Did you know ...?

+13 votes
531 views
It's been reported that DNA research geneticists believe that 100% of the descendants of the very early French settlers in North America have some Native DNA. There were no European women here (or if there were, they were very few) until Louis XIV sent about 800 young French women to New France between 1663 to 1673, to help settle the area around present-day Quebec City. These young women were known as Filles du Roi (Daughters of the King) although they were not related to Louis, were not at all royal, and most were very poor. They did, however have to be "of good character" and supply a reference from their parish priest. The King paid for their transportation to New France and supplied a dowery if they married one of the settlers. Vey few of these women returned to France and I am directly descended from Anne Masson, who came to Quebec City in 1669 (my 7x gr-grandmother). Her gr-granddaughter married the first of my Blanchard ancestors (Pierre Blanchard) who came to Quebec from France circa 1754.

As there were so few European women in New France prior to 1663, many of the earliest French explorers-settlers married and had children with the native women of the Iroquois, Algonquin and Huron nations, and it was often the males of mixed-blood marriages who then married the Filles du Roi.
in The Tree House by Barbara Petepiece G2G1 (1.9k points)
retagged by Ellen Smith
I had never heard of such a thing, what is your reference for that?  I have 29 Filles du Roi in my line and not one of them married a metis. Thanks.

Did you also know that there is actually a Quote from S.W. within one of his publications that is public now online, where he himself states;

Quote- “After dismissing the limitation that we have imposed elsewhere that we are not descendants of native or natives of Acadia further than the generation of their grandchildren, we were able to add more than 260 families in our book.”

    • The above Quote is an Actual Quote, involving the making and publications of

genealogical materials- books, historical type docs, Genealogical Society type materials. When I asked a reputable Genealogist (who works sometimes quite closely with this one who said the quote- The "reputable -Genealogist" informed me..."Well, this Genealogist in question- was only requested to do "Acadian" genealogies."....

    • My question of this quote was..."Does this mean, that those of Acadia Ancestries/Decendency who were born of "mixed-blood" or native/indigenous ancestries are not included within their own families in multiple publications and books involving Acadian Genealogies"?...
    • By the response of -

"Well, this Genealogist in question- was only requested to do "Acadian" genealogies." 

 

(I yes I do actually have the actual page of this quote documented within my puter...for anyone who wants me to "show proof" of this)...

I'm just putting it out here, because it Definately explains why there are so many missing children missing from ACADIAN Family genealogical datas...the whole...If it doesn't show thru S.W. publications/genealogical compendiums..then it must not be accurate....Well maybe that needs to be RE-EVALUATED on Acadian only status profiles here...since there actually were no women of Europe here in late 1500's and early 1600's.. yYep I read that one too...its' in an Explorers' Journals and I think also within the early either Jesuit Journals, Explorer Journals, or Old Fort Records...I saved the info somewhere within my genealogical infos on puter will see if I can pull it up for the locations.

Actually, the Acadian situation is quite different that the Quebec situation.  Very few Filles du Roy wound up in Acadie, for the simple reason that the ships would come to Québec city as first port of call, and there were lots of men waiting with bated breath for them.  ;)

S.W. I presume is Stephen White, who has made a special study of Acadian genealogy.  The reason there are so many gaps there is what is known as ''Le Grand Dérangement'', ie the deportation of Acadians in the 1750s.  Records got lost/destroyed, and a lot of it got reconstructed after the fact.  Some Acadians who got shipped to Europe then actually did a whole reconstruction with the clergy and others there, since they had such a small population initially that they had to check for consanguinity.  But there were loads who got shipped to various places in the US English colonies, and the reconstruction work was not done with them in the same way.

Oh, and indeed, there is more native blood in Acadian lineages.  Those DNA researchers really need to get their terminology straight, ''Early French settlers'' is actually a fair bunch of people in different places.

I agree with all you just said Danielle, I am also very aware of the the Expulsions.  I just brought the info up, because I've come across sooo many situations on genealogical sites, where they will base all connections involving Acadian on S.W. works, and many either are unaware that these books/compendiums/family dictionaries were made at the request for "just Acadian families", consequently, those who either married outside the tradional "acadian-french" bloods...were not included in many of these references.  Then the double strike comes, because not only are some unable to find their direct line connections within these references...but they get whamied again, by those who may say..."well it's not in SW so.. it isn't accurate.  The question above by Barbara just sorta made me think of this little fact, so I thought I would bring it up for attention to wiki genealogists as food for thought when trying to use ref. to confirm or deny lineages within Acadia specifically.  I guess maybe I should have started a separate comment on this based on Acadia...But then again, many of these families ended up all over the place during the expulsions, so one maybe searching in Qeubec or Louisianna..and find a source that is accurate..then go back from there only to find..."null"..and be told.."no..S.W. doesn't show it" so it's not accurate.

Don't get me wrong, S.W. is very accurate & great source..but this bit of info, should be considered when not being able to find names that should be connected, & that's where other sources like Jesuit baptismal records within Jesuit Relations, or Journal Entries of Explorers, Trappers, Traders, old Fort records, etc..may have to come into play for some, to at least raise suspicions of possible familial ties, when other options have been exhausted. 

**btw...the reference quote Came from this for those who may want to see proof;

 

Report sector genealogy
Bulletin Contact-Acadie , n o 34 Contact Acadia Bulletin, No. 34
http://www.umoncton.ca/etudeacadiennes/centre/2dline.gif



Le Dictionnaire généalogique des familles acadiennes Genealogical Dictionary of Acadian families

Durant l’été de 2003, nous avons achevé l’augmentation du texte de la deuxième partie du dictionnaire généalogique par l’incorporation des familles de descendants de la colonie acadienne sur la rivière du Sud, en arrière de Montmagny. During the summer of 2003, we completed the increase in the text of the second part of the dictionary pedigree by including families of descendants of the Acadian settlement on the South River, behind Montmagny. Après avoir écarté la limitation que nous avons imposée ailleurs selon laquelle nous ne poursuivons pas la descendance des natifs ou natives de l’Acadie plus loin qu’à la génération de leurs petits-enfants, nous avons pu ainsi ajouter plus de 260 familles à notre ouvrage. After dismissing the limitation that we have imposed elsewhere that we are not descendants of native or natives of Acadia further than the generation of their grandchildren, we were able to add more than 260 families in our book."

 

 

have to correct your translation of what you are quoting there:

Après avoir écarté la limitation que nous avons imposée ailleurs selon laquelle nous ne poursuivons pas la descendance des natifs ou natives de l’Acadie plus loin qu’à la génération de leurs petits-enfants, nous avons pu ainsi ajouter plus de 260 familles à notre ouvrage. 

Translation should read: After having removed the limitation that we have imposed elsewhere by which were were not pursuing the descent of natives (m/f) of Acadia further than the generation of their grandchildren, we were able to add more than 260 families in our book."

That quotation is about research done on Acadian descendants who came back after the deportation and settled in Montmagny area.  Very limited.

The link you give is to a .gif, ie an image, not a text.

As far as the attitude that if it's not is SW it's not accurate, nope, not here.  I have Acadian ancestry also, and haven't even looked at SW.

 

thank you for correct translation,

here is the correct link; http://www.umoncton.ca/umcm-ceaac/files/umcm-ceaac/wf/wf/pdf/contact34.pdf  is on page 14 of 29.

This still doesn't change that when I asked the other genealogist who communicates with S. White regularly...what this meant? did it mean that in other research they have left out those who were not considered fullblooded Acadians? ..the response I got.. was still...."well in his defense he was asked to ONLY do the research on Acadians"......

I'm just putting it out here for those whom might be interested in knowing this. just the fact that by his own words, AN ADDITIONAL 260 families were able to be added... ( me thinking.. **and this is just in one location...)
Actually, I read it differently, they originally stopped after a certain number of generations of descendants, not ancestors.  Which makes sense, the Acadians who landed in Québec after the deportation and their various travels intermarried with descendants of other colonists to New France, not just Acadians.  I should know, since I have some in my family.

Thanks for the link.

6 Answers

+7 votes
I have a ancestors that came to Quebec and married a ""daughter of the king" before migrating to Missouri. Its very interesting, thanks for sharing
by Alex Elliott G2G6 Mach 4 (48.5k points)
+9 votes
Thanks for this, so interesting. Must have felt like a huge adventure for those women to set off to the new world with a dowry.

This book might interest you too, by a notable historian.  Chapters on French trappers, their contacts with Great Lakes tribes, with Indian women, how the Jesuits fit in the picture...

"The Middle Ground" by Richard White
by C Ryder G2G6 Mach 8 (88.3k points)
I think it was Who do you think you are? that featured a woman who did that. She was a little unusual since she was a widow and had a child or two.
+9 votes
Sorry, that is incorrect, the Filles du Roy were preceded by the Filles à Marier, around 200 of those at various times pre-1663, they were brought to the colony by various agencies, notably the Compagnie des 100 Associés and some of the religious orders.  Plus there were a lot of colonists who came with their wives and families.

As far as who married the Filles du Roy, there were way more incoming Frenchmen who were with the military, particularly Carignan-Salières regiment, who were preferred spouses for them.  There was a premium of sorts for those soldiers who decided to settle here after their term of service, and they were almost first in line for the Filles du Roy to choose from.
by Danielle Liard G2G6 Pilot (657k points)
Danielle,  Thank you for adding this history.

 

In regard: http://www.lookbackward.com/perrault/marier/
I'm going to see if i can find the actual Old Fort doc/journal I read, I believe it was to do with one of the original 1st forts within the Quebec Region.  The document was a 1st person account of the 1st Euro female(s) to come from ships to Quebec.  I believe the time period was right around 1641 or 1643...I only remember this, because the decade actually surprised me, I had just assumed they were within Quebec sooner than this.  But this doc really goes into detail "1st person account at the time"
hmm, that date is out by a few decades, go see this profile:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Rollet-2

if you find that document, please post a link here.
+4 votes

Did you also know that there is actually a Quote from S.W. within one of his publications that is public now online, where he himself states;

Quote- “After dismissing the limitation that we have imposed elsewhere that we are not descendants of native or natives of Acadia further than the generation of their grandchildren, we were able to add more than 260 families in our book.”

    • The above Quote is an Actual Quote, involving the making and publications of

genealogical materials- books, historical type docs, Genealogical Society type materials. When I asked a reputable Genealogist (who works sometimes quite closely with this one who said the quote- The "reputable -Genealogist" informed me..."Well, this Genealogist in question- was only requested to do "Acadian" genealogies."....

    • My question of this quote was..."Does this mean, that those of Acadia Ancestries/Decendency who were born of "mixed-blood" or native/indigenous ancestries are not included within their own families in multiple publications and books involving Acadian Genealogies"?...
    • By the response of -

"Well, this Genealogist in question- was only requested to do "Acadian" genealogies." 

 

(I yes I do actually have the actual page of this quote documented within my puter...for anyone who wants me to "show proof" of this)...

I'm just putting it out here, because it Definately explains why there are so many missing children missing from ACADIAN Family genealogical datas...the whole...If it doesn't show thru S.W. publications/genealogical compendiums..then it must not be accurate....Well maybe that needs to be RE-EVALUATED on Acadian only status profiles here...since there actually were no women of Europe here in late 1500's and early 1600's.. yYep I read that one too...its' in an Explorers' Journals and I think also within the early either Jesuit Journals, Explorer Journals, or Old Fort Records...I saved the info somewhere within my genealogical infos on puter will see if I can pull it up for the locations.

 

***Sorry this was meant as a comment /reply to above "Did you Kno"

 

by Arora Anonymous G2G6 Pilot (164k points)
edited by Arora Anonymous
see above comment from me on this point.
+6 votes
BTW...there are also some Genetic Specialist online that have brought up the topics of "proving or disproving" native heritage thru DNA & Mtdna.  The thing about this actually involves so much more than most realize.  When you have your Direct line Fathers lines Tested or your direct Line Mothers lines tested...It still Leaves Out the possibility of hundreds of other Ancester Grandparents that AREN't being Tested.  So for ANYONE to state...there IS NO N8v...unless they have found some New way to Check ALL grandparent genetics all the way back to beginning of your lines....the question will still remain...is it possible there are others that were Native..that just aren't being seen? ..just food for thought..not meant to offend anyone.
by Arora Anonymous G2G6 Pilot (164k points)
have a care, I have seen some things on line that claimed that such-and-such was actually a native woman, when she was actually documented as arriving from France, it seems to be rather fashionable these days to claim native ancestry.  DNA has some use for all this, but you cannot use a single person to make claims, you have to have at least 3 descendants tested to be able to triangulate.
+2 votes

I would like to see your sources for these claims. Thank you.

 

If my research is correct, my 9th great grandmother, Françoise Lemoine was one the "King's Daughters". If you go down that line, she had a daughter by the name, Marie Niquet Niquette who married a man named, François Peloquin dit Credit, my 8th great-grandparents. Now from the documents I have read, Francois Peloquin was one of the marines sent to Quebec. He valiantly defended the colonies from the English and the Iroquois Indians. The arrival of Francois in Canada is not known precisely. The best estimate is that he arrived sometime between 1683 and 1688. By 1666, the Iroquois had been successfully subdued. But the Indians arose again in 1680 and the Governor de La Barre requested troops from the King. In response, the King sent a company of marines each year from 1683 through 1688. Francois Pelloquin was one of the marines sent to fight the Indians.

by Marc Gaudio G2G Rookie (250 points)
hello Marc, the discussion is a year old, but other than that, no, the statement made is not recognized as accurate.  If your ancestor was in the marine companies, and you have an interest in them, you can look at their category : Marine companies to New France , under the Québecois project as well as military categorization.  There were companies sent in more than just 1683-1688.  :D

Related questions

+6 votes
1 answer
+10 votes
1 answer
+4 votes
1 answer
+6 votes
3 answers
312 views asked Feb 5, 2018 in The Tree House by Guy Constantineau G2G6 Pilot (382k points)
+5 votes
4 answers

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

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...