Mitotree Q&A for Everyone

I recently presented Mitotree Webinar – What It Is, How We Did It, and What Mitotree Means to You at Legacy Family Tree Webinars. It’s still free to view through June 13th, and after that, it’s available in the webinar library with a subscription. The 31-page syllabus is also a subscription feature.

Thank you to all 1000+ of you who attended and everyone else who has since watched the webinar – or will now.

We had a limited amount of time for Q&A at the end, so Geoff, our host, was kind enough to send me the list of questions from the Chat, and I’m doing the Q&A here. But keep in mind, please, that I’m assuming when I answer that you’ve watched the webinar or are familiar with how the new Mitotree and tools work.

That said, I think this Q&A can help everyone who is interested in mitochondrial DNA. Your genealogy gift from your mother and her female lineage.

Just a quick reminder that the mitochondrial DNA test tracks your direct matrilineal line only, meaning your mother’s mother’s mother’s line on up your tree until you run out of mothers. Of course, our goal is always to break through that brick wall.

This is a wonderful opportunity, because, unlike autosomal DNA, mitochondrial DNA is not admixed with the DNA of the other parent, so it’s a straight line look back directly up your mother’s female line.

Aha Moment!

Geoff said at the end that he had an aha moment during the webinar. Both males and females have mitochondrial DNA inherited from their mother, so we think of testing our own – but forget to obtain the mitochondrial DNA of our father. Testing your father’s mitochondrial DNA means obtaining your paternal grandmother’s mitochondrial DNA, so test your father to learn about his mother’s maternal line.

And it’s Father’s Day shortly.

Q&A

I’ve combined and summarized similar questions to make this short and sweet. Well, as short and sweet as I can make anything!

  • Can I benefit from Discover even if I don’t have a full sequence test?

You can benefit from the free FamilyTreeDNA Discover tool with any haplogroup, even a partial haplogroup. Be sure to click the down arrow and select mtDNA before entering the haplogroup if you’re using the public version.

However, to gain the most advantage from your test results and Discover, and to receive your closest matches, you need the full sequence test, called the mtFull, which you can purchase here. If you took one of the lower-level “Plus” tests, years ago, click here to sign in and upgrade or check your account to see if you have the full sequence test.

  • What benefits do I receive if I click through to Discover from my account versus using the public version of Discover?

Click any image to enlarge

If you click through to Discover directly from your FamilyTreeDNA account, you will receive features and additional information that are not available in the free, public version of Discover.

You’ll receive additional Notable Connections and up to 30 Ancient Connections based on how many are available and relevant for you.

You’ll also be able to view the Match Time tree, showing your matches, their earliest known ancestors, and where they fit in your haplogroup and haplotype cluster. In this example, two EKAs hinted at a common lineage, which turned out to be accurate after I did some digging.

I think the Match Time Tree is indispensable – the best thing since sliced bread!

The Scientific Details report is also customized for you with your Haplotype Cluster and your private variants.

  • Will a child and their mother always have the same haplogroup?

Yes, but if one of them has a mutation that the other doesn’t, or a heteroplasmy, they may be in a different haplotype cluster.

Also, they both need to have taken the full sequence test. Otherwise, the one who did not take the full sequence test will only have a partial haplogroup until they upgrade.

We will talk more about edge cases in Q&A on down the list.

Great question. Sign in to your account.

In the Maternal Line Ancestry section, which is mitochondrial DNA, check to see if both the Plus and Full boxes are pink. If so, you have taken both and you’ll have a new Mitotree haplogroup and haplotype cluster.

If the “Full” box is grey, you can either click there or at the top where it says “Add Ons and Upgrades” to upgrade to the full sequence test.

  • Why is it called the Million Mito Project? What were you counting?

When we first launched the project, we hoped for a million full sequence samples to build the initial tree. After removing duplicates, such as parent/child, partial sequence samples such as HVR1/2, unreliable samples from PhyloTree, and including FamilyTreeDNA  testers and academic samples, we had between one-third and half a million samples when we launched. The Mitotree and Discover are growing with new testers and groups of samples from archaeological studies, academic samples, and other publicly available resources, following quality analysis, of course.

  • Is there a way to confirm that I submitted an mtDNA to the Mito Tree project? I think I submitted my mom’s when you first started, but my husband recently tested, and I don’t remember if we opted him in at that time.

The science team at FamilyTreeDNA  is using all of the full sequence tests in the construction of the Mitotree, so you don’t need to do anything special.

  • Do or can haplotype F numbers (haplotype clusters) ever become haplogroups?

The answer is maybe. (I know – I’m sorry!)

If you have private variants in addition to your haplotype cluster, then yes, those are haplogroup seeds.

This is my result and I have no additional private variants left to use.

If you don’t have any private variants, or mutations, left over, then no, you won’t receive a new haplogroup for this reason. However, if for some reason the haplogroup splits upstream, you might receive a new haplogroup in the future due to that split.

In addition to the webinar, I wrote about haplotype clusters in the article, Mitochondrial DNA: What is a Haplotype Cluster and How Do I Find and Use Mine?

  • How can mitochondrial DNA and the Mitotree be useful for breaking down genealogy in various parts of the world?

There are two aspects to mitochondrial DNA testing.

The first is to connect genealogically, if possible. To do that, you’ll be paying attention to your matches EKAs (earliest known ancestors), their trees, and their locations. You may well need to do some genealogy digging and build out some trees for others.

The second aspect is to learn more about that lineage before you can connect genealogically. Where did they come from? Do they share a haplogroup with any Ancient Connections, and what cultures do they share? Where did they come from most recently in the world, and where do the breadcrumbs back in time lead?

I wrote about this in the article, New Mitotree Haplogroups and How to Utilize Them for Genealogy.

Sometimes, DNA testing of any type is simply a waiting game until the right person tests and matches you. That’s one reason it bothers me so much to see people “not recommend” mitochondrial DNA testing. We all need more testers so we can have more matches.

  • When will Globetrekker for mtDNA be available?

I don’t know and neither does the team. The Mitotree is still being refined. For example, we are adding thousands of samples to the tree right now from multiple locations around the world. I probably wouldn’t expect Globetrekker until the tree is officially out of Beta, and no, I don’t know when that will happen either. It’s difficult to know when you’re going to be “finished” with something that has never been done before.

While it’s not Globetrekker, you do have the Matches Map to work with, and the Migration Map in Discover, which also shows the locations of your Ancient Connections.

  • During the webinar, Roberta mentioned that her ancestor is German, but she discovered her ancestors were Scandinavian. Can you expand about the “event” that explained this unexpected discovery.

In my case, the church records for the tiny village where my ancestor lived in Germany begin right after the 30 Years’ War, which was incredibly destructive. Looking at Swedish troop movements in Germany, the army of Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden marched through the region with more than 18,000 soldiers. Women accompanied the baggage trains, providing essential, supportive roles and services to the soldiers and military campaign. I’ll never know positively, of course, but given that the majority of my full sequence matches are in Scandinavia, mostly Sweden, and not in Germany, it’s a reasonable hypothesis.

People often receive surprises in their results, and the history of the region plays a big role in the stories of our ancestors.

You don’t know what you don’t know, until you test and follow the paths ahd hints revealed.

  • Why do I have fewer matches in the HVR2 region than the HVR1 region?

Think of the mitochondria as a clock face.

The older (now obsolete) HVR1 test tested about 1000 locations, from about 11-noon and the HVR2/3 region tested another 1000 locations, from about noon-1 PM. The full sequence test tests the full 16,569 locations of the entire mitochondria.

Each level has its own match threshold. So, if you have one mutation at either the HVR1 or HVR2/3 level, combined, you are not considered a match. For example, you can match 10 people at the HVR1 level, and have a mutation in the HVR2 level that 4 people don’t share, so you’ll only match 6 people at the HVR2 level.

If you have one mutation in the HVR1 region, you won’t match anyone in either the HVR1 or HVR1/HVR2 regions.

At the full sequence level, you can have three mutation differences (GD 3) and still be considered a match.

So, the short answer is that you probably have a mutation that some of your matches at the HVR2 level don’t have.

In addition to matches on your Matches page, you will (probably) have haplogroup matches that aren’t on your match list, so check Discover for those.

  • I have HVR1/HVR2 matches, but none at the full sequence level. Why?

It’s possible that none of your matches have tested at that level.

You have no mutations in the HVR1/2 region, or you would not be a match. If your HVR1/2 matches have tested at the full sequence level, then you have more than 3 mutations difference in the coding region.

  • Why do I match people at the full sequence level but not HVR1/2?

The match threshold at the HVR1/2 level is 1, so if you have one mismatch, you’re not listed as a match. However, at the full sequence level, the GD (genetic distance) is 3 mismatches. This tells me you have a mismatch in the HVR1 region, which also precludes HVR2 matching, but less than 4 mutations total. Click on the little “i” button above each match level on the matches page.

  • Why don’t all of my matches show on the Match Time Tree?

Only full sequence matches can show on the Match Time Tree, because they are the only testers who can receive a full haplogroup.

  • How does a heteroplasmy interfere with mtDNA research?

Heteroplasmies, where someone carries two different nucleotides at the same location in different mitochondrial in their body, are both extremely fascinating and equally as frustrating.

Heteroplasmies can interfere with your matching because you might have a T nucleotide in a specific location, which matches the reference model, so no mutation – like 16362T. Your mother might have a C in that location, so T16362C, which is a mutation from T to C. Your aunt or sister might have both a T and a C, which means she is shown with letter Y, so 16362Y, which means she has more than 20% of both. All three of you probably have some of each, but it’s not “counted” as a heteroplasmy unless it’s over 20%.

The challenge is how to match these people with these different values accurately, and how heteroplasmies should “count” for matching.

I wrote about this in the article What is a Heteroplasmy and Why Do I Care?

Bottom line is this – if you are “by yourself” and have no matches, or you don’t match known relatives exactly, suspect a heteroplasmy. If you ask yourself, “What the heck is going on?” – rule out a heteroplasmy. Check out my article and this heteroplasmy article in the FamilyTreeDNA help center.

  • Someone asked about the X chromosome and may have been confusing it with mitochondrial DNA. The X chromosome is not the same as mitochondrial DNA.

The confusion stems from the fact that both are associated with inheritance from the maternal line. Everyone inherits their mitochondrial DNA from their mother. Men inherit their X chromosome ONLY from their mother, because their father gives them a Y chromosome, which makes them a male. Females inherit an X chromosome from both parents. And yes, there are medical exceptions, but those are unusual.

I wrote about this in the article, X Matching and Mitochondrial DNA is Not the Same Thing.

  • How do you determine the location of the last mutation? A tester and their aunt are from one country, and another man in the same haplogroup is from another country, but he has tested only the HVR1/HVR2 level.

There are really two answers here.

First, you can’t really compare your full sequence new Mitotree haplogroup with a partial haplogroup based on only the HVR1/2 test. Chances are very good that if he upgraded to a full sequence test, he would receive a more complete haplogroup, and one that might be near the tester’s haplogroup, but perhaps not the same.

For example, my full sequence haplogroup is J1c2f. I have matches with people who only tested at the HVR1/HVR2 level, but they can only be predicted to haplogroup J, with no subgroup, because they are missing about 14,000 locations that are included in the full sequence test.

Using the Discover Compare feature, comparing haplogroup J to J1c2f clearly shows that the mutations that define haplogroup J1c2f happened long after the mutation(s) that define haplogroup J.

You can use other Discover tools such as the Match Time Tree (if you click through from your account), the Time Tree, the Ancestral Path and the Classic Tree to see when the various haplogroups were born.

  • My mother took the full sequence test in 2016, so should I look for an upgrade now? She is deceased so can’t retest.

First, I’m sorry for your loss, but so glad you have her DNA tests.

The good news is that you ordered the full sequence right away, so you don’t need to worry about an upgrade failing later. In this case, there is no upgrade because the full sequence tests all 16,569 locations.

Additionally, had you needed an upgrade, or wanted to do a Family Finder test, for example, FamilyTreeDNA stores the DNA vials for future testing, so you could potentially run additional tests.

And lastly, since we’re talking mitochondrial DNA, which you inherit from your mother with no admixture from your father, your mtDNA should match hers exactly, so you could test in proxy for her, had she not already tested.

  • Has anything changed in Native American haplogroups?

Absolutely. About 75% of testers received a new haplogroup and that includes people with Native American matrilineal ancestors.

For example, my Native ancestor was haplogroup A2f1a, formed about 50 CE and is now A2f1a4-12092, formed about 1600 CE, so has moved 2 branches down the tree and about 1500 years closer. My ancestor was born about 1683. Her descendant has 58 full sequence matches, 22 in the same haplogroup, and 16 people in their haplotype cluster.

I’m so excited about this, because it helps provide clarity about her ancestors and where they were before she entered my genealogy by marrying a French settler.

  • Are mtDNA mutations the same or similar to autosomal SNPs?

A SNP is a single nucleotide polymorphism, which means a single variation in a specific location. So yes, a mutation is a change in a nucleotide at a genetic location in Y-DNA, autosomal DNA, or mitochondrial DNA.

  • Can we filter or sort our matches by haplotype on our match page?

Not yet. Generally, your closest matches appear at or near the top of your match list. Of course, you can use the Discover Match Time Tree and you can download your matches in a CSV file. (Instructions are further down in Q&A.)

  • Is there a way to make it more obvious that the EKA should be in their matrilineal line? There are so many men as EKAs!

So frustrating. The verbiage has been changed and maybe needs to be revised again, but of course, that doesn’t help with the people who have already entered males. We know males aren’t the source of mitochondrial DNA.

When I see males listed as an EKA, I send the match a pleasant note. I’m not sure they make the connection between what they entered and what is being displayed to their matches. If they have included or linked to a tree, I tell them who, in their tree, is their mtDNA EKA.

I’ve written about how to correctly add an Earliest Known Ancestor. I’ll update that article and publish again so that you can forward those instructions to people with no EKA, or male EKAs.

  • I love learning about my ancient connections. I have a new match due to the updates, who is from a neighboring area to my great-great-great-grandmother.

I love, love, LOVE Ancient Connections. They tell me who my ancestors were before I have any prayer of identifying them individually. Then I can read up on the culture from which they sprang.

I’ve also had two situations where Ancient Connections have been exceptionally useful.

One is an exact haplogroup match to my ancestor, and the burial was in a necropolis along the Roman road about 3-4 km outside the medieval “city” where my ancestor lived.

In a second case, there were two villages in different parts of the same country, hundreds of miles apart, and one burial from about 200 years before my ancestor lived was found about 10 km from one of those villages. While this isn’t conclusive, it’s certainly evidence.

  • What does the dashed line on the Time Tree mean?

Dashed lines on the time tree can mean two things.

The red dashed line, red arrow above, is the haplogroup formation date range and correlates to the dates at the top of Time Tree, not show in this screen shot. You can also read about those dates and how they are calculated on the Scientific Details tab in Discover.

The brown dashed lines, green arrow above, connect an ancient sample to its haplogroup, but the sample date is earlier than the estimated haplogroup.

At first this doesn’t make sense, until you realize that ancient samples are sometimes carbon dated, sometimes dated by proximity to something else, and sometimes dated based on the dates of the cemetery or cultural dig location.

Archaeological samples can also be contaminated, or have poor or low coverage. In other words, at this point in time, the samples are listed, but would need to be individually reviewed before shifting the haplogroup formation date. Haplogroup formation dates are based on present day testers.

  • A cousin and I have been mtDNA tested. What might be gained by testing our other six female cousins/10 or so male cousins?

Probably not much, so here’s how I would approach this.

I would test one cousin who descends from another daughter of the EKA, if possible. This helps to sift out if a haplogroup-defining mutation has occurred.

If you or that cousin has private variants left over after their haplotype cluster is formed,  testing a second person from that line may well results in a new haplogroup formation for that branch.

I absolutely would ask every single one of those cousins to take an autosomal test, however, because you never know what tools the future will bring, and we want to leverage every single segment of DNA that our ancestors carried. Testing cousins in the only way to find those.

  • In the Mitotree, I am grouped in a haplogroup that, according to the Mitotree Match Time Tree, branched off only about 200 years ago and has four mtDNA testers in it, including me. In fact, my earliest known maternal line ancestor I found using pen-and-paper genealogy was indeed born around 230 years ago and is also the known maternal ancestor for one of these three testers – confirming the Mitotree grouping is correct. But the other two matches in this haplogroup are completely unknown to me. Unfortunately, they do not have a tree online, and they did not respond to several messages. Is there any way to find out more about them using the new Mitotree tools?

First of all, this is great news. Having said that, I share your frustration. However, you’re a genealogist. Think of yourself as a sleuth.

I’d start by emailing them, but in this case, you already have. Tell them what you know from your line and ask if their line is from the same area? End with a question for them to answer. Share tidbits from Discover – like Ancient Connections maybe. Something to peak their interest.

Next, put on your sleiuh hat. I’d google their name and email address, and check Facebook and other social media sites. I’d check to see if they match me, or any cousins who have tested, on an autosomal test. If they do match autosomally, use shared matching and the matrix tool. If they are an autosomal match, I’d also check other testing sites to see if they have a tree there.

  • One webinar attendee is haplogroup H1bb7a+151 and is frustrated because they only have eight matches and don’t understand how to leverage this.

Of course, without knowing more, I can’t speak to what they have and have not done, and I certainly understand their frustration. However, in mitochondrial and Y-DNA, you really don’t want thousands of matches. It’s not autosomal. You want close, good matches, and that’s what the Mitotree plus haplotype clusters provide.

Your personal goals also make a lot of difference.

For me, I wanted to verify what I think I know – and received a surprise. I also want to go further back if possible. Then, I want to know the culture my ancestors came from.

First, step through every single one of Discover’s 13 tools and READ EVERY PAGE – not skim. These are chapters in your free book about your ancestor.

Their haplogroup was formed about 1200, so all of those matches will be since that time. The Ancient Connections tell me it’s probably British, maybe Irish – but they will see more from their account than I can see on the public version of Discover.

The Time Tree shows me one haplotype cluster, which is where the tester’s closest matches will probably be, barring a mutation or heteroplasmy.

Looking at the matches, e-mail people, look for common locations in their trees, and see if any of them are also autosomal matches using the Advanced Matching tool.

Looking at the 10 success story examples I used, one man was able to connect 19 of his matches into three groups by doing their genealogy for them. This doesn’t work for everyone, but it will never work if we don’t make the attempt.

  • An attendee would like to search on the Earliest Known Ancestor’s (EKA’s) name field.

I would like that too. You can search on surnames, but that’s often not terribly useful for mitochondrial DNA. The Match Time Tree shows the EKA for all full sequence testers.

In the upper right hand corner of your Matches page, there’s an “Export CSV” file link. Click there to download in a spreadsheet format. The EKA is a column in that file, along with both the new Mitotree haplogroup and haplotype F number, and it’s very easy to do a sort or text search from there.

  • Several questions about why people have so many more autosomal matches than either Y-DNA or mitochondrial.

There are several considerations.

First, autosomal testing became very popular, often based on ethnicity. There are many times more autosomal testers than there are either Y or mitochondrial.

Second, if you look back just six generations, you have 64 lineages. Y-DNA and mtDNA tests one line each and you don’t have to figure out which line. It also reaches back much further in time because it’s not admixed, so nothing washes out or rolls off in each generation like with autosomal.

Third, the Y-DNA and mitochondrial DNA tests are very specific and granular.

More is not necessarily better. You’re looking for refinement – and mitochondrial is just one line. No confusion. Think how happy you’d be if your autosomal matches weren’t all jumbled together and could be placed into 64 neat little baskets. Think how much time we spend sorting them out by shared matches and other criteria. Both Y-DNA and mitochondrial is already sorted out.

I’ve broken through several brick walls with unrecombined Y-DNA and mitochondrial DNA that could never be touched with autosomal – especially older lines where autosomal DNA is either gone or negligible.

  • You mentioned a Facebook group where I can ask questions about mitochondrial DNA?

The mitochondrial DNA Facebook group is the FamilyTreeDNA mtDNA Group, here.

  • To the webinar attendee who came to see me more than 20 years ago at Farmington Hills, Michigan, at one of my first, if not the first, genetic genealogy presentation – thank you!

Thank you for attending then when I really had no idea if ANYONE would come to hear about this new DNA “thing” for genealogy. I remember how nervous I was. And thank you for sticking around, continuing to research, and saying hello now!

Closing Comment

Mitochondrial DNA testing is different than autosomal, of course. It’s often the key to those females’ lines with seemingly insurmountable brick walls.

I attempt to collect the mitochondrial DNA of every ancestor. I trace “up the tree” to find people to test who descend from those ancestors through all women to the current generation, which can be males.

To find testers, I shop:

  • Autosomal matches at FamilyTreeDNA
  • Projects at FamilyTreeDNA
  • WikiTree
  • FamilySearch
  • Ancestry DNA matches
  • Ancestry Thrulines
  • Ancestry trees
  • MyHeritage DNA matches, where ther are a lot more European testers
  • MyHeritage Theories of Family Relativity
  • MyHeritage Cousin Finder
  • Relatives at RootsTech during the month before and after RootsTech when it’s available
  • Facebook Genealogy and family groups that appear relevant

When I find an appropriately descended person, I ask if they have already taken either the Y-DNA or mitochondrial DNA test, whichever one I’m searching for at that moment. If yes, hurray and I ask if they will share at least their haplogroup. If they haven’t tested, I tell them I’m offering a testing scholarship.

I will gladly explain the results if they will share them with me. Collaboration is key and a rising tide lifts all ships.

My mantra in all of this is, “You don’t know what you don’t know, and if you don’t test, you’ll never know.” I’ve missed testing opportunities that I desperately wish I hadn’t, so test your DNA and find testers to represent your ancestors.

I hope you enjoyed the webinar. It’s not too late to watch.

_____________________________________________________________

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 LeJeune (c1633-1671/1686), Meet Your Grandchildren – 52 Ancestors #447

According to the first census taken in Acadia, now Nova Scotia, in 1671, Catherine LeJeune was born about 1633.

While the census doesn’t tell us where Catherine was born, any French Acadian settler born before 1636, when the first Acadian families arrived in La Hève with Isaac Razilly, was assuredly born in France.

Furthermore, Catherine had a sibling, Edmee LeJeune, who also appeared in that census, married to Francois Gautrot. Edmee was born about 1624 and was married about 1644, based on her children’s ages. We know that Francois Gautrot was in Acadia prior to 1650, because he signed an attestation confirming the accomplishments of Charles Menou d’Aulnay, who died in 1650 – so they were clearly living in Port Royal by that time.

We also know that Francois Gautrot was granted land along the waterfront adjacent the fort in Port Royal, so was probably one of the earliest settlers and arrived in Port Royal with d’Aulnay. The land was expropriated from his descendants in 1705 to extend the original fort. Francois and Edmee were married about the time the Acadians would have settled at Port Royal, but Catherine LeJeune, the younger sister, and Francois Savoie didn’t marry until several years later.

We know that Catherine and Edmee were sisters, thanks to both mitochondrial DNA results and later dispensations granted by the priest when their descendants married.

This, of course, strongly suggests that both girls arrived as children with their parents between 1636, when the first French families arrived, and 1644, when Edmee married. Their parents had died before the 1671 census.

Pull up a chair, because this is about to get good!

Parent Confusion

Because absolutely nothing is straightforward about Acadian genealogy…

There is a male LeJeune, Pierre, born about 1656, who married Marie Thibodeau. They first lived in Port Royal in 1678, but by 1693, they lived at or near La Hève, the original seat of Acadia. Pierre’s brother was Martin LeJeune, born about 1661, who married a Native woman.

Their father was reportedly Pierre LeJeune, born about 1627, who reportedly married a Doucet female. He was probably granted land at La Hève because both of his sons, Pierre, born about 1656, and Martin, born about 1661, are found living side-by-side there in the 1686 census.

Notice words like “probably” and “reportedly.”

Pierre, the father of the brothers, Pierre and Martin LeJeune, is only specifically named after the 1755 deportation when their descendants, in a 1764 declaration at Belle-Ile-en-Mer, France stated, “Marguerite LeJeune was born at Port Royal in 1698 of Pierre and Marie Thibodault of Port Royal. Pierre LeJeune was issue of another Pierre who came from France and married at Port Royal, died there.” Please also note that the Belle-Ile-en-Mer declatations, in other cases, have been later proven to be in error. They were given from memory 3 or 4 generations and a century or more after the original Acadians arrived in order to provide the French government information about the origins of the Acadian refugees who found themselves back in France and in dire need.

I’m referring to Pierre, the father, as “the elder” and Pierre, Martin’s brother, as “the younger” for these discussions.

Based on the birth years of Pierre the younger, about 1656, and Martin, about 1661, Pierre the elder would have been born about 1627, or so. French men typically married when they were about 30. This also presumes that Pierre the younger was the oldest child of Pierre the elder, which may not be the case, so Pierre the elder may have been born significantly before 1627, but probably not after.

If, in fact, Pierre the elder, born about 1627, is the father of Pierre and Martin, he cannot be the father of Catherine, born about 1633, and Edmee, born about 1624. Pierre the elder could possibly be their brother, based only on birth years plus the same surname, but no additional information.

Furthermore, given Edmee’s birth about 1624, and Martin’s birth about 1661, a span of 37 years, Catherine and Edmee, and Pierre the younger (born about 1656) and Martin cannot be full siblings. They could potentially be half-siblings.

Due to the same surname, and such a limited number of families, I, along with the rest of Acadian researchers, have been trying to connect the dots.

What’s more logical is that Catherine and Edmee are siblings to Pierre the elder born about or before 1627, but lack of a marriage dispensation granted for their descendants suggests otherwise. Dispensations of consanguity were granted by the church allowing cousins of varying levels to marry with the church’s blessing.

For a long discussion, please refer to the link titled, “A Closer Look at Some of the Records” in the sidebar on Lucie LeBlanc Consentino’s site, here.

I freely admit, I had a difficult time wrapping my head around all of this, so I made a chart.

There were clearly three LeJeune founders in Acadia, one way or another. Yes, I said three. There’s more to the story.

Click to enlarge any image.

Our Catherine LeJeune is shown at right, highlighted in yellow, with her family line marked in green.

Pierre, the younger, with his father, Pierre the elder, is marked in apricot. His brother, Martin, is not shown but would be apricot too.

A third person, Jeanne LeJeune dit Briard, born about 1659, and who married Francois Joseph about 1684, is another player in this mix as well. She is found in the 1693 census in Port Royal, but not before. They are listed two doors from Germain Savoie, son of Catherine LeJeune and Francois Savoie. In 1698, Jeanne LeJeune has remarried to Jean Gaudet, and had one child, and by 1708 she too was living in La Hève.

Whoever Jeanne LeJeune’s father was, he was clearly an early settler, because he married a Native woman, as reflected in the marriage record of Jeanne’s daughter, Catherine Joseph, in 1720, where her mother is noted as “of the Indian Nation.” This is also confirmed by mitochondrial DNA testing of their matrilineal descendants which produced Native American haplogroup A2f1a.

Our Catherine Lejeune and Jeanne LeJeune dit Briard do not share a mother, as Catherine and Edmee’s mitochondrial DNA is haplogroup U6a7a1a, European, not Native.

Furthermore, by inference, based on the lack of Catholic religious dispensations granted to cousins, Pierre LeJeune the elder is not the father of Jeanne LeJeune dit Briard, even though both she and Pierre LeJeune the younger share the dit name of Briard. That could reflect back to a common French location for both people or a more distant family relationship. Stephen A. White, retired Acadian genealogist at Moncton, has concluded that Pierre LeJeune the elder married an unknown Doucet female, so not Native.

Jeanne’s LeJeune dit Briard’s line is noted in our chart blue, and her great-granddaughter, Martine Roy, bolded in red, married Pierre LeJeune the younger’s grandson, Joseph LeJeune, also bolded in red, in Louisbourg in 1754, with no dispensation recorded by the priest.

  • If Jeanne LeJeune and Pierre the younger were siblings, then Joseph and Martine would have been 2C1R, and the priest’s dispensation would have been 3-4.
  • If Jeanne LeJeune and Pierre the younger were first cousins, meaning they shared grandparents, then Joseph and Martine would have been 3C1R, and the dispensation would have been a 4-5, so no dispensation was needed at that distance.
  • According to White, the priest at Louisbourg knew the families, and other family members were present, so if these people had needed a dispensation, they would have received one. It wasn’t simply overlooked.

Now, moving to Catherine LeJeune whose grandson, Nicolas Prejean married Euphrosine Labauve in 1760 at St. Servan in Saint Malo, France, also with no dispensation.

  • If Pierre the elder and Jean LeJeune (yet another player and possible father of Catherine and Edmee) were siblings, then Nicolas and Euphrosine would have been 3C and the dispensation would have been 4-4.
  • If Pierre the elder and Jean LeJeune (possible father of Catherine and Edmee) were first cousins, sharing grandparents, then no dispensation would have been necessary for Nicolas and Euphrosine.

Even though these unfortunate people had been expelled from Acadia and wound up in France, there were a significant number of other Acadian families who settled in the same location, creating a community, having suffered the same fate. If the couple had needed a dispensation, they would have received one.

This leads us to the conclusion that:

  • Pierre LeJeune the younger is not the sibling of Jeanne LeJeune dit Briard, even though they are both shown with the same dit name and location.
  • Pierre LeJeune the elder is not the sibling of Jeane LeJeune dit Briard, because Martine and Joseph would have required a 4-4 dispensation.
  • Pierre LeJeune the elder and Jeanne LeJeune dit Briard could have been first cousins, because no dispensation would have been required.
  • Pierre LeJeune the elder is not the sibling of Catherine LeJeune’s father, because Euphrosine and Nicolas would have required a 4-4 dispensation.
  • Pierre LeJeune the elder could have been the first cousin of Catherine LeJeune’s father, because no dispensation would have been needed.
  • Catherine LeJeune (born c 1633), her sister Edmee (born c 1624) and Jeanne LeJeune dit Briard (born c 1659) are not full siblings either, because Jeanne LeJeune dit Briard’s mother was Native American and Catherine and Edmee’s mother was European.

It’s also worth noting that while Jeanne LeJeune and both Pierre the younger and Martin LeJeune are noted in at least one record as “dit Briard,” neither Catherine nor Edmee ever are. Briard means a person who is from Brie, but could also have meant something else.

Who is Jean LeJeune?

On the chart, you might have noticed Jean LeJeune noted with a “?” as the potential father of Catherine LeJeune, which means he would have been Edmee LeJeune’s father as well.

Who is Jean LeJeune and where did he come from? That’s the burning question, of course.

White writes (bolding mine):

Jean Lejeune was one of the early settlers of Acadia. This is known from the fact that his heirs received one of the early land grants at Port-Royal. This grant is mentioned in the “Schedule of the Seigniorial Rents” that was drawn up in 1734, after the British Crown had purchased the seigneurial rights in that area (Public Record Office, Colonial Office records, series 217, Vol. VIL, fol. 90-91). The rents list shows the names of the first grantees of each parcel of land, as well as the names of those who were in possession in 1734. In some cases it is obvious that the latter belonged to the same family as the former, but in the case of the parcel allotted to Jean Lejeune’s heirs it is just as apparent that the tenancy had heen sold. No record of the original grant has survived, but there are indications that it had been made early in the colony’s history. It is enrolled along with grants that were made to Barnabé Martin and Francois Savoie. Both of these men were dead by the time of the 1686 census, so the grants must have been made before then. What’s more, Jean Lejeune had likely been dead for quite some time by 1686, because this grant could have dated back to any time after the retrocession of Acadia to the French in 1670 pursuant to the Treaty of Breda.

One can only speculate about how old Jean Lejeune’s heirs might have been when they received their grant, but it is likely that their forebear was a contemporary of the Pierre Lejeune who is mentioned in Claude Pitre’s deposition at Belle-fle-en-Mer in 1767 as the father of the Pierre Lejeune who married Marie Thibodeau. This deposition, by the way, is the only record that mentions the elder Pierre’s given, name. It also specifies that the elder Pierre came to Acadia from France, which rules out any possibility that he had any Native American blood. But this deposition does not preclude the possibility that the elder Pierre might have arrived from France with one or more siblings, including at least one brother.

For Catherine LeJeune, who married Francois Savoie, this is very nearly a smoking gun.

Very rarely did a single man set up a household.

Not only was a similar grant made to Francois Savoie, at BelleIsle, this suggests that the date of that grant was probably after their marriage around 1651 or 1652.

Furthermore, in the first Acadian census, in 1671, Catherine LeJeune and Francois Savoie are living on the same land with their daughter and son-in-law. Their neighbor is Pierre Martin, age 70, who lives beside three Martin family members, then two doors away we find Edmee LeJeune married to Francois Gautrot.

So, thanks to White, we have a Jean LeJeune who was granted land at BelleIsle along with Francois Savoie, who married Catherine LeJeune. The Savoie land has been located, which I wrote about in Francois Savoie’s Homestead Rediscovered.

Were Catherine and Edmee LeJeune the heirs of Jean LeJeune who were eventually granted the land at BelleIsle? Does that explain why they are living among the BelleIsle families?

Additional documents are unlikely to be found. Alexandre LeBorgne, Sieur de Belle-Isle, who began granting land around 1668 when he became Governor of the colony, destroyed those records to cover his incompetence.

Given that Jean LeJeune was granted land, and he was deceased by 1671, that puts both the grant date and his death sometime between 1668 and 1670 – unless d’Aulnay granted that land before his death in 1650 or before the falling of Acadia to the English in 1654.

It’s also possible that Jean LeJeune has been given posession of the land by d’Aulnay, but the official grant wasn’t made until later, and he was deceased by then, so it went to his heirs.

Christian Boudreau, in his thesis notes, provides additional information found in the “Schedule of the Seignorial Rents for one Whole Year Payable Yearly by the Inhabitants Within the Banlieu of the Fort of Annapolis Royal in His Majesties Province of Nova Scotia on the First Day of January for which they stand annually De to His Majesties Revenue”. Chris notes that the importance of the information enclosed in a letter dated May 10, 1734, is that the original grantees of a plot of land location in the region of “Bellisle” by Annapolis Royal were “the heirs of John Le Jeune” and the men who posessed the land in 1734 were Alexander Hebert and Michel Richards, but they don’t appear to be either descended from or related to Jean LeJeune.

We have a 1733 map of the region, but it only has village names, not individual names. The only Michel Richard of the right age in the right place in 1734 was married to a Marie Madeleine Blanchard and was probably living at BelleIsle where the Blanchards lived. However, the original Richard land, two generations earlier, was across the river from BelleIsle.

Alexandre Hebert was married to Marie Dupuis whose family lived at or near BelleIsle too. The original Hebert land was also across the river, near Bloody Creek. However, by 1734, the original LeJeune land, granted to Jean’s nameless heirs before Jean’s death, prior to the 1671 census, could well have been sold multiple times. I also wonder if the Richard and Hebert men each owned pieces of it, or owned it jointly.

The only things we know for sure about Jean LeJeune are:

  • That he or his heirs received land at BelleIsle
  • Jean was deceased by 1671
  • If Catherine and Edmee were his daughers, they were both born in France
  • If he is their father, Jean would have been born about 1595, or possibly earlier
  • The family arrived between 1636 and 1644 when Edmee married

It’s also possible that, rather than being Catherine and Edmee’s father, Jean could have been their sibling. If he were unmarried, he would probably not have been granted land.

Regardless, by 1671, there is no trace of Jean LeJeune, or of a widow, or of children other than Catherine and Edmee, assuming they are his daughters.

I believe that’s the most likely explanation, but it’s far from conclusive.

Early Acadia

The first Acadian colonists settled in La Hève, on the southern coast of Acadia, in 1632, with Isaac Razilly leading the expedition that was focused on establishing a trading port. We know families arrived in 1636, and could have been a few in 1632. .

The LeJeune family could have arrived with the first or second group of families. If so, Catherine would have been just a baby. Mathieu Martin was reportedly the first Acadian child born in Acadia, and he was born about 1634.

Razilly died in 1635, and within a couple of years, Charles Menou d’Aulnay was appointed Governor of Acadia. He moved the Acadian colonists to Port Royal from La Hève as a group in the late 1630s and early 1640s.

By 1640, Port Royal was the seat of Acadia, and d’Aulnay set about having the swamps at BelleIsle drained so that the land could become salt-free, productive farmland, which took about 3 years after the land was dyked. BelleIsle, 1500 acres, was a HUGE area to dyke.

BelleIsle is the location where the Martin and Savoie families both settled, and it stands to reason that Jean LeJeune did too.

We don’t know when the LeJeune sisters arrived with their parents, whoever they were, but given that Catherine’s older sister, Edmee, married a local man, Francois Gautrot, either a craftsman or a soldier, around 1644, the family had assuredly arrived in Acadia by that time.

The LeJeune family may have first settled at La Hève, then moved with the rest of the Acadians to Port Royal, or they could have arrived in Port Royal with Charles Menou d’Aulnay around 1642 when he obtained financing and a ship from a La Rochelle financier, transporting additional families.

Based on a journal maintained by Nicolas Denys, we know that by 1654, when Acadia would fall to the English, there were about 270 residents at Port Royal, and that many settlers had moved upriver.

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

This golden nugget of information reveals a great deal about life in Acadia. The Great Meadow is BelleIsle, and Madame de La Tour is d’Aulnay’s widow.

He mentions that the residents have cleared the land below and above the meadow, and that d’Aulnay had the meadow drained. Are the residents clearing land above and below the meadow because the Martin, Savois and LeJeune heirs are already farming there?

Note that Denys said that, “all the inhabitants there are the ones whome…Razilly brought from France to La Hève.”

This tells us that Catherine LeJeune would have arrived as a small child, probably by 1635, and would have retained absolutely no memory of France.

Catherine was first-generation Acadian and lived her life on the shores of the Atlantic, on a new frontier.

She may or may not have remembered La Hève. They would have relocated to Port Royal when she was someplace between 3 and 7, building a new home along the Rivière Dauphin, probably at BelleIsle.

While they may have first settled in Port Royal briefly, while they got their bearings or built a cabin, it’s telling that many of the other early settlers obtained land that was expropriated in 1702-1705 when the fort was expanded. Neither Francois Savoie, Jean LeJeune, nor Barnabas Martin held land by the fort, although Barnabas married into the Pelletret family who did.

I’d wager that these families began draining the swamps immediately, recognizing the value of this prime real estate for farming.

They would have had first choice and were the first families to settle at BelleIsle. They established a village above BelleIsle Marsh.

The Savoie Land at BelleIsle

I wrote about the discovery of the Savoie homesteads and village at BelleIsle in the article titled, Francois Savoie’s Homestead Rediscovered.

I won’t repeat that information here, but I saved one of the goodies for Catherine’s article.

Several years ago, now-deceased Acadian artist Claude Picard created a wonderful print of the Savoie homestead based upon known homestead locations thanks to archaeological discoveries.

You can claim one of these for yourself to support the all-volunteer and labor-of-love BelleIsle Hall Acadian Cultural Center.

Additionally, Charlie and Jennifer Thibodeau, who established the Center, commissioned an amazing drone video as a fundraiser.

Ron, another Acadian cousin with a keen historical interest took the results of the drone video and overlaid the Savoie/LeJeune village print onto the land where the archaeology excavations revealed homestead remains and a well.

Courtesy of both the Center, with the Acadian roof, located on Savoie land, and Ron who merged the two, feast your eyes upon this beauty.

This depicts the original Savoie homestead where Catherine would have been tending her garden, milking the cows and baking in the Acadian oven. It’s here that she had her babies and raised her family.

It’s also probably here that Catherine and her sister grew up, with Catherine marrying the neighbor boy.

Life was peaceful, beautiful, and bucolic along the river, a dream come true, right up until it wasn’t.

1654

In Acadia, life unexpectedly changed in 1654.

Catherine LeJeune, 20 or 21, hadn’t been married very long – maybe three years. She had one baby, Francoise, born around 1652, and was pregnant for her second child, Germain, who was born sometime in 1654.

She was either pregnant when the English launched a surprise attack upon Acadia, or she had a newborn baby, plus a toddler who was maybe two. I’m not sure which scenario would have been worse. God-forbid that she was acually giving birth during the attack.

Port Royal and the Annapolis River Valley for a few miles upriver had roughly 270 people in 1754, which consisted of maybe 40 families, assuming each family had approximately seven members. Acadians were living at Port Royal near the fort and also scattered up and down both sides of the river.

We also don’t know for sure if Catherine and Francois were living in Port Royal, along with many of the original families, or if they were living upriver, at BelleIsle, clearing the marshes as originally ordered by d’Aulnay, between 1636 and his death in 1650.

I’d wager that they were at BelleIsle and had been all along, but we will never be positive.

If they were living at BelleIsle, they would have been safer than in Port Royal, even though Port Royal was protected by Fort Anne.

The English were familiar with the fort and the layout of Port Royal, but they would never be able to navigate the mountains behind BelleIsle.

The Acadians, on the other hand, certainly would have been familiar with the woodlands behind their homes. The women and children may have sought safety there.

The English attack on Port Royal wasn’t planned in advance – it was rather spontaneous.

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 found himself in a snit.

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.

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, the Acadians surrendered to the English, having negotiated what they felt were reasonable surrender terms. 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. 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 absences. Acadian Guillaume Trahan was in charge.

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.

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 did this multiple other times.

Sedgewick then departed from what was left of Port Royal.

It was later reported that only 34 families chose to remain in Acadia after the 1654 attack. Settlers also had the option to return to France on the ships with the soldiers and officials.

The Acadians who stayed were allowed to retain their lands, goods, livestock, and to continue worshiping as Catholics. However, if your home had been burned, this turn of events could have provided motivation to return to France, to move upriver if you had been living in Port Royal, or to perhaps move a little further upriver. I doubt any Acadian wanted to reside near the English-controlled garrison that had been the Acadian fort, nor in close proximity to the English who would have established themselves in the town, which was the seat of the English governance of Acadia for the next 16 years.

If, in fact, the Catholic church was destroyed, which is quite likely, based on every other time the English took Port Royal, the chapel at St. Laurent at BelleIsle was probably built and came into use about this time.

Church services would have been held in Acadian homes or the St. Laurent Chapel, or both. The devoutly Catholic Acadian people weren’t going to let the little issue of a church building stand between them and their much-loved and comforting religious rituals and their relationship with God.

We don’t know a lot about Acadia during the years before the French regained control in 1667 through the Treaty of Breda. No new French settlers arrived during the years under English domination. In 1668, France physically took possession of Acadia again, although that was contested until 1670 when the new French Governor arrived with 30 soldiers and 60 new settlers. His headquarters, though, was at Fort Pentagouet, the Capital of Acadia, in today’s Castine, Maine, until that Fort’s destruction by the Dutch in 1674.

Thankfully, one of the first things the Governor Grandfontaine did was to order a census to be taken by Father Laurent Molin, a humble Cordelier and parish priest at Port Royal, in the spring of 1671. Ironically, there is no census of Fort Pentagouet.

It’s through the 1671 census that we obtain a glimpse of Catherine’s life between her marriage around 1651, 1654 when Acadia fell into English hands, and 1670 when Port Royal became French again.

The 1671 Census

In the 1671 census, Catherine LeJeune, was married to Francois Savoie, who was born about 1621.

Based on their children’s ages, Catherine and Francois had been married by 1651 or 1652, assuming that their oldest children had not died.

Their family consisted of:

  • Francois Scavois (Savoie), farmer, age 50 (so born about 1621), with 4 cattle, cultivating 6 arpents of land
  • Catherine LeJeune, his wife, age 38 (so born about 1633)

Children:

  • One married daughter, Francoise, 18, is listed next door with her husband Jehan Corporon, farmer, age 25, and a six-week-old daughter not yet named. Additionally, they are listed with “cattle, 1, sheep, 1, and no cultivated land”.

Francois and Catherine’s unmarried children are:

  • Germain, 16
  • Marie, 14
  • Jeanne, 13
  • Catherine, 9
  • Francois, 8
  • Barnabe, 6
  • Andree, 4
  • Marie, 1 and a half

We can’t tell for sure where they lived, but they are found among other families who, at least eventually, lived on the north side of the river, at or near BelleIsle, including the Dupuis, Blanchard, Terriau, Martin, Brun, and Trahan families.

We also know that Francois is farming 6 arpents of land and has livestock, so living on the main street along the water in Port Royal is very unlikely.

We know that some of these families listed on the census; Martin, Blanchard, Trahan and Gautrot, were early families to settle at Port Royal, because they are among the families with land expropriated in 1703-1705.

A Buried Hint

I think there’s a subtle hint buried in the census.

Catherine’s daughter, Francoise, lives in the adjacent house, and they have no property. This tells us that they are living on the land of Francois Savoie and Catherine LeJeune, probably just feet away, sharing both the communal well and farm chores.

Think about the structure of the Savoie village at BelleIsle.

Francoise and her husband, Jean Corporon, have a daughter that is six weeks old and not yet named. If the baby isn’t named, that also means she’s not baptized, because Catholic children are named at baptism.

If the family was living in Port Royal, which is where the Catholic priest, Father Molin, would have been living, then the baby would assuredly have been baptized within days, if not hours, after birth.

The priest probably didn’t travel upriver often, especially not in the winter when the river was dangerous. If the census was taken in the spring, then the baby would have probably been born in mid to late winter, early 1671.

The fact that the child is not yet baptized suggests VERY STRONGLY that the family is NOT living at Port Royal, and is living at BelleIsle where their family members are found in the future.

There’s something else rather unusual about Francoise Savoie and Jean Corporon that may tie in to the child not yet being baptized. I realize this is heresy, but they might not have been as religious as other Acadians.

Why didn’t they just have the priest baptize the baby when he was there to take the census, then the baby wouldn’t have had to be recorded as unbaptized? The priest was literally standing right there – unless he created the census from memory. But he couldn’t have done that if he had not visited over the winter because both births and deaths would have occurred – including this baby.

Eventually, Francoise’s daughter, Isabelle, had a “natural child,” meaning without being married, about 1707, and daughter Marguerite had four illegitimate children between 1709 and 1715. Marguerite eventually did marry the presumed father of the youngest child a decade later. The Catholic church, plus community sentiment and pressure, served to prevent almost all out-of-wedlock conceptions.

For some reason, this family didn’t exactly fit the mold. Not only that, but Catherine and Francois came and went in the census, as did several of their children – like Acadian fireflies. That too was very uncommon, especially as a pattern.

The next census, 1678, is a mystery on several levels.

Mystery – Missing in 1678 

By 1678, Catherine LeJeune and married daughter, Francoise Savoie, along with most of Catherine’s family, are no longer listed in the census, but three of her children are. Germain, Jeanne, and Catherine Savoie have married and are listed in the census with their spouses and young families.

Where is everyone else?

It’s unclear if Catherine LeJeune and Francois Savoie have died, or if they are simply missing from the census. This situation doesn’t necessarily make sense, but here it is, nonetheless.

  • In 1678, Catherine’s eldest daughter Francoise Savoie and husband Jean Corporon, who were present in 1671, aren’t listed either, but they are in 1686.
  • Daughter, Marie Savoie, based on the 1686 census, had given birth to a child in 1677 and 1679, so clearly would have been married well before 1678, but neither Marie nor her husband are shown in the 1678 census.
  • Sons Francois Savoie and Barnabe Savoie are never found again after 1671, so it’s probably safe to say they died sometime between 1671 and 1686. They may have died before 1678, but since the rest of the family is missing, we don’t know.
  • Daughter Andree Savoie married about 1683, but she is not found anyplace living with a family in 1678 either.
  • Marie Savoie, the baby in 1671, was missing in both 1678 and 1686, but married Gabriel Chiasson around 1688 according to the 1693 census, when they are living in Minas.

Catherine LeJeune was only 38 years old in 1671, and her youngest child was a year and a half old.

Catherine was probably already pregnant with the next child, who would have been born shortly – except there is no evidence of another child being born.

Catherine could potentially have had at least one more and possibly two additional children, in maybe 1672/73 and 1673/74, but there is no evidence that Catherine had any more children.

This suggests two possibilities.

  • Either Catherine died in or shortly after 1671
  • Or, Catherine had more children, and Catherine plus the children born in or after 1671 all died before either 1678 or 1686 when other family members are present

There is a document that suggests that sometime either in or before 1679 that land was granted at BelleIsle to Francois Savoie, but by 1686, he’s gone too.

Where were they?

It’s unlikely that they left, because their minor children appear as married adults in Port Royal in subsequent censuses and/or in church records. Their children would have married where they lived.

If Catherine died, and she assuredly had by 1686, someone had obviously taken her orphan children to raise. Perhaps their oldest sister, Francoise, but why don’t those children appear anyplace in the census? I don’t see other orphans in the census either, and the Savoie children can’t be the only orphans in Acadia.

Catherine’s Children

Speaking of Catherine’s children, there’s probably more to that story as well:

By 1671, there’s a conspicuous gap between Jeanne and Catherine where a child should have been born about 1660.

This tells us that Catherine lost her parents, plus one child in about 1660, plus her sister, Edmee, lost children in roughly 1647, 1650, 1656, 1663, and about 1667.

Both Edmee and her husband were living in 1686, but had died by the 1693 census.

Those small bodies were probably buried in what is now called the Garrison Graveyard in Port Royal, adjacent the fort.

At the time, it was a small Catholic cemetery, standing in a small fence behind the Catholic Church as shown in this 1686 map.

Catherine probably walked through this cemetery, speaking quietly to her parents, and stood with her sister as both of them said final goodbyes to their young children.

There’s nothing as “alone” as a mother burying her child.

We do know that there was another chapel, St. Laurent, at BelleIsle, and we know it was active by 1702 in the earliest extant records. It’s likely that St. Laurent began to be used at least by 1690 when the English overran Port Royal and took the fort, and possibly as early as 1654 when the earlier English incursion occurred. Nothing remains of St. Laurent today, except a grassy field.

Of course, Catherine was gone before 1690, perhaps buried at St. Laurent or here at Port Royal.

Catherine’s Children and Grandchildren

Catherine’s oldest child, Francoise, already had a daughter by the time Catherine died. Catherine may have had other grandchildren before her death too, but we have no way of knowing. One thing is certain – Catherine’s younger children grew up without their mother.

What happened to her children? Where did they live? Did they have children of their own?

It’s easiest to visualize the family in a chart. The Acadian censuses that extended from 1671 through 1714 paint a picture of family development – marriage, birth, and death. Some of Catherine’s family was missing in various censuses, too.

Child Spouse – Marriage Census Children
Francoise Savoie born circa 1652 died Dec. 27, 1711, Port Royal Jean Corporon married circa 1670 d 1713 Married circa 1670, 1671, missing 1678, 1686, 1693, 1698, 1700, missing in 1701 & 1703, 1707 15, 3 died young, 1 died on Ile St. Jean circa 1756, the rest died before 1755, 3 at Port Royal, 3 in Pisiguit, 2 in Louisbourg, and 1 in Grand Pre, the fate of 1 is unknown
Germain Savoie born circa 1654, died before Oct 1749 Marie Breau married circa 1678 d 1749 1671, married in 1678, 1678, 1686, 1693, 1698, 1700, 1701, 1703, 1707, 1714 12, 5 spaces for deaths, 3 died young, 1 died at Port Royal 1 died in Duxbury, MA, 1 widowed in 1711 but died in Quebec in 1770, 1 in Quebec, 1 in New Rochelle, NY, 1 in South Carolina, 1 probably at Camp d’Esperance in winter of 1756/57, the fate of 2 are unknown
Space for Child born circa 1656, died before 1671
Marie Savoie born circa 1657 died March 1741, Louisbourg Jacques Triel married circa 1676, died before 1700 1671, married in 1676, missing in 1678, 1686, 1693, 1698, 1700, 1703, missing in 1707 &  1714, in Louisbourg by 1724 5, last child born in 1690, at least 3 died earlier, and probably 5 more before 1700, 2 died as teens, 1 as young adult, 1 in Louisbourg, and 1 on Isle Royal in Lake Superior
Jeanne Savoie born circa 1658 died Nov 1735, Port Royal Etienne Pellerin married circa 1675 d 1722 1671, married in 1675, 1678, 1686, 1693. 1698, 1700, 1701, 1703, 1707, missing 1714 10, spaces for 3 deaths, 1 died as a teen, 1 died in Port Royal, 1 in New London, CT, 1 in Quebec, possibly of smallpox, 1 in Chezzetcook after expulsion, fate of 5 unknown
Space for child born circa 1660, died before 1671
Catherine Savoie born circa 1662 died Januart 1725, Port Royal Francois Levron married circa 1676 died 1714 Married circa 1676, 1678 living with Widow Pesselet, 1693, 1698, 1700, missing in 1701, 1707, 1714 10, space for 6 deaths, 3 died at Port Royal, 1 died in Medfield, MA, 1 was probably at Camp d’Esperance winter of 1756/57, 1 Pisiquit, 1 at Louisbourg, 1 at or near Fort Frontenac, 1 at Grand Pre, fate of 1 unknown
Francois Savoie born circa 1663 died before 1686 Missing 1678 and thereafter Died between age 8 and 23
Barnabe Savoie born circa 1665 died before 1686 Missing 1678 and thereafter Died between age 6 and 21
Andree Savoie born circa 1667 died after 1714, probably Port Royal Jean Prejean married circa 1683 d 1733 Missing 1678, but alive, married in 1683, 1686, 1693, 1698, 1700, 1701, 1703, 1714 12, spaces for 5 deaths, 1 probably died in Bristol, England in 1755/56, 1 at Camp d’Esperance in winter of 1756/57, 1 at Chipoudy and probably at Camp d’Esperance, 1 in 1765 in Landivisiau, near Morlaix, France, 1 possibly in NY before 1763, 1 in Quebec, 1 at sea with entire family of 11, fate of 5 unknown
Space for child born circa 1669, died before 1671
Marie Savoie born circa 1670 died between 1711 and 1714 in Beaubassin Gabriel Chiasson married circa 1688 died 1741 Beaubassin Missing in 1678 and 1686 but alive, married in 1688, 1693 11, space for 3 deaths, 3 children died young including her first two, 1 died in 1758 on Ile St. Jean, 1 died at sea in 1759 with husband on way to France during expulsion, 1 in 1759 in St. Malo after arrival in France, along with son 4 days later – wife had died at sea, 1 in SC, 1 in 1759/69 in St. Malo, 1 uncertain, 1 in Quebec, youngest died in 1758 on board the Violet with 4 children when the ship sank en route to France during forced expulsion
Space for child born circa 1671, no record
Space for possible child born circa 1673

Several children are inferred due to spaces that are “too long” between known children. These are the whispered children – those no one talks about because it makes the mother cry.

We do have the names of two sons, Francois and Barnabe who died relatively young, probably as children, but not at birth.

Francois Savoie was 8 years old in the 1671 census, and his little brother Barnabe Savoie was 6. They never appear in any other records of any type, so they assuredly died before adulthood. They don’t appear in any future census, either as children or adults, nor do they have any children in church records, nor is their death recorded in or after 1702 when the existing Port Royal records begin. They aren’t found anyplace else either.

In case you are wondering, yes, Catherine really did have two children named Marie Savoie, and no, I don’t know why. They both lived, so the second Marie wasn’t named in honor of the first one. My guess would be that both had a middle name, but it’s odd that neither are recorded in the census or other records by that name, so I simply don’t know. I would think it would be very confusing for everyone involved, but it’s certainly not unheard of.

Catherine’s youngest two children who were missing in 1678, Andree Savoie and Marie Savoie, and Marie, who is also missing in 1686, were living someplace, with someone, in the Port Royal area because they married there and are found living there later.

The older daughter, Marie, found her way to Louisbourg and died there sometime after she was widowed in 1700 and before 1724.

Only the youngest daughter, Marie Savoie, made her way to the northern settlements shortly after her marriage.

Catherine’s youngest children could potentially have lived long enough to witness and be unwilling participants in the horrific 1755 Expulsion, but they did not.

Catherine’s grandchildren, however, were another matter, and many were ensnared in the Grand Dérangement, also called the expulsion, exile or deportation. By whatever name, it was a horrific, genocidal unfolding tragedy that began in 1755. No Acadian was untouched, and the trajectory of their lives was forever altered, or ended.

Catherine’s Grandchildren

Catherine had 75 known grandchildren. She assuredly had more, but records were spotty and I am only including the people who can be positively associated with Catherine’s children. I’m not counting the “vacant spaces,” of children who died. There are about 30, and I wish we could preserve their memory by saying their names. 30 is a lot, and I’m sure that’s low given that we lose track of some people.

  • We know that 13 of Catherine’s grandchildren died young. Given that Catherine died before 1686, she would have missed most of that pain. But she would also have missed the joy of births, baptisms, and birthdays.
  • Three more children died as either late teens or young adults in Port Royal.
  • Five died as adults in Port Royal.
  • Eight of Catherine’s grandchildren died after childhood elsewhere in Acadia before the expulsion began.
  • Twenty-nine of her grandchildren died during or after the expulsion. In other words, they did not die before that horror unfolded, and we know something about them at the time of deportation or even just a glimpse where they surfaced after.
  • Seventeen of her grandchildren simply disappear from the records, most shortly prior to or during the deportation. Many of these people perished at the hands of the English on those horrid ships.
  • Of those who survived the expulsion, few wound up in the same place, so they were ripped from their families, never knowing their fate. “Survived” is a relative term.

The only grandchild Catherine would have known, that we know of for sure, is that sweet little six-week-old baby that was unnamed in the 1671 census. That baby was eventually named Marie and went on to marry around 1687, eventually having a child she named after her grandmother, Catherine. I wonder if Marie remembered her grandmother.

Of course, depending on when our Catherine LeJeune died, there may have been a few more grandchildren that she was able to welcome into the world. Maybe she helped deliver them, witnessing their first cry. Maybe some were born silent, and never cried. Maybe she comforted her children as they stood in the cemetery together.

In total, 24 of her grandchildren were born before 1686, when we know Catherine was gone.

While these are the very abbreviated snippets of Catherine’s grandchildren, their stories and the Acadian history are fairly universal for all Acadians in Nova Scotia, both pre-and post deportation.

Since Catherine never got to meet most of her grandchildren, and certainly never knew what happened to them after her death sometime between 1671 and 1686, let’s introduce them.

Catherine, Meet Your Grandchildren!!

Catherine, since you never had the opportunity to meet most of your grandchildren, let me introduce you! By the way, you’re my 8 times great-grandmother, so pleased to meet you.

Let’s start with your daughter Francoise’s children. I know you got to hold her firstborn child, rocking her by the fireplace the winter she was born! I bet you were pregnant yourself at the time, expecting your next baby.

Since you couldn’t be there to witness your grandchildren’s lives, I’ve traveled in time to locate them and introduce you to their lives. They lived in very “interesting” times, and we have pictures, memories we can look at, today.

I visited many last year, some that I wasn’t even aware of at the time. Somehow, Catherine, I think your spirit might have been involved, and I know you walked with me.

  • Francoise Savoie, Catherine’s eldest child, who married Jean Corporon, had six children before 1678, and nine before 1686 according to the 1671 and 1686 censuses. Catherine might have known at least some of them. Of Francoise’s 15 children, 5 died young, and of those who survived, 9 died in Acadia before the expulsion.

Catherine’s first granddaughter, who was eventually named Marie Corporon, died sometime after 1714 when she was 42, probably in Pisiquid. It’s possible that she survived and was embroiled in the horrendous deportations in 1755, but unlikely given that she would have been about 84 by then.

Cecile Corporon, age 37 died about 1721, and Martin Corporon, about 62, died in 1749, also in beautiful Pisiguit, with its own tidal river that would remind you of your own Rivière du Dauphin in Port Royal.

A second daughter, also named Marie Corporon died young, around 8 years old, after 1686, in Port Royal.

Francois Corporon died between the ages of 9 and 11 in Port Royal, between 1698 and 1700.

Charles Corporon died between the ages of 2 and 7, between 1693 and 1698 in Port Royal.

Ambrose Corporon died between the ages of 2 and 4 between 1698 and 1700 in Port Royal.

Marie-Madeleine Corporon, about 41, died in 1735 in Louisbourg and son Jean Corporon, born about 1677, so about 64, died there in 1741. Francoise Savoie had two sons named Jean.

Jacques Corporon died at about age 25, probably in Port Royal. He is not found in any records after 1700.

Madeleine Corporon, about 81, died about 1753 in Grand Pre. This beautiful tree, located in what was the village outside the church may have been standing when she lived.

Son, Jean Corporon, born around 1692, was caught up in the expulsion when he was about 64, and spent the horrific winter of 1756/1757 at Camp d’Esperance. Some refugees escaped into the woods from there, some were later deported, but many died. Nothing more is known about his fate or that of any family, although Stephen White states that he died in September of 1656 at Port LaJoye.

Marguerite Corporon, born about 1685, was the family wild-child or free spirit. She had four illegitimate children between 1709 and about 1715, and married the presumed father of the youngest child, an Englishman, a decade later in 1725. We don’t know Marguerite’s fate, but I surely would love to know more about her and her life.

Isabelle Corporon died at about age 44 in Port Royal, and Jeanne Corporon died at about 62 in 1735 in the same location.

  • Son Germain Savoie who married Marie Breau, another BelleIsle family, about 1678, had 3 children before 1686, so Catherine may have known some of them.

Marie Savoie died at around 6 years old between 1700 and 1701 in Port Royal.

Pierre Savoie died at age 20 in 1710 and is buried at St. Laurent at BelleIsle.

Marguerite Savoie died at the age of 20 months in January 1711 and is buried at St. Laurent at BelleIsle.

Claude Savoie died at about age 20 in 1728 in Port Royal.

Germain’s son, Germain Savoie, disappears from the records after 1749 in Port Royal when he is about 67. He may have been exiled.

By Martix (Michel van der Laan) – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=55443587

Francois Savoie is in Restigouche, where he disappears from the record after his youngest son’s birth in 1734 when he is about 50, but his children fled to Camp d’Esperance during the expulsion.

Marie Savoie was deported to South Carolina in 1755. Many Acadian refugees who arrived there were processed through the “pest house” on Sullivan’s Island, outside Charleston, suggesting they had diseases or were ill.

She was listed in SC on the 1763 census when she was about 24, as a widow, with her son. We don’t know what happened to her or her child after that.

Another daughter, also named Marie Savoie died at 95 in Duxbury, Massachusetts in 1767. Duxbury is generally thought of more in the context of the Pilgrims, but the Acadians and Pilgrims were contemporaries of a sort. By the time Marie Savoy lived here, or Marie Savory as she was buried in 1767, the John Alden house, built about 1700, was already 50-60 years old. Marie assuredly would have seen this home and was probably inside it, even if it might have been in the capacity of a servant.

By Swampyank me – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=9030047

Ironically, the only cemetery that seems to have been in operation at the time in Duxbury was the Standish Cemetery, which is probably where the Acadian unmarked burials lie. The graveyard was beside the original meeting house, and I have to wonder if our displaced Catholic Acadians attended church, even if it wasn’t their own version of Christianity, because the church of opportunity was better than no church at all.

Jean Savoie was in Chipoudy in 1755 when he was about 64, so probably at Camp d’Esperance in 1756/1757, although there was fierce resistance at Chipoudy. We don’t know what happened to Jean. Chipoudy is now Shepody, New Brunswick.

Paul Savoie removed to Chipoudy in the 1720s but his fate after 1745 when he is 49 is also unknown.

Marie-Magdelaine Savoie lived in Port Royal before the expulsion and died at the Hotel (Hospital) Dieu De Quebec in Quebec City in 1770 at age 76. It’s unknown where she was after the deportation, and before making her way to Quebec.

Charles Savoie and his family left Port Royal on the ship, Experiment, and were exiled to New York in 1755. The trip should have taken about 28 days, arriving in early or mid-January. However, the Experiment encountered a dreadful storm, was blown off course, and ended up in Antigua until May of 1756, when it finally sailed for New York.

After arrival, when Charles was about 56, the family was sent to New Rochelle on the Long Island Sound. At least 30% of the passengers had died during the months-long ordeal.

Marie-Josephe Savoie lived in Beaubassin, seen here in the distance, and died at about 51 in 1757 in Quebec City.

  • Marie Savoie who married Jacques Triel about 1676 had 4 children before 1686, so Catherine may have known them.

Marie’s son, Pierre Triel was living on Isle a Descoust on the Isle Royale in 1752, which is in Lake Superior. The Isle a Descoust history tells us that: “The Isle a Descoust is a land area that was chosen for settlement by Monsieur Triel, and was situated on the Isle Royale. Isle Royale, a park in the U.S., is a remote location in Lake Superior, reachable by ferry, private boat, or seaplane. The park is known for its wilderness, with over 99% of the land designated as such.”

Pierre was one hearty man, especially at age 75, given that there are no full-time residents today due to the harsh winter conditions. I have so many questions about this!

Marie-Madelaine Triel died in Louisbourg in 1733 at about age 54. There were several smallpox deaths that year.

Nicolas Triel and Alexis Triel died as late teens or young adults, and Marie Triel died at age 21 in Port Royal after marrying, leaving one child.

  • Jeanne Savoie who married Etienne (Estienne) Pellerin about 1675 had two children before 1678 and 5 before 1686. Catherine may have known some of them.

Of Jeanne’s 10 children, one died young, some died in Acadia, and some were caught up in the expulsion.

Pierre Pellerin died after the 1701 census in Port Royal where he is 19.

Madeleine Pellerin married twice, but disappeared after the 1707 census in Port Royal when she was about 41.

Marguerite Pellerin died at about 24 in 1724 in Port Royal, just 8 days after giving birth to a child who survived.

Marie Pellerin disappeared in the records after 1751 when she was about 73, Bernard Pellerin after 1730 when he was about 39, and Jean-Baptiste Pellerin disappeared after 1749 when he was about 64, all in Port Royal, so they may have disappeared during the expulsion.

Anne Pellerin is believed to have been exiled to Connecticut where the ship arrived in January 1756 in the New London harbour. Anne lived with her son and may have died about 1789 in New London at the advanced age of 103.

By Sylvainbrousseau – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=21543337

Jeanne Pellerin died in 1758 in Quebec City and was buried at Notre Dame De Quebec Basilica-Cathedral, but there’s far more to her story. Jeanne was a 67-year-old widow, when, according to Stephen White, she was swept up into an act of resistance:

On 8 December 1755, Jeanne Pellerin, widow of Pierre Surette, and 3 of their daughters were very likely among the people who left Port-Royal aboard the Pembroke, destined for exile in North Carolina. The Acadians on board seized the ship and headed towards the St-John River in New Brunswick. They later moved upriver to Ste-Anne-du-Pays-Bas where they settled for the winter. Afterwards, Jeanne Pellerin and her daughters sought refuge in the city of Québec where Jeanne died during the smallpox epidemic that had developed between November 1757 and February 1758.

Charles Pellerin’s youngest child was born when he was about 56, in 1746 in Port Royal. We don’t find Charles in records thereafter, but all of his children wind up in Quebec and are buried where his sister, Jeanne, is interred. I wonder if they were on the same ship. If Charles survived the deportation, he is most likely there too, but there are no records for him. His wife died in Quebec in 1789 and was buried in the cemetery for Smallpox victims.

Alexandre Pellerin died in Chezzetcook, Nova Scotia in April of 1770, a location where Acadians who eventually returned could provide newly-formed Halifax with lumber and other supplies. Of course, their land had been redistributed, so there was no “returning” to the homes or even the locations they had left.

  • Catherine Savoie who married Francois Levron about 1676 had 4 children before 1686. Perhaps her mother, Catherine LeJeune was able to attend her 1676 wedding and was there to welcome at least some of her grandchildren.

Pierre Levron died in January 1725 in Port Royal at about the age of 30, unmarried and working as a domestic for Pierre Godet – a very unusual situation.

Madeleine Levron died at about age 80 in 1752 in Pisiquid.

Marie Levron died in 1727 in Port Royal.

Anne Levron died in 1733 in Louisbourg.

Elizabeth Levron was found on the 1757 census at Medfield, Massachusetts, about 17 miles outside of Boston, and died after August of 1763 when she was about 73. The Vine Lake Cemetery is the old town burying ground, and is where Elizabeth is assuredly buried in an unmarked grave.

Joseph Levron married when he was about 59 in January 1750 in or near Fort Frontenac, Pays d’en Haut, Nouvelle-France, a fur-trading outpost on the St. Lawrence River. Today, the location is Kingston, upriver from Montreal at the mouth of Lake Ontario. We don’t know much about him after that, except that the expulsion did not affect him.

Jean Baptiste Levron was living in Grand Pre by 1737 where his youngest child was born in 1741. Jean-Baptiste was about 49. In March 1756 when his son married at Port LaJoie, Prince Edward Island, Jean Baptiste is noted as deceased.

Jacques Levron died sometime after his youngest child’s birth in 1736, when he was 59, but before February 1746, probably in Port Royal, but we don’t have his death record.

Jeanne Levron, a 57-year-old widow, died in January of 1751 in Port Royal.

Madeleine Levron, born about 1700, was in Chipoudy in 1752 and 1755, so was likely at Camp d’Esperance during the winter of 1756/1757. Nothing more is known.

  • Andree Savoie who married Jean Prejean in about 1683 had one child before 1686 that Catherine might have been able to welcome into the world.

Of Andree’s 12 children, other than children who are only represented by spaces between other children, none are known to have died and been buried at Port Royal, although her eldest child, Marie, may be.

Marie Prejean died sometime between November 1753, where she is last mentioned in Port Royal, and November 1758 when her daughter remarried in Quebec and she is noted as deceased. Marie was about 49 in 1753. She was probably lost in the expulsion.

Anne Prejean was married to Michel Boudrot and living in Grand Pre when the men were rounded up in the St. Charles des Mines church.

On 27 October 1755, Michel (about age 70) and Anne (about age 68) were deported to Virginia, but the colony was not accepting Acadians who were considered a financial burden. The governor of Virginia refused to accept ships full of foreign, impoverished prisoners, which is what they were considered.

After allowing the refugees to winter over in port, they were deported again in May 1756 to England, aboard the Virginia Packet carrying 289 Acadians.

They disembarked in Bristol, England in June of 1756 where they were neglected and subjected to poor conditions, causing many deaths from smallpox as a result. They both died between September 1755 and the Smallpox epidemic at the end of September 1756 in Bristol, England. If she was not buried at sea, she was likely buried in a mass grave for Smallpox victims.

Pierre Prejean disappears in the records after 1749 when his wife died in Port Royal. He was about 59.

Jean-Baptiste Prejean was at Chipoudy at 1752 and recorded at Camp d’Esperance in the winter of 1756/1757 when he was about 64, but nothing is known of him after except that he is dead by June 1760 when his daughter married in Ristigouche, New Brunswick.

Francois Prejean married at Port Toulouse on Isle Royal in 1722, Cape Breton Island, when he is about 27, and had several children. He is not well-researched, is also reported on Prince Edward Island, and disappears from the records.

Madeleine Prejean is found in her daughter’s marriage record in 1752 in Port Royal, when she is about 55, but there is no record thereafter. Two of her married daughters were sent to Maryland and Connecticut, respectively, but neither Madeleine nor her husband, Charles Doucet are found.

Joseph Christome Prejean was at Chipoudy in 1755 when he is about 55, so his family was probably at Camp d’Esperance in 1756/1757. Stephen White claims that he died in August of 1756.

Marie Josephe Prejean married Joseph Mius and they had returned to his home region of Pobomcoup by 1735. She was alive in 1747 when her daughter was born, but we don’t know much after that, at least until her husband remarried in Philadelphia on October 10, 1760, after being exiled. She died between the ages of 45 and 58, either in Acadia or possibly Pennsylvania.

Nicolas Prejean was in Port-Toulouse in 1752, and was deported in 1758 on the ship, Queen of Spain, arriving at St. Malo on November 17, 1758.

He lived in St. Malo for some time, remarrying there in January of 1760 in Saint-Servan. I’m not sure if the marriage record refers to the church by that name in Saint Malo, or the village just outside of, and now a part of, St. Malo.

Nicolas Prejean is reported to have died at about age 61 in 1765 in Landivisiau, near Morlaix, Finistere, France, although I surely wonder at the back story because this is more than 175 km from St. Malo, and no place that the Acadians settled.

Charles Prejean was in Port Royal in 1743 when his youngest child was born and probably in 1752 when his eldest was married. The family was exiled to New York 1755, when he was 49, where his widow was found with their 5 children in August of 1763. We don’t know if he died before, during or after the expulsion. However, his widow, Marguerite may have been exiled to Philadelphia by the British in 1756, although she is not on the list. However, she journeyed to the West Indies and settled in Port-au-Prince where she lost three of her sons shortly after their arrival and did not survive long thereafter.

Pierre Prejean died in 1768 at about age 60 and was buried at Notre-Dame-de-Québec.

Today, the remains of the early burials at Notre Dame are held together in the Ossuary.

Honore Prejean and his family was recorded at La Briquerie, on Ile Royale (now Cape Breton) in 1752, listed with his wife and children, including a set of two and a half month old twins, not yet named. He had arrived in 1732, according to the census. The family of twelve was deported in 1758, when he was about 47, aboard the Queen of Spain.

Honoré, his wife, and all ten children died at sea during the crossing to France.

The Roll of the Queen of Spain, which disembarked at Saint-Malo on November 17, 1758, a list created by Louis-Xavier Perez, documents that of the 105 passengers, 66 died at sea and another 9 died shortly after docking. Only 28 survived.

Pregeant, Honoré, died at sea

Brossard, Marie, wife, died at sea

Pregeant, Félicité, daughter, died at sea

Pregeant, Paul, son, died at sea

Pregeant, Madeleine, daughter, died at sea

Pregeant, Cyprien, son, died at sea

Pregeant, Pierre, son, died at sea

Pregeant, Marie Anne, daughter, died at sea

Pregeant, Julien, daughter, died at sea

Pregeant, Félix, son, died at sea

Pregeant, Marguerite, daughter, died at sea

There just aren’t enough crosses for this.

  • Marie Savoie who married Gabriel Chiasson about 1688 was living in Minas by 1693 with her husband and two children.

Of Marie’s 11 children, three died young, including her first two children, Michel and Pierre.

Michel Chiasson died when he was about 11 at Minas, a group of Acadian settlements in the Minas Basin.

Pierre Chiasson died when he was between 2 and 8 in Minas.

Another son, also named Pierre, died in 1712 when he was about 11 in Grand Pre.

Jean Baptiste Chiasson died in February 1758, about age 66, on Ile St. Jean, just a few months before the expulsion began from that location. He was one of the lucky ones.

Marie-Josephe Chiasson married in Beaubassin in 1715 and was living with her family on St. Pierre du Nord, Ile St. Jean, Acadia, to the east of the pond of Saint-Pierre, in the 1752 census. She, along with her husband Jacques Quimine and their children were forced aboard one of the infamous “Five English ships” which set sail for France. The ship arrived at Saint Malo on January 23, 1759. Marie, Jacques, and one married child had died during the crossing, in addition to several grandchildren.

Quimine Jacques, 60, died at sea

Chiasson Marie, his wife, died at sea

Quimine Françoise, 23, daughter

More family members died in the days and weeks after arrival.

Some of their children remained in France, some eventually left for Louisiana, and some for French Guiana.

Francois Chiasson was born in Beaubassin and was living with his family at Anse-aux-Sauvages, Isle-Saint-Jean in 1752 when he was about 55. They, too, were deported upon one of the five ships, arriving on January 23, 1759 in Saint Malo.

Francois’s wife died during the passage, but he survived, barely. Francois’s son died just four days after arrival, and Francois died just a few weeks later.

The old hospital, where the critically ill Acadians were taken, and its attached chapel were located just inside the city gates and were demolished long ago.

However, they stood when Francois arrived and would have been where Francois and his son would have been taken as they were carried off the ship and through the St. Thomas or Saint Vincent Gate and around the tower in the walled city.

The hospital stood between the towers, with the adjacent St. Thomas Chapel.

Once inside the city walls, the hospital was attached to the wall between the towers, with the chapel adjacent. That space is a parking lot today that also functions as a communal market.

Today, the Brasserie of the Hotel Chateaubriand stands where Saint-Thomas Chapel once did. The St. Thomas Gate tower can be seen at right, with the Brasserie straight ahead. It was here, as in exactly here, that Francois and his son were taken, and last rites provided for his son.

After passing from this mortal life, the child would have been taken to Saint Saveur, a few blocks away, to be buried, probably in what is this courtyard today.

Normally, about a 10-minute walk, Francois was probably too sick, with whatever the Acadians were dying of on that ship, to attend his son’s burial service.

A few weeks after his son died, Francois would make this final journey himself, hopefully laid to rest beside his child and the rest of his family members, but that wasn’t the end of the trauma and heartache.

Additionally, Francois’s daughter, Anne, and her family were deported as well, losing their youngest child on the ship, and the next youngest about three weeks after arrival.

Francois’s son, Guillaume, who had his 30th birthday on the death ship, died four months after arrival in Saint Malo.

Francois’s daughter, Francoise was on the death ship too. She had lost two of her three young children at sea, and the third just three weeks after arrival. She joined them in the cemetery shortly thereafter.

Francois’s son, Francois, 19, survived the deportation voyage, but disappears from the records thereafter.

Francois’s son, Georges, 17, survived, as did daughter, Angelique, and son, Paul, as children. I can’t even begin to imagine the grief suffered by these young people, not just for the deaths of their parents and siblings, but also for the destruction of their homes, homelands and other family and community members on those five English death ships. Who would have been left to raise them?

Oh, Catherine, the mortal remains of so many of your family members lie here.

There’s far more history in Saint Malo than one might imagine. It’s not a well-known Acadian location, and I had absolutely no idea of my connection here when I visited. It was just a beautiful French walled city. Not anymore.

I serendipitously stayed here in the Chateaubriand hotel, attached to the restaurant, part of the building where the chapel stood, during my 2024 visit. And no, I have no way of explaining this incredibly providential coincidence. I didn’t put any of these pieces together until after I came home.

Jim is peeking out of the window on our second-floor balcony room.

Jim was ill when we visited St. Malo and ventured out only to eat and do what was necessary. I didn’t feel great, but felt better than he did.

Here, I’ve arrived back with lunch for Jim. I had been walking on the same cobblestones they had trod.

We had a picnic in the room overlooking the courtyard so Jim could rest, having no idea that my family had been very ill in this exact same place 268 years ago.

We discovered that you can call doctors in France and they make “house calls,” or in this case “hotel calls”, but not quickly.

I’m still just aghast that we were literally where Catherine’s grandchildren were hospitalized and died, my first cousins 8 times removed (1C8R). If there was a cemetery adjacent to the chapel, they may have been buried here as well, but Saint Saveur is the only one mentioned today.

Maybe they were trying to get our attention since, after almost 270 years, they finally had a visitor. They weren’t lost after all, if we could just HEAR THEM!!

I hear them now, loud and clear.

Here, I’m standing across from the entrance between St. Thomas Gate and St. Vincent Gate, looking down the street at the white building that was at one point the Saint Thomas Chapel. The hospital either stood to my right, or maybe even where I’m standing.

The white and blue building straight ahead is the restaurant where the priest in the Saint Thomas Chapel would have given last rites to the people in the hospital and carried the children away to be buried. The hotel is the slightly shorted attached building of the same style to the left.

From a different perspective, the city wall and towers at left, with St. Thomas Gate on my immediate left and St. Vincent’s Gate in the distance. The defunct hospital would be where the cars are parked today. The Chateaubriand restaurant and hotel is the white building at right, which was the chapel.

According to FindaGrave, the Acadians who perished after arrival were buried in the now defunct Saint-Saveur de Saint-Malo/Hotel-Dieu Cemetery. FindaGrave shows 208 memorials and states:

Chapelle Saint-Sauveur de Saint-Malo was built on the site of the former chapel of the Hôtel-Dieu. It was built between 1738 and 1744. The Hôtel-Dieu was a medieval hospital, founded in 1253, which was rebuilt in 1674. The Hôtel-Dieu had been on the same spot for hundreds of years but was destroyed by bombs in World War II. Nothing remains of the Hôtel-Dieu or the cemetery today other than the church, which was burned down in 1944 and restored in 1974. The church is now a museum and is located within the ancient city walls, of the original part of the city.

This horrific rolling tragedy of compounded grief took a toll on the living, the survivors, as well as those who perished during the forced crossing of the “5 English ships.”

Let’s take a deep breath and get back to the rest of Catherine’s grandchildren.

Abraham Chiasson was living at Menoudie when his farm was burned in 1750.

He sought protection at Fort Beausejour, above, and is found in Aulac in both 1752 and 1755.

His family records are held in Fort Beausejour’s church record books.

In 1755 after the seizure of the isthmus of Chignecto by Monckton, Abraham is among the Acadian men lured to Fort Beauséjour and imprisoned. He was deported with his family to South Carolina.

The Acadians were forced aboard the Cornwallis on August 11th, but didn’t sail until October 13th, with 417 passengers, or maybe hostages is a better word. The ship arrived about 5 weeks later, mid-November, with only 207 survivors. We find no records for Abraham, and he is not in the August 1763 Acadian census in South Carolina, so he is assuredly deceased by then, but some of his children eventually made it to Louisiana and Quebec.

Francoise Chiasson was born in Beaubassin and lived on Ile St. Jean, now Prince Edward Island, before being herded onto one of the five English death ships.

Francoise and her family arrived in St. Malo on January 23, 1759, surviving a brutal winter crossing, but many of her children and grandchildren did not, perishing either during the crossing or soon after arrival.

They must have dug graves every day at Saint Servan, and the cemetery was very clearly quite large.

She died in St. Malo sometime after her arrival and before October 1769. She walked these cobblestones by the walled city’s St. Thomas Gate throughout the remainder of her life.

She may have worshipped at St. Vincent’s Cathedral or at Saint-Servan where her family members were buried. The two churches were only three or four blocks apart.

Anne-Marie Chiasson married at Beaubassin and lived at St-Pierre du Nord.

Details are very sketchy, but Anne-Marie was likely transported to France, arriving at St. Malo like the rest of her siblings that lived in the same location. One record shows her son in St. Malo and one record places her burial at L’Assomption in Canada. Records conflict, and she needs more research.

Marguerite Chiasson and her family had already removed to Quebec between 1734 and 1737, which saved them from the deportation.

Marguerite died in the village of Montmagny, Quebec, on the St. Lawrence River, in 1780. She would have worshiped at Saint-Thomas-de-la-Pointe-à-la-Caille and been buried in the adjacent cemetery.

Judith Chiasson was living at Havre La Fortune, now Fortune Bay, Isle St. Jean, Acadia in 1752.

Late in 1758, Judith and her family were deported from Ile Saint-Jean aboard the ship,  Violet. She, along with her husband, Pierre Le Prieur and her four youngest children died on December 13, 1758 when the horribly overcrowded Violet sank in the icy Atlantic during the crossing to France.

I can’t even begin to imagine their terror. I pray it was quick and while they were sleeping.

God rest their souls.

Catherine, I’m sorry, but know that your grandchildren may have been dispersed, but they also seeded thousands of descendants across the world today.

Let’s look at where they landed, were planted and took root. Many thrived and Catherine, in the next four generations, you have more than 16,115 descendants.

Your children and grandchildren would have made you proud. They were tenacious and look at us now – all thanks to you back in Acadia!!

Seeds Across the World

Strap yourself in, because we’re going on a quick flight around the world of Catherine’s 75 grandchildren in the places where I could find them. This “should be” a complete list – but we know it’s not because in each generatoin, we lost track of some people. I tried to find at least one photo for each location.

Let’s start in Port Royal which is beautiful no matter where you are along the meandering river. .

Catherine’s grandchildren were scattered widely. The ones who remained at Port Royal, which was renamed Annapolis Royal in 1710, would have been buried at either the Garrison Cemetery in Port Royal, or at the Mass House, St. Laurent, at BelleIsle, much closer to where they lived.

At least 21 of Catherine’s grandchildren rest in a cemetrey at Port Royal or along the river.

At least three of Catherine’s grandchildren are buried at St. Laurent, or where St. Laurent used to be before it was destroyed. St. Laurent was clearly the home church and cemetery of the Savoie/LeJeune family.

I suspect the majority of family members who died in the area and whose deaths are recorded in the Port Royal church’s parish records are buried at St. Laurent, especially after the cemetery at Port Royal came under English control. The Catholic church in Port Royal was burned multiple times by the English.

Of the rest of Catherine’s grandchildren, we know that at least 29 were caught up in the Expulsion, because we have at least some information about them afterwards, noted in the records above, as slim as it might be.

We find them planted in both North America and Europe once again.

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

In 1754, the Acadian peninsula was unquestionably held by England, and the English wanted the Acadians, who still refused to pledge allegiance to the British Crown, removed so that the much more manageable English settlers from New England could take their places and farm the fertile land.

Four years later, when the English settlers arrived, they reporting finding piles of the unfortunate Acadian’s belongings stacked on and along the wharf where they were forced to abandon them before boarding the death ships.

It’s was incredibly painful to walk here last year and realize I was standing and walking where the lives of my Ancadian ancestors were destroyed. In this very place. So deceptively beautiful if you don’t know what happened here.

Today’s beauty belies the trauma that remains on this land. If you close your eyes and listen carefully, you can hear the soldiers boots and prodding, the shoes on the wooden planks, and the tears, screams, and begging of the captives as they walked this wharf.

My heart ached as I absorbed what that actually meant to them, to their lives, an unknown future over which they had no control or imput, to their descendants, and ultimately, to me.

On July 28, 1755, the decision was made and removal orders were issued. The English began to round the Acadians up, strip them of anything valuable, and force them onto cruelly and dangerously overcrowded ships.

In Port Royal, the dreaded English ships arrived in the frigid middle of winter. Winter crossings were horribly brutal and not normally attempted due to the high risk and rough seas involved. The English certainly didn’t care about any of that.

On December 7, 1755, 1664 Acadians who lived at and above Annapolis Royal along the river were herded onto seven ships from Queen’s Wharf.

As the sun set, the Acadians would never set eyes on their beloved Acadia again.

Those human cargo ships set sail at 5 AM the following morning, hours before dawn, for different destinations, far from home, purposely separating families forever.

The “point” wasn’t just to take their land, but to destroy them so that the few who escaped or survived would be so scattered, weakened and beaten that they could never resist or fight again. This was fully intended to the a one-way trip of no return – one way or another.

At Port Royal, this wharf is where the Acadians brought what they could carry, only to be told to leave everything on the dock, as they were forced beneath the decks into squalid quarters. Many would never emerge on the other side – wherever that happened to be.

Thousands of Acadians were buried at sea, including at least three of Catherine’s grandchildren and their families. There were probably several more, but we have no records. Many simply disappear about this time.

The Acadians were intentionally separated and sent to different colonies and locations.

Acadians had been populating the various parts of Acadia, now Nova Scotia, and the neighboring French regions for more than a century. Some lived their entire lives and died in Acadia, some perished during the deportation, many in locations far from their homes and homeland that had been destroyed. Their farms were often burned in front of them so they knew there was nothing to return to – should they decide to try.

Some locations where Catherine’s grandchildren died are known, both before and after the Grand Derangement, the Expulsion of the Acadians.

Let’s take a look at the known locations where several of Catherine’s grandchildren lived to catch a glimpse of their lives.

  • Grand Pre, an offshoot settlement from Port Royal, was a thriving Acadian village and settlement area for 75 years before the deportation began. Prior to the expulsion, burials took place in this cemetery. All graves are unmarked now.

At least four of Catherine’s grandchildren lived and were deported from here.

Nearly one-third of the Acadian deportations took place in Grand Pre where the men were lured to the church and held captive in order to control and ensure compliance of the families.

The deportation orders were read to the unsuspecting men.

The families gathered outside the church with their few belongings, while their homesteads and farms were burned.

During the expulsion at Grand Pre, the Acadians boarded ships at Horton Landing, now marked with a cross honoring their sacrifices.

Then the English moved on with more empty ships to each Acadian community, subjecting the residents to the same.

  • The English found two of Catherine’s grandchildren at the Minas settlements, also known as Les Mines, based on the mines found there.

  • Beaubassin sheltered many Acadian families. Catherine’s granchildren found there, but with no further records, are presumed to have been forced to board ships for Saint Malo. Their fate is unknown. .

  • Fort Beausejour, across the river from Beaubassin, is the same. Many Acadians sheltered there, hoping for safety that was not to be found.

By Dennis G. Jarvis – PEI-00490 – Deportation of the Acadians, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=65848498

  • Many Acadian families settled on Ile St. Jean, present-day Prince Edward Island. Several of Catherine’s grandchildren lived and were exiled from here.

  • Catherine’s grandchildren were living in Pointe du Nord, Havre La Fortune and Pointe La Joye on Ile St. Jean.

  • Pisiquit, now Truro, was the home to a settlement of Acadian families before deportation. At least four of Catherine’s grandchildren were deported from here. The tidal river at Pisiquid was similar to the one at Port Royal, so the Acadians were very familiar with the necessary farming techniques.

By Fralambert – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=11251460

  • Camp d’Esperance – Esperance is French for hope, but I have to tell you, Camp d’Esperance was a pretty hopeless place. The camp on an island near the Mirimichi River was established as a refuge for Acadians during the winter of 1756/1757, now Beaubears island, by Charles Deschamps de Boishébert et de Raffetot, a resistance leader attempting to provide shelter for Acadians trying to escape the expulsion. At its height, the camp sheltered 900+ refugees, more than 200 of whom died there.

Two of Catherine’s grandchildren are on the list of residents during the winter of 1756/1757, and at least three more are presumed to have been here based on their residence in Chipoudy and settlements where people who made it safely to Camp d’Esperance came from.

One grandson is presumed to have been at Camp d’Esperance, but may have escaped because his daughter married at Restigouche a few years later. Arriving safely at Camp d’Esperance might have been a relief, but it was deceptive because great suffering awaited those who took shelter there.

Thousands of desperate Acadians starved and died of Smallpox here and at a companion camp a few miles upriver.

  • Duxbury and other towns in Massachusetts housed some family members
  • Several descendants made it to Quebec City. The death of one of Catherine’s grandchildren is recorded in the Hospital Hotel-Dieu de Quebec register in 1770.

  • Another at Notre-Dame-de-Quebec in 1757. The death may have been due to the smallpox epidemic. Burial of smallpox victims might have been in the nearby “cimetière des picotés” instead of the parish cemetery, which would have been by the church. Another grandchild died here the following year, in 1758, and was buried in the Small Pox cemetery.

  • Quebec – at least four grandchildren either sought refuge in Quebec City or found their way back to French Canada after 1763.

The sight of Quebec, a French City on the hill would have been a welcome sight for sore eyes. Some Acadians escaped directly to Quebec, and others followed from their deportation location in the colonies after the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1763.

A fifth grandchild died at Montmagny, Quebec, along the St. Lawrence River.

Additionally, one grandson married at Fort Frontenac, at the mouth of Lake Ontario, and another in the far reaches of Lake Superior, on Isle Royal. We know very little about the men who lived and died in these locations.

  • New Rochelle, New York, on Long Island Sound, was home to some of Catherine’s grandchildren. Ironically, New Rochelle was established in 1755 by French Huguenots, who were Protestant, not Catholic, from La Rochelle in France, home to so many of the original Acadians. Still, even though the two factions had fought over religion in the past, the French language or vibe must have felt good to these poor Acadian refugees. The bay probably felt familiar and fueled their desire to escape and make their way back to their beloved Acadia.

  • Louisbourg – three grandchildren lived in this busy, fortified port town before the deportation.

The establishment of Louisbourg in 1713 as a French “town” fueled French settlement and trade, and invited Acadians to move there after the English took Acadia in 1710. Fort Louisbourg fell to the English in 1758.

Catherine’s grandchildren are buried here, in the Louisbourg town cemetery, in unmarked graves. Some probably died in the Smallpox epidemic.

  • New London, Connecticut gave refuge to at least one of Catherine’s grandchildren.
  • One grandchild returned to Chezzetcook, near Halifax, Nova Scotia, after the Treaty of Paris in 1763, joining several Acadian families in a settlement there.
  • One grandchild lived in Medfield, Massachusetts, possibly as an indentured servant.

  • At least one fmily found themselves deported for a second time, in 1756, from Virginia to Bristol, England, where many died of Smallpox before being deported a third time to France in 1763.

  • Several families lived in Chipoudy, now Hopewell Hill, in New Brunswick on the Bay of Fundy, known for its shoreline rock formations. Many families fought and escaped from this location. Many also disappeared from there.
  • Ile Royal – many families settled in numerous locations here, now Cape Breton Island. The mountains here strongly resemble Scotland and the shores are rocky.

  • One man is reported to have died in Landivisiau, near Morlaix, France. While this drawing is from 70 years or so after he lived there, the local markets probably weren’t a lot different.

  • Port-au-Prince, West Indies – the location of immense suffering and death. One grandson’s wife and children perished here.

  • Philadelphia or NY. This New York harbor scene would have greeted Catherine’s grandchildren whose destiny awaited them there after a horrific nine-month journey. They were blown off course by a hurricane and arrived after having been stranded in the Caribbean. More than half the passengers perished.
  • Death and burial at sea for an entire family of 12, including their 10 children

By MTLskyline at English Wikipedia, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7036833

  • Many Acadians were found at Port La Joye, Ile St. Jean in 1756 during the expulsion
  • One of Catherine’s granddaughters died at sea in 1759 with her husband, child, and relatives, on the way to France during the expulsion

  • One grandson died in Saint Malo after arrival in France, along with his son, 4 days later, and other family members in the next few weeks. His wife had died and was buried at sea.

  • Two more of Catherine’s grandchildren died in St. Malo.
  • Two died someplace in South Carolina.

  • In 1758, every soul on board the Violet perished when the ship sank with Catherine’s granddaughter and her husband and 4 children.

And, then there are the grandchildren who we know lived to adulthood and had children – but simply disappear with no death or other records. Those 13 or 14 people likely perished during the genocidal deportation – buried who knows where – if they were buried at all. Many would have had family members who perished with them.

Many simply disappeared from the records. No burials, which means they died in unknown circumstances, in an unknown location, either during or after the deportation. Some succumbed to illness aboard terribly overcrowded ships. Some died when ships sank. Others suffered terribly and died after being blown off course, winding up in distant locations in the Caribbean, consumed by disease and sickness. Some ships carried so many sick people that they were banished from unloading their human cargo, or their few belongings. Everything was burned on the shoreline to prevent contagion, even if the disease they were dying from was due to lack of clean water or starvation.

I see and feel their terror in my nightmares.

A heart on the beach at Saint Malo speaks to the loss both before and after arriving on these shores.

They remain in our hearts, and we carry part of them in us, today.

Their DNA.

Their resilance.

Their courage.

There just aren’t enough crosses for this generational trauma.

Bless them all.

They were not silenced. Their powerful legacy of bravery is still here. Their voices, across time, spill rise up, ring out, and speak the message that history tried to silence.

They did not destroy us.

We are here.

May their souls rest in peace, and may humans never be so hate-filled, greedy and cruel again.

Mitotree Webinar – What It Is, How We Did It, and What Mitotree Means to You

You’re invited to a free free webinar at Legacy Family Tree Webinars titled Rewriting the Tree of Humankind: The Million Mito Project – What Is It, How We Did It, and What It Means To You.

Think of this as a peek inside the Million Mito Project – an insider view of the process of creating the new Mitotree. As both a genealogist and scientist, being a member of the dream team that birthed the new Mitotree has been the opportunity of a lifetime. We’re not finished yet, either! The Mitotree lives, and new releases and features provide new discoveries every day.

For example, our next release will add another 5,000 branches, bringing the total from 40,000 to about 45,000.

You can sign up, here, and join me live this Friday, June 6th, at 2 PM EDT. The webinar remains free for the following 7 days. After that, it will be added to the subscription library of over 2400 webinars, and members can watch at any time, plus download the included handouts.

This webinar is similar to a TED talk and covers what has changed with the release of the new Mitotree, and why. The tree has its own genealogy and “history” and it’s a fascinating story about what we did and why – challenges we never expected, and how we overcame them in new ways to make mitochondrial DNA even more valuable to genealogists.

You don’t need to understand the science behind mitochondrial DNA to enjoy this webinar. So, make yourself a nice cuppa something and enjoy learning about how we developed new scientific methodologies to create better ways to break through those maternal line brick walls. The results are incredible!

What’s This All About?

The mitochondrial tree of humanity has been rewritten, connecting all of us more succinctly than ever before on the new Mitotree.

Everyone receives mitochondrial DNA from their mother with no admixture from the father, unlike autosomal DNA. This unique feature makes mitochondrial DNA very unique and extremely useful for genealogy. Your mother received her mitochondrial DNA from her mother, then mother to daughter, all the way back in time to Mitochondrial Eve.

Mitochondrial DNA is never admixed with the DNA of the other parent, so you never have to sort out which lines it comes from. We are all leaves on the twigs on the branches of the tree of humankind and mitochondrial DNA shows you exactly where you fit, how you got there, and who else is there with you.

I don’t know about you, but I want to know where my ancestors came from – even if I don’t know their names beyond my end-of-line brick wall. I can still learn about who they were and now, with new matching tools, you can focus on which matches may solve those brick-wall mysteries.

The mitochondrial tree had not been updated since 2016, but now, with more than a million samples to work with, 50 times more than before, the tree structure has been expanded eight-fold (soon to be nine) by combining samples from academic publications, ancient DNA, public sources, and testers at FamilyTreeDNA.

The new Mitotree and companion tools provide information never before available to genealogists about their matrilineal lineages. In addition to the vastly expanded genetic tree, FamilyTreeDNA rolled out mtDNA Discover that provides a dozen fascinating chapters in your mitochondrial book.

As a Million Mito Team member, I’ll explain the challenges we overcame to create the tree of humanity – and how the new Mitotree is useful to genealogists. All genealogists can benefit, because everyone has mitochondrial DNA that holds the key to information never before available!

Let those brick walls fall!!!

Sign up to reserve your space and see you on Friday!!

_____________________________________________________________

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

Memorial Day – Some Gave All

Indeed, some did give all.

Memorial Day, according to the US Department of Defense, honors those who gave the ultimate sacrifice – that of their lives.

It’s a day of mourning, and also a day of honoring those who have fallen. Some in battle, and some as a result of their service.

Florida National Cemetery in Bushnell

Jim and I took an unplanned trip to the Florida National Cemetery in Bushnell to visit the grave of his uncle. I didn’t realize this National Cemetery even existed, and Jim didn’t realize that’s where his uncle was buried.

We shed a lot of tears. To be clear, Uncle Joe served twice, but did not die in the line of duty. However, others in the family have. We celebrate them, today, too, even though we can’t visit their graves.

The Bushnell National Cemetery is beautiful and wonderfully maintained, laid out in military precision, with identical markers for everyone.

I didn’t expect the cemetery to be so large. There are more than 204,000 burials, arranged in sections, and space is still available.

I’m very grateful for whoever posted the GPS coordinates for Jim’s uncle, Joseph Bister, on FindaGrave, or we would never have found him.

The cemetery is a sea of markers. Each one honoring a veteran or their spouse who is eligible for burial.

Where is Uncle Joe?

We found the section and started our search.

Jim located the marker about half way back.

Jim placed his penny, signifying that someone has visited.

Uncle Joe’s marker. He served his country in two wars.

Plastic tubs holding small flags were being strategically placed in front of each section. Before Monday, each grave will receive a flag to honor their service and sacrifice. Every soldier sacrifices.

We decided to go ahead and place Uncle Joe’s flag.

A kind visitor took a photo of us, then I left Jim to have a few private minutes with his uncle. I suspect they had some catching up to do.

Gold Star Memorial

As we were driving through the beautiful, peaceful cemetery, observing several families visiting their loved ones, I noticed something near the exit. Of course, I had to pull over and take a look.

I was not expecting a Gold Star Memorial, although I’m incredibly glad to see it.

As you probably recall, I’m the representative family member for Robert Vernon Estes, a POW who died a torturous death in a horrific POW camp in North Korea. I’m also his namesake.

Robbie is my uncle’s son, and I still pray that one day his remains will be repatriated, identified through DNA, and that I can lay him to rest at Arlington where he deserves to be.

There’s so much raw emotion for me here. Especially combined with the knowledge of my father’s service, and that my mother’s fiancé, Frank Sadowski, was killed in Okinawa on Tombstone Ridge.

“…and those they left behind…”

My God, I’m sobbing.

The back is beautifully carved as well.

Words fail me.

In our culture, the eagle is a majestic bird that signifies strength, power, courage, wisdom, and yes, freedom.

The eagle reaches between the worlds, a soaring messenger between the earthly and the spiritual. The eagle comes to get you and transports you to the next world when your time here is finished.

I’m not leaving you, Robbie. Not until you come home or I join you, rising on the eagle’s back.

Vietnam Memorial

Nearby stood another monument, honoring those who served in Vietnam.

I thought I was out of tears, but clearly, I wasn’t.

“…wounds, seen and unseen…”

No truer words could be spoken. Or in this case, carved in granite, and in the hearts of those who suffered along with those whose lives were destroyed.

Perhaps one day I will be able to write and share with you about the husband I lost to Vietnam, and his incredibly torturous journey – but today is not that day.

Today, I will simply leave you with a final photo of Jim, a small spec behind the flag, kneeling at Uncle Joe’s marker.

Francois Savoie’s Homestead Rediscovered – 52 Ancestors #446

Francois Savoie (c1621-1679/1686) (Scavois, Savoye, Savois) was born about 1621, someplace in France. The location is uncertain, but if he lived in the area where other Acadians lived, he would have been found in the Martaize region, near Loudon in the Seigneury d’Aulnay. Charles Menou d’Aulnay, whom we’ll meet in a little bit, recruited many of the Acadian settlers from his mother’s seigneury. His mother was Nicole Jousserand. She married René Menou who signed an agreement wherein he relinquished any interest in her holdings.

There have been and continue to be unsubstantiated rumors about Francois Savoie being the illegitimate son of Prince Tomaso Francesco di Saviua-Carignano who was born in 1596 in Torino, Italy. Supposedly, Francois Savoie, an Acadian living in Nova Scotia, in a death-bed confession, named Prince Tomaso as his father.

Evidence, You Say? You Want Evidence?

Ok, let’s look at what evidence we have.

My friend, Maree, located one baptism for a Francois Savoie in the parish of St. Remi in Troyes, Aube, France on March 28, 1620. That’s the right timeframe. Other records from this parish for Savoye and Savois are reported between 1610 and 1620 in this parish register. In later years, there is nothing else for Francois.

While, at first glance, this is exciting, there’s a very large fly in the ointment.

Troyes is about 400 km or 250 miles away from the regions in which the Acadian families are known to have originated. Specifically, d’Aulnay’s mother’s seigneury was at Loudun, and most of the Acadian families were from someplace in the red oval. Martaize, La Chaussee, someplace in the Poitou, or from near La Rochelle. Furthermore, Troyes is not located near the coast, so certainly not convenient or attractive for a young man to set sail for New France.

I shared my exasperation with Cousin Mark, who is a prodigious researcher and can ferret out incredibly obscure records.

From Cousin Mark:

One note about François Savoie: there is considerable garbage on Ancestry and elsewhere about his supposed illegitimate birth to a prince of the House of Savoy. Some have portrayed François as the son of Thomas François de Savoie, or more properly Tommaso Francesco di Savoia, as he was in truth Italian, not French, born 1596 in Turin which is in the Piedmont region of Italy. He married into the French Bourbon family in 1625 and later moved to Paris, but not until after fighting France in several wars. No one has yet explained how this Italian prince could be sowing his wild oats in Martaizé or somewhere nearby in the Loudunais in about 1621 and yet not hang around for the child to be given his noble name.

Expanding on what Mark said, we know that Tommaso Francesco of Savoy-Carignano was known as such because in 1620, he was officially granted the newly created title Prince of Carignano, establishing the House of Savoy-Carignano, a cadet branch of the ruling House of Savoy.

Tommaso Francesco di Savoia was born in Turin, Italy, which was part of the Duché de Savoie at that point in time. The terriroty extended into Switzerland and the far eastern portion of France. Today, the mountainous southeastern French Department of Savoie, which borders Italy, remains, and so does a Swiss county by that name.

It’s about 500 miles through mountainous terrain from Savoie, outlined with the red dashes, to the Poitou region of France. I found no historical record of any connection between Tommaso Francesco di Savoia and western France. His family’s holdings were in the Turin region.

It’s natural for Savoie researchers to connect the dots because of the name – but that doesn’t mean that connection is accurate. Even if there is a connection, it would more likely be due to the region of Savoy rather than to Tommaso Francesco di Savoia himself. However, based on the distance and terrain involved, even that is unlikely. Peasants didn’t have the resources to just pick up, leave, and move to another area.

Back to Mark:

Indeed, Savoie is a common toponymic name in France. I found over 40 François Savoies listed in the 1610-1630 time period at Filae.com, and that’s just from the records that exist and have been located by the various genealogical societies in several regions that do not include Paris as those records went up in flames during one of their periodic revolutions. There must be hundreds more births by that name in that period of time. Our François Savoie was a peasant, “laboureur”, not a nobleman. I wish I could find his baptismal record; I’ve looked, but 1621 is a problematic year for Loudunais records.

Some people show Martaizé or La Chaussée, but no one knows where either François or the Lejeune sisters were born, and White does not hazard a guess.

White, referenced by Mark, is Stephen A. White, retired Acadian historian and researcher.

In 1634, Nicole Jousserand drew up a tax list of the families who lived in her seigneury.

The original document is held at the French Archives:

AVEU AU ROI de NICOLE DE JOUSSERAND, DAME D’AULNAY de ses terres affermées à Martaizé – 1634 – aux Archives Départementales d’Indre et Loire (Série C, Liasse 601)

If someone can actually retrieve this document, the original may be clearer than the decades-old old poor, partial copy that I found.

Nicole began the document with:

To the King, my Sovereign Lord,

I, Nicole de Jousserand, wife and spouse of Messire René de Menou, Knight, Seigneur of Charnizé, having no community of property with him, authorized by justice to pursue my rights, daughter and heir of the late Messire René de Jousserand, during his life Seigneur of Londigny, Angliers, Aulnay, Triou, and the fief of Beaulieu (also called Rallette) previously held by the Arnaudeaux in the parish of Martaizé and surrounding areas, and of Dame Renée Robin, my father and mother, residing in the town of Loudun, declare I hold and claim to hold from your castle of Loudun, when applicable, the following items in grain and monetary rents with the inheritances listed below.

Nicole then listed, by small areas, probably farms, the residents and how much wheat and rent they owed. I will publish this entire document separately, but the interesting aspect for the Savoie research is one name in a specific entry, which might or might not be relevant.

d’Aulnay Basserue in Martaize taxes:
1.5 boisseaux of wheat, 2 deniers rent due by:

    • Guy Barrault
    • Jean Savarri on behalf of his wife Michelle Baraut

Owed for a house, courtyard, and garden—all held together as one property—situated in the village of Martaizé, in the area known as la Basserue.

Bounded by:

    • One part: the holdings of Louis Guerin and the heirs of Jean Godet
    • Another: the widow of Izaac Bricault
    • Another: land of Gaspar Montiller
    • Another: land of Gaspard Constance and René Fouscher
    • One end: the land of René Girard
    • Another end: the land of René Theuilleau

As you know, spellings were not standardized in early records, but it appears that perhaps Guy Barrault and Michelle Baraut could be siblings, with interest in land farmed by their parents. Bricault could also be a derivative of that surname.

Remember, Nicole owned the land – the people who lived there could never own the land. It was a feudal system, and while the farm families lived on the same land for generations, they always paid rent.

If you’re excited because you recognize other familiar Acadian names as neighbors, such as Guerin, Godet, and Girard (Girouard), I am too.

Unfortunately, I only have part of the actual original document, plus a document, in French that was transcribed from the presumably complete original a long time ago. The page with Jean Savarri on it is not included in the copy of the original that I have.

Could this be our Savoie family, living among the rest of the Acadians? It’s certainly possible. It’s unfortunate that there is so much record loss in France.

I will discuss the Y-DNA results of Francois Savoie later in a separate article, but suffice it to say that there is no evidence, not one shred, that the death-bed confession ever happened, or that Francois Savoie is the offspring of the House of Savoia, or that there is any surname connection to Italy.

And trust me, I will be the absolute first to write about it when and if there’s even a hint that this might be true.

For now, the origin of our Francois Savoie or Savoye remain unknown.

History

Let’s look at the historical events that led up to Francois’s arrival in Acadia. There’s a lot to unpack here!

Let’s start with my visit to the Fort Point Museum in present-day Nova Scotia.

The museum is located on the site of the original Fort Sainte-Marie-de-Grâce, where the first Acadian settlement was established.

Photo taken at the museum at La Have.

In 1632, France received Acadia in the Treaty Saint-Germain-en-Laye, and Isaac de Razilly, a Knight of Malta, brought 300 elite men and three monks to establish a trading outpost at La Hève, now LaHave, in present-day Nova Scotia, along with maybe 12 or 15 families.

We don’t have the names of those men, but Francoise Savoie, at 11, was a mere boy and would not have been traveling alone.

Razilly died in 1635 and was buried at La Have. The location of his grave is unknown, but a marker honors his remains in the fort graveyard where he was assuredly buried.

The King appointed Razilly’s brother, Claude, as the new governor of Acadia, who appointed his cousin, Charles Menou d’Aulnay as his lieutenant to actually run Acadia. D’Aulnay had been actively working in Acadia with Isaac de Razilly since 1632 and was familiar with the culture, terrain and what needed to be done to accomplish the settlement and trade goals.

D’Aulnay moved the existing colonists to Port Royal around 1636 and built a new fort in what is now Port Royal by 1643. He also sent for another 20 additional families, although we don’t know who they were.

Now we’re up to maybe 32-35 families.

By 1636, Francois Savoie would have been 15, still far too young to marry. Unless Francois arrived as an orphan laborer, or with his family, he probably didn’t leave France until he was at least 20 or 21, or older, and then likely with a contract, as most of the men who sailed from La Rochelle had.

Francoise wouldn’t have been 21 until 1642ish.

Acadian Civil War

Two opposing forces were dueling for control of Acadia, Razilly with Charles Menou d’Aulnay on one side, and Charles La Tour on the other. Both men held a similar commission for different portions of Acadia.

In 1640, La Tour attacked Port Royal, followed by d’Aulnay blockading La Tour’s fort at the mouth of the St. John River for five months.

Their arguments and naval battles escalated in 1641 and 1642, and the English, seeing an opportunity as well, became involved.

In 1642, Razilly’s brother, by then the owner of Port Royal, La Heve and Ile de Sable, sold his interest in the fledgling Acadia to Charles Menou d’Aulnay.

In May of 1642, d’Aulnay signed agreements with La Rochelle merchant-banker, Emmanuel Le Borgne to supply him with a ship and to finance the colony. He promptly moved the seat of Acadia from La Hève, now LaHave, to Port Royal.

In 1645, La Tour was absent from his fort, located across the bay at the mouth of the St. John River, and d’Aulnay attacked. La Tour’s young wife, Françoise Marie Jacquelin, only 23, directed the defense of the fort. Realizing it was a lost cause, she accepted terms of surrender that promised life and liberty to La Tour’s garrison. She agreed, but d’Aulnay immediately broke his promise and hanged every soldier of the garrison, forcing Madame La Tour to witness their executions with a rope tied around her own neck. She died three weeks later of unknown causes, with Charles La Tour having taken refuge in Quebec.

If anyone was a heroine in this tale, it’s Françoise Marie Jacquelin aka Madame La Tour.

With La Tour out of the way, having been defeated and now in Quebec, d’Aulnay received a commission in 1647 and was appointed both Governor and Lieutenant-General of Acadia.

By now, Francois Savoie would have been about 25 or 26, and was likely in Acadia. It’s probable that he arrived with d’Aulnay in 1642 with his new ship and a crew of workers.

In 1650, d’Aulnay drowned in a boating accident, falling into the frigid waters of Port Royal basin, and La Tour immediately leaped at this opportunity to seize control of Acadia.

Are you sitting down?

In 1653, Charles La Tour married d’Aulnay’s widow, Jeanne Motin, in order to bring peace to Acadia and end the years of warfare.

I bet both Madame La Tour, who had died defending her husband’s fort from d’Aulnay, and d’Aulnay who drowned hating La Tour, rolled over in their respective graves! Yet, for Acadia, this is probably exactly what was needed. The infighting between warring French factions was not sustainable and threatened the very existence of Acadia.

The Acadian families had to be very relieved to finally have peace and not be constantly on edge, expecting an attack at any moment.

The Early Years

For Francois Savoie, the years before his marriage are murky.

  • In 1636, when the Acadia families were moved from La Have to Port Royal, Francois would have been about 15.
  • In 1642, when d’Aulnay was known to bring many settlers, families and workers, and moved the seat of Acadia to Port Royal, Francois would have been about 21.
  • In 1645, when La Tour fled to Quebec, Francois would have been about 24.
  • In 1650, when d’Aulnay died, Francois would have been about 29.

Based upon the 1671 census, we know that Francois was married to Catherine LeJeune by 1651 or 1652, given that they had a daughter born in 1653. Of course, it’s possible that they were married earlier, and any children born before 1653 perished.

Catherine was born about 1633, so marriage about 1650 or 1651 is reasonable. Acadian brides often married early, so she could have married as early as 1648 or 1649.

The couple likely married in Port Royal, although it’s remotely possible that they married in France. That’s improbable, though, because Catherine LeJeune had a sister in Acadia and possibly a brother who had definitive ties to La Heve. The most likely scenario is that both LeJeune sisters arrived with their parents in Acadia before 1636 when the Acadian families were moved to Port Royal, and married French men who arrived either as craftsmen, laborers, or soldiers.

The original employment contracts, typically signed in La Rochelle before embarking, lasted for three years, and the man could not marry until his contractual obligation was fulfilled. If Francois arrived in 1646 or 1647, and completed his contract, he would have been free to marry in 1649 or 1650.

These puzzle pieces fit.

Windows of Opportunity

This brings us to windows of opportunity.

French families didn’t have the opportunity to settle in Acadia for the entire time between 1632, when the first French families arrived, and 1755, when the Grande Derangement, the horrible expulsion, occurred.

For the first few years, from 1632 to about 1635, the seat of Acadia was at La Heve. In 1635 or 1636, d’Aulnay moved it to Port Royal where the settlers began building their signature dykes to reclaim the salt marshes along the Riviere Dauphin.

For the next few years, d’Aulnay and Charles de la Tour battled for control of Acadia.

We get a small hint at the size of Port Royal based on La Tour’s 1643 attack wherein he chased d’Aulnay back to Port Royal. Three of d’Aulnay’s men were killed and seven injured. The fort was defended by 20 soldiers. La Tour burned the mill, killed the settlers’ livestock, stole furs, gunpowder, and other supplies.

This may have been before Francois arrived, but we don’t really know.

From 1636 to 1654, French families arrived in Port Royal, as did laborers and soldiers from time to time.

Francois’s wife, Catherine LeJeune, who was born about 1633 was assuredly born in France, so it stands to reason that her parents brought her and her sister, but died before the 1671 census. Catherine’s older sister, Edmee LeJeune, was born about 1624 and married an Acadian man, Francois Gautrot, about 1644. Catherine LeJeune married Francois Savoie before 1650. They were assuredly in Port Royal before 1650, because Gautrot later signed a document attesting to d’Aulnay’s achievements before his death.

By 1650, Francois Savoie was about 30 years old – a traditional marriage age for French males.

We know unquestionably that Francois and Catherine were in Acadia before July of 1654, when the English attacked and retook Acadia.

The English captured both the fort and the town, and the window of opportunity for French settlement closed for the next 16 years.

In 1654, Francois and Catherine had at least one and possibly two children, assuming older children hadn’t died prior to the 1671 census.

Francois, then about 33, would have been defending the fort in Port Royal that fateful day in 1654. While he probably wasn’t a soldier, an attack would have been an “all hands on deck” event.

According to Robert Sedgwick, who led the English soldiers, there were about 130 Frenchmen who put up resistance, as best they could. There were more than twice as many English soldiers, all of whom had more experience.

The French soldiers reportedly “took their heels to ye Fort” where they surrendered on August 16th. Sedgewick treated the soldiers decently and with honor – paying their wages in pelts, a surprisingly generous gesture, and transported them back to France.

Francois was a married settler with a family, not a soldier, so he stayed in Acadia.

Port Royal was still small with about 270 residents as estimated by Nicolas Denys, a prisoner held at Port Royal who did us the favor of penning this description in 1653:

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

Please note the critically important comment about “All the inhabitants there” having arrived with Razilly. This probably includes the LeJeune sisters’ parents and possibly even Francois Savoie’s parents. If Francois Savoie arrived with his parents and any siblings, there is no record of them having survived.

A league is about 3 nautical miles, which is equivalent to about 3.4 miles. So 3 or 4 leagues would be 10 to 13 miles, but I’m not clear exactly what “ascending” means in this context. Based on what I know about the settlers, I’d guess that it means upstream or above the fort, but some families settled below the fort

There’s a LOT of information packed in here.

Denys also recorded that Robert Sedgewick of Boston had been ordered by Robert Cromwell to attack New Holland (New York). As he got ready, a peace treaty was signed between the English and the Dutch. Since he was “all dressed up with nowhere to go,” he attacked Acadia in August 1654 and destroyed most of the settlements (even though it was peacetime)…including Port Royal, La Have, and the Saint John River.

The Acadian settlers were allowed to remain, retain their land and belongings, and could worship as they saw fit. Sedgwick left the area, but appointed an Acadian council with Guillaume Trahan in charge.

Acadia was now back under English rule and would remain so until being returned, again, to the French in 1667. In 1668, Marillon du Bourg arrived from France, and took physical possession of Acadia.

Bourg’s son became provisional Governor and Lieutenant-General of Acadia, and married the eldest daughter of La Tour and d’Aulnay’s widow. Are you keeping all this straight?

From 1654 until 1670, there was no additional French settlement, and, according to Denys in 1653:

  • All the inhabitants…are the ones whome Razille had brought from France to La Have; since that time they have multiplied much at Port Royal
  • The residents who were lodged near the fort have, for the most part, abandoned their houses and have gone to settle on the upper part of the river.
  • They have made their clearings below and above this great meadow, which belongs at present to Madame de La Tour. (The great meadow is BelleIsle. When Denys wrote this, Madame de La Tour is Jeanne Motin, d’Aulnay’s widow.)
  • If Denys was right, and the population was about 270 in 1653, and each family had 5 children, or 7 people total, that would be 38 or 39 families. Fewer children, on average would mean more families, and more children would mean less families.

Founder Families

It was reported that there were 34 families that chose to remain in Acadie after the destruction and capitulation of Port-Royal in 1654. That equals about 8 people per family, which sounds about right based on a relatively low infant mortality rate compared with Europe.

After France regained control of Acadia, another 30 soldiers and 60 settlers arrived between 1668 and 1670. Their orders were to restore French authority and keep the English out.

In 1670, a new governor finally arrived and ordered a census, thankfully! Otherwise, we would have no idea who lived in Acadia. Fortunately, the wives were recorded using their birth surnames, which allows us to begin piecing the families together.

While 1670 seems early, keep in mind that the first families has arrived nearly 40 years earlier, and between 1654 and 1670, there was no new French settlement.

In 1671, Acadia had roughly 67 families and about 400 French/French Acadian people, not counting Native people or French men living among the Native people or the people who refused to answer. By comparison, Massachusetts had about 40,000 residents.

Compared to 1654, Acadia hadn’t grown much. 34 families in 1654 and 67 in 1671 means that the number of families had nearly doubled. If you subtract out the 60 new settlers, assuming that was 30 couples, you have just about the same number of founder families that were there in 1654, which makes perfect sense. Of course, some had died, but others had married and set up housekeeping. Apparently only about one new couple married and was recorded in the census for each household that was “gone” since 1654. I would have expected more.

Francois Savoie and Catherine LeJeune were one of the founder families, living in Port Royal and, as a young married couple, were eyewitnesses to the 1654 depredations.

One way we can identify a founder family is if they:

  1. Had married an Acadian surname spouse
  2. Who had married siblings or parents who were also in the census
  3. Indicating that they had already been living there before 1667/1671

That’s certainly the case with Francois Savoie and Catherine LeJeune.

The first person reported to have been born in Acadia, Mathieu Martin, was born about 1635 or 1636, so anyone born before that was unquestionably born in France. Mathieu was 35 in the 1671 census, although ages in censuses aren’t always accurate.

  • Anyone born after 1635 and before 1654 may have been born in Acadia.
  • Anyone born between 1654 and 1668 was assuredly born in Acadia…
  • Unless their family arrived between 1668 and the 1671 census.

When the residence consists of multiple people from the same family, often we can infer when couples married.

In the spring of 1671, more than 50 new colonists left La Rochelle aboard the ship, l’Oranger, bound for Port Royal. Some French soldiers stayed in Acadia and became settlers, and some settlers arrived from other places in New France (Canada). These new arrivals are found on later censuses.

Caught in the middle between two powers, England and France, the Acadians were often subject to attack. It may be important to note that they maintained trading relations with people in New England, even though it was forbidden. Eighty-five years later, in 1755, long-established family and trade relationships may have helped save some of them.

The 1671 Census

Thankfully, the new French governor requested a census which provides us with the first even somewhat comprehensive view of Acadia, although some areas were missed.

The official census of 1671 recorded 392 people, mostly in and near Port Royal. Scholars estimate the real count was probably someplace around 500. These were divided into 68 households, of which 33 were founder families. I did not include second-generation children who have married in that number, if the parents are living.

In order to do this comparison, I created a spreadsheet that lists, in census order:

  • Both spouses
  • Their ages in the 1671 census
  • Their birth location if it can be determined based on when they were born or what is known about them. For example, anyone born before 1635 or 1636 was unquestionably born in France.
  • The number of children
  • The calculated marriage year
  • Arpents of land under cultivation
  • Occupation
  • Living location in 1671 if I can figure it out based on many other documents and sources.
  • Other commentary
  • Founder status – meaning the first families who arrived before 1654
  • English/Irish – not French
  • 1667-1670 arrivals

This is an example snapshot of the first three families in the 1671 census spreadsheet to give you an idea of what I’m doing.

Click to enlarge any image

The neighbors in a census tell us essentially where people live. Of course, the census taker may not have traveled in a “straight line,” and in Acadia was as likely as not to canoe back and forth across the river. I plan to publish this spreadsheet soon, but that’s a challenge because it’s not small and it’s color-coded.

If you just rolled your eyes in exasperation, I FULLY understand.

In 1671, we find the following families listed in this order on either side of Francois Savoie:

  • Jehan Blanchard, 60, wife Radegonde Lambert, 42, and family with 5 arpents of land. (Possibly lived in Port Royal beside the Fort in 1671 – land expropriated in 1703-1705 when the new fort was built.)
  • Widow of Francois Guerin, 26, and family with 6 arpents of land. (The widow was Anne Blanchard.)
  • Michel Dupont (Dupuis), 37, wife Marie Gautrot, 24, and family with 6 arpents of land. (The father of the Gautrot sisters, Francois, had owned a lot beside the fort in Port Royal.)
  • Claude Terriau, 34, wife Marie Gautrot, 24, and family with 6 arpents of land (Lives at BelleIsle eventually.)
  • Germain Terriau, 25, wife Andree Brun, 25, and child, with 2 arpents of land
  • Jehan Terriau, 70, wife Perrine Rau, 60, and family, with 5 arpents of land. (Original founder family at Port Royal, may have still lived there or at BelleIsle.)
  • Francois Savoie is listed as Francois Scavois, a farmer (plowman), age 50, with his wife, Catherine LeJeune, age 38. Their children are listed as one married daughter, Francoise, 18, and then unmarried children; Germain, 16, Marie, 14, Jeanne, 13, Catherine, 9, Francois, 8, Barnabe, 5, Andree, 4, and Marie, one and a half. They have 4 cattle and are farming 6 arpents of land. (Son Germain is living in the BelleIsle Marsh by 1707. White says that Francois received land at BelleIsle by 1679. That brackets Francois Savoie’s death between 1679-1686.)
  • Jehan Corporon, a farmer, age 25, his wife Francoise Scavois, 18, and one child, a daughter, 6 weeks of age and not yet named. They have one “cattle,” which is probably a cow, 1 sheep, and have no cultivated land. The livestock is probably her dowry. Livestock, location and no land strongly suggests they are living in a separate house on her father’s land, which means it’s probably not in Port Royal where the English have inhabited since 1654.
  • Pierre Martin, 70, wife Catherine Vigneau, 68, and family on 2 arpents of land. (An original family, probably living in Port Royal because on August 9, 1679, Alexandre Le Borgne de Bélisle (after whom BelleIsle was named) in the name of Emmanuel Le Borgne Du Coudray, seigneur, for part of Acadia, granted to Pierre Martin and his son Mathieu “a parcel of land and a meadow, near Port-Royal, bounded to the east by the great meadow, to the west by the Dormanchin Brook, to the south by the Dauphin River, and to the north by the mountain”. In 1707, Renee Martin is living near BelleIsle.)
  • Francois Pelerin, 35, wife Andree Martin, 30, and family on 1 arpent of land. (The Pellerin family lived at Port Royal near the fort and Hogg Island. Etienne Pellerin owned Hogg Island in Port Royal, having purchased it from Jacques Bourgeois at some point, got swindled out of it by Brouillan in the early 1700s, but eventually got it back.)
  • Pierre Morin, 37, wife Marie Martin, 35, and family on 1 arpent of land (Moved to Beaubassin before 1682, possibly as early as 1672 with Jacques Bourgeois.)
  • Matthieu Martin, 35, weaver, unmarried with livestock but no land (Reportedly the first child of French parents born in Acadia. His father, Pierre Martin received land in 1679, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t already living on that land in 1671. D’Aulnay had reportedly had BelleIsle dyked.)
  • Vincent Brun, 60, wife Renee Brode, and family on 5 arpents of land (Brun family eventually lived on the north side of the River between Port Royal and BelleIsle.)
  • Francois Gautrot, 58, wife Edmee LeJeune, 47, and family on 6 arpents of land. (Owned a lot adjoining the side of the fort in Port Royal – expropriated in 1703-1705 for new fort)
  • Guillaume Trahan, 60, Madelaine Brun, 25, and family on 5 arpents of land. (Owned a lot adjoining the fort in Port Royal – expropriated in 1703-1705 for new fort)

Where was Francois Savoie Living in 1671?

Cousin Mark directed me to see White’s, “A Closer Look at Some of the Records“, on Lucie LeBlanc Consentino’s site, where White says:

Jean Lejeune was one of the early settlers of Acadia. This is known from the fact that his heirs received one of the early land grants at Port-Royal. This grant is mentioned in the “Schedule of the Seigniorial Rents” that was drawn up in 1734, after the British Crown had purchased the seigneurial rights in that area (Public Record Office, Colonial Office records, series 217, Vol. VII, fol. 90-91). The rents list shows the names of the first grantees of each parcel of land, as well as the names of those who were in possession in 1734. In some cases it is obvious that the latter belonged to the same family as the former, but in the case of the parcel allotted to Jean Lejeune’s heirs it is just as apparent that the tenancy had been sold. No record of the original grant has survived, but there are indications that it had been made early in the colony’s history. It is enrolled along with grants that were made to Barnabé Martin and François Savoie. Both of these men were dead by the time of the 1686 census, so the grants must have been made before then. What’s more, Jean Lejeune had likely been dead for quite some time by 1686, because this grant could have dated back to any time after the retrocession of Acadia to the French in 1670 pursuant to the Treaty of Breda.

Clearly Jean LeJeune was deceased before the 1671 census and this document places both Francois Savoie and Jean LeJeune, probably his father-in-law or maybe brother-in-law together.

We know, beyond a doubt that Francois Savoie’s son, Germain Savoie, born about 1654, lived at BelleIsle because his name appears on multiple censuses and maps between other residents who lived in the village at BelleIsle. We don’t know whether he was born there or later moved there. Germain’s wife was a daughter of Vincent Breau (Brun, Brot, Breaux, Brault, Beraud) whose family also lived along the river and was a near neighbor to Francois Savoie in 1671.

BelleIsle, according to MapAnnapolis, took its name from Alexandre LeBorgne, Sieur de Belle-Isle. He was born at La Rochelle in France in 1643.

Emmanuel LeBorgne, his father, took possession of the estates of Governer d’Aulnay after his death in 1650. This included a large marsh containing more than 1500 acres which then took his name. D’Aulnay had already dyked the marsh. Emmanuel entrusted this land to his son, Alexandre in 1668, when Alexander became governor of the colony.

We don’t know a lot about what happened between 1670 and 1693, although we do know BelleIsle granted some land in 1679 through a deed of concession.

Given that we know that d’Aulnay had the land dyked, it’s inconceivable that it was simply sitting there, going to waste, uncultivated.

How I wish we had a 1671 map!

The 1686 Map

We do have a 1686 map, but its purpose was to show Port Royal in a positive light, where houses are located and “Where a considerabley town can be built.” Homes near Port Royal and on the road south headed out of Port Royal, are included (marked 17 houses, below) in the detailed drawing. I’ve used the legend to label landmarks.

There are 2 houses on Hogg Island, Le Bourg and the Governor’s house, plus 14 or 15 buildings in Port Royal along the waterfront. Some of these structures are assuredly stables and some may be warehouses. The house by the church may well be the Priest’s rectory.

On the 1686 census, taken the year this may was drawn, there are three more men listed with Le Bourg at the beginning on the census that were officers and would have lived in Port Royal.

  • Michel Boudro – Lieutenant General of Port Royal
  • Philip Mius – Royal Prosecutor
  • Claude Petitpas – Clerk of Court

These men would have lived very close to the fort, the center of business.

Based on the seven expropriations in 1701-1705, we know that the lots closest to the fort were where the following families lived or had lived:

  • Jehan Blanchard
  • Francois Gautrot (husband of Edmee LeJeune)
  • Guillaume Trahan
  • Michel Boudrot – above
  • Jehan LaBat
  • Antoine Bellevieu
  • Abraham Dugas – armoreur

Additionally, two younger families, based on their occupations and no arpents fo land, would probably have been living very near the fort

  • Jean Pitre – edge tool maker
  • Pierre Sire (Cyr) – gunmaker

That accounts for almost all of the houses, if not all of them, located along the waterfront.

Other families in 1686 would have lived in the 17 houses that are located up Allain’s Creek, noted as the Cape on the map. You can also see the fields sketched along the Cape Road.

Based on this 1686 map, photographed at the O’Dell House Museum, we know families were living across the Riviere Dauphin from the Fort, and further east on both sides of the river as well.

Based on the 1671 census, there aren’t have enough houses to accommodate all of the families in or near Port Royal, so we know unquestionably that some people were living along the river, even without Denys’s 1653 journal entry saying many families had moved upriver.

The 1686 census shows 95 families, and only a total of 29 or 30 structures in Port Royal, and several of those aren’t for Acadian families. The Governor isn’t included in the census. Therefore, we know that the majority of the Acadian families are living along the river, on the reclaimed marshes. Many had moved there prior to 1654.

It’s not surprising that we’re confused today, trying to figure out who lived where – at BelleIsle or anyplace along the river, and when. Let’s just say that, complicating things further, Alexandre LeBorgne, Sieur de Belle-Isle, wasn’t of the highest repute.

The Dictionary of Canadian Biography tells us that:

A number of reports from governors of Acadia allow us to infer a good deal about Belle-Isle’s conduct and character. Grandfontaine had tried to limit his powers. According to Perrot, Belle-Isle was addicted to wine. When drunk he was capable of granting the same piece of land to several settlers at once, which could not but cause the farmers considerable vexation. Des Friches* de Meneval had gone so far as to put him in prison for a few days in November 1689, because of irregularities of this nature. Joseph Robinau de Villebon wrote in 1699 that former settlers had told him that Belle-Isle had withdrawn from the records all documents which might incriminate him. Finally Villebon was also convinced that Belle-Isle had not fulfilled his seigneurial duty, which was to see to the development of his lands.

Wonderful! Just peachy! Who doesn’t need a scoundrel plot twist!

The Village of BelleIsle

Over time, the village of BelleIsle grew to have around 30 families with a population of around 165 people. The parish of Saint-Laurent was founded here as a chapel of the parish at Port Royal.

Oral history tells us that Pierre Martin planted the first apples in Nova Scotia at BelleIsle.

Mapannapolis, one of my favorite resources, reconstructs the original homes and villages from compiling various documents and records.

 

The village of BelleIsle is shown on early maps, like this one in 1710. We know that BelleIsle is the location of d’Aulnay’s 1500 acre drained swamp. In fact, BelleIsle is one of the area’s most productive farm areas.

Francois Savoie’s Location

So, after all this, you’re probably wondering where Francois Savois was living in 1671.

First, we’ll probably never know for sure, but based on his neighbors, the fact that we know he had land at BelleIsle by 1679, and so did his elderly neighbor, Pierre Martin, I think he was living at BelleIsle and had been since before 1654. Since d’Aulnay originally had it drained, I’m guessing that Francoise may well have been one of those doing the draining, as was Pierre Martin and his sons. Jean LeJeune lived there too, and may have been the father of the LeJeune girls. They probably lived there too.

It’s also worth noting that neither Francois Savoie nor Pierre Martin had land expropriated near the fort, so they probably never settled in Port Royal proper, which makes me suspect that they started out upriver, or settled there very shortly thereafter. Other known BelleIsle families, such as Brun and Godet (Gaudet) also don’t have land near the fort, so the story of these BelleIsle families tracks similarly.

This brings me to the BelleIsle Hall Acadian Cultural Center and the next chapter in our journey. Visiting the Savoie land.

The BelleIsle Hall Acadian Cultural Center

Courtesy BelleIsle Hall Acadian Cultural Center

Jennifer and Charlie Thibodeau have breathed life into the Acadian culture and the lives of Acadian ancestors. Our Savoie ancestors, in particular, because the Center sits on Savoie land.

Behind the Center, with its colorful Acadian-theme roof, lies the lush Savoie land, along with the rest of BelleIsle village, between the Center and the Annapolis River.

A few years ago, Charlie and Jennifer Thibodeau purchased a run-down but much-loved “Hall,” which means a small community center, located on Little Brook Lane, just off of Evangeline Trail, the road running east from Port Royal, now Annapolis Royal, along the North side of the River.

The Hall had been purchased by a Savoie family member many years earlier to save it, but it needed a LOT of work.

Enter Charlie and Jennifer.

Courtesy BelleIsle Hall Acadian Cultural Center

Seriously, this is where they started 5 years ago. Today, their dream, created with their own two hands, is beautiful, homey and welcoming to everyone.

Courtesy BelleIsle Hall Acadian Cultural Center

You can see the sweat equity that Charlie and Jennifer have invested to restore the building so they can host and welcome returning Acadian descendants, and steward the Acadian culture and lands. More specifically, and magically, the BelleIsle Hall Acadian Cultural Center stands on Savoie land and in many ways, is a living history museum.

In August of 2024, I met up with my wonderful cousins Mark and Manny in Annapolis Royal, and we just kind of wandered into the Hall.

When I first pulled up, I didn’t know what to expect.

They were obviously quite busy at the Hall.

Even though they were getting ready to host the Broussard Family Reunion, Charlie and Jennifer immediately made us feel welcome.

I had emailed Charlie, who goes by the Acadian Peasant, and I knew they were going to be busy because the Acadian World Congress, an every-five-year event, was taking place across Nova Scotia while we were visiting. I just didn’t realize HOW busy!

Several families were hosting family reunions for all returning members, even those they had never met before, at the Center.

I saw what I learned was an Acadian oven beside the building, and Charlie was sweating, cooking something in the oven and trying to fix something else at the same time. Seriously!

I later discovered that Charlie had constructed this oven in true Acadian fashion, with his own hands.

I got out of the car and was pretty hesitant, because people were milling around outside.

I wasn’t sure who he was, but Charlie introduced himself and said, “Hi, come on in.” I didn’t want to be a pain, so I asked about the event taking place – which looked kind of like a picnic.

He told me it was the Broussard family reunion. I apologized and told him I have Broussard ancestors, but didn’t realize they were having a reunion, and  I’d gladly come back another time.

He said, “That’s fine – you’re family – come on in.” I didn’t have to be asked a third time.

I wasn’t sure exactly what the Center was. Let me try to describe it. It’s one large room, a small hall, full of love, good cheer, artifacts, history, and more. It’s sort of an Acadian welcome center. You can sit at the table or the couch and there’s a quilt or afghan, just like there used to be at home.

I stopped by on several days while I was in the area, including for Charlie’s birthday party, and met long-lost cousins every day that I was there. It’s like the family I never had – or never knew I had.

We had all gravitated back “home” and found our way here.

I knew I had found my way “home” when I saw their tray of rocks that had been collected in the area.

I looked around for a few minutes, then offered to return when they weren’t so busy, especially since Charlie was talking to another couple. When Cousin Mark and I overheard the discussion about the Savoie family, our ears perked up.

We didn’t mean to butt in, but joined in the conversation peripherally. Charlie offered to take the other people to “see the Savoie homestead.” I’m often rather shy, believe it or not, but this time, I just blurted right out, “We’re Savoies too. Would you mind if we tagged along?” I actually couldn’t believe I did that. Then I roped Mark and my other cousin in too – “you want to go too, don’t you?” Of COURSE they did!

Both Charlie and the couples were very gracious and allowed us to join the merry band. Poor Cousin Mark had on shorts and sandals, but he wasn’t missing it for the world either.

So, off we went. On a spontaneous great adventure.

When we left, I had no idea what I was getting myself into. In more ways than one.

Come on – you’re going with me!

BelleIsle Marsh and the Savoie Land

We formed a small parade. Three or four vehicles driving down a little dirt road that turned into a two-track between walls of swamp grass so high we couldn’t see over it.

On both sides.

It was bright and sunny, not to mention beastly hot – and I marveled at how anyone could live in this kind of terrain.

We drove as far as we could, then simply stopped, although the little path we were driving on continued, but was increasingly overgrown. We were near what was clearly the end of the “road.” We got out of the vehicles and began to walk, near the red arrow.

Of course, that day, I had no idea where we were – at all. No map and probably no cell coverage. I was just following Charlie.

A sign warned us about ticks and snakes and such. Snakes and other wildlife don’t bother me one bit, but ticks are another matter altogether.

Mark is one brave man, heading into the swamp in shorts, but that just goes to show the dedication of a genealogist. We didn’t come this far to not visit their land. We had stumbled upon a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity – and we were going.

First, we saw some apple trees. Acadians are famous for their apples and orchards. The original Acadians may have been displaced, but their apple and other fruit trees remain yet today.

I didn’t yet know that Mathieu Martin was supposed to have planted the first apple trees. The Martins and Savoies were neighbors at BelleIsle.

I could see the green apples bobbing from the tree branches, sunning themselves. It’s too bad they weren’t ripe. I would love to have tasted one. These trees are abandoned, reclaimed by Mother Nature, today.

If you look closely, you can see little rivulets running through the marsh towards the river that you can’t see in the distance.

The marsh is truly lush, green and beautiful.

I could feel them there.

It’s almost like I could touch them.

As we continued to walk, we caught a glimpse of a working field. Their field.

The foliage was a lot like it was where I grew up. Ferns, ragweed, scrub trees giving way to larger trees. It felt familiar.

We pressed deeper into the marsh, following what was probably a small animal trail beside the cane. Yes, the insects were beastly.

As if to remind us that we really weren’t the only humans ever to set foot here, a small makeshift bridge appeared. It’s a good thing too, because we were sinking more with every step.

Francois Savoie and his family probably had bridges like this, but hewn from trees, or maybe just felled trees. The kids probably ran across and jumped off.

We tread carefully.

I can’t even begin to imagine how miserably hot they would have been clearing this land with nothing but hand tools, and if they were lucky, maybe an ox.

While these trees are much too young to be “their” trees, it probably looked much like what Francois Savoie cleared at BelleIsle.

We had walked quite a way when the terrain began to get a little more difficult. How difficult can flat swampland get, you ask?

It wasn’t flat.

I didn’t realize that we had begun to climb the dykes that kept the saltwater out to protect their fields.

Acadian earthen dykes with sluices, called aboiteau, reclaimed the marshland. They allowed the fresh water to escape through drains into the river, but sealed with a type of hinged door clapper valve to prevent the salt water from backflowing and entering at high tide.

We were walking on Savoie dykes, but all the Acadian families would have helped everyone maintain their dykes. Many hands make light work.

Marshland was giving way to bushes and woodlands.

You can see that these dykes are the height of small houses. Amazingly, they still work, which speaks to the qualify of the Acadian workmanship.

Thankfully, Charlie knew exactly what he was doing and helped us along.

We had climbed the dyke, and now we were walking on top of it, looking down into the swamp. Just like Francois would have done as he kept his eye on things.

I was beginning to wonder how much further to get to their homestead. Or, at least, where it had been. How on earth had they ever gotten here?

The people in the front of the group stepped into a small clearing, and Charlie announced, “We’re here.”

Charlie explained that back in the 1980s there had been an archaeological dig, followed by another one 20 years ago, or so, and that this, as in right here where we were standing, was the first homestead site.

This is sacred land to me.

This is the second homestead foundation, beneath the overgrowth now.

There were actually three homesteads excavated, which isn’t surprising in the least.

We know a small village formed here, because it’s shown on the 1710 contemporaneous map – exactly where we were standing. There were also clearly more than three homesteads.

As your children married, they just built a small home a few feet away and everyone simply continued doing what needed to be done.

We can see that pattern in the census.

I asked Charlie how he knew EXACTLY where these homesteads were located, and he explained that about 20 years ago, during the second dig, three homesteads had been located. This plaque was nailed to the tree to mark the location.

Of COURSE I needed a picture.

But then, I returned to the mesmerizing fascination of the homesites. My family had stood in this very same place, for decades, beginning about least 375 years ago and continuing for the next century – another 4 or 5 generations.

They stood here, lived here, loved here, were born here, and yes, died here.

Tears of joy and grief. Lives filled with love and sunshine, but also fear, disaster, and finally, removal.

Blessed life given here, but also stolen away.

Charlie located the third homesite. The poison ivy and other vegetation takes over quickly, so he had marked the location previously with orange tape.

He mentioned that he had never been able to find the well, though.

You may or may not remember that I was very active some years back with many Lost Colony archaeology digs.

I know that in situations where homes are clustered together, there is one well, and it’s generally located in the center of the houses – for both convenience, safety, and the ability to protect your water source. That’s the same pattern in every European village too, both before the Acadians immigrated, and after their descendants found themselves back in France in the 1760s.

Voila! Here it is. Here’s the Savoie village well.

I was using my foot to dig into the vegetation, looking for telltale rocks. Foundations sometimes tend to sink, or be scattered, but wells don’t as much because the hand-placed rock casing often reaches many feet beneath the ground, giving support and structure to the rocks above the ground level of the well.

Acadian well in Grand Pre

Normally, those casings stand about 3 or 4 feet off the ground and protect the well from runoff and contamination. Usually there is a flat surface on the top to sit buckets and such, like this Acadian well at Grand Pre.

When well casings fall, after abandonment, they tend to fall either into the well, or around the well in a circle, or both. The scatter is generally between 3 and 5 feet across, unless it’s a VERY large well. Of course, wells can vary widely by size.

The Lore Acadian well

The collapsed well, above, is the Lore well just down the road, which collapsed into itself. Charlie found this well and was kind enough to show me.

Charlie was surprised that I had located the Savoie well again, took a look, and said, “Yep, sure is. How’d you find it?” I explained that I looked for rocks in a circular pattern, just beneath the soil, in the middle of the three homestead locations. I knew they had originally found the well, and we knew where they dug. Several wells had been found on earlier digs that I had participated in elsewhere, too. So I knew it had to be close by.

But there’s more to wells than meets the eye.

Wells are the life-givers.

I have always felt that wells and springs have to do with the sacred. You can’t live without water. You can live a lot longer without food than water.

In ancient times, wells and springs were considered to have spirits, and were blessed. People have dowsed for water for time immemorial and still do today. I grew up doing that. Humans are more tied to water than anything else in nature.

Maybe finding the well again was a wink and a nod from my ancestors. After all, were it not for this well, these Acadian wells, I wouldn’t be here today. This well nourished my ancestors for generations. Part of them remains in me today – and wouldn’t be without this well.

I realized that while I was communing with my ancestors, everyone else was just being very patient and waiting over by the trees.

I couldn’t help it – I can’t even begin to explain the energy and etherial connection I feel on their lands.

It’s like they are welcoming me home in a very real, absolutely timeless, way.

Had several people not been patiently waiting for me, I would have talked to the ancestors. I might or might not have whispered.😊

Sadly, it was time to go.

We left by walking on the top of the Savoie dyke again. I realized I was literally walking on their handiwork – and that it had survived for about 375 years, given that d’Aulnay had this land dyked before his death in 1650.

The Acadian founders, elderly, or many deceased by the 1671 census, would have worked together and then settled on this sundrenched plateau, smelling of sun, water, and wheat. They built their homes, dug their wells, and raised their children here. Clustered together for safety. My ancestors – several of them.

Planting the seeds of our family.

Perhaps Francois Savoie and Catherine LeJeune courted under the subshine here, holding hands as they walked along the dykes. Young love wouldn’t even notice the mosquitoes or oppressive heat!

It looked much the same walking out, but it felt different. So very different.

I had been transported into the past. My ancestors had welcomed us, spoken, and shared with us the sacred.

I needed to bring myself back to the present.

We reached the road, such as it was, once again, checked outselves for ticks, and headed for the cars. Mark probably thought I was awfully quiet on our drive back to the Center.

And Charlie – poor Charlie. Between the reunion, baking something in the hot oven, fixing whatever had been broken that caused him to crawl around on the ground, the unexpected Savoie visitors, me, Mark and Manny crashing the party, and the unplanned hike back to the Savoie homesteads – Charlie looked like like he desperately needed a VERY large, icy cold drink and some rest.

You will not find a more dedicated man – absolutely committed to our Acadian history and ancestors. Finding their homes and what physically remains of the original culture and their lives. Trying to stitch it all together to preserve for future generations – before it disappears beyond recovery.

That’s Charlie.

Rappie Pie!

Back at the Center, Jennifer had Rappie Pie waiting for us.

Rappie Pie isn’t a dessert and isn’t sweet. It’s a main dish made with shredded or grated potatoes, chicken, onions, and a few other ingredients. It takes all day, or maybe even two days, to make.

Rappie Pie is a traditional, or maybe THE traditional, Acadian dish. I can’t even begin to explain it, so I’m just linking here. I will also say that Rappie Pie can vary widely, and Jennifer’s was just HEAVEN. Other Rappie Pie, not so much after feasting on hers. I would have asked for the recipe, but I truly know that I would never take the full day to make a pan – and you can’t make just a little bit.

Although maybe I should try.

There are only two places you can get Rappie Pie now. In Nova Scotia and in Louisiana – Cajun country.

I’m so homesick for Nova Scotia. I feel them calling again.

Artifacts

You’re probably asking yourself about artifacts from the digs.

Back at the Hall, one of the things that Charlie and Jennifer do is to preserve history.

I’m sure I don’t need to explain the use of a copper pot for boiling outside. You can see a butter churn here too. Obviously, the churn did not come out of the dig but was donated by a local family.

Many of the tools that were used by the Acadians were the same tools used by the English, who were given the Acadian lands around 1759 after the English forcibly removed and exiled the Acadians in 1755.

I didn’t realize it at the time, but Charlie and Jennifer had arranged with a museum curator to display some of the smaller artifacts from the Savoie homesteads at the reunions.

These photos are courtesy of Jennifer and Charlie.

The pottery pieces were reproduced so that the originals weren’t in jeopardy.

Inside the Hall, a few more items were on display and welcomed visitors.

These scissors from the dig stole my heart and took my breath away. I know that my ancestors made their clothes, the clothes for their children, who were also my ancestors, and probably bedclothes too. If they made them out of scraps, I’m calling them quilts!

The day was coming to a close. I knew it was time to leave, but I wanted to linger on the bridge between then and now, between them and me. I wasn’t ready to let go.

I had to pass by the Hall on my way to and from the places I was going, so I stopped every couple of days.

My Last Visit

Eventually, I knew it was my last visit.

I wanted to say goodbye to the land of my ancestors, so I slipped out behind the Hall alone.

While the Hall is relatively far from the river, at least as compared to other Acadian homesteads, there’s still a small stream draining the land. Hence the road name, Little Brook Lane.

It’s still sacred Savoie land. Land of so many ancestral families who formed one large family – the BelleIsle Community. Within a generation or two, everyone was related.

Charlie saw me and motioned for me to follow him. “I have something to show you,” he said.

Off we went.

There was yet one more adventure waiting for me.

We walked beside the brook.

I stood, staring into the water, pondering the past, and my umbilical connection to those who lived here, on this very brook. They stood here too.

Charlie had constructed a little bridge..

We crossed the gurgling creek and walked through the woods. I remember thinking that I’d never find my way in, or out, by myself.

I wondered what Charlie had to show me.

Then, the woods opened up into a beautiful, golden field, bathed in the warm sunshine.

“What’s this?” I asked, stunned that this breathtaking gem was hiding behind the Hall all along.

I thought there was only the type of terrain that led to the homesteads.

Charlie paused, gathering himself for a moment.

He closed his eyes, then opened them again, lifting his face to the sky.

“It’s an unmarked cemetery.”

“What???,” I whispered. “You’re kidding?!”

Charlie looked off into the distance, and shook his head.

I stood, rooted in place, utterly speechless.

If you’ve ever heard someone say they could feel their ancestor’s presence – that’s exactly what happened.

Time was meaningless, and the veil was thin. I both was and wasn’t there at the same time.

I could feel their smiles that I had come back. Had found them.

Perhaps I was led back.

Perhaps Charlie has been called here, too.

Charlie had erected a cross in the field, an Acadian cross, to mark and honor where they rest.

Charlie clearly heard our ancestors voices.

Thank you, dearest Cousin Charlie, from both me and the ancestors, for everything you and Jennifer do. And for heeding that call.

You are one of a kind. A true unicorn.

To Support the BelleIsle Hall Acadian Cultural Center

The Center receives no funding other than donations and revenue from small items they sell. Their work is critically important. You can find and follow them here on Facebook.

Charlie retrieves wood from fallen trees or branches on the original Acadian homesite land, with the property owners’ permission of course, and crafts crosses to honor our Acadian families. Their religion was an incredibly important part of their lives, even on the literal frontier in the New France – and they were willing to die for the right to worship as Catholics.

I purchased several crosses – one for each of my Acadian families. Ironically, they were out of Savoie, but they have then back in stock now and l need to order one of those.

Here’s my Hebert family cross. It is about 2 inches tall and could be worn as a necklace, but I have mine hanging on a bookcase and on picture frames.

I ordered this stunning print of the Savoie village by Claude Picard, too.

Claude is deceased, but his family donated several prints to the Center (in 3 sizes), along with greeting cards. They depict the Savoie homesites excavated at BelleIsle, but it could just as easily represent any of the Acadian homes along the river.

Charlie and Jennifer had this absolutely AMAZING drone video made to sell as a fundraiser, but as Charlie graciously put it, “it escaped to the internet,” which essentially killed it as a fundraiser for them, before they even had the drone flight paid for.

Now, Charlie and Jennifer have posted it officially on Youtube for all to enjoy. They will still send you a thumb drive with a better quality video for $25. I’m just donating the $25, personally. So many of my family lands are shown here.

Right now, the Center is also having a quilt raffle fundraiser. This quilt was donated by the Savoie family to honor Wilbert Savoie who located the Savoie land decades ago. Wilbert’s daughter bought the original hall, even in its poor condition, in order to preserve it. Charlie and Jennifer purchased the Hall from them and operate on a shoestring.

Tickets for the quilt raffle are $5 each or 3 for $12, and the drawing for the quilt takes place on Acadian Day, August 15th. I’m going to be sitting here with my fingers crossed.

For tickets or to donate or purchase something, you can contact Jennifer by phone or text at (902) 247-2019, or e-mail at charlieandjennifer@hotmail.com for more information and payment details.

_____________________________________________________________

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

Regeneron Wins Bid for Bankrupt 23andMe – Wedding Planned

Today, it was announced that Regeneron Pharmaceuticals is the winner of the bankruptcy auction for 23andMe, having submitted a $256 million bid. 23andMe went public with a value of 3.5 billion in 2021, reaching 6 billion shortly thereafter. Regeneron’s bid is a highly discounted 4.27% of its highest value.

The second highest bid of $156 million was placed by a nonprofit research institute founded by 23andMe’s founder and former CEO, Anne Wojcicki, representing 2.6% of the company’s highest value.

The purchase will include all of the 23andMe assets, including customer data, except for 23andMe’s Lemonaid “on demand” health division, which will be discontinued. 23andMe will be operated as a wholly owned subsidiary of Regeneron.

Regeneron has offered employment to all 23andMe employees and has committed to comply with the existing 23andMe Privacy Policies, protect customer privacy, and safeguard their genetic data.

Currently, an ombudsman appointed by the bankruptcy court is evaluating the impact, if any, on 23andMe customer privacy, and will report back to the court by June 10th.

A date of June 17th has been set for a Sale Hearing for the court to finalize approval of the sale, with the actual transaction to occur sometime in the third quarter of 2025.

23andMe has secured a loan to continue operations to bridge the gap between now and the closing of the sale transaction.

What Does This Mean to Genetic Genealogy?

Aside from the statements about privacy, we don’t know how this will affect the 23andMe genealogy products and features.

Regeneron’s announcement includes this statement:

23andMe will be operated as a wholly owned direct or indirect subsidiary of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and continue operations as a personal genomics service. Regeneron’s purchase does not include 23andMe’s Lemonaid Health business. Additional details about the company’s operating plans will be shared at time of closing.

Regeneron’s focus is clearly on genetics-driven pharmaceuticals.

While that certainly aligns well with 23andMe’s mission, the future of genetic genealogy under that umbrella is uncertain.

Essentially, 23andMe used genetic genealogy to entice people into paying to test, and hopefully to opt-in for research. For some reason, their partnerships with pharmaceutical companies had expired and were apparently not renewed, causing the company to lay off workers twice in 2023.

Regeneron, according to their website, uses the DNA of consented volunteers, and provides a list of projects and collaborations, here.

In January 2023, Regeneron announced that they had access to more than 2 million sequences, followed by a collaboration in January 2025 with Truveta that provided access to another 10 million de-identified sequences.

If 23andMe started out with 15 million testers before the combined effects of the breach and bankruptcy, and let’s say that an estimated 2 million of those people deleted their accounts, based on how many matches disappeared, that leaves 23andMe with 13 million customers. 23andMe has said in the past that 80% of their customers opt-in for research, so that’s about 10.5 million consented people available to Regeneron for research purposes. The fact that 23andMe customers are not de-identified and may have answered innumerable questions probably makes the 23andMe database even more valuable to them.

Plus, 23andMe customers pay to test, unlike the volunteers that Regeneron uses today.

It’s unclear how many of the existing 23andMe customers tested for the purpose of genealogy, or for the purpose of health, or how many people would have tested anyway if 23andMe didn’t have a genealogy aspect.

Unfortunately, since the data breach in 2023, many of the features and tools important to genealogists were removed and never returned. Furthermore, 23andMe was already deficient due to the lack of trees and a cap on the number of your matches. It was evident that genealogy wasn’t a high priority for them – but until the breach, they seemed to be willing to provide some genealogy services to genealogists. That leads me to believe that a nontrivial number of their customers tested for genealogy, or a combination of genealogy plus health.

More recently, their subscription offerring provided additional matches and other features, but also required customers to test again. That was a nonstarter for me. I suspect that this wasn’t terribly successful, given that you have to pay to test again, then additionally for a subscription, but don’t receive matching segment data anymore, or triangulation, or trees.

Of course, Regeneron might decide to invest in returning the discontinued tools and creating more. They certainly have the resources to do so. On the other hand, they could just as easily decide that genealogy tools are far outside of their realm of expertise, and not broadly attractive.

Truthfully, I was really, REALLY hoping that a genealogy-focused company like either MyHeritage or FamilyTreeDNA, both of whom accept DNA file uploads, would purchase (at least) the genealogy aspects of 23andMe and work to improve them.

Sadly, that wasn’t to be.

Now What?

For now, just “save the date” while we wait for the ombudsman report, for the court to approve the sale, and then information from Regeneron about what it plans to do with, about, or for genealogists.

Resources:

_____________________________________________________________

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

The Mystery of the Blue Fugates and Smiths: A Study in Blue Genes and Pedigree Collapse

The story of the Blue Fugates, an Appalachian family, is quite interesting, from a genetic perspective, a genealogical perspective, and a genetic genealogy perspective.

Who Are the Blue Fugates?

Martin Fugate, supposedly an orphan from France, and his bride, Elizabeth Smith, who had married by 1840, have long been attributed as the progenitors of the Blue Fugate Family of Troublesome Creek, in and around Perry County, Kentucky.

Their descendants were known as “The Blue Fugates” and also “The Blue People of Kentucky” because some of their children and descendants carried a recessive autosomal genetic trait, Methemoglobinemia.

Methemoglobinemia causes the skin to appear blue due to an oxygen deficiency in the red blood cells. Some people only exhibit this characteristic, or even just blue tinges in their fingernails and lips, when they are cold or agitated, such as when infants cry. Yet others are very, very blue.

Inheritance

In order for someone to exhibit the autosomal recessive trait of blueness due to Methemoglobinemia, they must inherit a copy of the gene from BOTH PARENTS. That’s why this trait is so rare.

  • If the parents have only one copy each, they are carriers and will not have the condition themselves.
  • If one parent carries either one or two copies, and the other parent does NOT carry a copy, their offspring CANNOT carry two copies of the mutation and will not be blue.
  • If both parents carry a copy, and both parents pass their copy on to their offspring, the offspring will probably exhibit some level of blueness – from just a tinge when they are cold, ill or or upset, to very, very blue.

I’m not a physician, so I’m not delving into the medical specifics of Methemoglobinemia, but suffice it to say that levels of 10-20% of methemoglobin in the blood produce blue skin, higher levels can produce more severe medical conditions, and levels beneath that may not be visually detectible.

What’s important for the genealogy aspect of this story is that both parents must carry a copy AND pass their copy on for the condition to express in their offspring.

We’ve learned a lot since the 1800s when this was first observed in various members of the Fugate family in Perry County, KY, and since the 1960s when this phenomenon was first studied in the Fugate family and their descendants. To be clear, there are also references to the blue Combs and blue Ritchies in and around Perry County – but the common factor is that they have ancestors that descend from the Fugate family AND the Smith family ancestors, both.

During my research, I’ve proven some of what was initially accepted as fact was incorrect – and I’d like to correct the record. Bonus points too, because it’s just such a great genealogy story!

My Interest

I’ve been inordinately interested in the Fugate family for a long time – but not because of their famous blueness.

The Fugate family has been found for more than 225 years alongside my Cook, Claxton, Campbell, and Dobkins families. First, in Russell County, VA, where Josiah Fugate was granted land along Sword’s Creek in 1801 that adjoined Harry Smith, Richard Smith, and others, including my brick-wall ancestor, Joel Cook. Keep in mind that we have never discovered the birth surname of Joel’s wife or Joel’s parents.

Joel’s daughter, Sarah, married James Claxton about 1799 or 1800 in Russell County, and in February of 1802, James Claxton and Zachariah Fugate, among others, were ordered to view and lay out a new road. They were clearly neighbors, living on the same road, and knew each other well. We don’t know who James’ parents were either.

The Fugates first lived adjacent to the Cook, Riley, Stephens, and Claxton families on Mockason Creek in Russell County, then later migrated with the same group of families to Claiborne County where they lived along the Powell River near the Lee County, VA line, and are very closely associated with the Dobkins and Campbell lines.

Sometime between 1802 and 1805, several Russell County families moved 110 miles down the mountain range and settled together on the Powell River in Claiborne County, TN.  About the same time, others from the same cluster moved to what would eventually become Perry County, KY.

In 1805, the Fugates were ordered as road hands on the north side of Wallen’s Ridge in Claiborne County, the part that would become Hancock County in the 1840s, along with James Claxton and several Smiths.

In 1808, James Claxton witnessed a deed to Henley Fugate and John Riley.

The unsubstantiated family rumor, repeated as fact but with no source, has always been that William Fugate married the sister of my John Campbell. If that were true, tracking the Fugates would help me track my Campbells – yet another brick wall. Hence, my early interest in the Fugate family. Until now, I’ve never solved any part of that puzzle.

In 1827, in Claiborne County, Henry Cook, road overseer, is assigned John Riley, Henly Fugate, William Fugate, Fairwick Claxton (son of James who had died in 1815), and others. These families continued to be allied, living close to each other.

In 1842, William Fugate (1799-1855), born to William Fugate and Sarah Jane Stephens in Russell County, is involved in the estate of John Campbell, born about 1772, who had died in 1838. John Campbell was the husband of Jane “Jenny” Dobkins, daughter of Jacob Dobkins (1751-1835).

William Fugate of Claiborne County signed a deposition in 1851 saying he came to Claiborne County, TN, in 1826. Claiborne County is rugged terrain, located on the south side of the Cumberland Gap, where Virginia, Tennessee, and Kentucky intersect.

In 1853, both William Fugate and Jehiel Fugate are neck-deep in lawsuits surrounding the estate of Jacob Dobkins, who died in 1835, lived on Powell River, and whose daughters married John Campbell and his brother George Campbell

I recently discovered that this William Fugate was born about 1799 in Russell County, VA, and according to his son’s death certificate, William’s wife was Nancy Riley, which makes a lot of sense, given the proximity of these families. I must admit, I’m glad to solve this, but I’m also disappointed that he wasn’t married to John Campbell’s sister.

So, why does any of this matter in the Blue Fugate story?

In part, because I knew decades ago that Martin Fugate, of the Kentucky Blue Fugates, was not an orphan from France who had somehow made his way to the eastern shores of Maryland, then to Perry County, KY by 1820 when he supposedly received a land grant. That land grant date doesn’t square with Martin’s birth year of 1820 either, nor his marriage about 1840, both of which are substantiated by the census.

You can see from the information gleaned from Russell County that the Fugate family was there well before 1800. In fact, a Martin Fugate is shown on the 1789 tax list and other Fugates were there earlier, as early as 1771, according to extracted Russell County records in the book “The Fugate Family of Russell County, Virginia” by David Faris. The Fugate descendants continued to press on westward from there. Fugate, unlike Smith, Cook, and even Campbell, is not a common surname.

“Orphan” stories are often early ways that people said “I don’t know”, without saying, “I don’t know where he came from”, so they speculated and said “maybe he was an orphan.” Then that speculation was eventually passed on as fact.

That might have been happening in Perry County in the 1960s, but in Claiborne County in the 1980s, family members were telling me, “Martin waren’t no orphan,” and would roll their eyes and sigh with great exasperation. You could tell this was far from the first time they had had to combat that story. To be clear, the Fugate family lived down along Little Sycamore Creek with my Estes, Campbell and other ancestral families. In the 1980s, I was finding the oldest people possible and talking to them.

Some records in Russell County, where the Fugates of Perry County, KY, and the Fugates of Claiborne County, TN, originated, did and do exist, so could have been researched in the 1960s, but you would have had to know where to look. No one back then knew that the Perry County Fugates originated in Russell County, so they wouldn’t have known to look there. Research wasn’t easy. If they had known to look in Russell County, they would have had to travel there in person to review records. Early records exist in Perry County, too, but in the 1960s, not even the census was available, and people simply didn’t remember back to the early to mid-1800s.

Truthfully, no one would ever have doubted those early stories that had been handed down. They were revered, in all families, and treated as gospel. Those stories were the only connection they had to their ancestors – and the generations inbetween who passed them on. Nope, no one was going to question what Grandpa or Uncle Joe said.

So, in the 1960s, when the Blue Fugates in Perry and adjacent Breathitt County, KY were first studied by Dr. Cawein and his nurse, Ruth Pendergrass, they gathered oral family history and constructed a family pedigree from that information. They documented who was blue from first-hand eye-witness accounts – which would only have stretched back into the late 1800s, best case.

It probably never occurred to anyone to validate or verify earlier information that was provided. Plus, it would have been considered rude. After all, they weren’t genealogists, and they were trying to solve a medical mystery. The information they collected did not conflict with what was known about the disease and how it was transmitted, so they had no reason to doubt its historical accuracy.

The Mystery of the Blue Fugates?

The Blue Fugates were a family renowned for their blue skin – at least some of them had blue skin. That’s part of what makes this story so interesting.

Originally, it was believed that only one progenitor couple was involved, Martin Fugate and his wife, Elizabeth Smith, but now we know there were two. Maybe I should say “at least two.”

Martin Fugate and his bride, Elizabeth Smith, whose first known child was born in 1841, according to the 1850 census, are progenitors of the Blue Fugate Family of Troublesome Creek, but they aren’t the only progenitors.

Martin was not shown in the Perry County, KY 1840 census, but two Zachariah Fugates are present, 8 Fugate families are found in neighboring Breathitt County, more than a dozen in Russell County and surrounding counties in Virginia, and four, including two William Fugates, in Claiborne County, TN. The younger of the two lived next door to John Dobkins, son of deceased Jacob Dobkins.

Martin Fugate (c1820-1899) of Perry County and his second cousin, Zachariah Fugate (1816-1864), who each married a Smith sister, are both progenitors of the Blue Fugates through their common ancestor, their great-grandfather, Martin Fugate, who was born in 1725 and died in 1803 in Russell County, VA.

Obviously, if Martin (c1820-1899) had a Fugate second cousin who also lived in Perry County, Martin wasn’t an orphan. That knowledge is due to more recently available information, like census and other data – and that’s part of what I want to correct.

In 1948, Luke Combs, from Perry County, KY, took his sick wife to the hospital, but Luke’s blueness caused the medical staff to focus on him instead, thinking he was experiencing a medical emergency. He wasn’t. His skin was just blue. In 1974, Dr Charles H. Behlen II said, ‘Luke was just as blue as Lake Louise on a cool summer day.’ The Blue Fugates were “discovered” by the rest of the world, thanks to Luke, but they were nothing new to local people, many of whom did not welcome the notoriety.

In the 1960s, hematologist Madison Cawein III, with the assistance of Ruth Pendergrass, studied 189 members of the extended Fugate family, treated their symptoms, and published his findings. He included a pedigree chart, but not everyone was keen on cooperating with Dr. Cawein’s research project.

The Fugate family history collected for the study was based on two things:

  • Personal knowledge of who respondents knew was blue
  • Remembered oral history beyond the reach of personal knowledge.

That remembered oral history reported that Martin Fugate and Elizabeth Smith’s youngest son, Zachariah Fugate (born in 1871), married his mother’s (older) sister, Mary Smith, (born about 1820), and had a family. I’ve added the dates and information in parentheses, or they would have immediately known that marriage was impossible. Or, more directly, even if they married when Zachariah was 14, Mary would have been 70 years old, and they were certainly not going to produce offspring. This is the second piece of information I want to correct. That marriage never happened, although people were accurate that:

  • Martin Fugate and his wife, Elizabeth Smith, did have a son named Zachariah Fugate
  • One Zachariah Fugate did marry Mary Smith, sister of Elizabeth Smith

It’s just that they were two different Zachariah Fugates, born 75 years apart. Same name confusion strikes again.

I constructed this census table of Martin Fugate with Elizabeth Smith, and Zachariah Fugate with Mary Smith. They lived next door to each other in Perry County – and it seemed that every family reused the same “honoring” names for their children – and had been doing such for generations.

In the 1960s, when the information was being compiled for Dr. Cawein, the census and other documents that genealogists rely on today were not readily available.

Furthermore, genetically, for the mystery Dr. Cawein was attempting to solve, it didn’t really matter, because it was still a Smith female marrying a Fugate male. I know that it made no difference today, but he wouldn’t have known that then. To track down the source of the blueness, he needed to identify who was blue and as much about their ancestors as possible.

The Zachariah Fugate (1816-1864) who married Elizabeth Smith’s sister, Mary Smith, was Martin Fugate’s second cousin by the same name, Zachariah. Both Martin (c1820-1899) and his second cousin, Zachariah (c1816-1864), married to Smith sisters, had blue children, which helps cement the fact that the responsible genes were passed down through BOTH the Fugate and Smith lines, and weren’t just random mutations or caused by environmental or other factors.

Proof

In case you’re wondering exactly how I confirmed that Martin and Zachariah did indeed marry Elizabeth and Mary Smith – their children’s birth and death records confirmed it. These records correlate with the census.

Unlike most states, Kentucky has some pre-1900 birth and death records.

Wilson Fugate’s birth in February, 1855 was recorded, naming both of his parents, Martin Fugate and Elizabeth Smith.

Martin Fugate and Elizabeth Smith’s son, Henley or Hendley, died in 1920, and his death certificate gave the names of both parents. Betty is a nickname for Elizabeth.

On the same page with Wilson Fugate’s birth, we find a birth for Zachariah Fugate and Mary Smith, too.

Hannah Fugate was born in December 1855.

Zachariah Fugate and Mary Smith’s son, Zachariah died in 1921, and his death certificate gives his parents as Zach Fugate and Polly Smith, a nickname for Mary.

There are more death records for children of both sets of parents.

Both couples, Martin Fugate and Elizabeth Smith, and Zachariah Fugate and Mary Smith, are progenitors of the Blue Fugate family.

Of Martin’s 10 known children, 4 were noticeably “blue” and lived long, healthy lives. At least two of Zachariah’s children were blue as well.

Some people reported that Martin, himself, had deep blue skin. If so, then both of his parents would have carried that genetic mutation and passed it to him.

Unfortunately, color photography didn’t exist when Martin (c1820-1899), lived, so we don’t know for sure. For Martin’s children to exhibit blue skin, they would have had to inherit a copy of the gene from both parents, so we know that Martin’s wife, Elizabeth, also inherited the mutation from one of her parents. Ditto for Zachariah Fugate and Mary Smith. The chances of two families who both carry such a rare mutation meeting AND having two of their family members marry are infinitesimally small.

Dr. Cawein’s Paper

In 1964, Dr. Cawein published his findings, but only with a pedigree chart with no names. What was included was an explanation about how remote and deep the hills and hollows were, and that out-migration was almost impossible, explaining the propensity to marry cousins.

Legend:

  • Measured – Found to have elevated methemoglobin
  • Measured – Found to have decreased methemoglobin
  • Not measured – Reported to be “blue”
  • Measured – Found to be normal

Cawein further stated that data was collected by interviewing family members who personally knew the individual in question and could say if they were actually blue.

Cawein erroneously reported that “Martin Fugate was an orphan born about 1800, landed in Maryland, obtained a land grant in Perry County, KY in 1820, and married a local gal. From 1820 to about 1930, the population consisted of small, isolated groups living in creek valleys and intermarriage was quite common.” Bless his heart.

Later, geneticist Ricky Lewis wrote about the Blue Fugates, sharing, among other things, the provenance of that “blue” family photo that circulates on the internet, revealing that it is a composite that was assembled and colorized back in 1982. She also erroneously stated that, “after extensive inbreeding in the isolated community—their son married his aunt, for example—a large pedigree of “blue people” of both sexes arose.” Bless her heart too.

Dr. Lewis is incorrect that their son married his aunt – but she’s right that intermarriage between the families is responsible for the blue descendants. In colonial America, and elsewhere, cousin marriages were fairly common – everyplace. You married who you saw and knew. You saw your family and neighbors, who were generally your extended family. No left-handed apology needed.

Pedigree collapse, sharing the same ancestors in multiple places in your tree, is quite common in genealogy, as is endogamy among isolated populations.

Today, things have changed somewhat. People move into and out of an area. The younger generation moves away a lot more and has for the past 100+ years. Most people know their first cousins, but you could easily meet a second or third cousin and never know you were related.

While early stories reported that Martin Fugate (c1820-1899) was an orphan from France, mysteriously appearing in Kentucky around 1820, later genealogical evidence as well as genetic research proves that Martin Fugate was actually born about 1820, in Russell County, VA and his ancestors, over several generations, had followed the typical migration path across Virginia into Kentucky.

We’ve also proven that Martin’s son, Zachariah (born 1871) was not the Zachariah who married Elizabeth Smith’s sister, Mary, who was 50 years old when Zachariah was born.

What else do we know about these families?

The Back Story

Compared to the Smith story, the Fugate story was “easy.”

Don’t laugh, but I spent several days compiling information and charting this in a way I could see and understand in one view.

I hesitate to share this, but I’m going to because it’s how I think. I also put together a very basic Fugate tree at Ancestry, here. Many children and siblings are missing. I was just trying to get this straight in my mind.

Click to enlarge any image

This spreadsheet is color-coded:

  • The text of each lineage has a specific color. For example, Fugates are blue.
  • Some people (or couples) are found in multiple descendants’ lines and are duplicated in the tree. Duplicated people also have a cell background color. For example, Mahala Richey (Ritchey, Ritchie) is highlighted yellow. James and Alexander Richey have green text and apricot background because they are duplicated.
  • The generation of parents who had blue children is marked with black boxes and the label “Blue Kids.”
  • Only the blue kids for this discussion are listed below those couples.
  • The bluest person was Luna Fugate (1886-1964).
  • While Luna’s husband, John Stacey, also descended from the Smith/Combs line, only one of their children expressed the blue trait. That child’s lips turned blue when they cried. John and Luna were actually related in three ways. Yes, my head hurts.
  • The last known “blue” person was Luna Fugate’s great-grandchild, whose name I’ve obfuscated.

Ok, let’s start with the blue Fugates on our spreadsheet. You’ll probably want to follow along on the chart.

Martin Fugate (1725-1803) and wife Sarah, had several children, but only two, the ones whose grandchildren married Smith sisters are known to have had blue children.

On our chart, you can see that Martin (1725-1803) is blue, and so is Son 1, William Fugate and Sarah Stephens, along with Son 2, Benjamin Fugate and Hannah Devers. Both William and Benjamin are mentioned in Martin’s estate in 1803 in Russell County, VA.

Two generations later, Martin Fugate (c1820-1899) and Elizabeth Smith had four blue children, and Zachariah Fugate (c1816-1864) and Mary Smith had at least two blue children. Furthermore, Zachariah Fugate’s sister, Hannah (1811-1877), married James Monroe Richie.

The Richey’s are green, and you can see them on both the left and right of the chart. Hannah’s husband descended from the same Richey line that Elizabeth Smith did. It was no surprise when their child, Mahala Ritchie (1854-1922), married Levi Fugate, to whom she was related three ways, they became the parents of a blue child. Their daughter, Luna Fugate, was known as “the Bluest of the Blue Fugates.”

Mahala Ritchie (1854-1922) could have inherited her blue gene (or genes) from either her mother Hannah Fugate, or her father, James Monroe Ritchie, or both. We don’t know if Hannah was blue or not.

We do know that Mahala married Levi Fugate, her third cousin through the Fugate line, and her third and fourth cousin also through the Richie and Grigsby lines, respectively. This is the perfect example of pedigree collapse.

You can see the purple Grigsby lines in the center and to the right of the pedigree chart too, with Benjamin Grigsby, highlighted in blue, being common to both lineages.

Zachariah Fugate (1816-1864) and Mary Smith had at least two blue sons, but I am not tracking them further. Suffice it to say that Blue John married Letha Smith, his first cousin, the granddaughter of Richard Smith and Nancy Elitia Combs. Lorenzo, “Blue Anze”, married a Fugate cousin, so it’s no surprise that Zachariah and Mary were also progenitor couples of the Blue Fugates.

Martin’s son, Levi Fugate, married Mahala Ritchie, mentioned above, and had Luna Fugate who would have been personally known to Dr. Cawein. Luna, pictured above, at left, was known as the bluest of the Blue Fugates.

Luna married John Stacey who some thought wasn’t related to Luna, so it was confusing why they had one child that was slightly blue. However, John turns out to be Luna’s second cousin, third cousin once removed and first cousin once removed through three different lines. His great-grandparents were Richard Smith and Nancy Combes. Since one of their children had a slight blue tinge, John, while not visibly blue himself, clearly carried the blue gene.

Where Did the Blue Gene Come From?

The parents of Elizabeth Smith and Mary Smith were Richard Smith and Nancy (Eletia) Combs. His Smith ancestors include both the Richeys and Caldwells.

James Richey (1724-1888) married Margaret Caldwell (1729-1802) and his father, Alexander Richey (1690-1749) married Jeanne Caldwell (1689-1785). While the Caldwell females weren’t closely related, Jeanne was the daughter of Joseph Alexander Caldwell (1657-1730) and Jane McGhie, and Margaret Caldwell (1729-1802) was the great-granddaughter of that couple. The Caldwells are shown in magenta, with both Richey/Caldwell couples shown as duplicates. The Richey are highlighted in apricot, and the Caldwell’s with a light grey background. It was difficult to show how these lines connect, so that’s at the very top of the pedigree chart.

When just viewing the Smith-Combs line, it’s easier to view in the Ancestry pedigree.

The Smith, Richey, Combs, Grigsby, and Caldwell lines are all repeated in different locations in the trees, such as with Hannah Fugate’s husband. These repeated ancestors make it almost impossible for us to determine where in the Smith ancestral tree that blue gene originated.

We don’t know which of these ancestral lines actually contributed the blue gene.

Can We Figure Out Where the Blue Gene Came From?

How could we potentially unravel this mystery?

We know for sure that the blue gene in the Fugate side actually descends from Martin Fugate who was born in 1725, or his wife, Sarah, whose surname is unknown, because their two great-grandchildren, Martin (c1820-1899) and Zachariah (1816-1864) who both married Smith sisters had blue children. For those two intervening generations between Martin Fugate (1725-1803) and those two great-grandsons, that blue gene was quietly being passed along, just waiting for a blue Fugate gene carrier to meet another blue gene carrier. They found them in the Smith sisters.

None of Martin (1725-1803) and Sarah’s other children were known to have had any blue children or descendants. So either they didn’t carry the blue gene, or they didn’t marry someone else who did – that we know of.

We can’t tell on the Smith side if the blue gene descends from the Smith, Richey, Grigsby or Caldwell ancestors, or maybe even an unknown ancestor.

How can we narrow this down?

If a Fugate in another geographic location married someone from one of these lineages, say Grigsby, for example, and they had blue offspring, and neither of them shared any of the other lineages, then we could narrow the blue gene in the Smith line to the Grigsby ancestor.

Unfortunately, in Perry and surrounding counties in Kentucky, that would be almost impossible due to intermarriage and pedigree collapse. Even if you “think you know” that there’s no connection through a third line, given the deep history and close proximity of the families, the possibility of unknown ancestry or an unexpected parent is always a possibility.

Discover

While the blue gene is not connected to either Y-DNA or mitochondrial DNA, we do have the Fugate’s Y-DNA haplogroup and the Smith sisters’ mitochondrial DNA.

Y-DNA

The Big Y-700 haplogroup for the Martin Fugate (c1820-1899) line is R-FTA50432, which you can see, here..

You can see the Blue Fugate Family by clicking on Notable Connections.

If you’re a male Fugate descendant who descends from anyone other than Martin Fugate (c1820-c1899), and you take a Big Y test, you may well discover a new haplogroup upstream of Martin (c1820-1899) that represents your common Fugate ancestor.

If you descend from Martin, you may find youself in either of the two haplogroups shown for Martin’s descendants, or you could split the line to form a new haplogroup.

We don’t have the mitochondrial DNA of Martin Fugate (c1820-1899), which would be the mitochondrial DNA of his mother, Nancy Noble. We also don’t have the the mtDNA of Mary (Polly) Wells, the mother of Zachariah Fugate (c1816-1864). If you descend from either of these women in a direct matrilineal line, through all women, please take a mitochondrial DNA test and reach out. FamilyTreeDNA will add it as a Notable Connection.

We do, however, have the mitochondrial DNA of Elizabeth and Mary Smith

Mitochondrial DNA of Elizabeth and Mary Smith

The mitochondrial DNA of both Elizabeth and Mary Smith follows their mother’s line – Nancy Combs through Nancy (Eletia?) Grigsby. Nancy’s mother is unknown, other than the possible first name of Margaret.

Nancy Grigsby’s descendant is haplogroup K1a61a1, which you can see here.

The Blue Fugates show under Notable Connections.

The Smith sisters’ haplogroup, K1a61a1, tells us immediately that their ancestor is European, eliminating other possibilities.

The time tree on Discover is quite interesting

Haplogroup K1a61a1 was formed about the year 1400. Descendants of this haplogroup are found in the UK, Scotland, England, several unknown locations, and one person who selected Native American, which is clearly in error. Haplogroup K is not Native American.

By focusing on the haplotype clusters, identified by the F numbers in the elongated ovals, our tester may be able to identify the mother of Nancy Grigsby, or upstream lineages that they can work back downstream to find someone who married Thomas Grigsby.

This story is far from over. In fact, a new chapter may just be beginning.

If you’re a Fugate, or a Fugate descendant, there’s still lots to learn, even if autosomal DNA is “challenging,” to say the least, thanks to pedigree collapse. Testing known females lineages can help us sort which lines are which, and reveal their hidden stories.

Other resources if you want to read more about the Fugates: The Blue People of Troublesome Creek, Fugates of Kentucky: Skin Bluer than Lake Louise, Those Old Kentucky Blues: An Interrupted Case Study, and Finding the Famous Paintings of the Blue People of Kentucky.

_____________________________________________________________

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

Mother’s Day and Legacies

I wasn’t going to write about Mother’s Day this year, because some Mother’s Days are harder for me than others. And no, I don’t exactly know why.

Grief, even decades later, is still some flavor of grief. Grief ebbs and flows. However, it’s also possible to smile into the face of grief – and that’s where legacies, plural, enter the picture.

Legacies

Everyone has a legacy. Not just one legacy, but a separate legacy in the mind of everyone who knows, or knew, them. We tend to think about legacies in the context of someone who has passed, but in reality, legacies are living, dynamic definitions, and they aren’t just in the past.

The most common time to think about legacies is when we need to write an obituary or prepare for the funeral of someone we love. And it’s also the most difficult time.

I can give you two examples of exactly what I DON’T want for my legacy.

  1. I attended a funeral where the best the family could come up with was that the deceased had graduated from high school and had two children. That was literally it. I knew this person well, and let’s just say he struggled. He also had an unspoken legacy that needed to remain unspoken in that setting. Still, I could have contributed something that sounded like I at least tried.
  2. An obituary written by the husband of a friend proclaimed that her legacy was that she had once colored the mashed potatoes green for St. Patrick’s Day. That saddened me immensely, because while that may have been true, and funny, I could have provided several examples her kindness and charity work. How she had founded and then became president of a local nonprofit – and how long-suffering and brave she had been in the face of adversity.

Was that REALLY all there was to say about either of those people? Couldn’t someone have come up with something that was both true and more profound? Was there absolutely nothing else about my friend, other than green potatoes, that could be said “in polite company”?

What would these people have said about their own legacy? How would they want to be remembered?

If you had asked them, without pondering or overthinking, to quickly list the three most important things about themselves, their life and their own legacy – what would they have said?

I absolutely guarantee you that it would NOT have been about green potatoes – although if you added another question about something funny, humorous, or that would make people smile – green potatoes might have been included.

A green potatoes equivalent is just not “the thing” I want to be remembered for.

Mom’s Legacy

Mother’s Day caused me to think about my mother’s legacy.

I participated in writing Mom’s obituary (which was finally correct with the THIRD printing) and provided the minister with fodder for Mom’s funeral service, but both of those things are focused on a specific audience. That’s a nice way of saying the information wasn’t “all-inclusive.”

Not to mention, the cumulative memory of others may not be either complete or entirely accurate. Everyone remembers a person within the context of how they knew them. Your family and colleagues will remember your legacy differently.

Obituaries are very limited and generally fit a specific pattern, with little opportunity for customization. Fit your life, as others remember it, into a paragraph. Here’s your template.

Today, many people have no obituary or a funeral as we used to know them.

What is said in obituaries or at funeral services may not be the way the person would have expressed their own legacy, if they had that opportunity.

Get out a piece of paper.

Whether your mother, or the person or people who function in that capacity in your life are living or not, write down the first three things that come to mind when you think of them. No editing. You can add or edit later – right now, just get your first thoughts onto paper.

If you can’t narrow it to just three, that’s fine. Just start the list without thinking – write what pops into your mind.

Mom’s Legacy

Here’s my non-obituary, non-funeral version of Mom’s legacy based on the exercise above.

  • Mom survived the Great Depression as a child in the 1930s by cleaning chickens in Silver Lake, Indiana for a nickel each. She hated cleaning chickens for the rest of her life. Her father lost his hardware store. Her mother’s income from working for the Welfare Department, plus the money earned by raising chickens, growing berries, and a small truck patch is what saved the family.

  • Mom survived rheumatic fever as a child, which left her with a lifelong heart murmur. She learned resiliency the hard way, and experienced crushing heartbreak a few years later when her fiancé was killed in WWII.

  • Mom became a successful tap and ballet dancer, in spite of growing up in a strict, extremely conservative region of northern Indiana. Her father’s family was Brethren. Mom overcame discrimination and pushback at every turn, studying with the world-renowned Philadelphia Ballet Company and then dancing professionally in Chicago with the Dorothy Hild Company during and after WWII.

  • My entry into the world ended that career, enabling Mother to finally become a bookkeeper, something she had always wanted to do.

  • Mom was an accidental pioneer in women’s equality and rights, even though she never meant to be. Abandoned by undeserving men for other women or a liquor bottle, she persevered as a single mother and raised two children in a day and age when women were not afforded equal pay for equal work, many jobs or careers simply weren’t available to women, and a woman couldn’t even get a credit card or buy a car or home in her own name. Mom did it anyway, being the first single woman in Kokomo, Indiana to purchase a home with a mortgage in her own name.

  • Mom moved to the farm a dozen years later when she married my wonderful step-father. She began her third career when the company she had worked for as a bookkeeper for years shut its doors.

  • Mom became an Avon Lady for the next quarter century, more as her own personal mission to check on her neighbors than to earn money. She spent far more than she ever made – although she denied that till her dying day – but I saw the books after her death. She would take food to people, listen to their problems, check on anyone who was sick, take people to town to do errands or for appointments, deliver “sermons on tape” to shut-ins, and so forth. Every single day for more than a quarter century, she quietly solved every problem that she could, until she had to retire at 82 due to her own health issues. The photo, above, was taken by one of her favorite customers on her last “Avon” day.

I can’t even begin to count how many humans and animals Mom rescued or saved in one way or another as “just an Avon Lady.” Unfortunately, from time to time, people took advantage of her big heart and generosity.

Mom would never, in a hundred years, have said any of these things about herself. She was far too humble, and even in later years, having been a dancer carried a certain stigma in rural Indiana – land of the Baptist Church, in which she was a Deacon.

I don’t know what Mom’s personal legacy list about herself would have been. Of course, she loved her family. She even saved Dad’s life – not once – but twice.

I know she was proud of her Avon awards, and she received several. It wasn’t until years later that I realized how much of what she purchased was given away to people who couldn’t afford it. Mom would tell them it was “extra” or “overstock” or “on sale” for a pittance. She also preserved their dignity by approaching her missionary work that way – and no one ever knew until after she was gone.

The example she set by her silent actions, not her words, was absolutely incredible.

Mom received the Spriit of Avon Award in 1989 and several other years. But I only have these few photos.

The “Spirit of Avon” award, specifically the Spirit of Albee award, is given to Avon representatives who embody the entrepreneurial spirit of Mrs. P.F.E. Albee, the first Avon Lady. This award recognizes individuals who strive to build better lives for themselves and others.

Mom tended to downplay her own achievements.

She loved the Albee awards, what they meant and why they were awarded.

This is the 1992 Albee. Several more of hers sit on my shelf.

I’m still so proud of Mom for so many reasons. Yet, I’m sitting here crying because I couldn’t, or didn’t, go with her to the banquet(s) to receive those awards. Yes, I lived in a different state and was busy with my family and career, but now I greatly regret that choice. Of course, she understood. She didn’t even ask because she wouldn’t have wanted to impose. On the other hand, I know full well she would have been utterly thrilled if I had asked to go with her.

I didn’t, and I get to live with that now.

Smile Memories

There are several “Mom memories” that make me smile.

  • Everyone received Avon products for Christmas, birthday, and any other “gift event.” Even the Easter Bunny was hooked up with the Avon Lady. We enjoyed those thoughtful gifts, and Mom knew everyone’s favorites – bath oil, bubble bath, makeup and lip balm. I remember Mom walking around my car with a rag and a bottle of Skin-So-Soft, scrubbing the bugs off my windshield and tar off my fenders.

Swear to God – I still have a bottle of Skin-So-Soft and half a bottle of bubble bath from Mom. I tried to help boost her sales, especially in the last year or so when she knew she was going to have to retire and she wanted to leave on a high note.

Mom was widely loved in the community, and we had to reserve an entire restaurant for her retirement party.

She was so surprised and honored that so many people came and many brought gifts for her.

  • Avon lip balm was always in the toe of every Christmas stocking (that she crocheted for every family member) and taped to each package. When Mom died, after the funeral, as we were saying our final goodbyes, my sister-in-law and I decided we were going to be sure Mom had a lip balm with her in the hereafter – so I dug one out of my purse and we tucked it in her hand, in the casket. On the way to the cemetery, the hearse had to brake unexpectedly, and I vividly remember thinking, “I hope the lip gloss didn’t fall out of Mom’s hand.”
  • Mom also loved her “pretty shoes,” as she called them, but the funeral director couldn’t get her favorite pair of high heels on her feet. We knew she absolutely wouldn’t want to leave them behind – so they were tucked in the bottom of her casket too.

  • When I was a teenager, I got caught up in an altercation after a football game at a rival school. Not knowing what else to do, I headed for the police station where I knew I’d be safe and could call Mom to pick me up. When I told Mom I was at the police station, she was rattled and hung up before I had a chance to explain, jumped in the car, and hurried right down to the station. She ran into the lobby where I was waiting with a friend, saw that we were alright, and suddenly realized that she had put her hair up in those pink foam rollers – and there was a handsome officer on duty who was trying not to laugh. Mom turned beet red. She was mad at us, not for calling her – that was the absolute right thing to do – but because she came to the police station with her hair in rollers, and without a scarf. Go figure:)
  • We always feasted on corn on the cob in the summer. Mom had a partial set of false teeth. We had company over for Sunday dinner, and Mom took a bite of corn on the cob, only to realize her top teeth were embedded in the cob. The teeth had broken off from the rest of the dentures. The look on Mom’s face was priceless. She didn’t exactly know what to do – and the rest of us couldn’t help but laugh. We tried to stifle our laughter though, which made the entire episode funnier and funnier until everyone, including Mom, was laughing so hard we were crying. “Mom, you have teeth in your corn. Most of us just get corn in our teeth!”
  • Some years later, a grandchild had made their way to the state track finals and was “up at the university” for the events. Mom was proud as punch, and wild horses couldn’t have kept her away. She was leaning over the railing waving and cheering the grandchild on as they circled the inside track – only for those pesky false teeth to fall out of her mouth – straight down onto the track. She had a horrified look on her face as she tried to tell me, “my teef” and pointed at the track below. Thankfully, that race was over, and no one had stepped on them. I had to make my way down, out of the bleachers, and find someone to explain why I needed to go onto the track – all quickly – before the next event. The grandchild saw me, was very confused, looked quite irritated, was assuredly embarrassed, and came over to see what I was doing. Fortunately, the grandchild, as a contestant, had permission to be on the track. They found and recovered Mom’s “teef,” ran them over to us, waving them over their head in a victory lap of sorts. We laughed about this forever – just not at the time.

  • At a family celebration some years later at an event center, my daughter, Mom and I were hamming it up outside and took this photo. I think we were comparing ourselves to Mom’s dancing photos from decades earlier and trying not to fall over. We were having so much fun together.

  • At my wedding, I have no idea what Mom and I were laughing at, but we were. What a joyful day, just a couple years before she passed.

That was after she walked me down the aisle. Well, truth be told, I walked her up the aisle to her seat in order to steady her – but that’s not the story we told.

What I remember best are the times with smiles and laughter.

It’s those smiles and laughter that soothe the grief of her passing. The grief of Mother’s Day without her. We buried Mom 19 years ago this week, and I cleaned out her apartment on Mother’s Day.

Yep, I need those smiles and to remember Mom’s wonderful legacy.

Your Legacy

Now, it’s your turn.

What is your legacy?

What three things, off the top of your head, have you done that made the biggest difference, or maybe were the most important to you?

What do you want your legacy to be? Accomplishments? Achievements? Family? Service work? Hobbies? Career? Personality traits?

How do you want your life to be remembered?

Does that align with the legacy that those you care about would pen for you?

Is there something you need to do?

Is some aspiration unfulfilled? Can you do something about that?

Are there amends that you’d like to make? If so, do them now, because amends don’t make themselves.

Don’t wait. Do something a little crazy with someone you love.

You truly never know when you’re going to take that last photo, or smile that last smile, together.

Like mother, like daughter – my beautiful daughter has my mother’s beautiful smile.

Take that trip, wear the funky ill-fitting hats, laugh at yourselves out loud, make those memories, and watch that sunset while you can.

Say “I love you,” and create your legacy.

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