officers would be sent back to France unharmed
  • The fort and “King’s property” would become England’s

However, the English commander, Phipps, refused to sign the agreement the next day, although there were multiple witnesses for both sides.

This is a dark, foreboding foreshadowing of what was coming next.

Phipps claimed that he had no idea about the poor condition of the fort, which seems incredulous, given that he had met with Charles Melanson, an Acadian on the north side of the river who was widely regarded as being “too friendly” with the English, to inquire about conditions at the fort. Additionally, Phipps had sent an emissary to the fort to request surrender BEFORE negotiations began AND he could clearly see the fort from the river.

Nope, Phipps was full of hooey!

Phipps found a convenient excuse to unleash his soldiers to do whatever they wanted – and they did – plundering the town, church, and nearby farms, and burning 28 homes.

Where was Jeanne?

We have no idea.

Was the Bourgeois home burned? Most probably, unless for some reason it managed to be spared due to Jacques’ favored trading status with the English.

The Acadian men were rounded up in the church near the fort and forced to sign a loyalty oath to the English crown.

Jacques’ name is absent. Was Jacques even in Port Royal at that time? Some speculate that he actually penned the oath, which is why he didn’t sign. That’s certainly possible, but a comparison of the only signature we have of his to the loyalty oath doesn’t seem to match. I wish we had an additional sample of his handwriting.

One thing is for sure. Port Royal was a mess. Her residents were homeless and distraught – their town having been turned into an inferno.

A few weeks later, English pirates came and finished stealing and burning whatever was left.

Beaubassin, however, was untouched – this time.

1693 – Rinse and Repeat

Two things of note happened in 1693. The census, and another English attack – and we don’t know which occurred first.

In 1693, Port Royal is under the control of the English, and Jacques is listed as “Jacob.” He’s 74 and Jeanne is 64. Their granddaughter, the orphan of their son, Guillaume, is 3 and lives with them. They are more prosperous than ever, with 15 cattle, 20 sheep, 15 hogs, and one gun, living on 40 arpents of land. It’s certainly possible that Jacques’ 40 arpents is his 20 and his son, Guillaume’s 20, or that some is in Beaubassin and some is located in Port Royal.

Jeanne’s daughters, Francoise and Jeanne still live in Port Royal, and one of Jeanne’s grandchildren, Charles Bourgeois, eldest son of her son Charles, had returned to Port Royal and married, although they would return to Beaubassin shortly.

Perhaps Charles took his grandparents with them.

The English, never tiring of attacking Port Royal, apparently, struck again in retaliation for the French assisting and giving quarter to French Privateer Pierre Maisonnat dit Baptiste, a man who fought side-to-side with the Acadians in 1690, was taken prisoner and escaped, and had become a living legend and folk-hero to the Acadians. In the 1693 census, he’s living in Port Royal.

Among other things, Baptiste, as he was called, traded for guns. While the Acadians were very poorly armed in 1690, that wouldn’t happen again. In 1693, almost every Acadian had at least one gun, but Baptiste had 15, far more than anyone else. He was arming Acadia and training the young men right under the noses of the absentee English landlords.

In retaliation, the English sailed up the river, burned a dozen homes, including one with women and children inside, and three barns full of grain.

There’s an odd twist to all of this, because Baptiste remained in Port Royal for some time. He’s there through 1703, but in January of 1706, he was named Port Captain of Beaubassin, and in the middle of January of 1707, he became the third husband of Jeanne’s daughter, Marguerite Bourgeois. She, on the other hand, was at least his third, if not fourth, or more, wives. I’m not sure how to count the bigamy annulment, or how many French wives he had. After all, he was a pirate, and there were rumors…

1793 seemed to be a turning point for Port Royal. Many younger people had had enough. They left and settled in Les Mines, Beaubassin, and Grand Pre. Port Royal had been attacked and burned twice in three years – and was living under the thumb of the despised English.

Apparently, the 1693 attack was the last straw for Jacques and Jeanne too. Perhaps their home was burned, perhaps for the second time in three years, and they were just too old and tired to rebuild again.

1696 – The English “Visit” Beaubassin

Jeanne and Jacques may have thought they were escaping to safer quarters in Beaubassin – away from the English attacks. Apparently the Bourgeois family felt safe in Beaubassin, even without a fort – because they never built one there.

Beaubassin was the only early Acadian settlement without a fortification.

They were wrong.

In 1696, Benjamin Church decided to “visit” Beaubassin to exact revenge for an attack by the French and Indians in New England, and he was seeking scalps for scalp bounty.

Arriving on September 20th, Church had to wait for the tide to rise in order to land at Beaubassin, which provided the Acadians and their Mi’kmaq allies with enough warning and time to hide in the woods.

After disembarking and climbing the path to the homes in the village at Beaubassin, Church met Germain Bourgeois on the path, reportedly carrying a gun and an ammunition box. Church’s account of this encounter, penned a few years later and published by his son, informs us that Jeanne and Jacques are living with Germain, or at least at his house, at that time.

Church’s account says that Germain, after being told to stop or he’d be shot, laid his gun down and expressed “his desire that Church would make haste with him to his house, lest the savages would kill his father and mother, who were upward of fourscore years of age and could not go,” meaning go into the woods to escape.

The next events are very reminiscent of Port Royal in 1690. The village was ransacked and plundered by the English for 9 days, most homes were burned, and the men were rounded up and forced to sign a loyalty oath.

More unbridled terror.

Jeanne had survived the English attacks of 1643, 1654, 1690, 1693, and now 1696 in Beaubassin. Good Lord, was there no end?

How many homes were burned?

Did Jeanne lose family members in those fires?

Had her son and his wife been killed in 1690? Is that why she was raising her granddaughter?

Back in Port Royal, Jeanne’s daughter, Francoise, died sometime between 1692 and 1697, inferred from the fact that her last known child was born in 1692 and her husband, Claude Dugas, remarried about 1697. Based on the number of missing children between those dates, Jeanne was probably burying Francoise’s children before she buried Francoise herself. Given Francoise’s age, I wonder if her death was related to childbirth.

Or worse…

I can’t stop thinking about the report of a woman and her children who were burned to death in a home in 1693.

I hope Jeanne was at least able to say goodbye to Francoise and bury her. So many of Jeanne’s children died where she wasn’t, so she would have experienced no soothing Catholic rituals and had no closure.

1698

In 1698, Jacques and Jeanne are unquestionably living in Beaubassin where he is listed first in the census. Jacques, 82, and Jeanne, 72, are living with their son, Germain, his wife, Madeleine Dugas, 34, and only one child, Agnes, age 12. What had happened to Germain’s other children? Is this related to the 1696 attack?

If their home was burned, they have recovered, at least somewhat, because they have 22 cattle, 15 hogs, 21 arpents of land, 3 guns, and 1 servant.

The Final Frontier

Two years later, in the 1700 census, neither Jacques nor Jeanne are found in the census in Beaubassin or Port Royal.

After more than 72 years, Jeanne has slipped the bonds of Earth, not long before or after Jacques.

They spent their last few years in the incredibly beautiful village that Jacques funded, if not actively founded by moving there himself.

Jeanne may have visited earlier, but with children and livestock to tend at home, that’s unlikely. It’s not that she wasn’t invested, however, because her children and grandchildren’s lives were spent here, and their DNA is mingled with Beaubassin’s soil.

When Jeanne arrived, sometime after the 1693 census and before September of 1696, a beautiful expansive horizon would have greeted her – along with grandchildren and great-grandchildren she had never met or known.

She had a lot of catching up to do.

I’m so glad Jeanne was able to spend her final years among her expansive family – part of the tapestry she had woven but never been able to participate in.

The little church was probably located on the hill where the English built the fort in 1750, with the cemetery just outside. This handdrawn map depicts the foundations of Acadian homes from archaeological research in 1948, 1958 and 1968.

Beaubassin was destroyed in 1750, so we have no records of where homes or the church, or the cemetery were located. However, in 1891, when tracks for the new railroad were being laid, they accidentally disturbed the old Beaubassin cemetery.

Years later, in the mid and late 1900s, additional work was done to locate the foundations of the Acadian homes.

Combining that information together, we know that Jeanne and Jacques would have been buried here, in what is today a beautiful field, with the bay in the distance, just across the bridge from the fort that was built in 1750 by those cursed English, and then abandoned five years later.

Few visit where the Bourgeois village and Acadian homes once stood, now reclaimed by nature.

Beaubassin is remote, her salt-marsh dyked fields today the domain of cows, horses, and a wind-turbine farm.

It’s this very harshness, ruggedness and remoteness that were the hallmarks of the frontier trading post and village that Jacques Bourgeois sought, and where Jeanne spent her sunset days on that final shoreline.

How Jeanne’s world changed in four score years, across two continents and three frontiers.

_____________________________________________________________

Share the Love!

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

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

You Can Help Keep This Blog Free

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

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Uploads

Genealogy Products and Services

My Books

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

Jacques Bourgeois: Complex Acadian, Founder of Beaubassin – 52 Ancestors #450

Jacques Bourgeois first arrived in Acadia in 1641. I wrote about his journey from La Rochelle in the first chapter, Jacques Bourgeois: Surgeon of Port Royal. Please read that article before this one to obtain a complete view of Jacques’ incredible life.

These articles include many photos, which make them lengthy, but I’m writing with the understanding that many people will never be able to travel to these locations to visit Jacques – so I’m taking you along with me.

A picture really is worth 1000 words. Continue reading

Jacques Bourgeois (c1620-c1700), Surgeon of Port Royal – 52 Ancestors #449

Jacques Bourgeois is one of the earliest Acadian ancestors. Unlike many, he has an actual proven arrival date, and he’s a fascinating character with an ever-present mysterious edge.

Not only was Jacques a primary founder of Port Royal as a seat of government, he also founded Beaubassin which also served briefly as the capital of Acadia. I suspect he was a far more powerful man than many knew, even then – greasing various wheels of power behind the scenes.

Jacques literally lived through the first half of the entire Acadian existence in Nova Scotia – from 1642 to about 1700. Roughly 58 years. It would be another 55 years after his death until the Grand Dérangement, as the 1755 expulsion of the Acadians was known.

Early Life

There’s a lot of controversial and unproven speculation floating around about Jacques’ potential parents. It’s all unproven, so barring new information tying Jacques to a European family, I’m omitting it from this discussion because I don’t want to be responsible for perpetuating speculative information. That said, the least speculative version appears on the first two pages of this document.

Other histories report that there were two men in Acadia at the same time named Jacques Bourgeois, one being “our” Jacques’ father by the same name. I have not seen anything to substantiate this claim either, and we do have evidence otherwise, including a 1687 deposition.

Our Jacques Bourgeois was born around 1619 or 1620 in France. That much is fact!

Between his birth and his arrival in Acadia in 1641/1642, he apprenticed as a chirurgien, a surgeon, sometimes called a barber-surgeon, someplace. Studying as a surgeon then meant an apprenticeship where one learned how to perform specific procedures, like bloodletting, from a “master.”

A barber-surgeon wasn’t the same thing as a physician. One difference was that a chirurgien required no formal training and did not have to pass a test, which a physician did. Requirements, skills, and “quality” of training and care varied widely. I’m sure that more remote country areas were grateful for compassionate care from whoever had the knowledge and skills to help them.

There are no records to suggest where Jacques studied or apprenticed.

I asked ChatGPT to draw an authentic chirurgien from France in 1640, so our Jacques might have looked and dressed something like this.

This drawing of a French Chirurgien in the early/mid 1700s shows him gleefully wearing the tools of his profession.

Medicine and hospitals were often associated with the Catholic Church, and surgeons in France during this timeframe had multiple duties. They were referred to as barber-surgeons because in addition to “surgery,” they also pulled teeth, shaved people, trimmed beards, and cut hair – probably with the same blade they used for surgery after simply wiping it clean.

Sterilization and the sources of infection weren’t yet understood, so the razors used for haircuts and grooming were also used for whatever was necessary for the next patient with an injury who needed stitches, or more.

Well, that was AFTER stitches came into vogue and wounds were closed with ligatures instead of the horrific practice of cauterization, all without anesthetic, of course.

If you’re cringing, me too.

Surgeons played key roles in battlefield medicine and “dentistry,” such as it was at the time, along with assisting with difficult childbirths. If a surgeon was called for a birth, it’s probably unlikely that the child survived. Midwives were much more experienced. Many times, by the time a surgeon was involved with any injury, it was so severe that the patient perished. If they didn’t die from the injury itself, or bleeding, they died of infection.

In the 1600s, it was still believed that the body had “four humors” and illness was caused by the humors being out of balance. Bloodletting, purging, and enemas were believed to restore balance. Sounds like a wonderful profession, right?

The only pain relief available to surgeons was opium, henbane, which is both a hallucinogenic plant and poisonous in addition to being a painkiller, and of course, “spirits.”

It must have been a depressing field – and Jacques apparently self-administered his own “tonic” in the form of strong spirits.

That might explain why Louis-Alexandre des Friches de Meneval in his 1688 report after his 1687 arrival as Acadia’s new Governor, reported that:

The cost of living was high; there was a shortage of flour and of workers; some of the soldiers were old and disabled and had ceased to be of any use; the contingent of the preceding year had received bad muskets and that of 1688 had only 19 muskets between 30 soldiers, so that half of them were without arms; the surgeon was a drunkard, and the court had neglected to supply funds with which to pay him; a hospital and medical supplies were needed.

A hospital in 17th-century France was somewhat different than today’s hospital in that it was a charitable institution, often part of a monastery, and served religious, shelter, and severe health needs. Mortality rates were high, and sometimes hospital patients were served by nuns, not doctors.

Jacques Bourgeois was the surgeon for all of Acadia – so he was assuredly well-known by everyone, but clearly worked under very challenging conditions.

Nevertheless, Jacques was the most prosperous Acadian by any measure. He also owned productive land and was a fur trader, farmer, shipbuilder and mariner as well.

His merchant vessels plied the waters of the coastline of the Baie Française, now the Bay of Fundy, to trade with the Mi’kmaq people, then following the coast in the other direction to New England to trade with the English.

But let’s step back in time to Jacques’s arrival in Acadia

D’Aulnay and Acadia

In 1632, England returned Acadia and what is now Canada to France by treaty, and the French King began granting land concessions.

Isaac de Razilly established the outpost of La Hève in 1632 on the southern coast of Acadia, almost opposite Port Royal. With Charles de Menou d’Aulnay as his assistant, they transported men and eventually a few families to populate this remote outpost.

D’Aulnay recruited heavily from La Chaussee and the area near Loudon, in France, his mother’s seigneury.

Many Acadian families farmed in the region and attended this church in La Chaussee, now attached to the Acadian Museum.

After Razilly’s death in 1635, his brother became the new Governor of Acadia, and d’Aulnay continued to work for him. Razilly never set foot in Acadia, while d’Aulnay not only ran the colony, but moved the seat of Acadia to Port Royal. He built a new fort there, moved the La Hève residents, and requested 20 additional families.

Acadian Civil War

Acadia was about to become embroiled in its own Civil War – small though Acadia might be.

Charles La Tour also held a commission, granted in 1635, for part of Acadia located at Cape Sable and the mouth of the Saint John River. Cable Sable was between La Hève (now La Have), Pentagouet and Port Royal, all controlled by d’Aulnay, and Saint John was directly across the Bay from Port Royal.

It’s no wonder that they stepped on each other’s toes. Animosity between the men grew.

Accusations and worse were flying by 1640, and d’Aulnay obtained an order from the King to arrest La Tour, administer his two forts, and send La Tour back to France to make an accounting of himselt. D’Aulnay tried, but could not overpower La Tour’s fort at the Saint John River to arrest him, so on February 15, 1641, instead of returning La Tour on the ship that had carried the King’s order, he returned with a letter stating that La Tour refused to be arrested. D’Aulnay also returned to seek assistance in Acadia, and additional power.

Eventually, d’Aulnay obtained controlling interest in the company that Razilly controlled, which had already sunk a ton of money into Acadia, with virtually nothing to show for it.

While Razilly and the rest of the investors were discouraged and disappointed, d’Aulnay, on the other hand, was upbeat and exceedingly hopeful. He saw a bright future for Acadia and his optimism must have been infectious.

Setting Sail for Acadia

On May 7, 1641, a Tuesday, Jacques Bourgeois, a young surgeon of 20 or 21, was in La Rochelle, preparing to sail to Acadia. We don’t know if d’Aulnay recruited him from his mother’s seigneury or not, or if Jacques was already living in La Rochelle or elsewhere.

Jacques was probably living in a rented room in La Rochelle, or at least slept there overnight before his journey. The crew and passengers were all paid something in advance, so they had money to visit the pub one last time, or leave money with their family, just in case they never returned.

While Jacques’ shipmates may have slept in the grass beside the dock, Jacques, as the surgeon, had a larger advance than anyone else, so he very likely slept inside, in a room someplace.

Come morning, he descended the worn stairs that had seen thousands of feet before him.

This journey he was about to undertake was both exciting and fraught with peril. Jacques, although anticipating his new life, probably slept fitfully, if at all. Maybe a little wine, or something stronger, helped with that.

Was the chill he felt, walking alone in the early morning on the uneven cobblestones just the norning dew, or was it something else? A touch of fear, perhaps?

Regardless, that day that would change his life forever. Jacques walked down the streets of La Rochelle through the city gate.

The future awaited.

The harbour was still asleep, but gleamed peacefully and beautifully in front of him. Inviting him down to the water’s edge.

In the stillness of the dawn, he walked along the waterfront, and down to the wharf. He saw the church in the distance and the towers, ancient sentries of the gate he would pass through. A portal to a distant land and unknown future.

Were they beckoning him, or warning him to stay in La Rochelle?

Did Jacques look at the harbour in front of him and wonder about the future, or was he simply excited to set out on an adventure? He was, after all, a young man.

Uncertainly also begets opportunity.

As the sun emerged on the horizon, was the adrenalin and excitement that kept him from sleeping the night before still pumping through his veins? Or, had he joined with some of the other passengers or friends and family for a boisterous “au revoir”?

Sometimes a little fear can be soothed, or masked, by spirits.

Did he walk to the towers as the harbor stirred from its sleep, with laborers on the docks and wharfs beginning to load ships that were destined to leave that day?

His destiny lay on the Saint-Francois. She was moored and waiting, rocking gently to and fro.

Did Jacques slip into a church and say a prayer? What was his prayer to God for?

Did he carry his rosary tucked away in his pocket?

Did he pray to Saint Christopher, the patron saint of travelers, and perhaps carry a St. Christopher medallion with him? Perhaps he wore it around his neck where he could touch it easily?

Did Jacques realize there were few eligible women for brides in Acadia? Did he think about any of this as the sailors weathered hands loosed the ship’s ropes from the mooring rings and he sailed off into forever?

As the ship slipped between the towers, did his throat tighten a bit?

Did he expect to return to La Rochelle at some point?

He never would.

Jacques must surely have realized that some ships never arrived at their destination, and their passengers slept eternally among the fishes.

Ships were as sturdy as they could make them, but the ocean’s power was immense.

Was he just a tiny bit afraid? Did he quietly wave goodbye to all that was familiar and swallow that knot in his throat?

Did he think of his mother?

As they sailed out of the harbor, past the island, into the sea, did Jacques by any chance have a premonition that he was setting eyes on La Rochelle, and France, for the last time – ever? They became mere dots on the horizon, then disappeared into the past.

Did his parents and family know he was leaving? Embarking for New France? Were they still alive, and if so, where did his family live?

Was anyone standing on the shore, waving as the ship sailed into the sunlight of tomorrows?

Jacques Bourgeois set sail on the ship, the Saint-Francois, with 34 other men, including:

  • The captain
  • The pilot
  • Boatswain who was in charge of the ship and crew, who he managed through whistles
  • 9 sailors plus three marked as absent
  • A carpenter
  • A gunner (cannoneer)
  • A cabin boy
  • 17 soldiers, including one wounded
  • One soldier is listed as both a soldier and surgeon, which causes me to wonder if his specialty was battlefield injuries
  • A baker
  • An assistant commissary who would have managed food and supplies

For the next several weeks, these men would be his bunkmates, his companions. Fellow adventures, sharing stories about their families and lives back in France, and their hopes and dreams for the future. They probably all pretended not to be homesick and prayed not to be seasick.

Based on what we’ve learned about the rest of Jacques life, I’d say he enjoyed the journey, because ships became interwoven in his future.

The Saint-Francois

We are fortunate to have a roster of d’Aulnay’s ship, the Saint-Francois.

On December 12, 1642, Nicolas Denys penned a statement that totaled the cost of the expedition, including what was paid to crew members, passengers, and soldiers, which I transcribed and translated with the help of ChatGPT. I am unclear whether this was the cost one way only, or both ways.

Update in November, 2025. Marc Bourgeois, a native french-speaking genealogist, was kind enough to translate the original and provide me with updates. You can also find out what is known about the remaining rosters of all of the Acadian voyages in the Internet Archives, here.

  • Note #1: Ships crew begins with the captain and continues through Jehan Mouton.
  • Note #2: Three men were the names of sailors who received money, fled and were put in the service of the king. Jacques Boullant, Matelot, received a 33 livre advance, but was marked as absent. So was Pierre du Breuil and Jehan Poriier, who are on the list that follows.
  • Note #3: Military, begins with Bertrand Aubert.
  • Note #4: Names of those who are to remain overseas. Begins with Denis Baniard, a soldier who needs to be added to the chart. He was to receive 75 livres per year, received an advance but the amount is not stated, and is to remain oveseas at the post..
  • Note #5: Names of soldiers who fled during the last release. Begins iwth Pierre Fleureau.

The note number has been added in the Commentary column.

 Name Role Wage Advance Livres Sous Deniers Commentary
Captain LeBoeuf Captain 162 due Since Sept 1642 0 0 Captain’s wages carried over from and of year 1641 not rectified. #1
Jehan Marton Ship’s Pilot 12 livres/mo 64 2 1 Plus advance. #1
Pierre Brettois Ship’s Boatswain 12 livres/mo 36 0 0 Received advance. #1
Matelin Gomeau Sailor 10 livres mo 45 0 0 Received advance. #1
Name crossed out – maybe Jean Jacquet or Samuel? Sailor 8 livresmo 42 0 0 Line was crossed out. #1
Jean Giroux Sailor  livres/mo 22 0 0 Received an advance. #!
Jouannis Marot Sailor 9 livres/mo 39 0 0 Received advance. #1
Pierre Lemasson? Sailor 9 livres/mo 42 0 0 Received advance. #1
Jehan de Mes Carpenter 16 livres/mo 47 7 0 Received advance. #1
François Rublanche Sailor 12 livres/mo 36 0 0 Received advance. #1
Marceau Mallet Gunner (cannoneer) 15 livres/mo 30 0 0 Received advance. #1
Noël Guittault Sailor 11 livres/mo 28 4 6 Received advance. #1
André Margonne Sailor 12 livres/mo 24 0 0 Received advance. #1
Guillaume Blondel Sailor 11 livres/mo 28 7 0 Received advance. #1
Jehan Moutton Cabin boy 11 9 6 Received advance. #1
Pierre du Breuil Sailor Absent 40 0 0 Marked as absent. #2
Jehan Poirier Sailor Absent 36 0 0 Marked as absent. #2
Bertrand Aubert Soldier 9 livres/mo 18 0 0 Received advance. #3
Habraham Fleurant Soldier 9livres/mo 23 0 0 Received advance. #3
Jehan Saubriat Soldier 7 livres/mo 14 0 0 Received advance. #3
André Savigneau Soldier 10 livres/mo 14 0 0 Received advance. #3
Henot Jacop Soldier 10 livres/mo 30 0 0 Received advance. #3
Jehan Moizard Soldier 9 livres/mo 33 0 0 Received advance. #3
Jehan Oslie Soldier 10 livres/mo 30 0 0 Received advance, to remain behind on land. #3
Pierre Chalopin Soldier 75 livres/yr 37 10 0 Received advance, to remain overseas at the post. #4
François Pofroy Baker 200 livres/yr 100 0 0 Received advance, to remain overseas at the post, baker by trade. #4
Jacques Bourgeois Surgeon 45 écus/yr 47 4 0 Surgeon; salary in écus, to remain overseas at the post. #4
Mr. Mallet Assistant commissary 3 0 0 Received advance and left as assistant commissary. #4
Pierre Fleureau Soldier 33 0 0 Fled but received advance. #5
Philippe de la Haye Soldier 36 0 0 Fled but received advance. #5
Massiau Brullon Soldier & Surgeon 37 0 0 Fled but had received advance. #5
Maliedin Quaucet Soldier 20 0 0 Assigned to M. Courroux, received advance. #5
Jehan Michel Soldier 33 0 0 Fled but received advance.. #5
Mathurin Leduc Soldier 33 1 6 Fled but received advance. #5
Jehan du Bois? or Puis Soldier 36 0 0 Received advance. #5
Alexandre Langleborne Soldier (wounded) 33 0 0 Wounded soldier, received advance. #5

For reference, the livre was a unit of accounting, and one livre equaled about 20 sols. Each sol equaled about 12 deniers. Originally, one ecu was equivalent to about a pound of silver. Jacques was the only man paid in ecus.

An ecu was an actual coin. Before 1640, the ecu was only made of gold, but in 1640 King Louis XIII introduced the silver ecu which was worth about six livres. Jacques’ pay of 45 ecus per year, equivalent to about 270 livres, was significantly higher than anyone else’s pay and was in an actual coin which could be traded because it was a precious metal. The next highest paid person was, surprisingly, the baker. Everyone needs to eat!

It’s interesting to note that only five men were designated to remain overseas at the post:

  • Denis Baniard, a soldier
  • Pierre Chalopin, a soldier
  • Francois Pofroy, the baker
  • Jacques Bourgeois, the surgeon
  • Mr. Mallet, the assistant commisary

Apparently, the other men or went back to France at some point.

It’s also interesting that everyone received an advance, which must have been customary at that time.

Jehan Piorier, a sailer marked absent, is the same name as a man who would eventually become one of the founding Acadians. We don’t know if this was the same Jean Piorier, or not. If so, he arrived on another ship, because he was absent on this one, and married Jeanne Chebrat by 1647 in Acadia.

It would be another 30 years before the first census in Port Royal that would either enumerate the residents, or their descendants, assuming anyone had survived.

A lot can happen in 30 years.

A lot did happen in 30 years!!

Warfare

The conflict between Charles de La Tour and Menou d’Aulnay began with Razilly’s death and lasted in one way or another until 1645 when d’Aulnay captured La Tour’s forts, forcing him into exile.

In fact, this Acadian Civil War may have been part of the reason why d’Aulnay recruited a surgeon.

In 1640, La Tour left Saint John, crossed the Bay of Fundy, then attacked d’Aulnay at Port Royal. D’Aulnay’s prevailed despite his captain being killed. La Tour surrendered, and d’Aulnay proceeded to blockade Fort Saint John.

As luck would have it, Jacques Bourgeois arrived just in time to become engaged in the next blockade of St. John in 1642. Did he wonder what the heck he had gotten himself into?

The 1643 Battle of Port Royal

D’Aulnay blockaded La Tour’s fort, again, for several months. In July of 1643, La Tour arrived from Boston with four ships and 270 men to retake his fort. After succeeding, he then chased d’Aulnay back home across the bay and attacked d’Aulnay at Port Royal.

Three of d’Aulnay’s men were killed and seven wounded. La Tour burned the mill at Port Royal, killed livestock, seized furs, gunpowder and other supplies, but he did not directly attack the fort which was only defended by 20 soldiers.

This gives us some idea of the defensive force, or lack thereof, at Port Royal.

Jacques, then 23 or 24 years old, assuredly treated those injured soldiers and perhaps the ones that died too.

All of the residents had to be worried. Not IF La Tour would come back to haunt Port Royal, but when? How many soldiers would he bring with him? How many ships? Would he burn the fort? Would he kill the residents? What about the families?

The game of cat and mouse was deadly.

Could Port Royal and Fort Anne defend itself?

Marriage

In the 1671 census, Jacques Bourgeois is listed first, a surgeon, age 50, married to Jeanne Trahan, age 40. Their eldest child is Jeanne Bourgeois, age 27, so she was born about 1644.

This means that Jacques and Jeanne Trahan were married about 1643, so not long after Jacques arrived in Acadia, although perhaps two battles after he had arrived in Port Royal. Did they marry before the 1643 Battle of Port Royal?

Not many European brides were available in Acadia, as few families had made the trip, so Jacques was probably very pleased to marry Jeanne, even though they were a young couple. Men, in that timeframe, generally didn’t marry until they were about 30, but young women often married as soon as they were mature enough to bear children. Jacques was about 23 and Jeanne was about 15 when her first child was born.

They would have been married in Port Royal not long after it was established. There may or may not have been an actual church, but regardless, they would have been married by the priest, or a ship’s chaplain – some man of God. Of course, no records from that timeframe remain.

The War Continues

In 1645, the continuous war between d’Aulnay and La Tour reached a crescendo, and it’s almost a certainty that Jacques Bourgeois was involved. Why do I think that? It’s incomprehensible that d’Aulnay would enter a military action without his trusted surgeon on board.

In April 1645, d’Aulnay got word that La Tour had departed for Boston and issued orders that every man who could carry a musket needed to report.

D’Aulnay needed every man old enough to carry a gun or fire a cannon. It’s difficult to believe there were 200 men in all of Acadia, but that’s the number d’Aulnay was reported to have. Nine years later, after several more ships of settlers has probably arrived from France, Nicolas Denys reported that there were about 270 people in Port Royal, which would equate to about 30-40 households. Even if all households had three adult or near-adult sons, that’s only 100-120 people, so it’s logical that nine years earlier, d’Aulnay’s crew would have been comprised of soldiers at the fort, plus all able-bodied Acadian men. Perhaps d’Aulnay had multiple ships in port at the time to buoy those numbers.

D’Aulnay first sent an emissary across the Bay to Saint John to request that the fort surrender, but the request was dismissed by La Tour’s wife, Françoise-Marie Jacquelin.

D’Aulnay with 200 men sailed across the Bay of Fundy, set up a battery on shore, and made one last call for surrender, which was met with catcalls and insults.

The fort then raised the red flag of defiance, and d’Aulnay attacked.

La Tour’s 23-year-old wife, Françoise-Marie, assumed command and fought valiantly for someplace between 1 and 5 days, accounts vary, even though badly outnumbered.

On April 16th, Easter Sunday, before dawn, expecting the advantage of surprise, d’Aulnay ordered his men forward across the ditches and ramparts. However, La Tour’s men were waiting for them, and greeted them with swords, pikes and halberds.

Giving up on under the direst of circumstances, Francoise-Marie obtained d’Aulnay’s assurances that he would not harm the soldiers, granting “quarter to all.”

Furious over their resistance, after the surrender, d’Aulnay immediately broke his promise, forcing Francoise-Marie to watch the execution of every soldier, except the one who agreed to be the executioner, bound, with a rope around her own neck.

D’Aulnay did not hang Francoise-Marie, but after discovering that she had attempted to send a letter to La Tour in Boston through a Mi’kmaq friend, he ordered her into “severe restraints” where she fell ill.

She died three weeks after the fort fell, under questionable circumstances, a hostage of d’Aulnay.

LaTour did not find out about his wife’s death until June, then retreated to Quebec and did not return until after d’Aulnay’s demise five years later, in 1650.

Jacques Bourgeois would have witnessed this entire barbaric event personally.

How I wish he had left us a journal of his life.

Hogg Island

The first land granted by d’Aulnay, en censive, meaning as a feudal lord, was in Port Royal, near the fort, the hub of social, religious and trading activity. In 1646, Jacques and Jeanne were granted an island called île aux Cochons, Hogg Island, situated in the Riviere Dauphin (today’s Annapolis River) on the outskirts of Port-Royal.

In a 1702 document, Jacques’ land at Hogg Island is mentioned as having been granted by d’Aulnay forty years earlier, except we know that d’Aulnay died 52 years earlier. The document continued to describe the land as bounded by the road and the River Dauphin, but the number of feet in width was left blank. Brouillan, the Governor beginning in 1701 took Hogg Island which, at that time, belonged to Etienne Pellerin. He then extended Rue St. Antoine to lay out a town in that direction and erected his home on Hogg Island, wherein he could see the fort from his abode.

This 1686 map shows Hogg Island and other buildings in Port Royal, along with what looks like two buildings on Hogg Island.

It’s also interesting that you can see the typical boats used in the river, not the ocean-going ships, of course.

Acadians, including women, rowed back and forth across the river like we drive across bridges today. The river divided the Acadian community, but it seemed to function quite well on both banks of the river.

Here’s another hand-drawn 1686 map. The scale is a bit off in this one, you but you can still see the location and buildings, along with the waterfront mill and the cemetery near the fort.

The drawings of the ships on this map are beautiful.

I can see Jacques and the other men rowing their boats in the basin.

Jacques Bourgeois sold Hogg Island to Etienne Pellerin years later, sometime around 1700.

This map from 1708, after Jacques had died and Hogg Island was still owned by the Pellerin family, shows the land in greater detail, including the stream that sets Hogg Island apart from the rest of Port Royal and makes it an island.

You can also see the dykes that keep the saltwater at bay and allow the fields to be farmed.

Jacques may have been a surgeon, but perhaps more than anything, he was a shrewd opportunist and an investor in Acadia.

Jacques began trading with the English out of New England, specifically with John Nelson and William Phipps. He learned English and became the King’s interpreter between the French and English at Port Royal.

For the first thirty years of his life in Port Royal, Hogg Island wasn’t only his home, but his trading post, store, and place of business. As a surgeon, he probably treated people there as well, although I suspect that he visited most people in their homes.

It didn’t hurt anything that visitors who came to barter or trade could tie their boats or canoes on the shoreline, right on Hogg Island. If he was smart, and he assuredly was, he probably had a tavern too so his guests would wet their whistle and make themselves comfortable with a hearty meal.

Perhaps the amenities made the trading process easier!

Walking Hogg Island

When I visited Nova Scotia in 2024, I walked Hogg Island in the late afternoon and at dusk, thinking about Jacques’ life there.

Today’s Hogg Island looks very different.

I can’t tell the exact boundaries, but I can identify the waterfront portion. I know that Hogg Island is at least the area within the red arrows and may extend across Highway 1 to the right.

Hogg Island was probably named as such because, due to the enclosing stream, you could pasture hogs and cattle without them wandering off. In Acadian terms, it was prime real estate both for farming and trading.

Today, at the location where St. George Street along the waterfront turns right and becomes Chapel Street, Annapolis Royal has placed a historical sign.

While today’s road to Hogg Island ends here, there’s a nice walking path above the shoreline.

There’s only one path out and back, so you’re walking with me in both directions.

As we walk, to my right, I can see the contemporary homes, but I imagine Jacques’ home standing there, along with his barns, of course, and maybe even a store of sorts, used for trading.

Perhaps a trading post where men would walk a short path up from the river, pull a chair up close to the fire, warm their hands, dry their boots, imbibe, and make their best deal.

They dyked the marshlands here just as they did elsewhere along the river.

Today, looking over the water at the homes at Granville Ferry, across the river, we can see the ruins of docks built on Hogg Island in the late 1700s and 1800s after the English occupied the region following the Acadian expulsion in 1755.

This area was later selected for docks because it was convenient for manufacturing and shipping, just the same as it was for Jacques Bourgeois.

The river is tidal, and it’s easy to see that it’s not high tide.

During my visit to my mother’s ancestors’ homeland, I wore her ring as a way to take her along with me. Here, “Mom” is visiting Jacques Bourgeois, with the Levron and Doucet properties in view across the river.

If not initially, eventually, everyone is Acadia was related to everyone else.

Did Jacques live on this knoll, above the scrub, near the end of Hogg Island?

The tide moves rapidly in this river. Not understanding a temperamental tidal river claimed the lives of many.

As I reached the end of the island, where it begin to curve to the right, I realized that the sun was beginning to set.

What a stunning golden-hour picture. I hope Jacques loved it here as he viewed the works of Mother Nature’s paintbrush.

While I actually wanted to continue walking, the path was increasingly obstructed by modernity, because we were approaching the area of the power plant, and I didn’t want my visit to Jacques’ world to be interrupted by the 21st century.

I turned around and began meandering back. I wanted to walk out on the ruined wharf, but it looked treacherous, and the tide was coming in, plus the mud. I hadn’t told anyone where I was going and decided that I really shouldn’t tempt fate.

The sun began to set in earnest, and my ancestors put on quite the show. In this panoramic photo, you can see the path, the shoreline, the sunset, of course, and the shore across the river.

No one, not one single Acadian, had moved here because of Acadia’s beauty. They wouldn’t have even known about that, but Acadia is breathtaking.

Jacques would have seen this exact view hundreds of times, in all types of weather.

Jeanne Trahan would have breathed in the beauty of these sunsets as the sun began it’s nightly journey behind the mountains.

Their children would have glimpsed this beauty over the distant hills, perhaps as they pulled a final bucket of water from the well for the night.

The traders, be they French, English or Indian would have wanted to tie up before the sun slipped behind the hills, and darkness descended.

Canoes and small boats would have been pulled up onto the shore, safely above the tide line.

Larger boats would have been tied to the dock or anchored, or both.

Wares to trade would have been unloaded here.

Different merchandise would be loaded back onto the boats after deals were struck, meals eaten, and perhaps a day or two spent exchanging news and resting.

Larger ships probably needed a wharf. One existed near the fort, but Jacques, being a wealthy man, probably had his own, especially if he was a shipbuilder.

Standing here, drinking in the raw beauty, I couldn’t help but think that eventually, Jacques would see one final sunset from his beloved Hogg Island.

Perhaps they took this for granted – just part of everyday life in Acadia.

It’s peaceful today, but Jacques would have witnessed English warships sailing up this river. Fortunately for him, he lived beyond the fort, so perhaps slightly safer.

On the other hand, Jacques traded with the English. It’s difficult to know whether that was an advantage, or disadvantage, with whom, and when. Life in Acadia was not straightforward, and the politics were much like the tidal river – complex and always changing.

Perhaps Jacques wandered the shore as the sun set, praying or pondering.

Did he wonder from time to time if he had made the right decision about something?

Opportunties that he had taken, and ones that he hadn’t?

Was he glad that he left France?

Did he ever think about an alternate life that he might have lived there?

Did Jacques enjoy the waterfowl in the shallows, or was he too busy to notice?

Did he commit these stunning summer sunsets to memory to sustain him through the interminable, grey winters?

Did he even consider the notion that his 8 times great grandchildren would make their way back to Hogg Island to say his name and watch these sunsets “with” him?

As the sun set, did Jacques sometimes wonder if the sun was setting on Acadia?

Did he ever wonder if his descendants would see the same thing?

Jacques would soak in the elixir of these sunsets for nearly 60 years.

Was Acadia his passion, or just his business? Or maybe, some of both?

In less time than Jacques lived in Acadia, another 55 years, most of his grandchildren, would collectively watch one final sunset before they were loaded onto waiting ships and removed from their beloved homeland.

Had he understood their eventual fate, would he have left La Rochelle that fateful May day in 1641?

D’Aulnay’s Death

On May 24, 1650, Jacques’ benefactor, Charles d’Aulnay drowned in a boating accident in the icy waters in the Port Royal basin, signaling a turning point for both Acadia and Jacques.

Jacques appears to have been d’Aulnay’s second in command. In his 1699 deposition, Jacques stated that after d’Aulnay’s death, he had been entrusted with all of “the titles of honour, of grants and commissions that Mr. D’Aulnay had received from his Majesty,” and that he had entrusted them to a Mr. Nelson in Boston to have them bounded properly. Jacques never got them back.

Ironically, in 1692, John Nelson, the man in question, attempted to lay claim to all of Acadia as a nephew and heir of Sir Thomas Temple and in whose right he claimed the proprietorship of Acadia under an old grant of Oliver Cromwell. This might well have had something to do with his failure to return d’Aulnay’s land titles and other documents to Jacques, but I digress.

However, this does illustrate the degree of misplaced trust Jacques had in the English in Boston.

In a rather amazing twist of fate, three years later, in February 1653, Jacques Bourgeois stood as a witness to the marriage of Acadia’s next Governor, Charles La Tour, and Jeanne Motin de Reux, the widow of former Governor Charles d’Aulnay.

Yes, you read that right!

Given what happened in 1645 to La Tour’s wife, at the hands of d’Aulnay, those years must have been very tense, to say the least.

If you just said, “Wait! What?” and are shaking your head in disbelief, you’re not alone. I still can’t wrap my head around this, given that d’Aulnay killed La Tour’s men and wife, and Jacques was almost assuredly along on that endeavor. Both d’Aulnay and La Tour’s wife must have been rotating in their respective graves.

The marriage was determined to be in the best interest of Acadia by all parties. While in some ways, it was a marriage of mutual convenience and benefit, it wasn’t only that – given that they had children.

While a tentative peace had settled over Acadia, it wouldn’t last long.

1654 – Hostage

Life changed dramatically in Acadia in 1654.

The Acadians had been trading with the English, so they were familiar with Port Royal, its layout, and the residents.

The English attacked Port Royal, but it was rather spontaneous, not planned in advance.

Nicolas Denys reported that Robert Sedgewick of Boston had been ordered by Oliver Cromwell to attack New Holland (New York). As Sedgewick prepared, a peace treaty was signed between the English and the Dutch.

Sedgewick commanded 200 of Cromwell’s professional soldiers, plus 100 New England volunteers, and was now all prepared, but with no battle to wage.

Since Sedgewick was “all dressed up with nowhere to go,” he attacked various locations in Acadia in August 1654 and destroyed most of the settlements, even though it was peacetime. This included Castine in Maine, Port Royal, La Hève, and at the Saint John River where he took Charles La Tour prisoner.

I swear, this feels like a soap opera.

The Acadians clearly had not been expecting this turn of events.

Sedgewick sailed up the Riviere Dauphin to Port Royal in July 1654, facing about 130 Acadian men and soldiers who valiantly attempted to defend the fort. Not only were the brave Acadians outnumbered, more than two to one, but the 200 English soldiers were professionals.

The Acadians did their best and holed up in the fort, but the English held them and Port Royal under siege.

On August 16th, Germain Doucet de La Verdure surrendered to the English, having negotiated what the Acadians felt were reasonable surrender terms that provided at least some protection. The French settlers were to keep their land and belongings, the French soldiers in the fort were to be paid in pelts and transported back to France, not killed, and the Acadians could worship as they saw fit – meaning as Catholics – without interference. The French officials would also be sent back to France, and an Acadian council was put in place to function on behalf of the English during their absence.

Those terms could have been much worse since both the English and the French knew very well that the Acadians stood no prayer of winning against the English who both outnumbered them and were far more experienced.

The conclusion to the Articles of Capitulation was this:

It was concluded on board the Admiral’s ship, the Augustia, anchored in the river and before the fort of Port Royal, “and for the greater security of the contents of the above articles the said Sieur de la Verdure has left for hostage Jacques Bourgeois, his brother-in-law and lieutenant of the place, bearer of his procuration for the present treaty, and the Sieur Emanuel le Borgne, the son, until the completion of the present agreement which was begun at the first sitting held yesterday and concluded today, August 16th, 1654.

This document was signed by Jacques with only his surname, but I have been unable to find the original document in the archives.

Brenda Dunn, in her book, A History of Port-Royal-Annapolis-Royal, 1605-1800, reports that in violation of the negotiated terms of surrender, the English soldiers rampaged wildly through the town afterwards, including through the monastery and newly constructed church, smashing windows, doors, paneling, and even the floor before torching it all. This is par for the course, and we know they behaved in this way multiple other times.

Sedgewick then departed from what was left of Port Royal, leaving an Acadian council he had appointed in charge. Through this, we have learned that Jacques, by then about 35, was second in command – a lieutenant, at Port Royal.

This must have been somewhat awkward, or maybe not. Jacques traded regularly with the New Englanders out of Boston. He had also become a successful merchant, farmer, and shipbuilder. His fur trading with the Indians took him to every corner of the colony.

While he was clearly very successful, I do wonder, though, if his trading with the English, followed by being left as second in command by them caused some of his neighbors to cast a suspicious eye in his direction.

For the next 16 years, Acadian life continued in this pattern.

So long as they were undisturbed, the Acadians were content to follow their Catholic faith, plant their crops, raise their families, and continue with the seasonal rhythms of life on the banks of the beautiful Rivière Dauphin.

Yes, they lived under the English, but there would have been some trade benefits – and no one seemed to care much so long as they were primarily left alone.

1671 Census

In 1667, Acadia was returned to France by treaty. A new French Governor arrived in 1670, and ordered Acadia’s first census.

It’s on this census that Jacques, listed as Jacob, is noted as a chirurgien as well as on his daughter, Marie’s second marriage record in 1680 in Beaubassin.

  • Jacob Bourgeois is age 50
  • Jeanne Trahan, his wife, is age 40

One son and daughter are married and listed elsewhere in the census

  • Jeanne is 27 and living at home
  • Charles is 25 (married)
  • Germain is 21
  • Marie is 18 or 19 (married, age given differently)
  • Guillaume is 16
  • Marguerite is 13
  • Francoise is 12
  • Anne is 10
  • Marie is 7
  • Jeanne is 4

Jacques has 33 cattle, 24 sheep, and 20 arpents of land in two different locations.

Everyone else has between zero and 16 arpents of land, with several families having 6 arpents, which seems to be the norm.

Jacques is clearly the most prosperous man in Acadia.

By age 50, many men, especially men who were clearly comfortable, would have relaxed and enjoyed their life along the bucolic river, watching those spectacular sunsets.

But not Jacques.

In fact, the following year, in 1672, Jacques Bourgeois gathered his resources, including several family members, began preparations, and set out for yet another frontier.

Beaubassin

Jacques reportedly sold a part of his holdings at Port-Royal and, with his two older sons and two of his sons-in-law, pioneered the Acadian settlement of Mésagouèche, later Missaguash, then eventually renamed Beaubassin, on the isthmus of Chignecto.

Beaubassin represented “the first swarming of the Acadians to establish their hive,” as one historian describes it.

Join me, and Jacques for incredible adventures in Beaubassin in my next article.

_____________________________________________________________

Share the Love!

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

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

You Can Help Keep This Blog Free

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

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Uploads

Genealogy Products and Services

My Books

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

Discover’s Ancient Connections – How Are You Related?

When FamilyTreeDNA released the new Mitotree, they also introduced their new mtDNA Discover tool, which is a series of 13 reports about each haplogroup, including one titled Ancient Connections.

Ancient Connections shows you ancient relatives from your direct matrilineal line through a mitochondrial DNA test or through a Y-DNA (preferably Big Y-700) test.

Ancient Connections help you connect the present to the past based on archaeological excavations around the world and DNA sequencing of remains. Ancient Connections links you through your DNA to ancient people, cultures, and civilizations that would be impossible to discover any other way. You don’t have to wonder if it’s accurate, or which line it came from, because you know based on the test you took. Discover’s Ancient Connections track the journey of your ancestors and relatives.

Ancient Connections can be very exciting – and it’s easy to get swept away on a wave of jubilation.

Are those people your ancestors, or relatives, or what? How do you know? How can you figure it out?

So let me just answer that question generally before we step through the examples, so you can unveil your own connections.

  • You are RELATED to both Ancient and Notable Connections. Notable Connections are famous or infamous people who have lived more recently, and their relatives have been tested to identify their haplogroups.
  • It’s VERY unlikely that Ancient Connections are your direct ancestors – but someone in the line that you share IS your ancestor.
  • Many factors enter into the equation of how you are related, such as the haplogroup(s), the timeframe, and the location.
  • The sheer number of people who were living at any specific time makes it very unlikely that any one person with that haplogroup actually was your direct ancestor. They are much more likely to be your distant cousin.

Factors such as whether you share the same haplogroup, similar locations, and the timeframe make a huge difference. Everyone’s situation is different with each Ancient Connection.

Ok, are you ready for some fun???

Let’s find out how to leverage these tools.

Ancient Connections

Ancient connections are fun and can also be quite useful for genealogy.

In this article, I’m going to use a mitochondrial DNA example because full sequence testers at FamilyTreeDNA just received their new Mitotree haplogroup. mtDNA Discover was released with Mitotree, so it’s new too. However, the evaluation process is exactly the same for Y-DNA.

Everyone’s results are unique, so your mileage absolutely WILL vary. What we are going to learn here is a step-by-step analytical process to make sure you’re hearing the message from your ancestors – and interpreting it correctly.

To learn about your new mitochondrial DNA haplogroup and haplotype, read the articles:

Radegonde Lambert

Let’s start with an Acadian woman by the name of Radegonde Lambert. She’s my ancestor, and I wrote about her years ago in the article, Radegonde Lambert (1621/1629-1686/1693), European, Not Native.

At the time, that article caused a bit of a kerfluffle, along with the article, Haplogroup X2b4 is European, Not Native American, because Radegonde’s X2b4 haplogroup had been interpreted by some to mean that her matrilineal ancestors were Native American.

That often happens when a genealogical line abruptly ends and hits a brick wall. What probably began with “I wonder if…”, eventually morphed into “she was Native,” when, in fact, she was not. In Radegonde’s case, it didn’t help any that her haplogroup was X2b4, and some branches of base haplogroup X2 are in fact Native, specifically X2a, However, all branches of X2 are NOT Native, and X2b, which includes X2b4, is not.

The Acadians were French people who established a colony in what is now Nova Scotia in the 1600s. They did sometimes intermarry with the Native people, so either Native or European heritage is always a possibility, and that is exactly why DNA testing is critically important. Let’s just say we’ve had more than one surprise.

I always reevaluate my own work when new data becomes available, so let’s look to see what’s happening with Radegonde Lambert now, with her new haplogroup and mtDNA Discover.

Sign on and Identify Your Haplogroup

You can follow along here, or sign on to your account at FamilyTreeDNA.

The first step is to take note of your new Mitotree haplogroup.

Your haplogroup badge is located near the bottom right of your page after signing in.

The tester who represents Radegonde Lambert has a Legacy Haplogroup of X2b4 and has been assigned a new Mitotree haplogroup of X2b4g.

Click Through to Discover

To view your personal Discover information, click on the Discover link on your dashboard.

You can simply enter a haplogroup in the free version of mtDNA Discover, but customers receive the same categories, but significantly more information if they sign in and click through.

You can follow along on the free version of Discover for haplogroups X2b4 here, and X2b4g here.

Clicking on either the Time Tree, or the Classic Tree shows that a LOT has changed with the Mitotree update.

Each tree has its purpose. Let’s look at the Classic Tree first.

The Classic Tree

I like the Classic Tree because it’s compact, detailed and concise, all in one. Radegonde Lambert’s new haplogroup, X2b4g is a subgroup of X2b4, so let’s start there.

Click on any image to enlarge

Under haplogroup X2b4, several countries are listed, including France. There are also 7 haplotype clusters, which tell you that those testers within the cluster all match each other exactly.

It’s worth noting that the little trowels (which I thought were shovels all along) indicate ancient samples obtained from archaeological digs. In the Discover tools, you’ll find them under Ancient Connections for that haplogroup. We will review those in a minute.

In Mitotree, haplogroup X2b4 has now branched several granular and more specific sub-haplogroups.

Radegonde Lambert’s new haplogroup falls below another new haplogroup, X2b4d’g, which means that haplogroup X2b4d’g is now the parent haplogroup of both haplogroups X2b4d and X2b4g. Both fall below X2b4d’g.

Haplogroup names that include an apostrophe mean it’s an umbrella group from which the two haplogroups descend – in this case, both X2b4d and X2b4g. Apostrophe haplogroups like X2b4d’g are sometimes referred to as Inner Haplogroups.

You can read more about how to understand your haplogroup name, here.

In this case, haplogroup X2b4d’g is defined by mutation G16145A, which is found in both haplogroups X2b4d and X2b4g. Both of those haplogroup have their own defining mutations in addition to G16145A, which caused two branches to form beneath X2b4d’g.

You can see that Radegonde Lambert’s haplogroup X2b4g is defined by mutation C16301T, but right now, that really doesn’t matter for what we’re trying to accomplish.

In descending order, for Radegonde, we have haplogroups:

  • X2b4
  • X2b4d’g
  • X2b4g

Your Match Page

Looking at the tester’s match page, Radegonde’s haplotype cluster number and information about the cluster are found below the haplogroup. You can view your cluster number on:

  • Your match page
  • The Match Time Tree beside your name and those of your matches in the same haplotype cluster
  • The Scientific Details – Variants page

I wrote about haplotype clusters, here.

Click on any image to enlarge

On your match page, which is where most people look first, you are in the same haplogroup and haplotype cluster with anyone whose circle is also checked and is blue. If the little circles are not checked and blue, you don’t share either that haplogroup, haplotype cluster, or haplogroup and haplotype cluster. If you share a haplotype cluster, you will always share the same haplogroup.

Haplotype clusters are important because cluster members match on exactly the same (but less stable) mutations IN ADDITION to haplogroup-defining (more stable) mutations.

However, you may also share an identifiable ancestor with people in different haplotype clusters. Mutations, and back mutations happen – and a lot more often at some mutation locations, which is why they are considered less stable. Normally, though, your own haplotype cluster will hold your closest genealogical matches.

In Discover, you can see that Radegonde’s haplotype cluster, F585777, displays three tester-supplied countries, plus two more. Click on the little plus to expand the countries.

What you’re viewing are the Earliest Known Ancestor (EKA) countries that testers have entered for their direct matrilineal ancestor.

Let’s hope they understood the instructions, and their genealogy information was accurate.

Notice that Canada and France are both probably quite accurate for Radegonde, based on the known history of the Acadians. There were only French and Native women living in Nova Scotia in the 1600s, so Radegonde had to be one or the other.

The US may be accurate for a different tester whose earliest known ancestor (EKA) may have been found in, say, Louisiana. Perhaps that person has hit a brick wall in the US, and that’s all they know.

The US Native American flag is probably attributable to the old “Native” rumor about Radegonde, and the tester didn’t find the Canadian First Nations flag in the “Country of Origin” dropdown list. Perhaps that person has since realized that Radegonde was not Native and never thought to change their EKA designation.

The little globe with “Unknown Origins” is displayed when the tester doesn’t select anything in the “Country of Origin.”

Unfortunately, this person, who knew when Radegonde Lambert lived, did not complete any additional information, and checked the “I don’t know this information” box. Either Canada, or France would have been accurate under the circumstances. If they had tracked Radegonde back to Canada and read about her history, they knew she lived in Canada, was Acadian, and therefore French if she was not Native. Providing location information helps other testers, whose information, in turn, helps you.

Please check your EKA, and if you have learned something new, PLEASE UPDATE YOUR INFORMATION by clicking on the down arrow by your user name in the upper right hand corner, then Account Settings, then Genealogy, then Earliest Known Ancestors.

Don’t hesitate to email your matches and ask them to do the same. You may discover that you have information to share as well. Collaboration is key.

Radegonde’s Discover Haplogroup

First, let’s take a look at Radegonde’s haplogroup, X2b4g, in Discover.

The Discover Haplogroup Story landing page for haplogroup X2b4g provides a good overview. Please READ this page for your own haplogroup, including the little information boxes.

The history of Radegonde’s haplogroup, X2b4g, is her history as well. It’s not just a distant concept, but the history of a woman who is the ancestor of everyone in that haplogroup, but long before surnames. Haplogroups are the only way to lift and peer behind the veil of time to see who our ancestors were, where they lived, and the cultures they were a part of.

We can see that Radegonde’s haplogroup, X2b4g, was born in a woman who lived about 300 CE, Common (or Current) Era, meaning roughly the year 300, which is 1700 years ago, or 1300 years before Radegonde lived.

  • This means that the tester shares a common ancestor with everyone, including any X2b4g remains, between now and the year 300 when haplogroup X2b4g was born.
  • This means that everyone who shares haplogroup X2b4g has the same common female ancestor, in whom the mutation that defines haplogroup X2b4g originated. That woman, the common ancestor of everyone in haplogroup X2b4g, lived about the year 300, or 1700 years ago.
  • Your common ancestor with any one individual in this haplogroup can have lived ANYTIME between very recently (like your Mom) and the date of your haplogroup formation.
  • Many people misinterpret the haplogroup formation date to mean that’s the date of the MRCA, or most recent common ancestor, of any two people. It’s not, the haplogroup formation date is the date when everyone, all people, in the haplogroup shared ONE ancestor.
  • The MRCA, or most recent common ancestor, is your closest ancestor in this line with any one person, and the TMRCA is the “time to most recent common ancestor.” It could be your mother, or if your matrilineal first cousin tested, your MRCA is your grandmother, and the TMRCA is when your grandmother was born – not hundreds or thousands of years ago.
  • Don’t discount mitochondrial DNA testing by thinking that your common ancestor with your matches (MRCA) won’t be found before the haplogroup birth date – the year 300 in Radegonde’s case. The TMRCA for all of Radegonde’s descendants is about 1621 when she was born.
  • The haplogroup birth date, 1700 years ago, is the common ancestor for EVERYONE in the haplogroup, taken together.
  • Mitochondrial DNA is useful for BOTH recent genealogy and also reveals more distant ancestors.
  • Looking back in time helps us understand where Radegonde’s ancestors lived, which cultures they were part of, and where.

There are two ways to achieve that: Radegonde’s upstream or parent haplogroups, and Ancient Connections.

Parent Haplogroups

X2b4g split from X2b4d’g, the parent haplogroup of BOTH X2b4d and X2b4g, around 3700 years ago, or about 1700 BCE (Before Common (or Current) Era).

Looking at either the Classic Tree, the Time Tree (above) or the Match Time Tree, you can see that haplogroup X2b4g has many testers, and none provide any locations other than France, Canada, the US, unknown, and one Native in the midst of a large haplotype cluster comprised of French and Canadian locations. Due to the size of the cluster, it’s only partially displayed in the screen capture above.

You can also see that sister haplogroup X2b4d split from X2b4d’g around the year 1000, and the ancestors of those two testers are reported in Norway.

Many, but not all of the X2b4g testers are descendants of Radegonde. Even if everyone is wrong and Radegonde is not French, that doesn’t explain the other matches, nor how X2b4g’s sister haplogroup is found in Norway.

Clearly, Radegonde isn’t Native, but there’s still more evidence to consider.

Let’s dig a little deeper using Radegonde’s Ancient Connections.

Ancient Connections

While ancestor and location information are user-provided, Ancient Connections are curated from scientifically published papers. There’s no question about where those remains were found.

When signed in to your account, if you’ve taken the mtFull Sequence test, clicking on the Ancient Connections tab in Discover shows a maximum of around 30 Ancient Connections. If you’re viewing the free version of Discover, or you’ve only tested at the HVR1 or HVR1+HVR2 levels, you’ll see two of your closer and one of your most distant Ancient Connections. It’s easy to upgrade to the mtFull.

In Discover, the first group of Ancient Connections are genetically closest to you in time, and the last connections will be your most distant. Some connections may be quite rare and are noted as such.

Please keep in mind that oldest, in this case, Denisova 8 and Sima de los Huesos, will never roll off your list. However, as new studies are released and the results are added to the tree, you may well receive new, closer matches. New results are being added with each Discover update.

It’s very exciting to see your Ancient Connections, but I need to say three things, loudly.

  1. Do NOT jump to conclusions.
  2. These remains are probably NOT YOUR ANCESTORS, but definitely ARE your distant cousins.
  3. Ancient Connections ARE wonderful hints, especially when taken together with each other and additional information.

It’s VERY easy to misinterpret Ancient Connections because you’re excited. I’ve done exactly that. To keep the assumption monster from rearing its ugly head, I have to take a breath and ask myself a specific set of questions. I step through the logical analysis process that I’m sharing with you.

The first thing I always want to know is where the genetically closest set of remains was found, when, and what we know about them, so let’s start there. Keep in mind that the closest remains genetically may not be the most recent set of remains to have lived. For example, my own haplogroup will be the closest genetically, but that person may have lived 2000 years ago. An Ancient Connection in a more distant haplogroup may have lived only 1000 years ago. The closest person genetically is NOT the same as the person who lived the most recently.

Our tester, Radegonde’s descendant, has no Ancient Connections in haplogroup X2b4g or X2b4d’g, but does have two in haplogroup X2b4, so let’s start there.

Discover provides a substantial amount of information about each set of ancient remains. Click on the results you want to view, and the information appears below.

Radegonde’s first Ancient Connection is Carrowkeel 534. The graphic shows the tester, the Ancient Connection being viewed, and their shared ancestor’s haplogroup. In this case, the shared ancestor haplogroup of Carrowkeel 534 and the tester is X2b4, who lived about 5000 years ago.

It’s very easy to look at Carrowkeel 534, become smitten, and assume that this person was your ancestor.

By Shane Finan – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=35098411

It’s especially easy if you WANT that person to be your ancestor. Carrowkeel 534 was buried in a passage tomb in County Sligo, Ireland. I’ve been there.

However, don’t let your emotions get involved – at least not yet.

This is the first example of the steps that determine that these remains are NOT YOUR ANCESTOR.

  • Carrowkeel 534 was a male, and we all know that males do not pass on their mitochondrial DNA. Well, that’s an inconvenient fact.😊
  • There are two sets of X2b4 remains in Ancient Connections. Carrowkeel 534 remains are about 4600-5000 years old, and your common ancestor with them lived about 5000 years ago. However, Radegonde was French and migration from Ireland to France is not typical.
  • The other set of X2b4 remains, Ladoga 16, lived more recently, between the years of 900 and 1200 (or 800-1100 years ago), but they are found in Russia.
  • Radegonde’s parent haplogroup, X2b4d’g was born about 3700 years ago, which excludes the Russian remains from being Radegonde’s direct ancestor.
  • Radegonde’s common ancestor with both these sets of remains lived about 5000 years ago, but these remains were not found even close to each other.

In fact, these remains, if walking, are about 3299 km (2049 miles) apart, including two major water crossings.

  • Given that Radegonde is probably French, finding her ancestor around 5000 years ago in an Irish passage tomb in County Sligo, or in a location east of St. Petersburg, is extremely unlikely.

What IS likely, though, is that X2b4d’g descendants of your common ancestor with both sets of remains, 5000 years ago, went in multiple directions, meaning:

  • Radegonde’s ancestor found their way to France and along the way incurred the mutations that define X2b4d’g and X2b4g by the year 1600 when she lived, or about four hundred years ago.
  • Another X2b4 descendant found their way to what is today Ireland between 4600 and 5000 years ago
  • A third X2b4 descendant found their way to Russia between 800-1100 years ago, and 5000 years ago

If any question remains about the genesis of Radegonde’s ancestors being Native, Ancient Connections disproves it – BUT – there’s still an opportunity for misunderstanding, which we’ll see in a few minutes.

Ancient Connections Analysis Chart

I’ve created an analysis chart, so that I can explain the findings in a logical way.

Legend:

  • Hap = Haplogroup
  • M=male
  • F=female
  • U=unknown

Please note that ancient samples are often degraded and can be missing important mutations. In other words, the tree placement may be less specific for ancient samples. Every ancient sample is reviewed by FamilyTreeDNA’s genetic anthropologist before it’s placed on the tree.

Ancient samples use carbon dating to determine ages. Sometimes, the carbon date and the calculated haplogroup age are slightly “off.” The haplogroup age is a scientific calculation based on a genetic clock and is not based on either genealogy or ancient burials. The haplogroup age may change as the tree matures and more branches are discovered.

I’m dividing this chart into sections because I want to analyze the findings between groups.

The first entry is the earliest known ancestor of the current lineage – Radegonde Lambert, who was born about 1621, or roughly 400 years ago. I’ve translated all of the years into “years ago” to avoid any confusion.

If you wish to do the same, with CE (Current or Common Era) dates, subtract the date from 2000. 300 CE= (2000-300) or1700 years ago. With BCE dates, add 2000 to the BCE number. 1000 BCE= (1000+2000) or 3000 years ago.

Connection Identity Age Years Ago Location & Cultural Group Hap Hap Age Years Ago Shared Hap Shared Hap Age Years Ago
Radegonde Lambert (F) 400 France or Canada -Acadian X2b4g 1700 X2b4 5000
Carrowkeel 534 (M) 4600-5100 Sligo, Ireland – Neolithic Europe X2b4 5000 X2b4 5000
Ladoga 16 (M) 800-1100 Ladoga, Russia Fed – Viking Russia X2b4 5000 X2b4 5000
  • Age Years Ago – When the Ancient Connection lived
  • Hap Age Years Ago – When the haplogroup of the Ancient Connection (X2b4) originated, meaning was born
  • Shared Hap Age Years Ago – When the Shared Ancestor of everyone in the Shared Haplogroup originated (was born)

In this first section, the haplogroup of the Ancient Connections and the Shared Haplogroup is the same, but that won’t be the case in the following sections. Radegonde Lambert’s haplogroup is different than her shared haplogroup with the Ancient Connections.

Let’s assume we are starting from scratch with Radegonde.

The first question we wanted to answer is whether or not Radegonde is European, presumably French like the rest of the Acadians, or if she was Native. That’s easy and quick.

Native people crossed Beringia, arriving from Asia someplace between 12,000 and 25,000 years ago in multiple waves of migration that spread throughout both North and South America.

Therefore, given that the first two samples, Carrowkeel 534 and Ladoga 16, share haplogroup X2b4, an upstream haplogroup with Radegonde Lambert, and haplogroup X2b4 was formed around 5000 years ago, the answer is that Radegonde’s X2b4 ancestor, whoever that was, clearly lived in Europe, NOT the Americas.

According to Discover, Haplogroup X2b4:

  • Was formed about 5000 years ago
  • Has 16 descendant haplogroups
  • Has 29 unnamed lineages (haplotype clusters or individuals with no match)
  • Includes testers whose ancestors are from 23 countries

The Country Frequency map shows the distribution of X2b4, including all descendant haplogroups. Please note that the percentages given are for X2b4 as a percentage of ALL haplogroups found in each colored country. Don’t be misled by the relative physical size of the US and Canada as compared to Europe.

The table view shows the total number of self-identified locations of the ancestors of people in haplogroup X2b4 and all downstream haplogroups.

The Classic Tree that we looked at earlier provides a quick view of X2b4, each descendant haplogroup and haplotype cluster, and every country provided by the 331 X2b4 testers.

For the X2b4 Ancient Connections, we’ve already determined:

  • That Radegonde’s ancestors were not Native
  • Carrowkeel 534 is a male and cannot be Radegonde’s ancestor. It’s extremely likely that Carrowkeel 534’s mother is not Radegonda’s ancestor either, based on several factors, including location.
  • Based on dates of when Ladoga 16 lived, and because he’s a male, he cannot be the ancestor of Radegonde Lambert.

Radegonda’s haplogroup was formed long before Ladoga 16 lived. Each Ancient Connection has this comparative Time Tree if you scroll down below the text.

  • Both Carrowkeel and Ladoga share an ancestor with our tester, and Radegonde, about 5000 years ago.

Think about how many descendants the X2b4 ancestor probably had over the next hundreds to thousands of years.

  • We know one thing for sure, absolutely, positively – X2b4 testers and descendant haplogroups live in 32 countries. People migrate – and with them, their haplogroups.

What can we learn about the genealogy and history of Radegonde Lambert and her ancestors?

We find the same haplogroup in multiple populations or cultures, at different times and in multiple places. Country boundaries are political and fluid. What we are looking for are patterns, or sometimes, negative proof, which is often possible at the continental level.

X2b4, excluding downstream haplogroups, is found in the following locations:

  • Bulgaria
  • Canada (2)
  • Czech Republic
  • England (2)
  • Finland (2)
  • France (3)
  • Germany (4)
  • Portugal
  • Scotland (2)
  • Slovakia (2)
  • Sweden (2)
  • UK (2)
  • Unknown (11)
  • US (2)

Note that there are three people in France with haplogroup X2b4 but no more refined haplogroup.

Looking at X2b4’s downstream haplogroups with representation in France, we find:

  • X2b4a (none)
  • X2b4b (none)
  • X2b4b1 (1)
  • X2b4d’g (none)
  • X2b4d (none)
  • X2b4g (24) – many from Radegonde’s line
  • X2b4e and subgroups (none)
  • X2b4f (none)
  • X2b4j and subgroups (none)
  • X2b4k (none)
  • X2b4l (1)
  • X2b4m (none)
  • X2b4n and subgroups (none)
  • X2b4o (none)
  • X2b4p (none)
  • X2b4r (none)
  • X2b4+16311 (none)

I was hoping that there would be an Ancient Connection for X2b4, X2b4d’g, or X2b4g someplace in or even near France – because that makes logical sense if Radegonde is from France.

All I can say is “not yet,” but new ancient sites are being excavated and papers are being released all the time.

Ok, so moving back in time, let’s see what else we can determine from the next set of Ancient Connections. Haplogroup X2b1”64 was formed about 5050 years ago.

Connection Identity Age Years Ago Location & Cultural Group Hap Hap Age Years Ago Shared Hap Shared Hap Age Years Ago
Radegonde Lambert (F) 400 France or Canada X2b4g 1700
Carrowkeel 534 (M) 5100-4600 Sligo, Ireland – Neolithic Europe X2b4 5000 X2b4 5000
Ladoga 16 (M) 800-1100 Ladoga, Russia Fed – Viking Russia X2b4 5000 X2b4 5000
Parknabinnia 186 (M) 5516-5359 Clare, Ireland – Neolithic Europe X2b1”64 5516-5259 X2b1”64 Before 5050 years ago
Rössberga 2 (M) 5339-5025 Vastergotland, Sweden – Funnel Beaker X2b1”64 5516-5259 X2b1”64 Before 5050
Rössberga 29 (M) 5366-5100 Vastergotland, Sweden – Funnel Beaker and Early Plague X2b1”64 5516-5259 X2b1”64 Before 5050
Rössberga 38 (M) 5340-5022 Vastergotland, Sweden – Funnel Beaker X2b1”64 5516-5259 X2b1”64 Before 5050
Monte Sirai 797263 (U) 2600-2400 Monte Sirai, Italy (Sardinia) – Phoenicians X2b35a1 3350 X2b1”64 5050
Bogovej 361 (F) 1000-1100 Lengeland, Denmark – Viking Denmark X2b1”64 5516-5259 X2b1”64 5050
Ladoga 410 (M) 800-1000 Leningrad Oblast, Russia – Viking Russia X2b1”64 5516-5259 X2b1”64 5050

Our first group ended with haplogroup X2b4, and our second group consists of haplogroup X2b1”64, the parent haplogroup of X2b4. X2b1”64 is a significantly larger haplogroup with many downstream branches found throughout Europe, parts of western Asia, the Levant, India, and New Zealand (which probably reflects a colonial era settler). The Country Frequency Map and Table are found here.

X2b1”64 is just slightly older than X2b4, but it’s much more widespread, even though they were born about the same time. Keep in mind that haplogroup origination dates shift as the tree is developed.

  • These seven individuals who share X2b1”64 as their haplogroup could be related to each other individually, meaning their MRCA, anytime between when they lived and when their haplogroup was formed.
  • The entire group of individuals all share the same haplogroup, so they all descend from the one woman who formed X2b1”64 about 5050 years ago. She is the shared ancestor of everyone in the haplogroup.

One X2b4 and one X2b1”64 individual are found in the same archaeological site in Russia. Their common ancestor would have lived between the time they both lived, about 800 years ago, to about 5000 years ago. It’s also possible that one of the samples could be incomplete.

A second X2b1”64 Ancient Connection is found in the Court Tomb in County Clare, Ireland, not far from the Carrowkeel 534 X2b4 site.

However, Monte Sirai is fascinating, in part because it’s not found near any other site. Monte Sirai is found all the way across France, on an island in the Tyrrhenian Sea.

It may be located “across France” today, but we don’t know that the Phoenician Monte Sirai site is connected with the Irish sites. We can’t assume that the Irish individuals arrived as descendants of the Monte Sirai people, even though it would conveniently fit our narrative – crossing France. Of course, today’s path includes ferries, which didn’t exist then, so if that trip across France did happen, it could well have taken a completely different path. We simply don’t know and there are very few samples available.

Three Ancient Connections are found in the Rössberga site in Sweden and another in  Denmark.

Adding all of the Ancient sites so far onto the map, it looks like we have two clusters, one in the northern latitudes, including Denmark, Sweden, and Russia, and one in Ireland with passage burials, plus one single Connection in Monte Sirai.

If I were to approximate a central location between all three, that might be someplace in Germany or maybe further east. But remember, this is 5000 years ago and our number of samples, as compared to the population living at the time is EXTREMELY LIMITED.

Let’s move on to the next group of Ancient Connections, who have different haplogroups but are all a subset of haplogroup X2.

Identity Age Years Ago Location & Cultural Group Hap Hap Age Years Ago Shared Hap Shared Hap Age Years Ago
Radegonde Lambert (F) 400 France or Canada X2b4g 1700
Carrowkeel 534 (M) 5100-4600 Sligo, Ireland – Neolithic Europe X2b4 5000 X2b4 5000
Ladoga 16 (M) 800-1100 Ladoga, Russia Fed – Viking Russia X2b4 5000 X2b4 5000
Parknabinnia 186 (M) 5516-5359 Clare, Ireland – Neolithic Europe X2b1”64 5516-5259 X2b1”64 Before 5050
Ross Rössberga 2 (M) 5339-5025 Vastergotland, Sweden – Funnel Beaker X2b1”64 5516-5259 X2b1”64 Before 5050
Rössberga 29 (M) 5366-5100 Vastergotland, Sweden – Funnel Beaker and Early Plague X2b1”64 5516-5259 X2b1”64 Before 5050
Rössberga 38 (M) 5340-5022 Vastergotland, Sweden – Funnel Beaker X2b1”64 5516-5259 X2b1”64 Before 5050
Monte Sirai 797263 (U) 2600-2400 Monte Sirai, Italy (Sardinia) – Phoenicians X2b35a1 3350 X2b1”64 5050
Bogovej 361 (F) 1000-1100 Lengeland, Denmark – Viking Denmark X2b1”64 5516-5259 X2b1”64 5050
Ladoga 410 (M) 800-1000 Leningrad Oblast, Russia – Viking Russia X2b1”64 5516-5259 X2b1”64 5050
Barcin 31 (M) 8236-8417 Derekoy, Turkey – Neolithic Anatolia Ceramic X2m2’5’7^ 9200 X2b”aq 13,000
Abasar 55 (M) 500-800 Abasár Bolt-tető, Abasar, Hungary – Medieval Hungary X2m1e 5350 X2b”aq 13,000
Gerdrup 214 3779-3889 Gerdrup, Sealand, Denmark – Middle Bronze Age X2c1 3400 X2+225 13,000
Sweden Skara 275 800-1100 Varnhem, Skara, Sweden – Viking Sweden X2c1 3400 X2+225 13,000
Kopparsvik 225 950-1100 Gotland, Sweden – Viking Sweden X2z 5650 X2+225 13,000
Sandomierz 494 900-1100 Sandomierz, Poland – Viking Poland X2c2b 1650 X2+225 13,000
Kennewick man 8390-9250 Kennewick, Washington – Native American X2a2’3’4^ 10,450 X2 13,000
Roopkund 39 80-306 Roopkund Lake, Uttarakhand, India – Historical India X2d 13,000 X2 13,000

The next several Ancient Connections have haplogroups that are a subgroup of haplogroup X2. These people lived sometime between 500 years ago in Hungary, and 8390-9250 years ago when Kennewick Man lived in the present-day state of Washington in the US. Kennewick Man merits his own discussion, so let’s set him aside briefly while we discuss the others.

The important information to be gleaned here isn’t when these people lived, but when Radegonde shared a common ancestor with each of them. The shared haplogroup with all of these individuals was born about 13,000 years ago.

Looking at the map again, and omitting both X2 samples, we can see that the descendants of that shared ancestor 13,000 years ago are found more widely dispersed.

Including these additional burials on our map, it looks like we have a rather large Swedish and Viking cluster, where several of the older burials occurred prior to the Viking culture. We have a Southeastern Europe cluster, our two Irish tomb burials, and our remaining single Monte Sirai Phoenician burial on the island of Sardinia.

Stepping back one more haplogroup to X2, which was born about the same time, we add a burial in India, and Kennewick Man.

The Migration Map

The Migration map in Discover provides two different features.

  • The first is the literal migration map for the various ancestral haplogroups as they migrated out of Africa, if in fact yours did, culminating in your base haplogroup. In this case, the base haplogroup is X2, which is shown with the little red circle placed by FamilyTreeDNA. I’ve added the red squares, text and arrows for emphasis.
  • The second feature is the mapped Ancient Connections, shown with little brown trowels. Clicking on each one opens a popup box.

After haplogroup X2 was formed, it split into haplogroups X2a and X2b.

The X2a group, Kennewick Man’s ancestors, made their way eastward, across eastern Russia to Beringia where they crossed into the Americas.

They either crossed Beringia, follow the Pacific coastline, or both, eventually making their way inland, probably along the Hood River, to where Kennewick Man was found some 2,800 years later on the banks of the Kennewick River.

The X2b group made their way westward, across western Europe to a location, probably France, where Radegonde Lamberts’ ancestors lived, and where Radegonde set sail for Nova Scotia.

After being separated for nearly 13,000 years, the descendants of the single woman who founded haplogroup X2 and lived someplace in central Asia around 13,000 years ago would find themselves on opposite coasts of the same continent.

So, no, Radegonde Lambert was not Native American, but her 600th matrilineal cousin or so, Kennewick Man, absolutely was.

Radegonde Lambert and Kennewick Man

Here’s where confirmation bias can rear its ugly head. If you’re just scanning the Ancient Connections and see Kennewick Man, it would be easy to jump to conclusions, leap for joy, slap a stamp of “confirmed Native American” on Radegonde Lambert, and never look further. And if one were to do that, they would be wrong.

Let’s work through our evaluation process using Discover.

Radegonde Lambert and Kinnewick Man, an early Native American man whose remains were found Kennewick, Washington in 1996, are both members of the broader haplogroup X2. Kennewick Man lived between 8290 and 9350 years ago, and their shared ancestor lived about 13,000 years ago – in Asia, where mitochondrial haplogroup X2 originated. This is the perfect example of one descendant line of a haplogroup, X2 in this case, going in one direction and a second one traveling in the opposite direction.

Two small groups of people were probably pursuing better hunting grounds, but I can’t help but think of a tundra version of the Hatfields and McCoys and cousin spats.

“I’m going this way. There are better fish on that side of the lake, and I won’t have to put up with you.”

“Fine, I’m going that way. There are more bears and better hunting up there anyway.”

Their wives, who are sisters, “Wait, when will I ever see my sister again?”

One went east and one went west.

X2a became Native American and X2b became European.

Looking back at our information about Kennewick Man, his haplogroup was born significantly before he lived.

He was born about 8390-9250 years ago, so let’s say 8820 years ago, and his haplogroup was born 10,500 years ago, so about 1680 years before he lived. That means there were many generations of women who carried that haplogroup before Kennewick Man.

Let’s Compare

Discover has a compare feature.

I want to Compare Radegonde Lambert’s haplogroup with Kennewick Man’s haplogroup X2a2’3’4^.

The Compare tool uses the haplogroup you are viewing, and you enter a second haplogroup to compare with the first.

The ancestral path to the shared ancestor, meaning their shared haplogroup, is given for each haplogroup entered. That’s X2 in this case. Then, from the shared haplogroup back in time to Mitochondrial Eve.

I prefer to view this information in table format, so I created a chart and rounded the haplogroup ages above X2.

Hap Age – Years Ago Radegonde’s Line Shared Ancestors and Haplogroups Kennewick’s Line Hap Age – Years Ago
143,000 mt-Eve
130,000 L1”7
119,000 L2”7
99,000 L2’3’4’6
92,000 L3’4’6
73,500 L3’4
61,000 L3
53,000 N
53,000 N+8701
25,000 X
22,500 X1’2’3’7’8
13,000 X2 – Asia
13,000 X2+225 X2a 10,500
12,900 X2b”aq X2a2’3’4^ 10,400 Kennewick Man born c 8800 years ago
11,000 X2b
5,500 X2b1”64
5,000 X2b4
1,900 X2b4d’g
Radegonde Lambert born c 1661 – 400 years ago 1,700 X2b4g

More Ancient Connections

Radegonde Lambert’s matrilineal descendants have an additional dozen Ancient Connections that are found in upstream haplogroup N-8701. Their shared ancestors with Radegonde reach back to 53,000 years ago in a world far different than the one we inhabit today. I’m not going to list or discuss them, except for one.

Identity Age Years Ago Location & Cultural Group Hap Hap Age Years Ago Shared Hap Shared Hap Age Years Ago
Radegonde Lambert (F) 400 France or Canada X2b4g 1700
Carrowkeel 534 (M) 5100-4600 Sligo, Ireland – Neolithic Europe X2b4 5000 X2b4 5000
Ladoga 16 (M) 800-1100 Ladoga, Russia Fed – Viking Russia X2b4 5000 X2b4 5000
Parknabinnia 186 (M) 5516-5359 Clare, Ireland – Neolithic Europe X2b1”64 5516-5259 X2b1”64 Before 5050
Rössberga 2 (M) 5339-5025 Vastergotland, Sweden – Funnel Beaker X2b1”64 5516-5259 X2b1”64 Before 5050
Rössberga 29 (M) 5366-5100 Vastergotland, Sweden – Funnel Beaker and Early Plague X2b1”64 5516-5259 X2b1”64 Before 5050
Rössberga 38 (M) 5340-5022 Vastergotland, Sweden – Funnel Beaker X2b1”64 5516-5259 X2b1”64 Before 5050
Monte Sirai 797263 (U) 2600-2400 Monte Sirai, Italy (Sardinia) – Phoenicians X2b35a1 3350 X2b1”64 5050
Bogovej 361 (F) 1000-1100 Lengeland, Denmark – Viking Denmark X2b1”64 5516-5259 X2b1”64 5050
Ladoga 410 (M) 800-1000 Leningrad Oblast, Russia – Viking Russia X2b1”64 5516-5259 X2b1”64 5050
Barcin 31 (M) 8236-8417 Derekoy, Turkey – Neolithic Anatolia Ceramic X2m2’5’7^ 9200 X2b”aq 13,000
Abasar 55 (M) 500-800 Abasár Bolt-tető, Abasar, Hungary – Medieval Hungary X2m1e 5350 X2b”aq 13,000
Gerdrup 214 3779-3889 Gerdrup, Sealand, Denmark – Middle Bronze Age X2c1 3400 X2+225 13,000
Kopparsvik 225 950-1100 Gotland, Sweden – Viking Sweden X2z 5650 X2+225 13,000
Sandomierz 494 900-1100 Sandomierz, Poland – Viking Poland X2c2b 1650 X2+225 13,000
Sweden Skara 275 800-1100 Varnhem, Skara, Sweden – Viking Sweden X2c1 3400 X2+225 13,000
Kennewick man 8390-9250 Kennewick, Washington – Native American X2a2’3’4^ 10,450 X2 13,000
Roopkund 39 80-306 Roopkund Lake, Uttarakhand, India – Historical India X2d 13,000 X2 13,000
Ranis 10 43,500-47,000 Ranis, Germany – LRJ Hunger Gatherer N3’10 53,000 N+8701 53,000
Zlatý kůň woman 47,000 Czech Republic – N+8701 53,000 N+8701 53,000

Zlatý kůň Woman

Zlatý kůň Woman lived some 43,000 years ago and her remains were discovered in the Czech Republic in 1950.

Believed to be the first anatomically modern human to be genetically sequenced, she carried about 3% Neanderthal DNA. Europeans, Asians and indigenous Americans carry Neanderthal DNA as well.

Unlike many early remains, Zlatý kůň Woman’s facial bones have been scanned and her face approximately reconstructed.

There’s something magical about viewing a likeness of a human that lived more than 40,000 years ago, and to whom I’m at least peripherally related.

Like all other Ancient Connections, it’s unlikely that I descend from Zlatý kůň Woman herself, but she is assuredly my very distant cousin.

What else do we know about Zlatý kůň Woman? Quoting from her Ancient Connection:

She lived during one of the coldest periods of the last ice age, surviving in harsh tundra conditions as part of a small hunter-gatherer group. She died as a young adult, though the cause of death remains unknown.

Her brain cavity was larger than that of modern humans in the comparative database, another trait showing Neanderthal affinity. While the exact colors of her features cannot be determined from available evidence, researchers created both a scientific grayscale model and a speculative version showing her with dark curly hair and brown eyes.

Zlatý kůň Woman may or may not have direct descendants today, but her haplogroup ancestors certainly do, and Radegonde Lambert is one of them, which means Radegonde’s matrilineal ancestors and descendants are too.

Ancient Connections for Genealogy

While Ancient Connections are fun, they are more than just amusing.

You are related through your direct matrilineal (mitochondrial) line to every one of your mtDNA Discover Ancient Connections. Everyone, males and females, can take a mitochondrial DNA test.

I find people to test for the mitochondrial DNA of each of my ancestral lines – like Radegonde Lambert, for example. I wrote about various methodologies to find your lineages, or people to test for them, in the article, Lineages Versus Ancestors – How to Find and Leverage Yours.

Radegonde’s mitochondrial DNA is the only key I have into her past, both recent and distant. It’s the only prayer I have of breaking through that brick wall, now or in the future.

Interpreted correctly, and with some luck, the closer Ancient Connections can provide genealogical insight into the origins of our ancestors. Not just one ancestor, but their entire lineage. While we will never know their names, we can learn about their cultural origins – whether they were Vikings, Phoenicians or perhaps early Irish buried in Passage Graves.

On a different line, an Ancient Connection burial with an exact haplogroup match was discovered beside the Roman road outside the European town where my ancestral line was believed to have been born.

Ancient Connections are one small glimpse into the pre-history of our genetic line. There are many pieces that are missing and will, in time, be filled in by ancient remains, Notable Connections, and present-day testers.

Check your matches and your Ancient Connections often. You never know when that magic piece of information you desperately need will appear.

What is waiting for you?

_____________________________________________________________

Share the Love!

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

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

You Can Help Keep This Blog Free

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

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Uploads

Genealogy Products and Services

My Books

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

Catherine Savoie (c1661-c1722/5), Whispered Threads Weave a Tapestry of Life – 52 Ancestors #445

Catherine Savoie or Savoye was born about 1661 in Acadia to Francois Savoie (also Savoy and Savoye) and Catherine LeJeune, the fifth of their nine children.

The Savoie family lived at BelleIsle, behind today’s BelleIsle Hall Acadian Cultural Center where Catherine’s older brother, Germain Savoie, later lived.

If you’re a Savoie descendant, Charlie Thibodeau at the Cultural Center can walk you through those swamps, show you the Savoie dykes and where the homestead stood. I’m climbing one of the Savoie homestead dykes, above, on the way to their settlement.

Charlie can and will tell you about the days, 350 years ago, of old Acadia. This is literally a hike back through time.

What would Catherine think of her descendants visiting her childhood home? She would have so many stories to tell us.

The first Acadian census was taken in 1671 when Catherine was living in a home that stood here, literally right here, listed with her parents as 9 years old, which puts her birth in 1662.

The family has four cows and is living on six arpents of cultivated land.

In the next census, taken in 1678, Catherine’s parents are not listed, so it appears that they have both died, or the entire family was missed in the census. However, they are not listed in any future census either. Two of Catherine’s older siblings have married, but it’s unclear where Catherine’s other siblings are living. Two of her siblings, like her parents, simply disappear after the 1671 census. Perhaps the same malady swept them all away. That’s a lot of grief to bear for a young woman between the ages of 9 and 16.

Catherine is shown in the 1678 census having married Francois Levron about 1676. The couple has been blessed with their first child, a boy, age 1. The parents’ ages are not given in this census. Francois and Catherine are living with the Widow Pesselet, who has one cow and five sheep, but no land under cultivation.

The age of their child suggests that Catherine married Francois Levron when she was between 14 and 16 years old. That sounds very young to us today, but Acadian girls tended to marry early. Plus, if Catherine’s parents died, an expedited marriage would have been a good solution.

Andre Carl Vachon has suggested that Francois Levron, born about 1651, was a soldier who was transferred from Fort Pentagouet in Maine to Port Royal during the winter of 1672.

By 1686, the next census, Catherine and Francois have four children. Catherine is listed as age 20, with her oldest child as age 9. That is clearly incorrect, as Catherine would have been born in 1666 and had her first child at age 11. Catherine would have been about 25.

In 1693, Catherine is listed as age 34, which puts her birth year at 1659.

In 1698, Catharine was 38, which suggests her birth in 1660.

In 1700, she is 41, which correlates with her birth in 1659.

Based on the various census dates, minus 1686 which is clearly in error, Catherine was probably born between 1660 and 1662. If she was born in 1661 and married in 1676, she would have been about 15 or maybe 16 – which is about right for an Acadian bride. She would have been very excited to marry and start her own family.

The Sieur de Diereville, a surgeon from France who spent a year in Port Royal beginning in 1699, wrote:

A Father and a Mother do not keep
A nubile daughter long at home, although
She causes them no care, and to their will
Submits in registering her vows. If when
Some tender Suitor comes, to urge his love
His Sweetheart favours him, wedlock
Unites them both and they are free
To populate the World; which is,
Moreover, that which they do best,
And, as their tenderness is never shared,
Between the first transports of ardent Youth
And old age, many a Child’s begot.

He also commented that class differences didn’t seem to matter when marrying, as opposed to back in France.

Motherhood

Motherhood began early for Catherine, around16 or so, which was younger than the average of about 20 for Acadian girls. Still, 15 or 16 was not uncommon.

Catherine had 10 known children, and probably at least 14, based on those empty spaces which whisper about the children who were born and died between censuses. She also had more than 66 grandchildren, but we really don’t know how many more – and she didn’t know them all. Some died at birth. Some were born after Catherine’s death. Some of her children moved away.

Child Birth Death Spouse  Children
Jacques Levron C 1677 Before 1746 Marie Doucet married Jan. 8, 1710 13
? 1679 Before 1686 census
? 1680 Before 1686 census
Magdelaine Levron C 1682 Before May 8, 1752 Clement Vincent married c 1698 12
Anne Levron C 1684 Jan. 5, 1733 Pierre Benoit married c 1713 2
Marie Levron C 1686 Aug. 1, 1727 Jean Garceau married in 1703 10
Census 1686
? C 1688
Elisabeth (Isabelle) Levron C 1690 After Aug. 14, 1763 Michel (Etienne) Picot married Nov. 3, 1705, then Yves Maucaer Feb. 9, 1712 5
Joseph Levron C 1691 After 1750 in Quebec Rose Denise Veronneau married Sept. 13, 1722 Boucherville, Quebec, then Catherine Brunet in 1750 in Fort Frontenac 3
Jean-Baptiste Levron C 1692 Before March 2, 1756 Francoise Labauve married Jan 13, 1716 9
Census 1693
Jeanne Levron dit Nantais C 1694 Jan 19, 1751 Augustin Comeau married Feb. 12, 1714 11
Pierre Levron C 1696 Jan. 20, 1725 Never married
Census 1698
? C 1698 1698-1700
Madeleine Levron C 1700 After 1723 Jean Labauve married Aug. 11, 1722 1
Census 1700

This chart shows Catherine’s known children, plus those we can infer based on those loudly silent gaps in the census.

The four “gap” children would have been buried either in the cemetery at Port Royal, now known as the Garrison Cemetery, or in the little cemetery behind the St. Laurent Church or Chapel, referred to as the Mass House, just east of BelleIsle, very near where Catherine’s parents lived. Depending where Catherine and Francois lived and what was going on when those children died, some may have been, and probably were, buried in both cemeteries.

St. Laurents, and its cemetery, is lost to us today.

We know the church existed, as it is listed as the “Mass House” on two early maps. This 1757 map shows two “things” at the Mass House. One would have been the church, of course, and the other is probably the adjacent cemetery.

This 1733/1753 map version is less specific.

We know that the parish church at Port Royal was destroyed in 1690 and probably in 1708 as well, given that the rest of the town was burned. After Port Royal fell to the English in 1710, the Garrison Cemetery, as it was renamed, began to be used for English burials. It wasn’t entirely abandoned by Acadians, but based on some parish records before 1710, we know the Mass House at BelleIsle was in use by 1707. I’d wager that it had been in use since at least 1690, if not much earlier.

Unfortunately, parish records are incomplete, and none exist before 1702. Those after 1702 are spotty, and few record the location of burials, even though we know at least three early cemeteries existed. FindaGrave lists 17 known burials at St. Laurent, including Catherine’s close family members. I know of one more not listed in the cemetery – Catherine’s own son who died in 1725. This tells us that this cemetery was in use for at least two decades and probably significantly longer.

Even though the cemetery no longer exists today, it’s unlikely that the English settlers who arrived beginning around 1759, four years after the Acadians were deported in 1755, would have summarily destroyed a known cemetery. The church would have either deteriorated, been used for something else, or eventually been removed, but the graves likely simply remained undisturbed until, with the passage of time, the cemetery became overgrown, then forgotten, and now lost.

Based on the two earlier maps, and today’s Google Maps, I’ve noted the two approximate locations of the cemetery.

This is the approximate location of the 1757 map Mass House.

This is the approximate location of the Mass House on the map drawn based on the 1707 census, another map in 1733, and refined by 1753 information.

It’s someplace in this area. Maybe Charlie can find it one day!

We may not know exactly where, but it’s certain that the upriver residents worshipped here and buried their family members in the consecrated land adjacent the church. It was a lot closer than Port Royal, which often didn’t have a functioning church, and after 1710, it was a lot safer upriver than in Port Royal, given the shifting sands of the English and Acadian political status.

Catherine’s four children who were born and died between censuses may have been buried here, especially the child born after 1690 when we know the church in Port Royal was destroyed. This child born about 1698, died between the 1698 and the 1700 censuses, where Catherine’s daughter Madeleine was recorded.

The only thing remaining of these children is simply an empty gap on the census page, the ache in Catherine’s heart, and perhaps an unmarked grave here – their original small wooden cross long gone.

I surely wish we could locate the church and cemetery site today.

Unusual Circumstances

Do you ever get a funny gut feeling that something just isn’t right, or that there’s another piece to a story that you don’t, and probably never will, know?

That’s how I feel about Catherine’s family. Of course, many, if not most Acadian records no longer exist, so we’re working with only a sliver of information.

Here’s the very short list of available records that we are able to reference, combined with historical episodes that affected the Acadians in Port Royal dramatically:

  • Sporadic Acadian census records
  • Some birth, marriage, and death records after 1702
  • English attacks and surrounding historical events

What was happening in Catherine’s life following her 1676 marriage, which would probably have taken place in the Catholic church in Port Royal?

In the 1678 census, Catherine is a newlywed, with a one-year-old baby. The family is living with the Widow Pesselet. I’d like to know the rest of that story!

Between Catherine’s marriage and the 1686 census a decade later, she gave birth to six children, two of whom had died, and four who were living.

In the 1686 census, Francois Levron and Catherine Savoie are listed between the Melanson and Brun families, which strongly suggests that they are living across the river from Port Royal, where they are later found.

In 1690, the English attacked and burned all of the homes in Port Royal and probably the homes across the river as well, which would have included the Levron home.

They literally lived directly across the river from Fort Anne in Port Royal. In this photo, taken within the fort, the Levron home would have been to the right of the church.

The upriver homesteads were spared, but it’s very unlikely that these homes within clear sight would have been.

Between the 1686 and the 1693 censuses, four children were born to Catherine, but only the last three were living in 1693.

In the 1693 census, they are found in the same location as 1686, beside Laurens Grange and Pierre Doucet, who lived across from Port Royal and Fort Anne. So they apparently rebuilt after being burned out, as did the other Acadians at and near Port Royal.

In 1693, the English attacked and burned a dozen or so homes, plus three barns full of grain.

Between the 1693 and 1698 censuses, two more children joined the family, and their eldest daughter had married.

But in 1698, there was an unexpected census change. Francois and Catherine appear to be living in a different area.

In 1698, Francois Levron and Catherine Savoie are listed as neighbors of Emanuel Hebert on one side, and Rene Forest on the other. Their daughter, Madelaine, and her new husband, Clement Vincent are living next door.

Shown on this Mapannapolis map, this places Francois and Catherine fairly far upriver, about 12 miles East of Port Royal at Bloody Creek, which at one time was called Forest Creek. Rene Forest lives on one side, and the Hebert family on the other.

Another child or two were born in 1698 or 1699, both of whom perished.

In the 1700 census, the family has roughly the same neighbors as they did in 1686 and 1693, across the river from Fort Anne at Port Royal. So either they moved back downriver, or the 1698 census was out of order.

Their last child was born about that time as well. Catherine is now about 40 years old, so this makes sense, although it’s possible that she had another child or even two.

In 1701, the entire family is missing from the census, but their married daughter, Madelaine, and Clement Vincent are living upriver.

Something is going on, but what?

Know what else is strange in 1701? Daughter, Marie Levron, age 15, was working as a servant in the home of Emanuel Hebert. Why is that? Servants are exceedingly rare in Acadia, and are generally confined to the governors and upper-class, wealthy residents of Port Royal. Not Acadian farmers farming reclaimed marshlands upriver. Furthermore, Marie’s not there to help with young children, as she is three years younger than their youngest child.

Francois and Catherine are listed again in the 1703 census. I can’t tell for sure where the family is living, but they are two doors from their daughter and Clement Vincent – and it looks like they may still be upriver. The census may not have been recorded in house-to-house order, and the census taker also may have canoed back and forth across the river. Francois and Catherine have two boys and four girls, which means that daughter Marie is living at home again. Marie would marry Jean Garceau later that year, a soldier, on November 20, 1703. Several Acadian young women married the French garrison soldiers.

Looking at witnesses at various church events, it’s clear that Catherine and her family are interwoven in the tapestry of the upriver families as well as those living directly across from Port Royal.

The English struck again in 1704, burning homes, destroying crops, killing cattle and tearing down dykes.

Daughter Elizabeth Levron, also recorded in some records as Isabelle, married Michel (Etienne) Picot, also a soldier, on Nov. 3, 1705.

The English returned in 1707, burning nearly everything in the town – probably including the Levron homestead and that of their two married daughters, who were likely living on the same land.

We know for a fact that in both 1707 and 1710, the Levron family was living right across the river from Hogg Island at Port Royal, because we have two different maps that confirm the location.

On both the 1708 and 1710 maps, Francois Levron is noted by his dit name, Nantois, and he’s listed as “Le bonhomme Nantois” on the 1707 census.

The 1707 census also confirms that location. Clement Vincent is living next door, with Rene Doucet and the Grange/Granger family as neighbors.

Catherine’s eldest son, Jacques Levron, married Marie Doucet on January 8, 1710.

1710 was the year that Acadia was permanently lost to England following a wicked battle in which Catherine may well have had to shelter in the subterranian black hole in Fort Anne with her children and grandchildren.

It was safe there, but it would have been brutal if they had to stay for the entire 19 days.

In addition to the capitulation of the fort, one of the terms of surrender was that residents within three nautical miles, “within cannon shot,” were to be protected and allowed to stay, and those beyond the three-mile perimeter would be allowed to stay on sufferance.

The Priest attempted to gather and unite the Acadians beyond the three-mile marker, at Pre Ronde, or Round Hill, across from BelleIsle where Catherine’s family lived. This act of rebellion got him kidnapped by the English and shipped off to Boston. He was gone from mid-January through mid-December of 1711. There was a lot of death in Acadia that year.

After the surrender, the Acadians were told by the English that they would have to leave for other French colonies, meaning places like Beaubassin, for example. While the Acadians didn’t want to leave at first, by 1720, they had all planned to leave, but the English, realizing that they could not support themselves, now prohibited it. This back and forth tug-of-war lasted for years.

It was a very rough decade, with a great deal of uncertainty, acrimony and turmoil. What should they do, and who was going to do what – and when? Many of the young people left as soon as they married, while they could, and before they accumulated any belongings to lose.

In June of 1711, the Battle of Bloody Creek, took place on the Annapolis River above the mouth of Bloody Creek – formerly Forest Creek. If, indeed, Catherine and her family had relocated upriver in this area, they would have had front and center seats for the battle with the British. Someplace between 50 and 150 Acadians and their Native allies ambushed around 70 English troops in the river. They ultimately hoped to retake the fort, but without artillery, were unsuccessful. It’s possible that some Acadian men either died in the ambush, or were wounded and died later.

Daughter Marie’s husband, Jean Garceau, a French soldier, died sometime in 1711, leaving her with young children, including a year-old baby. Marie remarried to Alexander Richard the day after Christmas – just a week or so after the priest returned from Boston.

Daughter Elizabeth’s husband, Michel Picot, also a soldier, died sometime in 1711, leaving her with two infants, the youngest born in November, 1711. Elizabeth remarried to Yves Maucaer on Feb. 9, 1712, three weeks before baby Michel was officially baptized. Marriage was a matter of survival. Everyone already knew everyone in the close-knit community – so it wasn’t like you had to meet and get acquainted.

Catherine would have been doing her best to comfort and help her two newly-widowed daughters.

Catherine’s sister, Francoise Savoie, who was married to Jean Corporon died around Christmas in 1711, and was buried on the 27th.

Good Heavens, how much more can this family take?

Catherine’s sister, Marie Savoie, had married Gabriel Chiasson, and they had moved to Beaubassin where she died sometime after her youngest child was born in 1711, and the 1714 census. There seemed to be regular travel between the Acadian colonies, so I’m sure Catherine eventually heard the sad news and grieved her sister’s passing.

Daughter Anne Levron married Pierre Benoit about 1713.

Daughter Jeanne Levron married Augustin Comeau on Feb. 12, 1714.

Then, the unthinkable happened. Catherine’s husband, Francois Levron, died at midsummer, on June 23, 1714. I wonder if his death was sudden or if he had been ill. He was about 53, so not elderly by any means.

In the 1714 census, obviously taken after his death, Catherine is found living in the middle of six Girouard family members who live in the Girouard Village, just down the road from both Emmanuel Hebert and Rene Forest. This is the upriver location where they are found in the 1698 census, where Marie is living in 1701, and where her son was living in 1725. Why is this family found here or near here repeatedly.

However, Catherine’s son-in-law, Clement Vincent is still living “near the fort” on the census, near Rene Doucet and the Grange families again. Probably on Francois Levron’s land. Why is Catherine Savoie not living with them, or with her other married children?

Why is Catherine living in the midst of the Girouard family, near but not in the midst of the Hebert and Forest families, with her three unmarried children consisting of two sons and a daughter? In 1714, those three children would have been 22, 18, and 14. Catherine is about 53 years old and has no livestock and no land. How is she living? What is she eating? Who is feeding her children? Her two sons are old enough to work on the neighbors’ farms. Is that why they are living there? Why are they not living on and farming their own land?

So many questions!

In January of 1716, Catherine’s son, Jean-Baptiste Levron married Francoise La Bauve. Whose family lives almost directly across the river. Francois Levron is listed as deceased, of course, but Catherine is not.

On the thirteenth day of January, in the year 1716, we, the undersigned, declare to whom it may concern that we, Jean Baptiste Levron and Françoise Labaume
of this parish, and François Labauve, father of the said Labauve, and her mother, Marie Rimbaud, raise no objection to the proposed future marriage of our aforementioned children, Jean Baptiste Levron, son of the late François Levron and Catherine Savoye, residents of this parish, and Françoise La Bauve, daughter of Noël La Bauve and Marie Rimbaut, currently also residing in this parish.

On August 11, 1722, in the marriage entry of Magdelaine Levron and Jean de La Bauve, Francois Levron and Catherine Savoye are both described in exactly the same way. Francois is noted as deceased, and Catherine is simply listed as the mother. This leads me to believe that Catherine is probably still living, given that Francois is described as deceased. Little is known about the newlywed couple other than one child was born on December 11, 1723 in Grand Pre, which means they probably settled there immediately after they married. Catherine would not have known this grandchild, although she may have received word that the baby was born.

At some point, Joseph Levron left home and married Rose Denise Veronneau on Sept. 13, 1722 in Boucherville, Quebec. Catherine may never have known of this marriage, or whatever happened to her son. I’m guessing that Joseph was gone by the 1714 census, because he’s not accounted for. Was he one of the crew members of Pierre Baptiste, the friendly local privateer who recruited Acadian boys?

I was hoping to be able to narrow the dates of Catherine’s death based on her serving as Godmother to some of her grandchildren, but she is not listed for any grandchild. She might be listed for other children in the community, but Godparents and witnesses to events are not indexed in the Nova Scotia archive records. Perhaps having siblings or younger people as Godparents was the tradition, since they were more likely to be able to step in and raise a child should something happen to the parents.

Catherine’s Death

What we know about Catherine’s death is held in her son’s death record.

His death record continues on the next page.

Catherine’s youngest son, Pierre Levron never married and died in the home of Pierre Gaudet (Godet) on January 21, 1725, where he was listed as a domestic. Witnesses were his uncle Germain Savoye and Pierre Godet. His father is listed as Francois Levron, deceased, and Catherine Savoye, who is not listed as deceased by the archives translation.

However, based on an independent translation, both of Pierre’s parents are listed as deceased, and there’s more.

On the twenty-first of the month of January, 1725, was buried in the cemetery of Haut-de-Rivière, in my absence, the body of Pierre Levron, about thirty years old, son of Sieur François Levron, resident of Port Royal in Acadia, and of Catherine Savoye, his father and mother (both) deceased, (he died) the previous day after having confessed, in the house of Pierre Godet also…

(page 2)

…resident of Port Royal, in whose service he had been a servant. In witness of which I have signed, René Charles de Breslay, missionary priest, curate of the parish of St. Jean Baptiste and grand vicar of Monseigneur the Bishop of Québec, after having held a service for the repose of his soul and performed the burial ceremonies of his body at Port Royal on the 26th of the said month, in the presence of the said Pierre Godet and Germain Savoye, also residents of Port Royal and his uncle, who declared they did not know how to sign when requested to do so according to ordinance. R. C. De Breslay, missionary.

Note that the cemetery of Haut-de-Rivière would translate to “upper river cemetery,” meaning he was buried at St. Laurent. I feel good about that, becuase I know he had family nearby, maybe even his parents – or at least Catherine.

There were two Pierre Godets (Gaudet), two years apart, both named the same and born to the same parents. They also married Blanchard sisters, whose parents lived at BelleIsle. Pierre Godet the older, known as Pierre the elder, lived in Beaubassin in 1714 and signed a document there in August of 1722, so the Pierre in the 1725 record would have been Pierre the younger.

His father, Denis Godet, had established the Village des Gaudet in what is now the town of Bridgetown, even further upriver, amassing significant land across the river from Rene Forest and the Heberts.

In 1693, Denis Godet still owned his 20 arpents of land, but by 1698, Denis is still living, but the land was listed in Pierre’s name.

This 1733 map, drawn just a few years after Pierre Levron died, shows Gaudet Village where he would have lived. The houses were scattered aong the ridge of what is today Bridgetown.

Given his holdings, at age 71, Pierre Godet could probably have used a domestic servant, and as a respected community member, he would also have stood in for the priest, hearing Pierre Levron’s death-bed confession.

It’s possible that Pierre Godet was Pierre Levron’s godfather, although we will never know because the early parish records were destroyed by the English. However, that could be one reason why Pierre Levron was living with Pierre Godet. Pierre probably went to live in the Godet home when his mother died.

Please note that the designation of “Sieur” for Francois Levron, which translates to “Sir,” doesn’t necessarily mean royalty or nobility, but is an indication of respect equivalent to the English “Sir,” indicating someone that is well-respected within the community, and perhaps of social standing with a particularly respected trade such as a merchant or professional of some type.

As a final confirmation that Catherine was deceased, her daughter Elizabeth Levron remarried to Etienne Comeau in 1730, and both of Elizabeth’s parents are referenced as deceased.

Lack of Records

Why is Catherine’s death and burial record missing from the parish records? Wouldn’t I love to know that answer!!

For some reason, many deaths and burials were not recorded, or were recorded and are lost today. Was there a second register someplace – may be a book traditionally used for the St. Laurent Chapel?.

In a chart from page 73 in a pdf file from La Society historique acadienne, published in French, we find a tally of the total burials recorded in the existing parish registers.

It’s apparent that many deaths are omitted. For example, the years between 1706 and 1712, inclusive, have 16, 11, 14, 24, 16, 3, and 10, respectively. The priest had been kidnapped and taken to Boston in 1711, which shows 3 burials. The priest’s absence explains that drop. He did attempt to catch up when he returned.

Relative to Catherine, 1722 has 5 burials, 1723 has 1, 1724 has 5, and 1725 has 9. The numbers spike in 1727, with 23.

Based on this information, combined with the other records telling us that Catherine was alive in mid-August 1722, but deceased in January 1725 when her son died, I’d say Catherine probably died in 1723. It looks like the “least normal” year in terms of burials.

What we can say with certainty is that Catherine’s death occurred sometime between August 11, 1722 and January 20, 1725 when she was about 60 years old, or maybe a few years older. For all we know, Catherine may have also gone to live with the Godet family as a domestic after Francois’s death in 1714, and before her own death.

Catherine’s Children’s Lives

I was hoping to further narrow Catherine’s death by her grandchildren’s baptisms. Sometimes grandparents serve as a Godmother. Catherine was never found as Godmother for any of her grandchildren. Several were born prior to her death, between 1722 and 1725, so she would have been present at the baptisms in Port Royal.

How many grandchildren did Catherine know? Surely, as she aged and her own children established their adult lives, she would have taken solace and found joy in her grandchildren. She probably enjoyed watching them as their parents worked on the farms and in the fields.

Perhaps Catherine prepared food and baked bread in the Acadian ovens that were located outside every home as her grandchildren played nearby while their parents shored up dykes, planted and harvested grains, and worked with the livestock.

Where were Catherine’s children, and what was going on in their lives?

  • Catherine’s oldest son, Jacques Levron, was born about 1677 and married Marie Doucet in January of 1710.

In total, they had about 12 children, 8 of whom are known, meaning 2 died young, within Catherine’s lifetime.

In 1714, Jacques traveled on the vessel La Marie Joseph to Île Royale, today’s Cape Breton Island, to look at land. The land is very different there – not sandy or tidal marsh, but rocky. Farming techniques from Port Royal and the Annapolis River Valley wouldn’t work on Cape Breton Island. Jacques chose not to settle there and returned to Annapolis Royal, where he died before 1746. His daughter, born in March of 1716 died three months later, which would have brought Catherine immense grief. It appears that they lost a child in 1728 and 1735, but Catherine was gone by then, embracing them on the other side of the veil.

In total, they had 14 children, of which 7 died young, within Catherine’s lifetime.

Madeleine lost at least her first three children, Catherine’s first three grandchildren. Both women would have been devastated. Given that they lived next door, Catherine would assuredly have been present and probably assisting at their births. There are no parish records before 1702. Madeleine’s first child who lived was born in 1704.

Catherine and Madeleine must both have heaved a huge sigh of relief, assuming the earlier babies died near birth. Of course, without modern medicine and treatments, death was never far away, always skulking for a soul to capture.

Madeleine lost other babies in about 1711 and 1717. Given that there is no baptism or burial record, they may have been stillborn. Another died in 1719, just days old, and in 1722, 13 months old. Children baptized in both 1709 and 1719 listed Abraham Bourg as having provisionally baptized the babies in lieu of the priest, so that confirms that they lived across from Port Royal. It may also suggest that the babies were weak or sick, and they couldn’t wait for the priest.

Madeleine died in 1752 in Pisiquid, today’s Truro, where they apparently settled between 1726 and 1727, probably after Catherine died.

  • Daughter Anne Levron was born about 1684 and married Pierre Benoit, a soldier, about 1713. He became an officer, merchant and innkeeper in Louisbourg, where they lived. It may have been Anne and Pierre that her brother, Jacque Levron, visited in 1714.

We only have records of two children, although Anne almost assuredly had more.

Given that Anne’s first known child, Anne, was born in 1718, she must have lost either two or three earlier children. Anne, the child, died at age 15 in 1733 in Louisbourg, just two weeks after her mother. The second living child, Marie Anne, was born in May of 1725, which infers that either several children are unknown, or died between 1718 and 1725.

Anne and Pierre would have left Port Royal not long after their marriage, given that the fort at Louisbourg was founded in 1713, which probably broke Catherine’s heart. Catherine would not have been able to share in her daughter’s joys or grief. She would have been unable to comfort Anne, even if word did eventually trickle back to Port Royal about the residents of Louisbourg.

Catherine’s daughter, Anne, died on January 5, 1733, in the midst of a smallpox outbreak that took the lives of 200 people in Louisbourg, including Anne and her namesake daughter.

They would have been laid to rest in the cemetery which is unmarked today, but located in this field by the bay.

  • Daughter Marie Levron was born about 1686 and married Jean Garceau in 1703, a soldier at the garrison who may well have fought with her father.

Marie’s life was shaped by tragedy. In total, she had about 15 children, of which 6 died young, and 7 died within Catherine’s lifetime.

Based on a gap in the records, Marie lost a child in about 1705 or 1706, and another in 1709. Her husband, Jean, died in 1711, and Marie remarried to Alexandre Richard at Christmas that year. Unfortunately, Marie lost more children in 1714, 1716, 1722, and 1725. Additionally, we have nothing after their births for Claude born in 1715 and Isabelle, born in 1723, who may have passed about the same time their grandmother, Catherine.

Less than half, only 7 of Marie’s children grew to adulthood.

Catherine never stood as Godmother, but would have attended their baptisms, praying for a good future for them, then stood beside the graves to bury all but one or two of those grandchildren.

  • Daughter Elizabeth (Isabelle) Levron was born about 1690, the same year that all of the homes in Port Royal were burned by the English. We don’t know if her birth was before, during, or after the terrifying incursion. She married Michel Picot in 1705, then Yves Yvon Maucaire in 1712, followed by Etienne Comeau in 1730.

Elizabeth survived the Acadian’s worst nightmare – the expulsion in 1755 where they were forced to walk down the snow-cover wharf, leaving everythign behind, and board  overcrowded ships for God-knows-where.

The same wharf within view of her childhood home across the river.

Many did not survive, but Elizabeth wound up in Massachusetts where she was last found in the census on August 14, 1763. She would have been 73 years old and died sometime thereafter. 

In total, Elizabeth had only 5 known children, but she clearly would have given birth to more. Based on what we do know, she probably brought about 14 babies into the world.

Her first child’s birth wasn’t recorded until two years after her wedding, so I’d wager that her first child died in 1704, a year after she married. It wasn’t uncommon to lose the first baby, especially with a difficult birth.

Elizabeth probably lost her third baby in 1706, and another in 1709. We know that Port Royal experienced a “pestilence” in 1709, following a severe winter and the burned homes the year before, but it was reportedly confined mostly to the fort and surrounding area.

Elizabeth’s husband, Michel, died between February and November of 1711, when Elizabeth’s son, Michael was born on November 13th, 1711. At his baptism in February of 1712, his mother had remarried three weeks earlier, and of course, his father was listed as deceased. I suspect his father was already deceased when Michel was born.

Some kind of Hell was going on in Acadia in 1711.

This makes me wonder if both Elizabeth’s and Marie’s husbands met the same fate – possibly as a result of the 1710 battle when the French lost Acadia to the English. An even more likely possibility is that they perished in June, 1711, in or as a result of the Battle of Bloody Creek.

Catherine would have comforted Elizabeth after the deaths of her babies and first husband, Michel.

Elizabeth had three known children by Yves, but she probably lost one, if not two children before her next child was baptized in 1715. Elizabeth apparently lost another child in 1717, and three more before her next child’s birth in 1726.

Sadly, there is nothing more known about the child born in 1715 or 1726, so it’s likely that they died as well, meaning that Elizabeth only had three children who lived. Of those, one was deported with Elizabeth to Massachusetts, one died before the deportation, and the death of her son was after 1735 but when is uncertain.

Yves died on June 16, 1727, and she remarried again in November of 1730 to Etienne Comeau, but no children were born to that marriage.

Of Elizabeth’s children who perished, Catherine would have been right there, standing with her sobbing daughter, burying 10 children and Elisabeth’s first husband.

The 17-teens were so filled with tragedy and grief for this family.

  • Son Joseph “dit Letayer” Levron was born about 1691 and married Rose Denise Veronneau in September 1722 in Quebec, so Catherine, would not have known his wife or children. We know Catherine was still alive in August of 1722, but gone by January 1725, and she may or may not have been aware of Joseph’s marriage.

In total, Joseph had three known children, two of whom may have been born before Catherine died, but there were assuredly more.

  • Son Jean-Baptiste Levron was born about 1692, married Francoise LaBauve in 1716, and died before March 2, 1756. He would have been one of the three children living with Catherine in the 1714 census after Francois died.

In total, Jean-Baptiste had about 14 children, of which 6 died young, and one or two probably died within Catherine’s lifetime.

Jean-Baptiste and his wife lost a child in both 1721 and 1723. There is nothing more known about the child baptized in 1721, so she may have died before Catherine.

Jean-Baptiste and his family relocated to the settlement at Grand Pre between 1730 and 1737.

At least two children would have been born between those years, and another in 1741 – but we don’t know if the records are complete.

  • Daughter Jeanne Levron dit Nantais was born about 1694 and married Augustin Comeau in February 1714. She died on January 19, 1751.

In total, Jeanne had about 15 children, of whom 5 died young.

Jeanne’s first child, Marie Josephe, was born three days after Christmas the same year that her parents married, but sadly, died when she was just 6, in July 1721.

Catherine would have known this child well and stood by her small grave, weeping, that hot July day. It’s gut-wrenching to lose any child, but the longer you know them, the more there is to grieve. Not just their future, but your shared memories and bonding moments as well.

Four more children were born to Jeanne before Catherine died, so she would have celebrated their baptisms and enjoyed watching them blossom in the Acadian sun.

Jeanne probably lost two more children between 1733 and 1734, and at least two more between 1735 and 1741. Three of her 11 children born in the 1720s and 1730s have no information beyond their birth, which could be because they were scooped up in the 1755 expulsion and survived elsewhere. Let’s hope.

  • Son Pierre Levron was born about 1696 and died on January 20, 1725, in the middle of the winter, which is how we bracketed Catherine’s death. He would have been one of the three children living with Catherine in the 1714 census.
  • Catherine’s youngest child, Madeleine or Magdelaine Levron was born in 1700 and married Jeane La Bauve on August 11th, 1722, which is the last date we know for certain that Catherine was living. Madeleine was the daughter living with Catherine in the 1714 census, and the La Bauve family lived across the river, just above BelleIsle. Madeleine and Jeane La Bauve left shortly after their marriage for Grand Pre where their first child, a son, was born on December 11, 1723.

If Catherine was still living, she wouldn’t have known about Madeleine’s first baby until word filtered down to Port Royal.

We know this child was baptized in this church and survived to marry, but we don’t know anything more about Madeleine, her husband, or any additional children.

Did they die in Grand Pre, and rest in unmarked graves in the cemetery there?

Or were they deported from these shores, now marked with this iconic cross?

Part of me wonders if Catherine packed up and went with them to Grand Pre, and that’s why we don’t have a death record for her. Having considered that possibility, I doubt it because it seems unlikely that she would have left her unmarried son, Pierre, along with the rest of her family, behind.

I wonder if Pierre was disabled in some way, which is why, after Catherine’s death, he was living with neighbors as a domestic when he died.

Actual Timeline

There are two lenses with which to view these events. One way is through their individual stories, and another is via an actual timeline.

Stories are a lot more personal, and the timeline is starkly black-and-white. We need both perspectives.

The stories relate to individual people, but the timeline shows Catherine’s life, in order – or sometimes, disorder. It’s much easier to see, by year, what was actually happening.

We can’t do this well for our Acadian ancestors who lived before the census and parish records existed, but Catherine’s life spanned those years. Her early life was before parish records, but her children’s lives and grandchildren’s births are often found in the church books.

I know I’m just a glutton for punishment, but I had to create a spreadsheet timeline for Catherine.

This helps me “visit” with her during her life as she lived it. It also helps illuminate possible cause and effect. Without parish records, we don’t have a lot of information before 1702, although we can infer a lot by the various censuses and associated history.

Even so, we have a total of about 290 known “events” – most of which Catherine would have made a trip to church, or to the cemetery, or both.

Of course, that was in addition to “normal” church services, whatever that would have meant in an Acadia that was often either unstable or engaged in warfare. Not to mention that few people lived IN Port Royal. Catherine grew up on the North side of the river at or near BelleIsle, moved downriver across from the fort when she married, lived there through being burned out at least four times, if not five, then spent (at least) her sunset years back upriver, but on the south side.

The Girouard marsh and dykes overlook the Savoie lands and those of other BelleIsle families. Depending on which way you look, you could probably also see the St. Laurent Mass House. It’s no wonder Catherine’s family was buried here.

There’s still a lot that we don’t know, but viewing this timeline helps us piece together and understand more about what was happening in Catherine’s life day-to-day, month-to-month and year-to-year.

Our timeline begins with Catherine’s birth and ends around the time of her death.

I’ve color coded groups of people and events:

  • Catherine’s parents, aunts, uncles and siblings are in bold black
  • Catherine’s children are in bold blue
  • Catherine’s grandchildren are purple
  • Births are green
  • Mrriages are magenta
  • Deaths are teal

Although the births of nieces and nephews involve Catherine’s siblings, I have not color coded those.

Some events are told directly. For example, females birth surnames are given in the census, with ages in many cases. Later, we can match the names of children with marriages and the births of their own children. Families can be reliably reconstructed in this manner. Other events are revealed indirectly, like the gaps in the census that reveals that a child, or maybe two, were born and died. This could have been one event, with a stillbirth or even multiple miscarriages, or it could have been separate events, with a birth, joyful baptism, and later, a death – all happening with no evidence other than that telltale gap.

Date Who Relationship Event Comment
1661 Catherine Savoie Self Birth
1663 Francois Savoie brother Birth
1665 Barnabe Savoie brother Birth
1667 Andree Savoie sister Birth
1670 Marie Savoie sister Birth
1670 Francoise Savoie sister Marriage Jean Corporon
1671-1686 Francois Savoie brother Death Died between the census dates
1671-1686 Francois Savoie father Death Died between the census dates
1671-1686 Catherine LeJeune mother Death Died between the census dates
1671-1686 Barnabe Savoie brother Death Died between the census dates
1671 Census – age 9 with her parents at BelleIsle
1671 Marie Corporon niece Birth
1672 Madeleine Corporon niece Birth
1673 Jeanne Corporon niece Birth
1675 Jeanne Savoie sister Marriage Etienne Pellerin
1675 Jacques Corporon nephew Birth
1676 Madeleine/Magelaine Pellerin niece Birth Charles Calve dit la Forge
1676 Catherine Savoie self Marriage Francois Levron
1676 Marie Savoie sister Marriage Jacques Triel dit Laperriere, a soldier who probably served with Francois Levron
1677 Jacques Levron son Birth
1677 Jean Corporon nephew Birth
1677 Pierre Triel nephew Birth
1678 Marie Pellerin niece Birth
1678 Germain Savoie brother Marriage Marie Breau
1678 Marie Corporon niece Birth
1678 Census – living near Port Royal with the Widow Pesselet
1679 Catherine Savoie’s unknown child child Birth & Death Gap in children
1679 unknown Savoie brother Germain’s child Birth Gap in children
1679 Marie Madelaine Triel die LaPerriere niece Birth
1680 Catherine Savoie’s unknown child child Birth & Death Gap in children
1680 unknown Pellerin sister’s child Birth
1680 unknown Corporon sister’s child Birth & Death Gap in children
1680 unknown Savoie brother Germain’s child Birth Gap in children
1681 unknown Triel sister’s child Birth & Death
1681 Isabelle (Elizabeth) Corporon niece Birth
1682 Madeleine Levron daughter Birth Died before May 1752 in Pisiquid when her son married.
1699 unknown Vincent daughter’s child Birth & Death
1682 Pierre Pellerin nephew Birth
1682 Germain Savoie nephew Birth
1682 Nicolas Triel nephew Birth
1683 Cecile Corporon niece Birth
1684 Anne Levron daughter Birth Died in 1733 in Louisbourg.
1684 Alexis Triel nephew Birth
1684 Francois Xavier Savoie nephew Birth
1684 Anne Pellerin niece Birth
1685 Jean-Baptiste Pellerin nephew Birth
1685 Marguerite Corporon niece Birth
1686 Marie Levron daughter Birth Died in 1727 Annapolis Royal
1686 Map with homesteads but no names
1686 Census – living across the river from Port Royal
1686 unknown Triel sister’s child Birth & Death
1686-1693 Francois Goutrot aunt’s husband Death Died between the census dates
1686-1693 Marie Corporon niece Death Died between the census dates
1687 Marie Corporon niece Marriage Charles Boudrot – moved to Pisiguit
1687 Martin Corporon nephew Birth
1688 Catherine Savoie’s unknown child child Birth & Death Gap in children
1688 unknown Triel sister’s child Birth & Death
1688 unknown Savoie brother Germain’s child Birth Gap in children
1688 Marie Savoie sister Marriage Gabriel Chiasson, was in Minas in 1693, Beaubassin in 1697
1688 Francois Corporon nephew Birth
1688 Jeanne Pellerin niece Birth
1689 Michel Chiasson nephew Birth In Les Mines by 1693 but Catherine may have been at his baptism
1689 New fort begun, left unfinished
5-9-1690 English attacked and burned homes
June 1690 English reinforcements arrived
1690 English pirates burned homes
1690 Acadia falls under English control
1690 Madeleine Corporon niece Marriage Bernard Doucet
1690 Marie Triel niece Birth
1690 Pierre Savoie nephew Birth
1690 Charles Pellerin nephew Birth
1690 Elizabeth Levron daughter Birth 1763 census in Massachusetts
1691 Pierre Chiasson nephew Birth In Les Mines by 1693 but Catherine may have been at his baptism
1691 Jeanne Corporon niece Marriage Antoine Hebert
1691 Charles Corporon nephew Birth
1691 Bernard Pellerin nephew Birth
1691 Joseph Levron son Birth Died 1750 Canada
1692 Jean Baptiste Chiasson nephew Birth In Les Mines by 1693 but Catherine may have been at his baptism
1692 Jean-Baptiste Levron son Birth Grand Pre in 1737, died between 1741 and 1756
1692 unknown Triel sister’s child Birth & Death
1692 Jean Corporon nephew Birth
1692 Jean Savoie nephew Birth
1696 Census – lives across the river from the fort
1693 English attack Port Royal burning homes and barns
1693 Madeleine/Magelaine Pellerin niece Marriage Charles Calve dit la Forge
1693 unknownn Pellerin sister’s child Birth & Death
1693 Marie Savoie sister Relocated Beaubassin by 1693
1694 Alexandre Pellerin nephew Birth
1694 unknown Triel sister’s child Birth & Death
1694 Marie-Madeleine Corporon niece Birth
1694 Jeanne Levron daughter Birth Died 1751 Annapolis Royal
1694 Marie Madeleine Savoie niece Birth
1695 Marie Pellerin niece Marriage Jacques Doucet
1696 Pierre Levron son Birth
1696 unknown Pellerin sister’s child Birth & Death
1696 Paul Savoie nephew Birth
1696 unknown Triel sister’s child Birth & Death
1696 Ambrose Corporon nephew Birth
1696 Marie Savoie niece Birth
1697 Acadia returned to French
1693-1698 Edmee LeJeune aunt Death Mother’s sister
1693-1698 Charles Corporon nephew Death Died between the census dates
1698 Census – listed with upriver families
1698 Catherine Savoie’s unknown child Child Birth & Death Gap in children
1698 unknown Triel sister’s child Birth & Death
1698 unknown Pellerin sister’s child Birth & Death
1698 Claude Savoie nephew Birth
1699 Marguerite Pellerin niece Birth
1699 Fort Anne returned to French
1698-1700 Marie Savoie sister Spouse Death Died between the census dates
1698-1700 Ambrose Corporon nephew Death Died between the census dates
1698-1700 Francois Corporon nephew Death Died between the census dates
1698-1700 Nicolas Triel nephew Death Died between the census dates
1700 Census – lives across the river from the fort
1700 Madeleine Levron daughter Birth Chipoudie 1752, 1755, Camp L’Esperance winter 1756/57.
1700 unknown Savoie brother Germain’s child Birth Gap in children
1700-1701 Marie Savoie niece Death Died between the census dates
1701 Census – family missing except two children living upriver
1701 unknown Savoie brother Germain’s child Birth Gap in children
1701 Anne Pellerin niece Marriage Abraham Brun
11-27-1702 Marie Madelaine Triel die LaPerriere niece Marriage Louis La Chaume dit Loumeray, a soldier, moved to Louisbourg between 1710-1713
1702 Work on Fort Anne resumes
1702 Cecile Corporon niece Marriage Jean Boudrot – moved to Pisiquid
1700-1703 Jacques Corporon nephew Death Died between the census dates
1701-1703 Pierre Pellerin nephew Death Died between the census dates
1703 Census – location uncertain
1703 unknown Vincent grandchild Birth & Death
5-25-1703 Charles Savoie nephew Birth
11-20-1703 Marie Levron daughter Marriage Daniel Garceau
3-17-1704 Pierre Vincent grandson Birth
June 1704 English attacked and burned homes, Port Royal under siege 17 days
10-22-1704 Pierre Jean Garceau grandson Birth
1706 unknown Vincent grandchild Birth & Death
1704-1707 Pierre Vincent grandson Death Before 1707 census
Spring 1705 English attack Acadian settlements
1705 unknown Savoie brother Germain’s child Birth Gap in children
9-29-1705 Madeleine/Magelaine Pellerin niece Spouse Death Charles Calve dit La Forge who lives as Beausoleil at the river heights
11-3-1705 Elisabeth Levron daughter Marriage Michel Picot
1706 Privateers defending Port Royal
1705 Jean Corporon nephew Marriage Marie Pinet – moved to Grand Pre
1706 unknown Garceau grandchild Birth & Death
10-5-1706 Marie Josephe Savoie niece Birth
1707 Census – lives across the river from the fort
1707 Labat map – lives across the river from the fort
1-2-1707 Marie Josephe Vincent granddaughter Birth died on Ile St. John 1756
1-17-1707 Madeleine/Magelaine Pellerin niece Marriage Pierre Gaudet – couple is unknown after this date but may be present in 1714
1-18-1707 Marie Savoie niece Marriage Rene Blanchard
4-8-1707 Daniel Garceau grandson Birth died 1772 Yamachiche, Quebec
6-6-1707 Attack on Port Royal – 11 days – homes burned
6-17-1707 English attack ends
8-19-1707 Isabelle (Elizabeth) Corporon niece Birth Illegitimate child born with Rene Fontaine as father
8-21-1707 Attack on Port Royal – 11 days
9-2-1707 English attack ends
11-23-1707 Francois Savoie nephew Marriage Marie Richard
11-28-1707 Marie Jeanne Picot grandson Birth Died 1751 Port Royal
1-1-1708 Madeleine Vincent granddaughter Birth died in Quebec in 1768
2-3-1708 Alexis Triel nephew Death Buried in cemetery of St. Jean Parish, Port Royal
1708 Fort Anne defenses shored up
1708 unknown Savoie brother Germain’s child Birth Gap in children
1708 Martin Corporon nephew Marriage Cecile Joseph – moved to Les Mines, Pisiguit
10-1-1708 Marie Triel niece Marriage Pierre Le Blanc die Jassemin, sergeant of a company, native of Ozan in the Auvergne
1709 unknown Garceau grandchild Birth & Death
1709 unknown Picot grandchild Birth & Death
1-16-1709 Germain Savoie nephew Marriage Genevieve Babineau
2-4-1709 Jeanne Pellerin niece Marriage Pierre Surette
5-3-1709 Marguerite Corporon niece Birth Illegitimate child Francois Lecul born, son of Jean Lecul
5-7-1709 Marguerite Savoie niece Birth
1710 unknown Vincent grandchild Birth & Death
1710 Labat map – lives across the river from the fort
1-8-1710 Jacques Levron son Marriage Marie Doucet
2-11-1710 Jean Baptiste Pellerin nephew Marriage Marie Martin
3-20-1710 Joseph Garceau grandson Birth died 1789 Quebec
9-4-1710 British warships begin arriving in the harbour
9-24-1710 British attack on Port Royal begins – homes burned
10-5-1710 British have blockaded harbour at Goat Island
10-12-1710 Port Royal falls to England
10-16-1710 Keys of fort handed to English, French soldiers leave
October 1710 Acadians told they have two years to move to French territory
11-14-1710 Madeleine Corporon niece Marriage Francois Leclerc, a soldier
11-24-1710 Pierre Savoie nephew Death Buried at St. Laurent Chapel
4-15-1711 Marie Joseph Levron granddaughter Birth reportedly died at sea in 1758
1-17-1711 Marguerite Savoie niece Death Buried at St. Laurent Chapel
4-26-1711 Marie Madeleine Savoie niece Marriage Rene Babineau, deported and wound up in Quebec
June 1711 Battle of Bloody Creek – French attempt to retake fort
7-17-1711 Anne Vincent granddaughter Birth Married in 1727 in Grand Pre and died in 1768 in Louisiana
1711 Marie Triel niece Death Died during father Durand’s captivity in Boston
1711 Elizabeth Levron daughter Spouse Death Michel Picot
1711 Marie Levron daughter Spouse Death Jean Garceau
11-13-1711 Michel Picot grandson Birth Died after 1735
12-26-1711 Marie Levron daughter Marriage Alexandre Richard
12-27-1711 Francoise Savoie sister Death
1711-1724 Marie Savoie sister Relocated In Louisbourg by 1724
1-8-1712 Elizabeth Levron daughter Marriage Yves Yvon Maucaire
2-2-1712 Michel Picot grandson Baptized Three weeks after Catherine’s daughter remarried
1712 Isabelle (Elizabeth) Corporon sister Marriage William Johnson – Scotsman in service with English Garrison when Port Royal fell
3-16-1712 Marguerite Corporon niece Birth Jean Pierre Clemenceau, illegitimate son born with Jean Clemenceau while he was married to Anne Roy who also had a baby a month later
5-20-1712 Joseph Levron grandson Birth died c 1755 before deportation
10-1-1712 Pierre Toussaint Richard grandson Birth Died 1751 Port LaJoye, Isle St. Jean
3-13-1713 France ceded all of Acadia to England
1713 unknown Maucaire grandchild Birth & Death
1713 Anne Levron daughter Marriage Pierre Benoit, soldier
6-9-1713 Jean Vincent grandson Birth died 1758 at sea
7-9-1713 Anne Pellerin nephew Spouse Death Abraham Pellerin
11-27-1713 Bernard Pellerin nephew Marriage Marguerite Gaudet
1711-1714 Marie Savoie sister Death in Beaubassin
1714 Census – living among upriver families Widow
1714 Acadians ready to leave for Minas, but now the English prohibit the move
2-12-1714 Jeanne Levron daughter Marriage Augustin Comeau
1714 unknown Richard grandchild Birth & Death
1714 Unknown Benoit grandchild Birth & Death
4-14-1714 Brigitte Levron granddaughter Birth died 6 months after wedding in 1737 in Grand Pre
12-28-1714 Marie Joseph Comeau granddaughter Birth born in a transport ship and baptized by a woman on the ship during the crossing
2-22-1715 Marguerite Corporon niece Birth Birgitte born, father listed as Jacques Amireault, says “legitimate marriage” but the child died on June 7th, 3 months later with no surname and no father listed.
1715 Marie-Madeleine Corporon niece Marriage Jean Seigneur, a wealthy innkeeper in Louisbourg
1715 Joseph Vincent nephew Birth Died in 1778 in Morlaix, Bretagne, France.
1715 Fort Gates shut to trading with Acadians
6-27-1715 Claude Richard grandson Birth & Death Nothing after his birth
8-22-1715 Charles Maucaire grandson Birth & Death Nothing after his birth
1716 Unknown Benoit grandchild Birth & Death
1-7-1716 Marguerite Pellerin niece Marriage Bernard Gaudet
1-13-1716 Jean Baptiste Levron son Marriage Francoise LaBauve
1-13-1716 Alexandre Pellerin nephew Marriage Jeanne Gaudet
3-22-1716 Anne Levron granddaughter Birth
6-10-1716 Anne Levron granddaughter Death
8-10-1716 Madeleine Comeau granddaughter Birth NY during the expulsion
1717 Acadians have decided to stay on peaceful terms
4-1-1717 Paul Vincent grandson Birth
4-8-1717 Jacques Levron grandson Birth Married in 1754, decd by 1758 when son died in Quebec.
4-30-1717 Marie Josephe Levron granddaughter Birth Died 1765 Cayenne, French Guiana with her husband and all 5 of her children
1717 unknown Maucaire grandchild Birth & Death
1717 unknown Richard grandchild Birth & Death
10-8-1717 Paul Vincent grandson Death
6-17-1718 Marie Richard granddaughter Birth Died in 1796 in Canada
7-22-1718 Marguerite Comeau granddaughter Birth Massachusetts during deportation, died in 1767 in Quebec
11-14-1718 Jean Savoie nephew Marriage Marie Dugas
1718 Anne Benoit granddaughter Birth Died 15 days after her mother in 1733 in smallpox epidemic in Louisbourg.
1718 Martin Corporon nephew Marriage First wife died between 1714 and 1718 when he married Marie Josephe Viger.
2-25-1719 Jean Baptiste Joseph Levron grandson Birth In Beaubassin by 1743, Chipoudie 1755, Camp L’Esperance, died 1767 Quebec.
3-18-1719 Marguerite Vincent granddaughter Birth
3-19-1719 Marguerite Maucaire granddaughter Birth Massachusetts in 1763 with 6 unknown children
4-6-1719 Marguerite Vincent granddaughter Death
1720 New Governor mandates loyalty oath or Acadians must leave in 3 months taking nothing
1720 Acadians refuse and make preparations to leave
1720 Governor prohibits Acadians from leaving, says they are ungovernable
1-20-1720 Anne Levron granddaughter Birth Probably died young, nothing more
3-21-1720 Jeanne Comeau granddaughter Birth Married in Pubnico in 1753
5-1-1720 Marguerite Richard granddaughter Birth Died in 1757 in Quebec
1720 Unknown Benoit grandchild Birth & Death
1720 Pierre Triel nephew Marriage Catherine Bourg
7-28-1721 Marie Joseph Comeau granddaughter Death
8-25-1721 Claude Vincent grandson Birth
8-13-1721 Elisabeth Levron granddaughter Birth & Death Nothing more
1721 unknown Maucaire grandchild Birth & Death
1722 Simon Levron grandson Birth Les Mines in 1746, died in Quebec in 1757
1722 Unknown Benoit grandchild Birth & Death
1722 unknown Richard grandchild Birth & Death
1722 Francois Savoie nephew Relocated Grand Pre
1-12-1722 Anne Pellerin niece Marriage Laurents Doucet
1-17-1722 Marie Joseph Comeau granddaughter Birth Died 1756 probably New York
Mar-May 1722 Siege of Annapolis Royal by Mi’kmaq and Maliseet
8-11-1722 Madeleine/Magdelaine Levron daughter Marriage Jean La Bauve and in Grand Pre by Dec 1723, probably as Camp L’Esperance, nothing more known
9-8-1722 Claude Vincent grandson Death
9-13-1722 Joseph Levron son Marriage Rose Denise Veronneau
11-17-1722 Jeanne Savoie sister Spouse Death Etienne Pellerin
11-23-1722 Paul Savoie nephew Marriage Judith Michel
4-6-1723 Marie Jeanne Picot granddaughter Marriage Louis Thibault
5-14-1723 Isabelle Richard granddaughter Birth 1760 census in Newbury, Mass, but nothing more
10-22-1723 Pierre Vincent grandson Birth In Port La Joye in 1752, died 1787 in Quebec
12-11-1723 Jean Baptiste La Bauve grandson Birth in Grand Pre
1723 unknown Levron grandson Birth & Death
1723 unknown Maucaire grandchild Birth & Death
1724 Unknown Benoit grandchild Birth & Death
2-1-1724 Marguerite Pellerin niece Death
2-21-1724 Jean Baptiste Comeau grandson Birth Died 1797 Quebec
3-26-1724 Louis Levron grandson Birth Died in Louisiana
July 1724 Raid on Annapolis Royal by Mikmaq and Maliseet – burned houses and took prisoners
7-24-1724 Yves Thibault great-grandson Birth CT during deportation, died 1801 Church Point, Clare, Digby
1-30-1725 Charles Pellerin nephew Marriage Madeleine Robichaud
2-20-1725 Marguerite Corporon niece Marriage to Henry Samuel
1725 unknown Richard grandchild Birth & Death
1725 unknown Maucaire grandchild Birth & Death
1725 unknown Vincent grandchild Birth & Death
1722-1725 Catherine Savoie self Death Between August 11, 1722 and January 20, 1725
1-20-1725 Pierre Levron son Death His mother Catherine is listed as deceased.

This exercise revealed, among other things, that Catherine’s older sister, Marie’s husband, Jacques Triel, died fairly young. Marie, never remarried, lived to age 84, and outlived all but one of her children. Only one child grew to adulthood.

Catherine’s niece, Marguerite Corporon, is extremely interesting. Every family has a wild child – in some way or other. In fact, we may have been that person in our family. But we need to be careful about rushing to judgement about Marguerite who had at least two and possibly three illegitimate children, meaning children born outside of a marriage between the parents. Illegitimate births were extremely rare in Acadia – let alone three times with the same female.

According to Gisa Hynes, writing Some Aspects of the Demography of Port Royal, 1650-1755  for the University of New Brunswick Journal, after analyzing the parish registers, 0.6 percent, or about one in 200 births, was illegitimate between 1702 and 1755, and almost no babies were born in the 9 months after the parents married. The influence of the Catholic church is reflected in the extremely low pre-marital conception rate.

Even more unusual in Marguerite’s case, the father of one of those children was a man who was married to a different woman whose also had a baby a month later.

I can only imagine the drama.

I feel incredibly badly for both women, truthfully. The wife clearly had no choice in the situation, and divorce simply didn’t exist. She went on to have more children with her husband.

We don’t know any of the circumstances surrounding Marguerite and how she became pregnant either the first, or succeeding, times. The event(s) may not have been consentual. And once a woman’s reputation is “ruined,” it’s extremely difficult for a female to dig herself out of that hole – one she may not have willingly put herself in.

Regardless, the situation was unfortunate – and was assuredly grapevile and gossip fodder for years, if not generations. Marguerite did marry an Englishman when she was about 40, a decade after her third child was born. I hope she lived her best life in whatever way possible. It’s not like she had the option of moving away or visiting an “Auntie” someplace else, and starting over.

Marguerite’s challenges were interwoven with the larger issues taking place in Acadia at the same time.

Acadia Changed

Life changed dramatically in Acadia in 1710, meaning the English seizure of Port Royal, protection of Acadians only within three miles, the Battle of Bloody Creek in 1711, combined with the edict that Acadians had to leave. I’d wager that two of Catherine’s sons-in-law, both former soldiers, were involved in the resistance that followed.

Now, considering this additional information, finding the family upriver, beyond that 3-mile line, in 1714 and later makes a LOT of sense.

Catherine may have lived long enough to welcome her first great-grandchild in July of 1724, Yves Thibault. The next generation, all of whom were deported if they didn’t join Catherine in the graveyard first, had begun.

We don’t know where Catherine rests for eternity, but it could well be here in an undocumented cemetery on her family’s land.

_____________________________________________________________

Share the Love!

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

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

You Can Help Keep This Blog Free

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

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Uploads

Genealogy Products and Services

My Books

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

Marie Levron (c1686-1727), Tragedy from Cradle to Grave – 52 Ancestors #443

Marie Levron was born about 1686 in or near Port Royal, Nova Scotia, to Francois “dit Nantois” Levron and Catherine Savoie. Levron is sometimes spelled Leveron, Leuron and other ways as well.

In 1686, we first find Marie Levron listed as age 1 in the census, along with her parents and three older siblings: Jacques age 9, Magdelaine, age 5, and Anne, age 2.

This probably means that Marie was actually born in 1686, given that her sibling is age 2, and children were generally born 18 months to two years apart. Later censuses also suggest that her birth was in 1686 as well.

In 1690, New England militia brutally attacked Port Royal, overtook the fort, plundered and burned the town, desecrated the church, and killed their livestock. Marie would have been too young to fully realize what was going on, but might have been terrorized by the attack itself. Assuredly, she would have been affected by the magnitude of the destruction. Given the level of trauma involved, this attack might have formed Marie’s earliest memories. Their home was probably burned, given their proximity to the fort.

Not only would her family have been immediately and directly affected, but this event was a turning point in English and Acadian relations. Any trust and goodwill between the two had been permanently destroyed.

In the 1693 census, Marie Levron was age 7 and was living at home with the same family members plus three new siblings: Elizabeth, age 3, Joseph, age 2, and Jean Baptiste, age 1. The gap between Marie and Elizabeth suggests she had an additional sibling born about 1688 who died between birth and the 1693 census.

This sibling may have died at birth when Marie was too young to realize what was taking place. Or, the child may have died just before the census when Marie was 7 and she had known them for years. It’s certainly possible that the child perished in the 1690 depredations when the English burned so many homes.

In 1698, Marie Leveron was age 12, living with her family, who had grown with the addition of two siblings – Jeanne, age 4, and Pierre, age 2. Her sister, Magdeleine, age 16, had recently married Clement Vincent and was living next door.

In 1700, Marie Leuron (Levron) was 14 and living with her family, but two of her siblings are missing. Jeanne and Pierre are not listed. Normally, this would mean that they had died, but that’s not true in this case.

Jeanne would have been 6 in 1700. She married in 1714, so she clearly had not died.

Pierre would have been 4. He is not found again until his death in 1725, when he died in the home of Pierre Godet as a domestic.

Where were these two children in 1700, and why was Pierre later working as a domestic?

Additionally, Marie’s sister, Magdeleine, also recorded as Madelaine, who was married in the 1698 census, is recorded as once again living with her parents. Her husband is not found. This leads me to question the accuracy of the census, because her husband, Clement Vincent, didn’t die, and they went on to have a dozen children. The eldest was born about 1701. Perhaps Magdeleine was visiting her parents when the census-taker recorded the family members.

In 1701, Marie Levrin, age 15, was listed as a servant in the home of Emanuel Hebert and his wife Andree Brun. Marie was younger than four of their five children at home, and one year older than their son, Alexandre, so she wasn’t living there to help with young children.

In 1698, Emanual Hebert was listed as the neighbor of Francois Levron, Clement Vincent and Rene Forest.

Servants were very unusual in Acadia, with only five listed individually. The total shows 17 servants in Port Royal, but we are left in the dark about the identity of the rest of those servants.

Marie’s parents and family are missing from the census.

It’s possible that they had departed for either Les Mines or Beaubassin and been missed in the census, or they were literally in transit. The family would have known the Emanual Hebert family well, so perhaps, for some unknown reason, Marie stayed behind, living with the Hebert’s as a servant.

If they went someplace, they were back by 1703.

In 1703, Marie was probably counted with her family in the census in Port Royal, although her parents had six daughters and four sons at the time, and the census only reflects four girls and two boys.

On November 20, 1703, Marie married Jean Garceau, a soldier at Fort Anne, and he was not listed in the census, so the census was likely taken before the wedding.

On the 20th of November in the year one thousand seven hundred and three, I, a parish priest performing the curial functions in this parish, after the publication of the three banns on three consecutive Sundays, without any impediment having been found, united in matrimony, by words in the presence of our Holy Mother Church, Jean Garsseault, called Tranchemontagne, soldier of this garrison in the company of Duvernay, son of Pierre Garsseaux and Jaquette Soulard of the parish of St. René in the diocese of Poitiers, and Marie Levron, daughter of François Levron and Catherine Savoye, of this parish. And they declared that they could not sign, but made their mark, along with those witnesses whose names I have signed below on the same day and year as above.

Marie was married by the Priest, Felix Pain, with the commander of Fort Anne serving as a witness.

The nuptials would have been performed either in the chapel at the Fort if it had been rebuilt by that time, in the rectory, or the commander’s residence in either the fort or on Hogg Island. The fort layout a few years later, in 1710, above, is from the Fort Anne Museum, at Fort Anne in Annapolis Royal.

As newlyweds, Jean and Marie would have wanted to establish a homestead, a place to live and raise their children for the rest of their lives. A little farm they could cultivate. They might well have built a small home on her father’s land.

Marie’s first baby, Pierre Garceau, was born on October 22, 1704, 11 months after they were married. His parents are listed as Jean Garssau dit Tranche Montagne and Marie Levron. Pierre Consolin, bombardier, and Anne Levron (mistranscribed as Curone), Marie’s older sister, were Godparents.

Since the 1690 attack, Fort Anne had fallen into disrepair to the point of being unable to defend itself, or anything else, for that matter. In 1702, a new, highly qualified engineer, Pierre-Paul de Labat had arrived, and by 1704, the dilapidated fort was under construction.

Concurrently, the English were chronically breathing down the neck of Acadia, so they desperately needed the protection of the new fort.

Financial and political issues with France delayed the rehabilitation of the fort which meant that Port Royal and the homesteads along the Riviere Dauphin, including where Marie and her small family lived, were exposed.

Both the soldiers and townspeople were struggling to complete the fort – but the soil and stone for the new earthworks and many ramparts all had to be hand-carried.

France, however, had essentially disappeared from the equation. No supplies arrived, and neither did money nor reinforcements.

(c) National Maritime Museum; Supplied by The Public Catalogue Foundation

Needing protection, Port Royal had little choice but to partner with privateers, a nicer name for pirates – well, at least the pirates that were on your side. Not only did they protect Port Royal, they sought and took English ships as prizes, and deposited captured English sailors at Port Royal where they could be used in future negotiations.

1707 – A Baby and a War

It’s puzzling that Marie Levron and Jean Garceau are not found in the 1707 census, but then again, neither are Marie’s parents. Jean was still a soldier, so they would have had to live near the fort.

Marie welcomed her second child, Daniel Garceau, on April 8, 1707. Interestingly, Monsieur de Subercase, Governor of the Province, and Dame Marie Mius, wife of Monsieur Duvivier, a French officer under Subercase, were Godparents. Jean Garceau was a soldier under Subercases’s command.

The two and a half year gap between Pierre and Daniel suggests that a child died in 1706, but there is no church record of such. Of course, the records may not be complete, or the child may have been born prematurely and never baptized.

A month after Daniel’s birth, the English launched an attack on Port Royal. Marie must have been utterly terrified.

To the best of our knowledge, Marie and Jean were living directly across the river from Port Royal.

All men were on a hair-trigger notice. Based on the reports provided by the English hostages, Port Royal was anticipating an attack. It was only a matter of when. Sure enough, in May of 1707, it arrived.

Messengers were sent to notify and gather the male residents living nearby in order to oppose the advance of the enemy on both sides of the river.

The British had landed near Goat Island, and more than 320 men were advancing through the woods on both banks. Port Royal was under attack.

The battle was brutal. Thankfully, Governor Subercase, who was quite competent, was in charge and led both the soldiers and Acadian men in battle.

The Acadian forces met the English face to face and engaged in hand-to-hand combat.

The English could not take the fort as they had anticipated, so they resorted to guerrilla warfare in the woods and along the river. They burned buildings and homes, laying waste to all of Port Royal.

Placard photos taken in the Museum at Fort Anne.

The English retreated, then returned again in August, but were once again repelled 11 days later.

However, the worst was yet to come – and everyone was on pins and needles.

The English Return

Subercase knew that time was limited, so he scrounged for as many additional hands as could be found to assist with the fort completion.

The privateers captured 35 more English ships and brought 470 additional English captives to Port Royal. The fort was not prepared for this many captives, and Spotted Fever, now called typhus, ravaged the hostages and the community. Typhus is caused by poor sanitation in extremely crowded conditions and is spread by fleas and body lice. More than 50 died.

Word came that a “great force” was being gathered at Boston. In preparation, Subercase added 150 Indians and 75 militia from Grand Pre. They expected an attack in 1708, and when that didn’t happen, in 1709.

The only thing that saved Port Royal in 1709 was that the English fleet had been redirected for service in the Spanish War. However, Port Royal didn’t know that.

Marie must have been a nervous wreck. She had two very small children. I think she lost a child in the spring of 1709, but we’ll never know.

1710 – Another Baby and the English Arrive

Around June 1709, Marie became pregnant for their third child.

Joseph Garceau, was born on March 20, 1710 and baptized three days later. Joseph Levron, his uncle, and Marie de Breuil stood as Godparents.

Fortunately, the fort had been mostly completed, and while Port Royal certainly could have used reinforcements from France, at least they weren’t entirely helpless now. The fort was ready – or at least as ready as it could be.

There were new barracks and a new powder magazine.

Additionally, trees and brush had been cleared from the waterfront so that the English couldn’t use it for cover.

When Marie’s baby was just six months old, and a month before her oldest child’s 6th birthday, the first few ships of the English fleet sailed up the river and into view. Not a few English ships like had happened in 1707, but the entire English fleet consisting of more than 35 ships and 3400 soldiers would arrive within a few days – almost three times the entire population of all of Acadia. Port Royal only had about 450 residents and of that, only 100 or so were men.

The English came prepared this time, with a full siege battle plan.

Complete with a labeled map.

To make matters worse for the Acadians, the abandonment of Port Royal and the rest of Acadia by France had created morale issues among the soldiers, which, in turn, led to a high desertion rate. Many of the deserters had joined the English forces and provided them with valuable intelligence.

No pay and reduced rations will do that to you. A few soldiers, like Jean, had married local women, but most had not and wanted nothing more than to escape – one way or another.

Marie’s husband, Jean, had to leave his wife and their children, wherever they lived, or wherever he secreted them to keep them safe. He donned his uniform as a soldier, facing incredible and unwinnable odds as the English attacked.

He had to know he was facing death. Marie knew that too, no matter what he said. I can only imagine their tearful goodbye as he departed their home to defend Port Royal from within Fort Anne in the face of legions of English soldiers. He must have felt like a sitting duck!

What is it like to stare death in the face?

What is it like to leave your wife and small children to their fate at the hands of enemy soldiers?

We don’t know exactly what happened. If Jean wasn’t in the fort as the English warships sailed up the river, he would have hurriedly taken his assigned defensive station within the fort before the gates were closed.

Maybe he hurried his wife and children into the fort with him.

Fortunately, the fort’s master engineer,  Pierre-Paul DeLabat drew a 1710 map.

He labeled the Nantois, or Levron, homestead, on the river across from Hogg Island.

This location of the Levron home might explain why Marie fell in love with a soldier who was stationed right across the river.

On the 1707/1708 map drawn by Delabat, the Nantois home is shown directly across the river from Hogg Island, just slightly upriver from the fort.

If Jean was in the fort, he didn’t have the opportunity to tell his wife goodbye. I don’t know exactly where Marie’s family was, although Labat was quite specific. The Levron family may have already moved elsewhere, anticipating the onslaught. That home had assuredly been burned out in 1707 and had to rebuild.

I hope Marie was able to make her way home to her parents who lived on the north side of the River, and perhaps to her mother’s parents several miles further east.

On September 24th, at about 2:15 in the afternoon, the first ships were sighted by sentries near Goat Island.

As more and more ships arrived from the west, a warning would have rapidly traveled along the river valley to alert the residents.

At least 35 ships anchored in front of the fort, blocking the harbour. A sea of sails swayed back and forth, striking terror in the Acadian residents and the few French soldiers, alike.

How could 300 men, which included a few visitors, possibly fend off 3400 English soldiers?

More and more ships sailed into the harbour – none of them French.

Acadia would not surrender without a fight.

By October 5th, all of the English fleet had arrived, but the Acadians had no way to know there weren’t more.

If Marie was at her parent’s home, the river in front of their homestead would have been full of English ships. Marie and others probably continued to anxiously watch the horizon to the west for yet more English warships to appear.

I’m sure they appeared endless.

Acadian women and children had been gathered in the fort and secreted in the dank, dark, subterranean “black hole” for safety.

We don’t know if Marie was among them.

Once the only door to the Black Hole is shut, there is no light and no circulation. I’d truly have to fear imminently for my life to willingly be locked in here.

Marie may have sheltered in the black hole.

Or perhaps she had made her way upstream and was hiding there with family members, or in the mountains that line the river valley on the north side of the River, behind the Levron homestead.

On October 6th, the English came ashore, landing troops both north and south of the Fort, and Port Royal.

The Acadians tried to fire upon the English ships, but their cannons couldn’t reach that distance across the river. The Acadians were both outnumbered and outgunned.

Aside from her own safety, Marie would have been worried sick about her husband. Was he safe? Was he injured? Was he dead? Where was he?

Could she see anything?

Fort Anne and Port Royal, including the area across the river, were completely surrounded. The Acadians resorted to guerrilla-style warfare, dressing not in military uniforms, but in skins and clothing like the Mi’kmaq, shooting at the English red-coats from the woods and what few structures remained.

The English burned everything they could. Homes, farms, fields, barn. Burned it all! Again!

After four days of resistance, Governor Subercase knew they were all about to be slaughtered. If you live, you can fight another day. From within the fort, which may have been where Marie was sheltering, Subercase sent a French officer with a white parley flag to the English camp.

Negotiations ensued for two days as the English continued to advance upon the fort. When they reached a distance of 300 feet, people within the fort could hear the voices of the English soldiers. Now within very close range, the English opened fire upon the fort and lobbed grenades inside the walls.

A hellish firestorm of a battle ensued. History speaks to the thunderous discharge of cannons and artillery raining down on the brave men holding the fort against insurmountable odds.

The women and families secreted in the pitch black Black Hole would have huddled together and prayed without cease. They would have felt every single explosion – not knowing if it was the literal end.

The English prisoners, also held in the fort, were probably equally as terrified, given that they might well be killed by either side – either intentionally or accidentally. They were probably praying too.

Then, silence.

Deafening silence.

The English fire ceased. The Acadians stood in the eerie silence, confused and wondering what was happening.

Had their prayers been answered?

Had, by some miracle, the French fleet arrived in the harbour?

Had they, by the Grace of God, been saved?

Time stood still as the Acadians waited. Anticipation had never seemed so long.

What were the people in the black hole thinking?

Were they anticipating the best, or the worst?

Maybe both?

Were they whispering, or silent?

What was happening?

And why?

By the end of the day on October 12th, negotiations were complete.

The Acadians would not be massacred. Their families would not be harmed.

The English prisoners would be released, and British boats were sent upriver to retrieve Acadian women and children who were hidden there – and to spread the word.

The entire episode lasted for 19 excruciatingly long days. On October 16th, the key to the fort was handed from the French officers to the English, and the French soldiers and Acadian men marched out of the fort through the gate with their dignity and little else.

Surrender terms included provisions to protect the Acadians. “Inhabitants within the gun range of the fort,” which was three miles, could remain in undisturbed possession of their land for up to two years if they wished, provided they were willing to swear an oath to the British Crown. Then they were required to leave.

Those at a greater distance than three miles were tolerated or allowed to remain on sufferance.

French soldiers were returned to France on British warships.

The local priest only recorded one death during the battle, a child who died on October 14th during the siege. I have a hard time believing only one person died. Two soldier-age men died not long thereafter, so they could have been injured during the battle.

Jean Garceau was a soldier. He had married an Acadian woman. Where was he?

Where Was Marie’s Husband?

When the fort fell, the priest, Father Durand, tried to reunite the Acadian settlers upriver, beyond the three-mile demarcation line. He attempted to protect the residents from the terms of capitulation that required that despised oath of allegiance to the English crown, an agreement that clearly would only have been made under duress.

The English were quite unhappy with Father Durand and considered him seditious. They took him prisoner in January of 1711 and sent him, as a captive, to Boston, with a few other unnamed Acadians.

Father Durand was ultimately released and returned to Acadia later in the year.

The last date before his capture that Father Durand performed any of his clerical duties was January 17, 1711. Father Durand once again appears in the parish registers on December 20th where he begins catching up on baptisms and other official duties that had been neglected in his absence, given that he was the only priest in Port Royal.

After recording more pressing items, Father Durand made a blanket entry for several people who had died while he was in Boston – including Jean Garceau, although he is erroneously recorded as Joseph. There was no Joseph Garceau, except for Jean and Marie’s young son, who we know did not die, and there was also no date on the group entry. What it does say is that these people died during Father Durand’s absence while he was in Boston.

Now, Marie, at age 24, was a widow with three small children. How was she going to survive?

Marie Remarries

The day after Christmas, December 26th, Father Durand married Marie Levron, widow of Jean Garceau, with Alexander Richard.

On the twenty-sixth day of December in the year 1711, I, the undersigned, acting in the role of parish priest, after three banns were published during parish masses, did join in marriage by mutual consent Alexandre Richard, son of the late Michel Richard and Jeanne Babin, and Marie Levron, daughter of François Levron and Catherine Savoye, widow of Jean Garceau, all of this parish. They declared that they did not know how to sign. In witness of which, I have signed on the above-mentioned day and year.

While that may not be her name and signature, it is Marie’s X, so she made that actual mark. The second mark is Alexandre’s.

The witnesses are Rene de Forest, and Rene Babinaut (sp?) along with Father Justinian Durand, officiating priest.

Rene may be an important clue, because he is a neighbor of Emanuel Hebert with whom Marie had lived as a servant. She would have known the family well. It’s also worth noting that Alexander Richard’s family lived in the area too.

Unfortunately, the Nova Scotia Archives doesn’t translate or index witnesses.

While we don’t know exactly when Jean died, Marie’s marriage just six days after the priest returned strongly suggests that Jean had been deceased for some time.

If Jean Garceau died shortly after Father Durand was captured in January of 1711, Marie would have been a widow for nearly a year.

When Marie remarried, she had three Garceau children. Pierre had just turned 7, Daniel, who was four-and-a- half, and Joseph, the baby, who was 21 months old. The baby would not have remembered Jean Garceau, and Daniel probably didn’t either.

Life With Alexander Richard

Marie’s second husband, Alexander Richard dit Boutin is somewhat confusing. His father had a son by the same name with both of his wives. While that sounds odd, especially if the first son lived, this is not the first time I’ve seen this phenomenon in Acadian families.

The Alexander Richard that Marie Levron married is the younger man, born around 1686 to Michel Richard and Jeanne Babin.

Alexander’s mother, a widow, had married Laurent Doucet, who lived at BelleIsle near the Savoie family.

The older Alexander Richard had died in 1709, so even without the detail in the parish record, we know unquestionably that Marie married the younger man.

Marie’s fourth child, and first child with Alexandre, Pierre Toussaint Richard, arrived on October 1, 1712, and was baptized the following day with Pierre Laure and Jeanne Doucet as Godparents.

Marie’s parents were getting older, and her father, Francois Levron, noted as ”about seventy years old,” was buried on June 23, 1714, according to the parish registers.

Marie, her mother, siblings and their families would have gathered that summer day to lay him to rest in the cemetery inside Fort Anne, probably where her husband, Jean Garceau rested as well. At peace, but with the protective barracks in the background.

The Acadian graves remain, but all are now unmarked. Whatever markers remained in 1755 were subsequently destroyed by the English.

Marie’s mother was noted in the 1714 census as “Widow Nantois, 2 sons and 1 daughter, living in the midst of the Girouard clan – so it’s entirely possible that they had moved upriver after they were burned out in 1707 and 1710. She actually had three unmarried sons, so one of them was missing from the census.

In the 1714 census, Alexander Richard is living with his wife and four sons beside Mathiew Doucet, very near the Julien Lore dit LaMontagne – not far east of Granville Ferry on the north side of the river – near the Leveron land. Of course, three of Alexander Richard’s four sons were his step-sons, but he raised the Garceau boys as his own. In fact, Marie’s youngest Garceau son, Joseph, often used the surname Richard, and sometimes Pierre used Alexandre’s dit name, Boutin.

Another two-and-a-half-year gap between children causes me to wonder if Marie lost a child in 1714.

Claude Richard was born on June 27, 1715, with Pierre Blanchard and Anne Robichaux, daughter of Alexandre Robichaux, as Godparents.

Three years between children nearly assures that a child was born and perished.

Marie Josephe Richard was born on June 17, 1718, and baptized the following day with Yves Maucaire and Marie LeBlanc as Godparents.

Marguerite Richard was born on May 1, 1720, and baptized two days later, with Alexandre Brossard and Marguerite Bourg, wife of Pierre Brossard, as Godparents.

Another three years between children. If Marie was actually losing every other child, she must have been filled with dread and anxiety with every pregnancy, especially every other pregnancy.

Isabelle Richard was born on May 14, 1723, and baptized two days later with René Doucet and Isabelle Levron as Godparents.

Isabelle Levron is Marie’s sister, who is also recorded in some records as Elizabeth.

On January 20, 1725, Marie’s 30-year-old brother, Pierre Levron died. Their father is noted as deceased, but their mother appears to still be living.

With nearly four years between Isabelle and Joseph, I’d wager at least one child was buried during this time. Sadly, without modern medical care, families anticipated losing half of their children. What a sad state of “normal.”

Marie’s youngest child, Joseph Richard was born on February 19, 1727, and baptized the following day with ”Pierre Garceau, son of the late Jean Garceau, and Marie Lor, daughter of the late Julien Lore,” standing as Godparents. Pierre was Joseph Richard’s half-brother.

If you’re scratching your head, thinking to yourself that Marie had a child named Joseph in 1710 with Jean Garceau, and now another Joseph in 1727 with Alexandre Richard – you’d be right. And yes, they were both alive in 1727.

Apparently Alexander having a same-name half-sibling didn’t deter him from doing the same with his own offspring.

Not Peaceful

Just for the record, in case we’re inclined to think that life was peaceful in Acadia after 1710 – it wasn’t.

Conflict with the English continued. First, the Acadians were required to leave in two years. Then, when they planned to depart, the English forbid it because they had come to realize that they had no prayer of feeding their own soldiers without the Acadians raising food for them.

Yet, the English continued to require a loyalty oath, and the Acadians just as adamantly continued to refuse for a variety of reasons. In 1720, some slight of hand resolved the oath issue for for the next 35 years. The Oath the Acadians signed was two pages – but only the first page was sent back to England. So, in essence, both parties got the conditions they required.

It wasn’t until 1720 that Acadians didn’t constantly live under threat of one kind or another. Until 1755, of course.

Marie’s Premature Death

Sadly, there is no happy ending to Marie’s story. No rocking great-grandchildren by the hearth or summers playing in the warm sunshine.

On August 1, 1727, Marie died just four and a half months after she gave birth to Joseph. The parish register tells us that Marie, the wife of Alexandre Richard, died on August 1st and was buried the following day. Her husband and Louis Tibault, her nephew, were witnesses.

Unfortunately, Marie’s parents were not listed, which would have given us a clue about whether her mother was still living. We know her father died in 1714.

The family was most probably associated with the St. Laurent Church at BelleIsle, because Marie’s sister, Madelaine/Magdelaine Levron was married there in 1722, and it was much closer than Port Royal.

Marie was either buried beside the church there, or in the cemetery at Port Royal.

On that hot summer day, Marie’s nine children would have said goodbye to their mother in the little chapel and buried her in the churchyard outside, now lost to time in the woods on the right side of the river.

When Marie died, none of her children had yet married, and many were young.

  • Pierre was 23
  • Daniel was 20
  • Joseph was 17
  • Pierre Toussaint was almost 15
  • Claude was almost 12, assuming he was alive
  • Marie Josephe had just turned 9
  • Marguerite was 7
  • Isabelle was 4
  • Joseph was only four and a half months old

What was baby Joseph to do without a mother? Someone had to feed him. Perhaps one of Marie’s sisters stepped in. Elizabeth/Isabelle had a baby in September of 1726, and Madeleine had a baby in October of 1726, which meant that both women would have been nursing babies when Joseph was in need. And, after all, they were her sisters and Joseph’s aunts.

Marie had probably already buried 4 or 5 children, mostly babies, along with her father and her first husband. Hopefully, she was buried near her children, all of whom passed too soon.

I can’t help but wonder if Marie’s death was an after-effect of or connected to Joseph’s birth.

Marie was only 40.

Who Raised Marie’s Children?

Who raised Marie’s children? Did her mother or perhaps a sister step in? If Marie knew how ill she was, or suspected that she was dying, that would have been the question foremost on her mind.

The purpose of Godparents is to raise the child in the event that the parents perish and cannot raise the child. In this case, only one parent died. Normally, what happens in cases like this is that the living parent quickly remarries to another individual who has lost their spouse. Clearly, in a small community, everyone already knew everyone else.

There’s absolutely no evidence that Alexandre ever remarried, and his occurred after the 1755 deportation – so he was single for a very long time.

Perhaps the marriages and other records of Marie’s children provide some clues.

  • Pierre Garceau, also sometimes known as Pierre Boutin, married Agnes Doucet in 1728 and lived in Port Royal. Alexander Richard did not sign for him. They had eight children. Pierre disappears from records after he witnesses his daughter’s marriage in Annapolis Royal in 1750. His wife, Agnes Doucet, died in Connecticut in 1789, so if Pierre lived long enough to be deported, that’s likely where he ended up. He would have been 51 years old in 1755.
  • Daniel Garceau married Anne Doucet about 1730 and lived near Annapolis Royal. No parish marriage record. They had 11 children. After the 1755 deportation, Daniel ended up in New York before making his way to Quebec.
  • Joseph Garceau married Marie Philippe Lambert about 1732 and lived in Beaubassin. No parish marriage record found. They had seven children. During the Grand Derangement, aka, forced expulsion of the Acadians, Joseph was reportedly separated from his family and deported to Georgia, while his wife, Marie Lambert, and children sought refuge at Isle St. Jean before making their way to Quebec where the family was reunited.
  • Pierre Touissant Richard married Marie Josephe Boudreau about 1732 and lived in Pisiguit. No marriage parish record found. They had six children. Pierre died at Port-la-Joye and was buried in 1751 on Isle St. John, today’s Prince Edward Island. His wife and children were deported to France in 1758 aboard the Duke William, landing in St. Malo, where one son died two days later, his wife died three days later and another son, 4 weeks later. Two additional children recovered, one living the rest of their life in France, and one eventually making it to Louisiana. One son’s wife and child made it to France, but his fate is unknown. The fate of the sixth child is unknown.
  • Claude Richard’s fate is unknown, but he could have died young – perhaps before Marie’s untimely passing.
  • Marie Josephe Richard married Paul Doiron in Annapolis Royal in 1738, with her father, Alexandre Richard, signing the parish register for her, so we know they were both still in or near Annapolis Royal in 1738. They had 11 children. Marie Josephe gave birth to a child in Pisiquit by 1747 and was on Ile St. Jean by 1752. By 1760, she was living in Saint-Etienne-de-Beaumont, just across the river from Quebec City in Canada, where she died in 1796. Five of her children succumbed to the smallpox epidemic that ravaged Quebec, and Quebec City in particular, in the winter of 1757-1758. Those children died on November 8, 1757, December 20th, January 7th , 8th and 14th, 1758, and were buried in the same cemetery as her sister, Marguerite’s children.
  • Marguerite Richard married in 1745 in Port Royal to Jean Breau “of the Canard River,” which empties into the Minas Basin across from Grand Pre. Alexandre Richard did sign as a witness. We don’t know exactly where Marguerite’s six children were born, but given that there are no Annapolis Royal baptism records for them, we have to assume it was near where her husband was farming. They were in Notre-Dame-de-Quebec by mid-1757, which means they were not deported from Annapolis Royal. Given their early settlement in Quebec, they would have been deported from further north in Nova Scotia, sought refuge in one of the encampments, and had possibly escaped their English guards at Mirimichi. Tragically, all but one of Marguerite’s family members succumbed to the smallpox epidemic of 1757-1758. Her husband, Jean Breau (Brault), died on July 4, 1757, the same day as Francoise, her six-month-old baby. Marguerite assuredly was horribly grief-stricken. She soon became ill herself, with a houseful of sick children. Marguerite died on December 7th, her 12-year-old son Jean died the following day, three-year-old Marie Josephe died on December 13th, four-year-old Francois died on December 18th, and 10-year-old Alexis died on January 12, 1758. They were buried in the cemetery at Notre-Dame-de-Quebec in Quebec City. Only one of Marguerite’s children, Elizabeth, survived to adulthood and died in 1792 at about age 41 in Quebec, after burying two husbands. What a horrific tragedy.
  • Isabelle Richard married Francois Raimon in 1753 in Port Royal. Alexandre Richard did not sign for her. We know nothing more about Isabelle other than she reportedly was listed on the 1760 Essex County, Massachusetts Acadian census, and was noted as having been deported to Connecticut in 1755. No children are listed. The next person on the census list is her father, Alexandre Richard dit Boutin.
  • Joseph Richard died in 1747 in Annapolis Royal. Alexandre was not a witness.

This tells us that Alexandre Richard did not move someplace else and remarry – and he stayed very involved with his children. He was obviously expelled with Isabelle and her husband and may have been living in the same household.

Marie’s husband, Alexandre Richard, three children and 18 grandchildren living in Annapolis Royal, formerly Port Royal until the English took it, were ensnared in the horrific expulsion of the Acadians. Additionally, four other children were forcibly expelled from elsewhere in Nova Scotia, and many died.

In 1755, by the time Marie’s husband and children who remained in Annapolis Royal were forced to march down the snow-covered Queen’s Wharf, board overcrowded death ships, leaving everything behind, Marie had been in her grave for 28 years.

If Marie’s final resting place was in the Garrison Graveyard, Alexandre and her children would have paused one last time to say goodbye, even if it was from the distance of the wharf.

We can only imagine the hell that followed.

On the 1760 list of Acadians in Essex County, Massachusetts, Alexandre Richard is listed, as is his daughter Isabelle Richard, who was married to Francois Raymond. Alexandre is listed as 70, infirm, and sent to Bradford.

So, it would appear that Alexandre Richard did not remarry, and one way or another, managed to find a way to raise his six children, and three step-children. Perhaps the older children raised the younger children, and everyone worked the farm together.

Alexandre was a good father to all 9 of Marie’s children, and apparently, loved Marie beyond the grave, given that he never remarried, remaining single for the next 33+ years.

Tragedy

Tragically, Marie’s life was cut short, as was that of many family members. Maybe it was a blessing that she did not have to endure 1755 and what followed, with her family separated in as many directions as there were living children.

Marie never got to attend her children’s weddings or cherish the smiles and giggles of grandchildren. She never received the honor of serving as a Godmother to her grandchildren, or seeing them baptized.

Marie buried her first husband, Jean Garceau, who may have died as a result of the 1710 fall of Acadia to the British.

Marie was fortunate enough to marry Alexandre Richard, who raised her three Garceau children in addition to their own. Marie’s youngest Garceau child was a baby and was close enough to Alexandre to take his surname as an adult. So did her eldest from time to time.

Some of Marie’s children remained in Port Royal after marriage, but several others struck out for points North where more land on the Bay of Fundy was available for salt-marsh reclamation and farming.

Child Acadia Location Deportation Location Children
Pierre Garceau 1704-after 1750 Port Royal Possibly Connecticut 8
Daniel Garceau 1707-1772 Port Royal New York 10
Joseph Garceau aka Richard 1710-1789 Beaubassin Georgia, then Quebec 7
Pierre Toussant Richard 1712-1751 Pisiquit, Prince Edward Island by 1751 He died in 1751 on Ile St. John. Wife and children deported to France 6
Claude Richard 1715 – ? Nothing known, probably died young.
Marie Joseph Richard 1718 – 1796 Pisiquit Quebec 11 – 5 succumbed to Smallpox in 1757-1758
Marguerite Richard 1720-1757 Canard River Quebec 6 – 5 plus both parents succumbed to Smallpox in 1757-1758
Isabelle Richard 1723 – after 1760 Port Royal Massachusetts None known
Joseph Richard 1727 – 1747 Port Royal Not deported Never married

Marie had at least 48 grandchildren, and probably several more. Records are spotty, and in the colonies, nonexistent.

Of those known grandchildren, 18 lived in Port Royal, so, had Marie lived, she would have known them and been able to see them regularly, probably on a daily basis. She would have been a seamless part of thier lives. I can see her playing hide-and-seek in the sunlight and shadows with them – except she never got to. Perhaps she visited them in other ways.

Marie’s mother, Catherine Savoie, born about 1659, may have outlived her daughter. Unfortunately, there is no existing death record for Catherine, so we don’t know when she died. Based on her son Pierre’s death record in 1725, where his father is noted as deceased, but Catherine is not, she may well have lived several years beyond Marie. She would have been about 68 when Marie died.

While Marie’s grandchildren didn’t have the opportunity to interact with her, they may have known and been close to Catherine – at least for a few years.

As difficult and tragic as Marie’s life was, she raised children who were survivors. Had it not been for those who persevered, with a dash of luck, of course, and probably several rounds of prayers, especially in the Black Hole – I would not be here today.

Our ancestors may have been scattered to the wind, but the Acadians were seeds and took root the world over. Today, WikiTree reports that Marie has (at least) 1984 descendants, and I’m sure there are more whose identities remain unknown.

_____________________________________________________________

Share the Love!

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

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

You Can Help Keep This Blog Free

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

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Uploads

Genealogy Products and Services

My Books

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

RootsTech 2025 – The Year of Discover and the New Mitotree

Last week, RootsTech was a whirlwind and full of discoveries – which, ironically, was the 2025 theme.

I always take you along with me and share the RootsTech experience, start to finish, so here’s my 2025 “feet on the ground” report.

I might, just might, have overcommitted myself. I taught the half-day DNA Academy,  three more sessions, plus several other commitments such as book signings, get-togethers, and interviews.

One class, “DNA for Native American Genealogy,” was a live webinar from the floor of the expo hall. You can watch that here for free, if you’re interested.

Unfortunately, none of my other sessions were recorded, but I’ll see what other alternative options may be available to bring those to you.

Additionally, I did two book signings at the GenealogyBank booth, along with two other authors, Drew Smith and Sunny Morton. I’m sorry, I don’t have any pictures. I should have asked someone to take some.

There were long lines and books sold out. Still, you can order either of my books, The Complete Guide to FamilyTreeDNA – Y-DNA, Mitochondrial, Autosomal and X-DNA or DNA for Native American Genealogy, at Genealogical.com. Thank you to GenealogyBank for being so welcoming.

The book signing was particularly fun because people shared their success stories or their hopes of what they want to achieve. I met a couple of new cousins too! Even people waiting in line were helping each other with information about research resources.

I had created my “RootsTech plan” for sessions I wanted to attend, but I was only able to actually attend one of those. Several were happening at the same time as mine, or directly before or after. As a presenter, you arrive early to get set up and make sure everything is working correctly.

Then, after your session, attendees have questions and are interested in your topic, which is a good thing. So essentially, you can’t attend sessions either before or after your session either.

Before I share photos, I’d like to share something else.

It’s About the People

I have never attended RootsTech for the classes, although there are wonderful offerings – and I have enjoyed them immensely.

Having said that, for me, the best part of RootsTech is the people. People I know and love but never get to see – many of whom I met in-person at RootsTech initially. I get to meet my blog followers. I meet with or reconnect with friends and cousins from around the world. I am privileged to talk with people about their challenges and their victories – when they’ve broken through a brick wall using DNA that they could never have otherwise achieved. People collaborating and helping each other. It’s all beautiful.

The reason I started blogging in the first place, and the reason all 1750 articles are free, is because I wanted to help people do just that – confirm ancestors, find ancestors, and connect with their fsmily.

My cousins that I’ve met through genealogy are some of my closest friends and closest family members. Outliving everyone is a mixed blessing but it makes me extremely grateful for my various cousins since all of my siblings and close family, with the exception of the next generation, have transitioned to the land of the ancestors.

So, yea, for me, RootsTech is about connecting and reconnecting with the people.

That’s also why I never get anything done because I’m always talking with someone.

Additionally, this particular RootsTech was a celebration.

Mitotree Release

Just a few days before RootsTech, the Million Mito Team at FamilyTreeDNA released the brand new Mitotree, 5 years in the making, reconstructing the tree of humankind to reflect our combined heritage more accurately.

At RootsTech 2020, I was honored to announce the Million Mito Project, and the new Mitotree initiative was born.

At some point, I will write about the deep, personal significance of the Mitotree for me,  but for now, suffice it to say that there is something profoundly moving about rewriting the tree of humankind and in doing so, giving a voice to our ancestors from long ago. Yes, I know many of them are thousands or even tens of thousands of years old, but had they not survived, we would not be here today. Now we can identify who they are and that they lived.

Million Mito Team, left to right, Goran Runfeldt, Dr. Paul Maier, me, Dr. Miguel Vilar, Bennett Greenspan, John Detsikas

Our amazing Dream Team has given life to our ancestors and said their names once again, even if their name is a mitochondrial DNA haplogroup. Four team members, Goran, Paul, me and Bennett were at RootsTech. Where else can you actually approach and speak with the actual scientists?

When I say RootsTech is about the people, I know that I am related to every single individual at RootsTech, it’s just a matter of how far back in time. So are you.

Just think about the significance of that for a minute.

Every. Single. Person.

The other end of the mitochondrial DNA spectrum is genealogy, of course, and the new Mitotree with it’s haplotype clusters brings mitochondrial DNA results into the genealogical timeframe. In future articles, I’ll be writing about each one of the new tools, what they mean, and how to use them.

Dr. Paul Maier, lead scientist doing most of the hard science behind Mitotree, had the much-deserved honor of introducing the Mitotree to genealogists at RootsTech.

I’m not sure the audience understood they were witnessing history unfold, but they clearly were. We needed a drum roll and some balloons!

This wasn’t like most vendor announcements of a new product or feature – this was a major scientific achievement that led to genealogical benefits.

In celebration, I asked my friend to make double helix zipper pulls so that I could give them to colleagues, friends and cousins that I ran into at RootsTech. It’s my way of celebrating and sharing the joy!

Five years is a very long time to work on a project. The Mitotree is a massive accomplishment. Every customer at FamilyTreeDNA who has taken the full sequence test received their new haplogroup either the week before or during RootsTech, AND, the second updated version of the tree was released too.

While this is truly wonderful, the true highlight is the testimonials – seeing how Mitotree is actually helping people break through their brick walls.

Here’s just one.

Breathless Testimonial

I’m going to try to convey this exactly as it happened.

A lady that I don’t know literally runs up to me in the hallway. This isn’t unusual. She was so excited that what she said was one long breathless sentence, which I’m going to try to reconstruct here, although I’m adding a bit of punctuation. I also can’t remember how many “greats” were attached to the “grandmother,” but you’ll get the idea.

Roberta, Roberta, I’m so excited – I just wanted to let you know – I found my ancestor using mitochondrial DNA. I got my new haplogroup and I had like 47 matches before but now they are clustered together so I could focus…and there were three matches in my cluster…and one of them had an EKA but the other didn’t…so I built out the EKA matches’ tree and guess what??? They were from the same place and then I found that her great-great-grandmother’s sister is my great-great-grandmother but she had her surname so now I have more generations too. OMG I ‘m so excited I could never have broken through this wall without mtDNA because I had no surname. This is THE MOST CONSEQUENTIAL DNA TEST I’VE EVER TAKEN, and I’ve taken them all. Thank you, thank you!

And with that she quickly hugged me and ran off to something she was obviously late for.

I never got to say one word, which was fine, but I stood there with tears in my eyes, thinking to myself, “This – this is what it’s all about.”

It doesn’t get better than this!

I want to hear your stories too. I just scaled my fourth brick wall last night using the new Mitotree and mtDNA Discover features.

RootsTech Week

RootsTech week started early for me – as in leaving the house at 3 AM Sunday. I fly on Sunday because the flights are cheaper and because the pre-conference meetings and events begin on Monday.

We took off into the dawn, jetting our way westward through the azure blue sky.

I have never gotten over the majesty and beauty of the Rocky Mountains.

And then, of course, the Great Salt Lake, for which Salt Lake City is named.

Looking at the Salt Palace across the street from the Marriott hotel. The silver building is the new Hyatt which is attached to the conference center behind the windmills which extends another very long block to the right, out of view. The mountain range is visible in the distance, and the beautiful sunset.

Speaking of the Marriott hotel, several people have asked if it was any better this year, and if I got trapped in the fire exit again, like last year.

No, I didn’t get stuck because I didn’t tempt fate again. It looked just the same though, so I’m presuming nothing has changed. Furthermore, there was no heat in my room, so they gave me a space heater and a pass to the concierge level – which they did not do last year.

That was kind of them, but food ran out, and there was only one poor server in the restaurant. I’m not even going to mention the nauseating thing that happened with my food. Let’s just say I’m not picky, but I will NEVER eat there again, and that makes it particularly difficult because there’s very little close by, especially when you’re exhausted.

I’m hoping that RootsTech will negotiate someplace different for speakers in the future. I’ve stayed in a lot of Marriotts and most of them are just fine. I have never had issues like this with any of them, let alone repeat issues year after year.

The good news is that we’re not there for the hotel, and the fun began on Monday.

Monday

My interviews began on Monday morning with “Mondays with Myrt” at the FamilySearch Library, which you can view here beginning about 16 minutes.

Mondays with Myrt is a RootsTech tradition and Myrt incorporates people present in person and tuning in virtually as well. Left to right, Kirsty Gray from England, John Tracy Cunningham, me and Myrt. Kirsty had a huge breakthrough that she shared with us just a few minutes after it happened.

I met John at the ECGGS Conference last October. He’s one of the few people I know whose 8 great-grandparents were born in the same county. I’m so jealous. Mine were either born in or first generation immigrants from four countries.

Sometimes the broadcast waiting area is just as much fun as the actual broadcast – in part because it’s the first day of RootsTech week and everyone is so excited to see their friends that they haven’t seen in forever. Call is a reunion!

Do Kirsty Gray and I look like we’re about to get into mischief?

Behind me is the first group of folks to be interviewed.

Pat Richley-Erickson, aka Myrt, Cheryl Hudson Passey, Laura Wilkinson Hedgecock, and Jenny Horner Hawran.

This is the livestream room at the FamilySearch Library. The waiting area for the next group is to the right, and the three presently being interviewed are sitting on the left beside Myrt.

For those who know Gordon, aka Mr. Myrt, he’s coordinating interviewees outside the livestream room. His job is herding cats and he’s the nicest cat-herder you’ll ever meet!

Pre-RootsTech Library Research

I love the FamilySearch Library. It feels like coming home to me.

So many passionate genealogists at every level – learning and searching. Lots of volunteer helpers available, too.

Normally, I create a research plan for the library, but I had been so utterly slammed between preparing my several RootsTech sessions and the Mitotree release that I hadn’t really been able to prepare anything.

I did, however, have a group of ancestors in mind that settled in the Oley Valley in Pennsylvania, so I decided to focus on the Berks County books.

I won’t bore you with the details, but among other things, I found confirmation that the Hoch surname is also the same as High and Hoy, which explains some very confusing Y-DNA results. So even though I didn’t get much productive time there, I did find something very useful in the land records.

I also ran into cousins and friends, of course, which is why I didn’t get more actual research done.

I knew Judy Nimer Muhn, at left, was going to be at RootsTech as a speaker, and I knew we connected through Acadian lines, but we never took the time to really piece together that puzzle.

My cousins, Mark and Manny were also coming for RootsTech, and to visit the library, for the first time. Mark, Manny and I visited Nova Scotia together in the summer of 2024, chasing our ancestors.

You know, fate is a funny thing.

We all descend from Acadian, Francois Savoie who was born about 1621 in France, but settled in Acadia, today’s Nova Scotia. Mark, Manny and I knew that we are cousins through Francois, but Judy and I did not. Mark, Manny and I ran into a local historian, Charlie Thibodeau, the Acadian Peasant, last year, outside of Port Royal. It just so happened that he was taking another couple to see the remains of the Savoie homestead deep in the salt marshes at BelleIsle.

We asked if we could join them, and Charlie was kind enough to include us. It was a long, brutally hot, tick-infested hike through the swamp, but oh so worth it!

We also found the well, located between three homesteads.

The year before, Judy had been in the same place in Nova Scotia, found the same man, Charlie, at the BelleIsle Hall Acadian Cultural Centre, and he had taken her to the remains of the same homestead.

And here we all four are in Utah.

What are the chances?

Needless to say, we had a LOT to talk about, and still do. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to get to Judy’s talk, but Mark and Manny attended.

I ran into Katy Rowe-Schurwanz, the FamilyTreeDNA Product Manager at the library too, and look what she’s wearing – a mitochondrial DNA scarf. How cool is that!

The rest of Tuesday and most of Wednesday morning were spent trying to update my several presentations to reflect newly released information by various vendors and practicing the timing of the presentations. I had another interview, and more people were arriving.

I found time to visit Eva’s Bakery about 3 blocks from the Salt Palace. If you’re ever in Salt Lake City, Eva’s is a must! Lunch is wonderful, and so are their French pastries.

Wednesday is “tech prep” day at RootsTech, along with speaker instructions and then the Speaker Dinner.

Steve Rockwood, President and CEO of FamilySearch always delivers an inspirational message and this year did not disappoint.

If you’ve wondered about RootsTech conference stats, they provided this information. I can’t even imagine trying to coordinate all of this – and that’s not including the vendors, expo hall, technology in the presentation rooms, food, security and so much more.

Last year, in 2024, the final attendance numbers were more than 16,000 people in person and 4 million virtual attendees. I noticed a few days ago that there were more than half a million people participating in Relatives at RootsTech, which is still live until April 12th.

On Wednesday evening, after the Speaker’s Dinner, vendors in the Expo Hall were putting the final touches on their booths and preparing for the thousands of excited genealogists who would descend Thursday morning.

Discover

This year’s RootsTech theme was “discover” and attendees were greeted with this display just inside the door.

Attendees listed their discoveries on Post-its and could either post them on the board or plastic boxes, or on the green tree.

I placed my discovery from the day before at the library on the Rootstech tree.

Some people place their wishes here, kind of like a technology wishing well.

I couldn’t help but think of the new Mitotree, now forever green and growing, so I posted a second discovery, “Mitotree.”

Thursday – Opening Day

For those who don’t know, the Salt Palace Convention Center is two lengthy blocks long, a block wide, and two or three stories high, depending on whether you are in the front or rear portion. In other words, it’s massive and you need a map!

The huge Expo Hall with vendors is located in the center on the first floor and vendors have aisle addresses. The show floor is always very busy, and this year was no exception. One of the things I love is that spontaneous conversations just spring up between people who often find commonalities – common ancestors, common locations, and more. People compliment each other and join others at tables. It’s like a big family gathering of sorts.

I always try to walk the entire Expo Hall, because I really enjoy seeing the vendors and their wares, but this year, I never actually had enough time to traverse all the aisles. I took several pictures as I was passing through and running into people, but not nearly enough. I know I missed a lot, but there just wasn’t enough time and I arrived at RootsTech already tired.

However, the energy of RootsTech is like no place else and just infects you.

It’s like you can’t drink from the genealogy firehose fast enough!

Let’s Take a Walk

Ok, come along on a walk with me.

Left to right, Lianne Kruger, a speaker, and Courtney, in the FamilyTreeDNA booth. I believe they said they are cousins.

Daniel Horowitz, genealogist extraordinaire, in the MyHeritage booth. More about MyHeritage’s announcements shortly.

Geoff Rasmussen in the Legacy Family Tree Webinars booth. For those who don’t know, there’s lots of good material at Legacy, and the freshly recorded webinars are always free for a week.

Several vendors offer booth talks, including MyHeritage. I love their photo tools and use their site in some capacity almost daily.

One of the RootsTech traditions is ribbons. Collect one, collect ‘em all. Liv’s ribbons almost reach the floor. I think she wins!

Selfies are also a RootsTech tradition. Me, here with Jonny Perl of DNAPainter fame. I owe Jonny an apology as he asked me if I had a minute, and I had to say no because I was on the way to one of my own classes. I never got back to his booth to view his new features. Sorry Jonny – don’t take it personally!

Jonny released a new Ancestral tree version titled Places, so take a look here at his blog. I need to go look at my ancestors Places.

You’ll find this new feature under Ancestral Trees, Places. These are my most recent 8 generations. Just think of all those brave souls who climbed on a ship and sailed for the unknown. Check this feature out and have fun.

In a booth talk, Dave Vance, Executive Vice-President and General Manager at FamilyTreeDNA is speaking about the three types of DNA, which are, of course, Y-DNA, mitochondrial and autosomal DNA – all useful for genealogy in different ways.

Dave is explaining how in-common-with matches, also known as shared matches, operate with the chromosome browser. You can use the chromosome browser, shared matches, the new Matrix Tool, and download your match segment information at FamilyTreeDNA, a combination of features not available at any other vendor.

WikiTree, a free a moderated one-world-tree is one of my favorite genealogy tools. One of their best features is that you find your ancestor, and in addition to lots of sources, their Y-DNA, mitochondrial DNA, and those who are related autosomally are listed. Here’s my grandfather, for example.

Several DNA connections are listed. The further back in my tree, the more DNA connections are found, becuase those ancestors have more descendants.

WikiTree volunteers were wandering around taking pictures of “WikiTreers” holding fun signs.

Paul Woodbury, a long time researcher with Legacy Tree Genealogists, who specializes in DNA. I don’t take private clients anymore, and regularly refer people to Legacy Tree.

Me with Janine Cloud taking our annual RootsTech selfie. Janine, the Group Projects Manager at FamilyTreeDNA and I co-administer one of those projects and accidentally discovered a few years ago that we are cousins too. How fun is this!!!

I wanted this shirt, but by the time I got back to the booth, it was too late. I’m going to order it online from Carlisle Creations, in case you want one too. This is so me.

Land records are critically important to genealogists. Rebecca Whitman’s class was about plotting land plats. What she’s holding is a surveyor’s chain. You’ve read about chain carriers? This is what they carried to measure land boundaries – literally metes and bounds. Some of my best discoveries have been thanks to land records.

The only session I actually got to attend was Gilad Japhet’s “What’s New and Exciting at MyHeritage.” For those who don’t know, Gilad is the founder and CEO of MyHeritage and it’s always great to hear about the new features straight from the top executive who is, himself, a seasoned genealogist. That’s why he started MyHeritage in the first place – 22 years ago in his living room.

Gilad had several wonderful announcements, but the one I’m most excited about is their new Cousin Finder. Cousin Finder finds and reveals cousins who are DNA candidates if they have not yet taken a DNA test.

I’ll be writing more about the MyHeritage announcements soon, but you can read their blog about Cousin Finder now, here, and their Roundup here about the rest of their announcements!

My Last Class – Reveal Your Maternal Ancestors & Their Stories

My last class at the end of the final day of RootsTech was “Reveal Your Maternal Ancestors & Their Stories – Solving Mitochondrial DNA Puzzles.”

Had I tried to coordinate this presentation with International Women’s Day, I could never have done it, but fate winked and here I was.

I’m often asked what it’s like from the presenters’ perspective. This is one of the smaller ballrooms. My earlier sessions were in larger rooms, maybe 3 times this size. I took this picture about 15 minutes before the session started as people were beginning to drift in.

The amazing RootsTech techs had me wired up to microphones and had verified that the audio and video equipment was working correctly, so now it was just waiting.

My cousin, John Payne, who co-administers the Speaks surname project with me, came by and took this great picture of the two of us. We’ve made huge inroads connecting the various Speake(s) lines in America, plus finally proving our home village in England, thanks to the Big Y-700 test, followed by church records. All is takes, sometimes, is that one critical match.

As I sat there, waiting to begin the mitochondrial DNA session, I couldn’t help but reflect upon all of the women who came before me and how fortunate I was to have been in the right place at the right time to be a member of the Million Mito team.

These are my direct matrilineal ancestors who give me, and my daughter, pictured at left, their mitochondrial DNA. I felt them with me as I sat there, waiting.

The woman at furthest right, Barbara Drechsel (1848-1930), immigrated to Indiana from Germany as a child with her parents in the 1850s. Before her came thousands of generations of women with no photos, of course, and no names before Barbara Freiberger, another eight generations earlier, born about 1621 in Germany.

Before that, which was before church and other records, prior to the 30 Years War, this lineage came from Scandinavia where some of my exact matches are still found today.

Before beginning, I said a positive affirmation and thanked my ancestors – so very honored to introduce them. I know they were proud of me, a member of the team that opened the door to the distant past. I wouldn’t be here if not for every one of their lives.

In this session, I would discuss, for the first time ever, the new Mitotree and my/our connection to all of humanity some 7000 generations ago, more or less.

The mutations we carry over those generations form an unbroken chain of breadcrumbs, connecting us to mitochondrial Eve who lived about 145,000 years ago. We revealed that breakthrough finding in the Haplogroup L7 paper, published in 2022.

I’m still in absolute awe that we have been able to both reach that far back in time AND, at the same time, make the newest haplogroups and haplotype clusters genealogically relevant. I will write more about that soon, but for now, I wrote about the Mitotree release here and you can find articles by Katy Rowe-Schurwanz here and here.

I’m very excited about my new mitochondrial DNA results for my ancestral lines that I track and have already made headway on several.

I’m not the only one.

Not only was I excited about my results, many other people have had breakthroughs too, including Mark Thompson, one of our genealogy AI experts who also spoke at RootsTech. I particularly love his AI generated image.

If you haven’t yet, check your mitochondrial DNA results.

It’s a Wrap

Another year done, another RootsTech under our belts. Hopefully everyone is over the “conference crud” by now and are busily applying their newfound knowledge.

You can view either live-cast sessions or RootsTech webinars, here.

I saw a meme posted sometime during the conference that coined the term “exhausterwhelmulated,” a combination of exhausted, overwhelmed and overstimulated at the same time.

I added exhilarated and elated to the mix and asked ChatGPT to draw me a picture of someone at a genealogy conference feeling those simultaneous emotions.

ChatGPT titled this request “Genealogy Conference Overload,” which made me laugh.

The first two attempts looked like the person had a headache, which I fully understood, so I asked ChatGPT to make the person look happy to be there.

This person, carrying a coffee like I often do, looks like they have just discovered the great irony that they have chased the wrong ancestor for some 20 years – with “laugh or I’ll cry” mania being their overwhelm “go to” in that minute.

This one made me laugh too!

Yes, indeed, I think every single one of us, especially at RootsTech, has experienced this exact adrenaline-fueled emotion.

We leave with a VERY long to-do list, exhausted but full of anticipation and buoyed by excitement. Filled with so much gratitude for our cousins and fellow genealogists, the speakers, vendors, DNA to solve thorny problems, new tools and records, FamilySearch who sponsors RootsTech itself and their amazing employees, plus the legions of the volunteers who make it all work.

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

_____________________________________________________________

Share the Love!

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

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

You Can Help Keep This Blog Free

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

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Uploads

Genealogy Products and Services

My Books

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

Anne Doucet (1713-1791), Oceans, Rivers, and Perseverance – 52 Ancestors #438

Anne Doucet’s life was one adventure after another. – a dark fairy tale where beauty and danger were inextricably intertwined. Twists and turns that, if you had told her when she was young, she would have found fantastical. The beauty of the tidal river overshadowed by betrayal and loss – woven in a sinister underbelly of political maneuvering that she knew nothing of – but ruined and shaped her life just the same.

Anne had never heard of most of the places she would be cast upon, or perhaps shipwrecked is a more appropriate description. She could never have anticipated where she would later live, in yet another unknown location, one after another, far from where she was born. An unwilling refugee.

Her life would unfold like chapters in a book, one where shadows stretch long over the ancient landscape, and you cannot put down nor anticipate the disaster about to befall our heroine in the next chapter.

And when the sleepless dawn finally arrives, your soul is crushed with hers, tears falling anew. Hearts aching.

Yet therein, in that darkness, we find an eerie beauty, the candlelight of her love – ever shining. A beacon.

Come turn the pages with me.

Anne Doucet was born March 23, 1713, in Port Royal to René Doucet dit Laverdure and Marie Broussard. Their neighbor Abraham Bourg, who lived just a few yards down the road, probably within sight, provisionally baptized her the day she was born. Perhaps his wife served as a midwife.

Given that the Catholic priest, Father Durand, didn’t baptize her until April 22nd, a month later, either he was gone or something else prevented the baby from being baptized immediately.

Anne’s godparents were Mathieu Doucet and Isabelle Broussard.

Mathieu Doucet is Anne’s uncle, the son of Pierre Doucet and Henriette Pelletret.

Pierre Doucet, Anne’s grandfather, was quite elderly but still living when Anne was born, although he would only get to dote on his new granddaughter for less than six weeks. He died on June 1st. Anne’s grandmother, his wife, had been gone for years.

According to the various Acadian censuses, Anne’s Godmother, Isabella Broussard, and Elizabeth Broussard, born between 1693 and 1696, are one and the same person, the daughter of Francois Broussard and Catherine Richard. Anne Doucet’s mother, Marie Broussard, is Isabella Broussard’s older sister.

So, Anne’s paternal uncle, Mathieu Doucet, and Isabella Broussard, her maternal aunt, were her godparents, standing up in late March 1713 with her parents, promising to raise Anne in the Catholic faith and care for her, should something happen to her parents. Anne’s baptism probably occurred in the priest’s house since the Port Royal church had been burned,

Or, maybe they stood in the little “Mass House” in BelleIsle, near where her maternal grandparents lived.

Committing as a Godparent was no trivial commitment to be taken lightly, given that the Acadians had been embroiled in war with the English through the end of 1710 – and one really couldn’t say things were exactly peaceful in 1713. The Treaty of Utrecht, signed in April 1713, worsened tensions considerably, given that Acadia was formally ceded to England.

In one of Anne’s children’s baptism records, her name is recorded as Jeanne, so her name could have included Jeanne as a middle name, but it’s quite unlikely. The priest didn’t record a middle name at her birth, and Jeanne is never recorded anyplace else. Maybe Jeanne was a nickname. I also noticed that during this time, the priests performing the baptisms were all different, so perhaps he didn’t know Anne very well, or simply made a mistake.

I should also note here that Anne’s name was recorded as “Marie” later in her life more than once, so perhaps her official name was “Marie Anne.” Marie was a very common “Saint’s name” for girls. We will never know.

Life on the River

Anne Doucet was raised near Fort Anne in Port Royal, although by the time Anne was born, Port Royal, the capital of Acadia, had been lost in battle to the British and was burned two and a half years earlier.

They lived not far from her grandfather, Pierre Doucet, along the river, and her grandmother, Henriette Pelletret, was raised right across the river in Port Royal. It’s possible, given her grandfather’s advanced age and the fact that all of her father’s brothers and all of his older siblings lived in Beaubassin, that Anne’s family was living on her grandfather’s farm and would inherit it soon. Somebody had to do that hard physical labor, and there wasn’t anyone else. Pierre was quite aged, over 90, so in all likelihood, they were all living together and Anne’s family was taking care of Pierre.

The 1714 Acadian census in Port Royal shows Rene Doucet, wife, one son and three daughters living beside Claude Granger and Laurent Granger, who are listed beside Abraham Bourg and Pierre Bourg. This cluster of neighbors lived directly across the river from Fort Anne.

Anne’s uncle, Pierre Broussard, who had married Marguerite Bourg, was living between Rene Doucet and the Lore family, whose land was further east.

Anne’s maternal grandparents, Francois Broussard and Catherine Richard, lived maybe 8 or 9 miles up the same side of the river, the other side of BelleIsle, near Hebb’s Landing today.

These families along the river mingled and intermarried freely.

Anne would have been unaware of the turbulence in Acadia during her childhood as the English and Acadians argued about whether the Acadians could stay or had to go someplace else, like Beaubassin or Ile-Royal.

Changing of the Guard

In Anne’s young life, another sibling arrived like clockwork every couple of years, and beginning in 1725, her older siblings began to marry.

Several things happened about 1730. Something was going on, and I certainly wish we had complete parish records or history from that time to reveal whatever that something was.

Sometime, probably in the summer of 1730, Anne’s mother, Marie Broussard, at age 44, gave birth to her youngest child.

Anne Doucet married Daniel Garceau about that same time, maybe in the fall or early winter, based on the birth of her first child.

There are no parish records for the birth of Anne’s sibling, nor her marriage.

Anne’s first child, Marguerite Garceau, was born on September 10, 1731. The conception date would be about December 14th, so her marriage probably took place just weeks to a few months before that.

Anne would have been ecstatic about the birth of her first baby. The entire family gathered that Friday, including Anne if she could, so that the priest could baptize Marguerite. Anne’s father, Rene Doucet, and their near neighbor, Anne Granger, stood proudly as Godparents. Perhaps at the foot of Anne’s bed.

Then tragedy struck. Anne’s father, Rene Doucet, died shortly thereafter, as he doesn’t appear in any later records. Unfortunately, there’s also no burial record for him, so we really don’t know if he died at home at Port Royal, out in the Bay on the water, or maybe visiting Chipoudy or someplace in the Minas Basin. Regardless, he was gone. And the family had a problem.

Anne’s oldest brother, Pierre Doucet, had married Francoise Dugas in 1725 and was in Chipoudy by 1732, so he might already have left the Annapolis Royal region by the time Anne’s father died.

Her oldest sister, Marie-Anne Doucet, married Pierre Landry from Pisiguit. In 1730, they were living in Chipoudy when their first child was born.

Anne’s next older sister, Agathe Doucet, married Pierre Pitre in 1726 and had their first child later that same year, but they, too, were in Chipoudy (now Shepody, New Brunswick) by 1732.

Anne was the only sibling to marry and remain locally, which meant Daniel Garceau might well have begun to work his mother-in-law’s farm. She certainly couldn’t do it with stair-step children from newborn to marriage age. As her children married, they were leaving for Beaubassin and the Bay of Fundy settlements, probably due to the more receptive political climate there – and the availability of farmland.

Anne’s next oldest sibling was her brother Francois Doucet, who would have been 16 in 1731. He would have been a big help in the fields. He lived at home and didn’t marry until 1742. He and his wife stayed in Annapolis Royal until the deportation, at which time, tragicly, they became separated from Anne’s family.

Anne’s other siblings were under 10 in 1731, so I’m wagering that Anne Doucet and Daniel Garceau stepped up and stepped in and farmed Rene Doucet’s land. It was an opportunity for Daniel and a problem solved for his wife and her family.

Based on the godparents noted in these baptisms, specifically Granger and Melancon, I believe that Anne Doucet and Daniel Garceau were living on the same land, perhaps in the same home where her parents lived. Probably the same home where Pierre Doucet had originally settled. That’s the way Acadian families worked.

Rene Doucet’s home, shown here by MapAnnapolis is where Pierre Doucet’s home was located on earlier maps. The Melancon settlement was slightly west of this grouping along the Riviere Dauphin.

Standing near the Doucet land, you can see Fort Anne right across the river, along with the Queen’s Wharf.

This 1708 map shows the location of Pierre Doucet, along with Abraham Bourg, who baptized Anne in 1713, and the Granger neighbors.

This 1733 map, enhanced in 1753, shows the Rene Doucet land, directly across from the fort, probably being farmed by Daniel Garceau. Note that there are two homes.

After her marriage, Anne’s own children began arriving regularly. All of Anne’s known children were born before the 1755 Exile began, but just by a few years.

The Unthinkable Happens

This 1753 drawing of Annapolis Royal from across the river, very near the Garceau/Doucet land, shows Fort Anne to the far right. The wharf, extending into the Annapolis River, foreshadowing the future, is visible.

From Anne’s childhood home, and where she likely lived her adult life across from Annapolis Royal, she could see the wharf that one day, she would be forced to walk, sheltering her children, clutching them to her so no one would be lost or ripped from her.

Could she see her siblings being loaded onto other ships? Had she any idea that she would never see them again? That she would never know what happened to them?

They all slipped away from each other, that terrible day, into the blackness of anonymity.

The cemetery was located just behind the fort, near where the church used to be. Several of Anne’s babies had perished and probably rested there with her father, Rene Doucet, who had died around 1731, and her mother, Marie Broussard, who died in 1751.

It looks for all the world like Anne had two or three babies that died early and whose births weren’t recorded. Note that PRDH records from Quebec only people who are found in Quebec records – so any child that was born and died elsewhere would not be listed here.

When Anne was forced to leave Port Royal, the graves would have had neatly placed wooden crosses, but now, they all lie in unmarked graves.

Anne’s oldest daughter, Marguerite Garceau, married Charles Lore/Lord in January 1755, just before their deportation from Port Royal in December.

Of course, we don’t catch up with any of Anne’s children until sometime in 1767, when they finally make it to Quebec from New York where they were exiled for more than a decade.

Anne survived the unthinkable. No one can imagine being rounded up like livestock being herded to slaughter, told to bring only what you could carry, then shoved into ships with nary a square inch to spare. In the deadly cold of winter.

Yet, that’s exactly what happened.

There were more Acadians to be deported than the ships could reasonably hold, so they were forced to abandon their few belongings on the wharf before being forced onto those ships, with no heat and not even toilet facilities. The next settlers, brought to Annapolis Royal by the English a few years later and given the Acadian farms, found their paltry possessions on the shoreline where they had been unwillingly left by the suffering Acadians.

I can only imagine the gripping terror and unrelenting tears. Especially if you realized that your family members were on a different ship – or your family was split in half – or your elderly parents…

One Acadian refugee who wound up in Pennsylvania said, “We were so crowded on the transport vessel that we had no room even for all our bodies to lay down at once.”

It’s no surprise that one in four Acadians died, and many were simply never heard from again – not by family members and not in any known records. Sometimes, we know they survived because of their descendants, but in the case of many of Anne’s siblings, there’s nothing but stony silence. It’s actually more surprising, given what we know, that more people didn’t die. Only very sparse records were kept, at best, so we really don’t know how many Acadians were deported or how many tried to run and hide, so we also don’t know how many perished.

The Acadians removed from Annapolis Royal were kept below deck except when small groups were allowed above deck for a few minutes at a time. There were no toilet facilities, so the floor, which was also the only place to sleep, was the toilet. It’s no wonder that dysentery, smallpox, and other sicknesses claimed so many.

Can you imagine the stench? The horror? Giving birth? That’s probably what befell Anne’s oldest daughter.

These conditions were inhumane by any measure, possibly intentionally. Regardless, no one who could have done anything about it seemed to care.

It makes me nauseous to know that my ancestors were treated like this. Not one, but all of them who were living at the time. My mother’s great-grandfather was Acadian, the grandson of Appoline Garceau, who married Honore Lore. Appoline was on this ship with her parents, and Honore may well have been shipboard with his parents as well.

It makes me nauseous to think about how horrifically seasick they must have been during the hurricane, in the bowels of the ship, literally living in the toilet. That journey didn’t end in a month in the colonies. That ship was blown clear to the Caribbean.

They had something of a break there, but we know nothing of their time in either Antigua or St. Kitts. We don’t even know for sure that they were allowed to get off the ship. Then had to get back on that same ship to sail to New York.

How terrified they must have been boarding that ship a second time, walking up the planks, probably prodded like cattle. Assuredly, no one went willingly. The families, sadly, were smaller now. Many had been buried at sea.

The ship Experiment, directly from Hell, twice. Miraculously, somehow, they survived that horrific journey and a decade someplace in New York.

We know almost nothing about that time, except that they were in close proximity to the Lore family, and that two of Daniel and Anne’s children were married to other Acadians.

Deliverance

Then, eleven years later, in 1767, Anne Doucet and her family climbed aboard a ship yet a third time – one that was to sail into the Atlantic, around Nova Scotia, and deliver them to Quebec. They must have been terrified then, too, but the ship Diana was the vessel of angels of deliverance. The answer to their dozen years of prayers.

As horrible as the deportation, hurricane, shipwreck, then exile were, as told in both Daniel’s and also Appoline’s articles, Anne was actually one of the lucky ones – as difficult as that is to believe.

Anne appears to have lost “only” one child, Anne, during the deportation or in New York, assuming that the other two “vacant spaces” between children were those who died before they left Acadia. And yes, I realize saying she lost only one child sounds horribly callous – but considering the conditions, it was a miracle that only one of eleven perished. Some families disappeared altogether.

Anne and Daniel both survived, and Anne was blessed in her later years with grandchildren.

Children and Grandchildren

Based on birth, death, and marriage records when we have them, I’ve compiled a list of Anne’s children, when they were born and died, and where. Godparents tell a story, too, often telling us when people died and where they lived. It’s thanks to a Godparent record that we know when Rene Doucet was last known to be alive.

Additionally, I’ve included the names of Anne’s children’s spouses and when they married, plus how many known children they had and how many lived to marry.

All of Anne’s children were born in Annapolis Royal, or Port Royal, as the Acadians would have referred to it, even after the English changed its name. Except for her namesake daughter, Anne, all her children died someplace in Quebec.

Child Birth Godparents Death (Quebec) Marriage Children Born, Married
Marguerite Garceau* September 10, 1731 Rene Doucet, Anne Granger September 13, 1813 – Trois Rivieres Charles Lore 1755 At least 2, both of whom married *1
Marie Josephe Garceau *3 October 3, 1733 baptized Oct. 4 Joseph Granger,  Marie Lore September 19, 1815 – St-Ours Jean-Baptiste Lore c 1765 6, 2 married *2
“Jean” Joseph Garceau *4 April 12, 1735, baptized April 14 Joseph Lore, Marguerite Doucet May 8, 1770 – Yamachiche Marie Josephe Aubois c 1754 8, 4 married
Anne Garceau July 21, 1737, baptized July 22 Pierre Garceau, Francoise Dugas
Jean “Baptiste” Garceau *5 November 24, 1739 baptized Nov. 25 Laurent Granger, Marguerite Doucet July 31, 1790 – Yamachiche Marie Denevers Boisvert 1769 8, 5 married
Apollonie Garceau *6 February 8, 1742, baptized Feb. 9 Jean Doucet, Marguerite St. Cene (St. Seine) May 3, 1788 – L’Acadie Honore Lore c 1765 7, 5 married
Charles Garceau April 11, 1744 Charles Babineau, Marie Joseph Doucet March 3, 1825 – Yamachiche Marie Josephe Grenier 1770 9, 6 married
Pierre Garceau August 11, 1746 Simon Thibeau, Francoise Melancon December 11, 1815 – La Prairie Marie Angelique Lemay 1773 12, 1 married *7
Magdelaine Garceau August 13, 1748, bap Aug. 15 Gregoire Godet, Marguerite Garceaux August 2, 1777 – Yamachiche Jean Baptiste Boisvert 1768 5, 3 married
Ludivine (Devine) Garceau *8 Abt 1751 April 28, 1801 – Pointe-du-Lac Pierre Bertrand 1775 9, 1 married
Francois Garceau January 21, 1752, baptized Jan. 22 Charles Doucet, Marguerite Lavergne July 25, 1823 – Pointe-du-Lac Josephe Martin 1781 15, 9 married *9

*Anne’s name is listed here as Jeanne. All baptisms occurred the same day unless listed otherwise, and all children were born in or near Annapolis Royal.

*1 – Two children born in New England, both baptized in Yamachiche on August 14, 1768. There were probably at least four or five additional children born to this couple.

*2 – The oldest child was born about 1765 in the colonies and was baptized on September 14, 1767, in Becancour.

*3 – This couple was in St. Denis sur Richelieu by 1769 and St. Ours by 1773

*4 – Their first five children were born in 1767 or earlier and were baptized on August 23, 1767, in Yamachiche. By 1792, this couple was in St. Ours.

*5 – Married in February 1769 in Yamachiche. Spent his entire life there.

*6 – Marriage validated in Becancour on September 29, 1767. The first child was baptized in Yamachiche on February 28, 1768. The couple was in St. Denis by 1769, St. Ours by 1771, and L’Acadie by 1777. They left at some point after 1771, probably returning to the States, but returned to L’Acadie, where they spent the remainder of their lives.

*7 – This poor couple. They married in October of 1773 in Yamachiche and had 11 children in the next 16 years, all of whom died either shortly after birth or as young children. The notable exception was a son born in 1777 and who lived to be almost 7. The worst year was 1784, when they lost a child in June, July, and October. They buried two children in 1790 in Yamachiche. By October of 1792, they were in La Prairie, where their last child, Francois, was born, and somehow, miraculously, lived to marry. He had 10 children and lost most of them as children, but three did live to marry.

*8 – I am not entirely convinced that this is their child. Ludevine was married about 1774. Their first child was born in 1775 in Trois-Rivieres. Another child was born around 1777, with no baptismal record, but was married in Pointe-du-Lac in 1802 and died the same year in Yamachiche. No known children until 1782, when a child was born in Yamachiche, then beginning in 1784, six children, including a set of twins, were born in Point-du-Lac. The death record may give the parents’ names. This poor woman buried all but one of her babies, and the child she did not bury young died just 11 months after she married, 26 days after giving birth to her only child, born on November 12th. What a tragic life.

*9 – This couple married in early 1781, location unknown, but their children through 1807 were born in Pointe-du-Lac. In 1810, they were in Trois-Rivieres baptizing a child, but probably back in Pointe-du-Lac by 1813.

As best I can figure, Anne had at least 81 grandchildren, most of whom were born during her lifetime. She likely had more if you include the children assuredly born to her oldest daughter on that ship and in the colonies, none of whom survived. Thirty-eight grandchildren lived to marry, which, in most cases, means that the rest died before they reached marriage age.

Forty-three+ – that’s a lot of grandchildren to bury. More than half. More than one a year.

Losing her first several grandchildren in the colonies, where they couldn’t even be given a proper burial, would have been indescribably heartbreaking for Anne and the rest of the family members as well. There had been so much heartache in this family already – a veritable river of grief.

Given that two of Anne’s children, one male and one female, had several children, with only one of those grandchildren living to marriage age, I can’t help but ponder genetic factors. Add to that the fact that her oldest daughter only had two children known to have married, and several others lost roughly half of their children before adulthood, I really do wonder.

Yamachiche

Author Monique Michaud, when writing about Daniel Garceau, clearly had access to resources that I do not – or perhaps it’s her ability to speak French that opened doors to Canadian records. Additionally, she visited several locations to conduct research. I encourage you to read what she wrote about this family that formed chapters of a novel, and take special note of her maps.

Monique reports that the Garceau family finally received land concessions in 1771 in this area, north of Yamachiche along the Yamachiche River.

In tentatively placing this land, in addition to old cadastral maps, she noted the marriages of two Garceau children to the Boisvert family who lived in this area. Certainly food for thought here.

This is a high, hillside region, and Acadians typically settled in lower areas near water. That’s the type of farming they were most familiar with. However, given the circumstances, I’m sure they would have been satisfied with any land and were adaptable.

I took a virtual drive and didn’t see any buildings from the era that might be connected to the earliest Acadian settlers.

One thing is for sure: whether Daniel and Anne settled on and farmed this specific land or not, they were most assuredly here, especially given the Boisvert connection and the marker reported by Monique.

Widowhood and Remarriage

On August 28, 1772, at age 65, Daniel Garceau died and was buried in the cemetery at what was then the village of Yamachiche. By this time, the family had been in Quebec for about 5 years.

Two years earlier, on May 8, 1770, Anne’s son, Jean Joseph Garceau, died and was buried here as well. In 1795, the graves were moved to the present-day church cemetery in Yamachiche, as this area was too prone to flooding.

Several of Anne’s children remained in Yamachiche. On the concession map in this article by novelist Monique Michael, you can see the location of the original church and village at the large red dot correlating to the photo above and the land concession map along the Yamachiche River.

This aligns with Monique’s research, and also with the land along Rang des Garceau, a road named after the family where Anne’s children and grandchildren lived.

Monique mentions that Bleuetière Grande-Rivière sud, a blueberry farm, is located on the original Garceau land.

Movin’ on Up

Surprisingly, Anne moved on after Daniel’s death, although not terribly far, about 28 miles upriver.

Based on a marriage contract recorded by Notary Marin Jehanne, two years later, on February 2, 1774, in Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec, Anne remarried to Claude Arseneau. Prior to locating this physical record, I questioned if this is really was our Anne, but this entry leaves no doubt about the identifies of the two parties involved.

Contract of marriage of Claude Arsenault widower of Marie Commeau and Anne Doucet widow of Daniel Garceau.

Next, I found the church record.

They married at Immaculate Conception in St. Ours.

Anne would become familiar with this beautiful church on the Richelieu River, as she would visit often over the next 17 years. Several of her grandchildren were baptized here, and it may well have been her new home church.

The priest at Immaculate Conception at St. Ours seemed to be confused when they married. He initially wrote in the margin that Claude Arsenault was marrying Marguerite Cormier, the name of Claude’s mother, then struck the name and wrote Marie Doulet – which isn’t accurate either. Given that none of the principals were literate, no one caught the error.

In the year seventeen hundred and seventy-four, on the fourteenth of February, after the publication of three bans of marriage, carried out on three consecutive Sundays, between Claude Arsenault, widower of Marie Comeau, and Marie Doucet, widow of Daniel Garceau and without any impediment being discovered, I, the undersigned priest, received their mutual consent to marriage and gave them the nuptial blessing according to the ceremonies of our Holy Mother Church, in the presence of the witnesses Louis Duhamel and Pierre Duhamel, who have declared they do not know how to sign.

Claude was a significantly younger man, about 17 years Anne’s junior. He had four living children and had lost his wife, Marie Comeau, in February 1772, probably to complications of childbirth, a few months before Daniel Garceau had died. Nothing more is known of the baby born in January 1772 after her baptism, but it’s presumed she died, probably around the same time as Marie Comeau. There is no burial record.

When Anne Doucet married Claude, she became an immediate mother to:

It’s possible that Marie Josephe Arseneau, born in January 1772, did not die near her mother’s death and was still living in 1774. There is no record of her death.

Taking on four more children was a big responsibility, especially given that Anne’s youngest child was already 22. Anne was old enough to be a grandmother to her stepchildren. Claude was born about the same time as Anne’s oldest daughter. I questioned if we are positive these are the right people, and indeed, multiple records confirm this, even if Anne’s name is recorded as Marie.

I asked myself, how and why did Anne get to St. Ours? She clearly knew someone, or some people. It’s not like she wandered upstream to an unknown location in a boat by herself.

The answer is found with her children.

  • Appoline Garceau, who was married to Honore Lore, was baptizing children in St. Ours in 1771, 1773, and 1775.
  • Marie Garceau, who had married Jean Lore, was in St. Ours by 1771.

If Anne went to visit her daughters, or perhaps stay with them to help with the babies, she would have had ample opportunity to meet Claude Arseneau at church. The aspect that surprises me most is the age difference between the bride and groom.

A lot of older men marry younger women, but I don’t ever recall seeing a 17-year difference with the male being that much younger. I’m sure it happened, but not often. I wonder if that’s why the priest included the words, “I, the undersigned priest, received their mutual consent to marriage…”

There’s yet another twist.

In 1783, Anne’s grandson, Charles Garceau, son of Jean Joseph Garceau and Marie Josephe Aubois, married Anne’s stepdaughter, Pelagie Arseneau, in St. Ours. So their children, assuming they had some, would have been both Anne’s great-grandchildren and her step-grandchildren.

Anne’s Final Departure

Anne may seem invincible, but she wasn’t. We all push up Daisies eventually.

Anne Doucet died on April 14, 1791, and was buried two days later, on April 16, 1791, in Sorel, Quebec, reportedly in the Cemetery of Saints-Anges. Note the word, “reportedly.” It matters.

Also, Anne’s name was goofed up again. I like to NEVER found this burial record.

Not only is it recorded as Marie Garceau. It has been indexed in Drouin at Ancestry as Marie Jarceau, and her age is given as 43, which is off by 35 years. Is this even the correct woman? Indeed, she was Anne Garceau when she married Claude Arseneau, but French women were recorded in records and buried using their birth surnames, not their married names. This strongly suggests that the priest who recorded her burial didn’t know her well or at all – or is this the wrong person? Also, the record is at Sorel, not at St. Ours.

This is a very poor copy, and I can’t even begin to read it, let alone translate it. I can’t even figure out which entry is Anne’s. Thankfully, I found a much better copy at FamilySearch, which I was able to both see and translate with a little help from ChatGPT.

On April 16, 1791, we, the undersigned, buried the body of Marie Jarceau (Monte?) who had received the sacraments the day before yesterday, aged eighty years, living wife of Claude Arcenault. Present were Emmanuel Peloquain, Claude Arcanault, and several others.

I’m so glad that I found this copy because an actual translation removes all doubt that this is the correct person. The Ancestry indexing and “translation” were both awful and extremely misleading.

We know Sorel, now Sorel-Tracy, is where or at least near where Anne’s husband, Claude, lived because his son, Antoine Arsenault, born in 1769 and died in 1771, is buried here. Claude’s first wife, Marie Comeau, who died in 1772, rests here as well as does Claude Arseneau himself when he died in 1801.

Having said that, Claude’s oldest child, Marie Suzanne, married in 1779 in St. Antoine sur Richelieu, and her only child was baptized at St. Ours. Two additional Arseneau children married in St. Ours too, in 1788 and 1800.

Was Sorel preferred for funerals, and St. Ours for marriages, perhaps? One or the other of these churches was probably Claude’s home church.

Anne moved to his home and took up residence with Claude and his children, plus her two children who were still at home. Or maybe Anne didn’t literally “move” when she married. Maybe she had already made the journey with her younger children, and they were living with one of her older daughters.

Visiting for a while, perhaps, then she met Claude. They must have been the gossip of the region based on that age gap. “Did you hear that Anne is going to marry Claude? Why, she’s old enough to be his mother…”

Perhaps she was stunning, or lovely, or both. I’m sure there’s a story we don’t know, but I surely wish we did.

One thing is for sure, given where she married, both daughters, Appoline Garceau and Marie Garceau, and their husbands, who were brothers, along with several grandchildren, were able to attend Anne’s wedding.

I tried to unravel who was living where, and when.

Anne’s youngest child, Francois, married in Pointe-du-Lac in 1781, very near Yamachiche, so he wasn’t living in Sorel at that time. These families were clearly traveling back and forth, up and down the river. Otherwise, that 1783 wedding between Anne’s grandson, whose parents did not live in Sorel or St. Ours, and Anne’s stepdaughter couldn’t have happened. I’m actually surprised that the priest didn’t take issue with that wedding, or at least grant a dispensation, even though the bride and groom were not biologically related.

The records for Anne’s other unmarried child, Ludevine, are pretty much a hot mess. We know she married Pierre Bertrand about 1775 and that he died in Trois-Rivieres in 1819, which is further downriver from Yamachiche, in the direction away from Sorel.

Records of some people from Sorel appear in St. Ours records, including Claude’s own children. St. Ours is about 10 miles distant – further upriver.

The family seemed to utilize both churches.

Claude and Anne probably lived someplace in between along the tranquil, serene Richelieu River.

The beautiful Richelieu River, along whose banks at least some of Anne’s descendants would settle, could well have reminded her of peaceful childhood days before the horrific ordeal of 1755.

Sweet days of life with her parents along the Riviere Dauphin, renamed the Annapolis River, and as a bride, across from Port Royal, before Hell descended. Perhaps the Richelieu River felt similar to her. Safe, like she had come full circle to more peaceful times.

Regardless of how she arrived along the river here, Anne lived and worshipped between St. Ours and Sorel for nearly seventeen years.

I surely hope this woman found peace.

Anne lived to see all of her children who survived marry, along with several grandchildren—a privilege denied to many by fate’s ugly hand.

She buried or at least lost four adult children in Quebec, along with many grandchildren. She lived up the river with Claude when some died, so she probably did not get to attend their funerals. The river grapevine would have brought her the sad news, though.

Anne lived long enough to welcome six great-grandchildren into the world, beginning in 1783. She would have actually had the chance to know them, as the oldest four were baptized at St.Ours. One was born near Yamachiche, and another at L’Acadie. She probably has more grandchildren and great-grandchildren who have never been documented.

Anne saw three of her step-children marry, and buried one of them.

Anne rests in the cemetery in Sorel, but discerning where was an adventure all of its own.

I sure hope Anne has a sense of humor!

Anne, where the heck are you???

Where is Anne Buried? A Scavenger Hunt

FindAGrave says Anne is buried in the Saints-Anges Cemetery in Sorel, so that’s where I started – but it’s not where I ended.

Like always, I went to take a look.

The Saints-Anges cemetery is huge, with over 15,000 burials. There are two (or three) much older cemeteries. The offices for this contemporary cemetery and two others accepting burials is across the road. You can view a drone video of the three contemporary cemeteries, here. Note that they, the caretakers, state that this cemetery was established in 1884A slightly earlier, now-defunct cemetery was established in 1852 beside the present-day church and is now a parking lot. Anne clearly isn’t buried in any of these.

Someone added her to FindAGrave and plopped her in Saint-Anges without doing further research, a cemetery that wouldn’t exist for another 93 years after she died.  Someone fix her, PLEASE!

The first cemetery in Sorel was apparently founded in the 1600s inside the fort on the waterfront. That’s not where Anne is buried, as it was closed in 1702.

A second cemetery was established in 1702, and no discernable trace is left today. Quebec locates this cemetery someplace in the square block between Rue de Prince, Rue Augusta, Rue George, and Rue Elizabeth but states that they can’t be more specific due to a lack of specificity. (A surveyor or GIS technician could place this easily from the drawing, but I digress.) I originally thought that Anne wasn’t buried in this cemetery, but I’ve since revised my thinking based on new information. I love history and other obsessive genealogists.

There are reports of stones being moved from at least one earlier cemetery to Saints-Anges. I doubt that means the graves were moved, too, but it’s possible. Many of the early graves would have had only wooden crosses until time took them, so the earlier ones may not have been able to be located in 1852.

There’s an absolutely wonderful history of Sorel here, written by a genealogist, with contemporaneous maps that include the fort, early churches, and cemetery. Apparently, the St. Pierre “church” was built four times. The first two significantly predate Anne.

Due to ongoing warfare with England, the third St. Pierre church was built of stone and was located within the fort in 1750. On this map, you can see both the cemetery in 1757, and the church within the fort. Now we are getting someplace. In 1769 and 1770, the church was renovated, so we know it was still inside the fort. In the late 1700s, the church was enlarged.

The author notes that in 1791, the year Anne died, the population of the city itself was primarily English and Loyalist Americans who had escaped the US when it threw off English rule during the Revolutionary War and that the Franco-Canadians lived in the rural areas. This shift in population must have really grated on the Acadians, given their history with the English. However, I would have expected Acadians to live rurally anyway, along the river if possible.

Claude is not found on the list of Sorel residents, which might suggest to us that he did live rurally, further upriver towards St. Ours.

For all of Anne and Claude’s lives together, they attended either St. Ours or the St. Pierre church in the fort. During that time, all family burials were at Sorel—none at St. Ours, although there are burials in the St. Ours cemetery from that timeframe. In other words, they selected Sorel over St. Ours for some reason that we will never know.

In 1822, in Sorel, due to river flooding, a new St. Pierre church was built at 170 rue George, but was not completed until 1833. By 1822, Anne had been buried for 31 years, and Claude for 21.

Based on this history and maps, I believe strongly that Anne is buried in the St. Pierre Cemetery, located near the original fort church, located near the intersection of Rue du Prince and Rue Augusta.

Based on the size of the church documented in 1757, the location of the fort, the block length and the shape of the road, the old cemetery appears to have been below (south of) Rue Augusta and extending across Rue du Prince.

Note the original divot in this 1757 drawing, and the current divit in the road indicated by the red arrow at Rue Augusta and Rue de la Reine. You can see that the original road was located slightly above that divot connecting to the larger Rue Augusta, which is located between Rue du Roi and Rue du Prince.

You can also judge distance based on the distance between the windmill on the breakwater and the fort, the fort and the street, and the divot street (original Rue Augusta) to the cemetery. Note that the 1757 cemetery is larger than the church and maybe half the size of the fort area. That cemetery may also have grown between 1757 and 1852 when the new cemetery was established at the new St. Pierre church when it was built.

Ok, so let’s take a look today.

The red star is the fort area where the 1757 church was located.

Unfortunately, where the original church and fort were located is entirely shipping, industrial, and commerce today, and you can’t even see the Richelieu River. This parking lot, probably exactly where the church was located, and the red star is above, is the best we can do today.

This is the intersection of Rue Augusta, looking south down Rue du Prince. At that time, the cemetery would have extended on both sides of Rue du Prince, to the left and the right. Rue du Prince didn’t yet exist, then.

It’s actually a short block, and this location makes a lot of sense because you’re looking up a hill, meaning the cemetery is not likely to flood here.

If I’m correct, the cemetery, side to side (north to south), would begin about here and end about at that crosswalk behind the oncoming vehicle.

Almost everything here is either buildings, streets, sidewalks, or parking lots in the rear, but here and there, there’s a tiny strip of grass and an occasional small tree. I wonder if the residents in this area have any idea that they are living above a cemetery.

This view is from the upper side (east end) of Rue Augusta, looking south at what would have been the upper right corner area of the cemetery.

Just a block from the water, this region is heavily developed and has been for a long time. There’s almost no grass to be seen. The graves have been abandoned for probably nearly 200 years now, since at least 1852 when the new church was built, and possibly earlier. They have been covered over since these old homes were constructed here.

But Anne’s spirit can’t be paved over and remains a blessing to her descendants. Her journey lasted for 78 years, began and ended on a river, crossed oceans three times, and spanned four countries – depending on how you count. Boundaries and “ownership” shifted, which, of course, was the underlying source of all the heartache that befell the Acadians.

Anne bore witness to unspeakable atrocities and suffered an immense amount of heartache, but she survived, and thanks to her perseverance and stamina, nearly 1100 known descendants claim Anne as their ancestor today.

_____________________________________________________________

Follow DNAexplain on Facebook, here.

Share the Love!

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

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

You Can Help Keep This Blog Free

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

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Uploads

Genealogy Products and Services

My Books

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

Welcome to 2025! – Opportunities and New Genetic Genealogy Articles

It’s a new year with new opportunities. Lots of ancestors to find and others to confirm.

For me, the best part is actually learning about my ancestors’ lives. If you’re a subscriber, I’m sure you’ve already noticed that.

These adventures and misadventures are what inspire my blog articles. What works well, what doesn’t and how to use multiple tools to unveil more about our ancestors.

That’s what motivates me. I hope it motivates you, too.

New Articles in the Works

I’d like to share some of the articles and educational events I have planned for 2025, then ask what topics you’d like to see.

Articles on the drawing board include:

  • MyHeritage DNA File Download Instructions Update
  • Mitotree – when released
  • Mitochondrial Discover – when released
  • Genealogy Proof Series – The series continues with autosomal, Y-DNA, and mitochondrial DNA proof.
  • The Forest of the Trees – Lots of different kinds of trees for both Y and mitochondrial DNA at FamilyTreeDNA. How to use them, for what, and when. This will probably be written as a series.
  • New features and developments from vendors as they occur
  • Acadian Ancestors – I hope to complete my Acadian 52 Ancestors articles. For those who don’t know, “52 Ancestors” is a challenge to write about one ancestor each week for a year. You can sign up with Amy Johnson Crow here to learn more and receive weekly prompts. It’s fun and allows you to focus on one ancestor at a time, and the history that occurred in their lifetime.

Other Learning Opportunities

In addition to those articles, I’ll be at RootsTech in person presenting:

  • DNA Academy – the 2025 version, soup to nuts
  • DNA for Native American Genealogy
  • Reveal Your Maternal Ancestors and Their Stories Using Mitochondrial DNA
  • Guide to FamilyTreeDNA – Using Y-DNA, Mitochondrial DNA, Autosomal, X-DNA and Associated Tools

I’ll also participate in other educational events with Legacy Family Tree Webinars, WikiTree, the North Carolina Genealogy Society, and FamilyTreeDNA. I’ll provide more information about them later.

Finding Information

Remember, you can always use a keyword search on this blog to find any topic I’ve written about previously.

Also, Google’s AI has apparently trained itself using my blog articles, as have a couple of other AI tools. I know this because my blog comes up as a resource when I google questions. You can try that, too.

Your Turn – What Do You Want?

There are always new topics, new features, or different ways to explain things.

  • What would you like to see covered in 2025?
  • Are there any hot genetic genealogy topics that you’d love to learn more about?

Please make your suggestions in a comment on this article.

Here’s wishing you a wonderful 2025 with lots of ancestor discoveries.

_____________________________________________________________

Follow DNAexplain on Facebook, here.

Share the Love!

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

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

You Can Help Keep This Blog Free

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

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Uploads

Genealogy Products and Services

My Books

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research