Is there any evidence for this person?

+6 votes

I've been working on Catherine Lejeune's profile a bit. Currently she has Pierre Lejeune as her father, but I can't find any evidence for that (or even for his existence). It has been confirmed that Catherine and Edmee Lejeune were sisters, but I haven't seen anything naming their parents. Where did this Pierre fellow come from?

Also, sidenote: Catherine's mother is currently listed as "Unknown Native", but DNA testing has shown that Catherine was of European origin. I can disconnect that.

Thanks for any help on this!


WikiTree profile: Pierre Lejeune dit Briard
in Genealogy Help by Liander Lavoie G2G6 Pilot (448k points)
recategorized by Jillaine Smith
Just last night I was cleaning up a bunch of "Indian Princess" myths for early New England settlers. Sorry I can't help on this one.
Haha, that's good Jillaine. :) For me it's usually "descended from French nobility" myths!
I just wanted to add an alert that this is NOT the same Catherine Lejeune that I asked about. However, she is in my tree as well... both she and Edmee are direct-line ancestors of mine.

I don't have any strong evidence that her father was a Pierre Lejeune. Sources where I've seen it are places like find-a-grave, nosorigines, (and here), where just about anyone can input information without documenting the source of the information.

Pierre LeJeune dit Briard

Also Known As: "Briard", "Breillard", "Bréard", "Briars"
Birthdate: circa 1595
Birthplace: Martaizé, Poitou, France
Death: Died  1636  in Port-Royal, Acadia, Canada
Immediate Family:

Husband of les Indiens de la tribu mikmac des sauvages
Father of Edmée dite Aimée LejeunePierre Lejeune dit Briard and Catherine Jeanne Lejeune

But just so we remember...  even if this Pierre is proved to be the father, the Indian woman is not the mother of Catherine and Edmee. They both have European mt-DNA.

I don't think that a Geni profile is any more proof than a wikitree profile is...
i'll try to hunt down the docs that i know for sure do exist on LeJeune dit Briard and the ones that are his children. What i can tell you for sure is this,

1. There are 2 Pierre LeJeunes- 1 dna- Euro   1 dna- Native

2. there are 2 females known thru their descendants testing to confirm they are sisters this is Catherine LeJeune and Edmee/Aimee LeJeune - testing has shown over and over they are Euro.. (at least for the direct lines tested)  (They are of Unknown Parents due to testing results


3 other  Pierre LeJeune is Native(thru descendants test results dna) Pierre LeJeune dit BRIARD/ BRIART

4. there are known children of this Pierre LeJeune dit Briard/Briart...(btw in most records they are found as Briard and Briart, seems it was the Missionaries/Jesuits I think that actually may have just nicnamed this pierre the "lejeune" (the younger) and not meant it as his name so much as the descriptive to separate the one from the other in the records.

5.  there are children of this second Pierre lejeune dit Briard/Briart

known children are Jeanne Lejeune dite Briard/Briart, Martin, and AGNES_AIMEE...NOte *** I wrote AGNES..NOT EDMEE..I actually read the Jesuit journal that included info about Agnes when she was either very young or being baptised, I don't remember specifics but will find the info for you if you like.

LeJeune and Briart/Briard war of Euro vs. Native..(at least 12 years now that I've watched this battle, and still they try to force ...and now they are changing Jeannes name and that just irks me the wrong way.  Catherine had her own Husband and Jeanne had completely different, reason they now made name Catherine Jeanne Lejeune Briard/Briart is JEANNE MARRIED FRANCIS JOSEPH..KNOWN ConFIRMED NATIVE MAN!  can't make catherine native thru her own dna tests they gunna make her native thru Jeanne's tests or thru her husband..that's just wrong!  catherine tests results came back EURO.. JEANNE tests came back NATIVE



The habit has been going on for years to place Edmee as "Agnes" because Agnes is noted as natif in the Journals and if any have come up as dna as natif, and they had Edmee listed as Aimee on their docs its an easy miss of not seeing is the wrong one..basically easy way to hide the correct person, names each contained a "second" of Aimee...but I almost wanna say that Agnes's spelling of Aimee' by the parish missionaries was slightly different than when they wrote Edmee's names.  But the "we'll pretend they are cauz we need em to be has been going on for years.  (is it possible they have other lines of native that have't been tested? OOOF Course...but
The difference of course could be that there was an adoption somewhere in Jeanne's line. In reality it doesn't really matter who was connected to a native or not. Indigenous doesn't necessarily mean native.

In our case, since they were all covered under the Royal Proclamation "Indians or any of them" qualify as indigenous. There was no difference stated about their rights, therefore there is no difference PERIOD. It is illegal to insert language into a legal and binding contract without mutual consent. That means they all have to agree, that is not what happened and has yet to happen.

What's wrong is what they did and continue to do to the Acadians. They were well within their rights to declare neutrality and all their descendants forever, have the same rights as Indians. That's the law, it doesn't matter who disagrees!
Bud, please understand I am not denying in anyway that there are known docs that state that Catherine and Edmee were living within Native community areas, they could well have been a part of a native community thru families or marriages or adoptions, steps/halfs, etc.  I would be the last to deny anyone their ancestors' cultures/heritages/histories.  But i will continue to say... don't attach without documented proof.  Now do I NOT agree that the only proof is a primary source doc- birth baptism marrg census or death cert. NOr do I agree on Acadian Subjects that S W is the ONLY Source to Accept when no other sources seem to be available.  (I have found sources when he and others have said there were none and I knew of Jeanne leJeune Briart being n8v b4 testing was ever done, and it was not based on info that others were quoting & fighting about w. another "genealogist" whose Acadian website is constantly touted as law on Acadian.- And that genealogist still doesn't like to accept the results of many who have come up thru Ydna or Mito as N8v and even still has over the years touted those results as questionable.   No I don't agree with primary source only issue because to stick to this tight knit demand is to deem all as having records available.  We all know that thru-out history there were  multiple displacements, forced removals, falsified "color" on docs, and many that did not follow the euro path of required docs.. just one result of all of this is the "slave" populations that will never find most of their connections!  So to deam this as you must have this or this or this to be "real" sme families may only have a family bible of info, or the gr gr gr granndfathers "freedom release doc" or some note..if this is a tie to their only history, who the heck are any of us to deny them the ability to try to connect into their relatives... For many who did abide by the primary source things, the docs usually can  be found, but again, due to fires, forced removals/ displacements/ invasions, many docs either never existed or were destroyed in one fashion or another.  I do think in these cases that if ANY reference is found to a parent or child, through say an older book, Lanctot, Jette, PRDH, Bemish Murdock, Jesuit Relations, Recollect Journals/communication letters/ fur trader/trapper journals, explorer journals, Wills, Land Deeds, Magistrate records, Prison/Prisoner Journals,  or ANY other type of old "forgotten" Book /or Journal  or document that may have been created during or near to the time periods in question are MORE likely to be useable information as temporary or even permanent  sources  if one uses the sources as a reference point to continue searching. Hopefully thru the continued searches, other docs ref. will arrise from the original "questionable source" that will help confirm that hey..this "questionable source" is most likely tru for this person/couple/ children/granparents.

When it comes down to the whole Catherine and Edmee Lejeune issues.  You don't have to agree that with anyone on wikitree, but the purpose of the tree is 1 profile for each individual, and to connect all into the tree and together to show how we all are actually related.  Wikitree is meant to be different from other sites in that each of us agrees to the code of honor, to find the truths, and attached sourced proof of our findings, even if we have to attach temporary proof.. we also agreed when we signed up that the use of say "others online genealogies although they maybe downloaded into the tree for connection purposes, unless the sources are verified viable sources, all sources are suspect basically (accept the primary, and possibly secondary if they have additional sources that also show the initial secondary to be the most likely correct answer.  At least that is how I myself see the use of being on Wikitree.

Do I find myself at odds with ppl over my direct line ancestors, many many times, most of my direct lines ancestors of 1700's back  are all under ppp & it irritates that daylights otta me, because i may have tons of info for some of them, but rather than argue with the "groups protecting the profiles, i will just place those things that i know some may argue about on my private trees off this tree.  Is just easier than arguing with those that don't want to hear possible alternative facts.

Is Catherine LeJeune actually Jeane Lejeune.. NO she is not, they have completely different mito, proven thru decendants mtDna tests.

Is arguing this fact a moot point, no it is not. why because if we allow one person to change one ancestor into someone they are not, we actually are helping to destroy ancestral lines of  others ancestors, denying them their right on the wiki to connect to their actual true ancestors that do belong in those lines. I have grands that've not connected to their known lines on wikitree, many infact, because i don't have the verified proof they are children of them, so until i find it, I won't approach a ppp profile about the add.  why waste my time on the arguement, even if i know i'm correct, its easier to find the proof then send with their name. Then the ppp has no choice add them, or I go over their head if necessary to get it done.  (not had to do this yet but will if i need to- I've seen the dang fights on here already too many times over who belongs and who doesn't, and have seen enough removed from lines to know, the aggravation isn't worth it , is easier to add to private genealgy where i do all my main research)-  I am a direct line descendant of  Jean Blanchard, Jeanne, Catherine, Edmee, Martin, LeJeunes and Briart/Briards, I am also a direct line descendant of R.Lambert and of Gallant and Como and Pitreand Richards and have watched for years the battles of they are they aren't.  I know who I am, noone has to accept it or approve it, but my genealogical fight is to Prove who my Ancestors were, because that was denied to many of them. Only way to do that is fill in the blanks with recorded truths and genetics


Sorry this is so long- but felt especially with the LeJeune &  Briart names and confusions this needed saying.
Hi Arora, I want to respond to your comments about the profiles that are protected (PPP-Project Protected Profile). While, a PPP designation does slow down changes, it doesn't mean we can't add to the profile. Please consider putting your research in a section called == Research == if there isn't already one on the profile. This section should go above the == Sources == section so that you can put inline citations for your research. Always include a short explanation of what was added such as (added == Research == section to profile and entered some important research I've done). Thanks for your work on these profiles--they are important to many people as you know!
In my opinion if we remain silent on the destruction of our ancestral lines, then we are just as guilty as those that denied the neutral Acadians their rights in the first place. They were treated unjustly then and their descendants are being treated unjustly now. There is no difference to the motive for this. I will not be an accessory to that and am surprised at how many people are just willing to let it go on.
Bud at this point here on Wiki I don't see anyone being an accessory to denying anyone their ancestors, as i said b4 this genealogical site is different, we find the truths and put in the proper sources add the dna and mito and autosomal...the genetics maybe euro..but that doesn't mean they don't have ancestral lines within their lines, just means the genectics may not have carried forward, in some cases.  This is why it is so important to find the documents, journals, registers, graves, baptisms (if they did have) and any other possible written docs that lead to suspicians of who someone was or wasn't.  Not keeping people connected because there hasn't been any evidence found, just opens up the looking for more evidence.  Instead of getting frustrated, maybe the better thing to do, is look for the evidences that prove your points.

I've spent 20 years now doing research.  Not all LeJeunes are Euro, not all LeJeunes are Native.  My grandaughter is half Inuipiaq...that doesn't make me half Inuipiaq, as she got it thru her dad who was full-blood thru both his full-blood parents.   But 4 generations from now, her descendants may show ntv thru genetics.if i don't connect lines properly, how will her descendants know which lines it came from?  Because she is daughter of son, not of daughter her mito line to that grandmother is broken thru a son (her father), so she may not even carry the mito paternally.   I know she carries some of the autosomal, its obvious by looking at her she is not euro/caucasion/etc.. but ones that don't know here think she is asian, or philipino.  The documents and her acknowledgment thru her N8v nation is what makes here n8v, not my words that she is..its her documentation.  My grandson, different daughter is a mix of philipino, latino, native american and french but if i don't find the documents for all of his lines, he won't have all his proof of any of it, except thru his dna.  do you see my point here.  One qualifies for her native rights thru her nation, the other qualifies for nothing "even as mexico latino heritage or philipino heritage" because there is no connections currently for him to his Island heritage connections or his mexico ancestry. So he is treated as "white" of which he is only maybe 1/4th -1/8th Euro. Without documentation for either of my grandchildren no matter how they look, it won't matter, the documents are the proof of who they are just like their birth certificates
It doesn't seem to matter if I have documents or not. In the case of Noel Langlois and Francoise Grenier there is sufficient documentation and 300 years of oral history proving native ancestry for these people and yet it is still insisted they were not.

In this case we have evidence that these women were sisters, but no evidence that they had different parents, sure the DNA results differed but these weren't the people that were tested. If there was an adoption or even one European wife somewhere in that line it can change the results to make it appear that one was native and one was not. Chances are that if one was native, so was the other one! DNA can be helpful in some cases, but it should not be the ONLY means used to determine one's ancestry.
If you have documentation, you should share it.
I read an interesting research paper regarding the mtDNA of the Lejeune sisters. My great-grandmother is an mtDNA descendant of Edmee Lejeune. Since we are still in the relatively early stages of DNA research, I found the theory on DNA tainting interesting. As we know the mtDNA of the two sisters mutated about 500 years ago to become the Acadian subclade of U6... mtDNA is used to find our DNA ancestral mother because it doesn't mutate very often. The theory is a woman of Basque or N. African descent somehow ended up in Acadie 500 years ago. Was she a slave?  Perhaps involved in a shipwreck or left behind one winter. No one knows. She could have been adopted into a native family and married a native son. She would always pass her European mtDNA down. Her daughters would not receive their father's yDNA and her sons would not pass on her mtDNA. Eventually, native blood becomes smaller and smaller if female children married Europeans, so after 500 years it is almost washed away. An interesting theory to be sure.

8 Answers

+3 votes
Hi Lianne;

Here is a link with some info. but it's probably stuff you already have. Hope you can find the answer.
by Stephen Lapointe G2G6 (8.4k points)
+2 votes
Hi Lianne, My kids are descended through both Catherine and Edmee. Have you found any more info?

I have both pof them on the 1671 Port Royal census with their husbands but not much else.

Considering the dna results can we remove the mother from the profile?
by Dawn Ellis G2G6 Pilot (100k points)
+3 votes
I don't think there is. As you've said, Catherine and Edmee were definitely sisters but who their parents were is unknown. I have never found evidence of the father being named Pierre. Similar to the parents of Etienne and Antoine Hebert as well as Rene and Antoinette Landry. I don't believe we will ever know a name for any of them...
by Greg Simon G2G5 (5.5k points)
+4 votes

Denis Beauregard has the following on FrancoGene (

[119264] LEJEUNE, .. (..)

* mariés/married avant 1624/before 1624, de/from (France)

.., .. (..)


ADNmt/mtDNA calculé/computed (lignée par les femmes/by female descendance only) :
Haplogroupe/Haplogroup : U6a7a
Signature : A73G T152C A263G 315.1C T16172C T16219G C16278T

      1) Edmée, née/born vers 1624 (rec. 1671) ou 1625 (rec. 1686)/about 1624 (census 1671) or 1625 (census 1686), marié/married (Acadie/Acadia) avant 1647/before 1647 François GAUTREAU

      2) Catherine, née/born vers 1633 (rec. 1671)/about 1633 (census 1671) (France), marié/married (Acadie/Acadia) vers 1651/about 1651 François SAVOIE

He cites Dictionnaire généalogique des familles acadiennes (White). On Edmée's entry he has the following statement under her husband: Lui : /Him : Origine : rien ne confirme une origine de Martaizé (86149) pour les familles Acadiennes/Origin : nothing confirms origin from Martaizé (86149) for Acadian families.

by Helmut Jungschaffer G2G6 Pilot (587k points)

Although most mtDNA lineages observed in contemporary Icelanders can be traced to neighboring populations in the British Isles and Scandinavia, one may have a more distant origin. This lineage belongs to haplogroup C1, one of a handful that was involved in the settlement of the Americas around 14,000 years ago. Contrary to an initial assumption that this lineage was a recent arrival, preliminary genealogical analyses revealed that the C1 lineage was present in the Icelandic mtDNA pool at least 300 years ago. This raised the intriguing possibility that the Icelandic C1 lineage could be traced to Viking voyages to the Americas that commenced in the 10th century. see more on this

+2 votes

Not a direct answer but a nice article in French on the 2 Lejeune families:


by Martin Roy G2G Crew (740 points)
+2 votes
by Stanley Baraboo G2G Astronaut (1.4m points)
0 votes
Hi Lianne, thanks for looking into this family. It looks likes her mother is actually Unknown Unknown and is a placeholder unless I'm not looking at the right Catherine.
by Jacqueline Girouard G2G6 Mach 7 (72.8k points)
0 votes
I think that at a time when were there were few European women in the country, little record keeping and when there was records kept, they were destroyed mostly, we have to do some assuming.

There are also different levels of testing one can take in mtDNA and yDNA to go beyond a certain number of years. Did they take the cheaper test or the, more in depth, more expensive test? Also was there an adoption somewhere along either of those 2 lines any time between now and then? Even if there was an adoption, they are still culturally and inherently equivalent to the rest of that adoptive family.

I see little reason to break up 400 y/o families because there's no paper trail or because they weren't mentioned in someone's journal. Seriously, if they have the surname of one of the earliest settlers, it would make sense to connect them to that person.

Sure, there are instances where people took up someones surname as an honorary gesture, but those instances are few and far between. The truth is we'll never know for sure.
by Living St Amand G2G2 (2.0k points)
edited by Living St Amand

Related questions

+10 votes
0 answers
230 views asked Jul 31, 2016 in Requests for Project Volunteers by Robin Wedertz G2G6 Mach 1 (19.3k points)
+3 votes
1 answer
+5 votes
2 answers
+4 votes
2 answers
87 views asked Nov 29, 2023 in Genealogy Help by Phonce Young G2G Rookie (250 points)
+2 votes
1 answer
+2 votes
1 answer
133 views asked Apr 9, 2018 in Genealogy Help by John Krizenesky G2G6 (8.6k points)

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright