Is origin of Françoise Grenier, married to Noël Langlois in 1634, aboriginal or French-born?

+2 votes
2.9k views

The purpose of the posts by me immediately below is to form basis to get this G2G question started.

The comments were originally posted in an early version of Le recrutement de Giffard / List of Giffard's Recruits], which has been uncluttered so as to include in this G2G question instead. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 16 May 2018 Bud St Amand wrote:

Francoise [Grenier]'s name was never found on any passenger list, so this [List of Giffard's Recruits is inaccurate!

On 19 May 2018 Claude Lambert wrote:

Re '. . .so this is inaccurate !'

  • May 19, 2018 - See Impossibility of proving a negative or Russell's teapot.
  • May 19, 2018 - Selon Dionne 1906, Recensement de 1635, p. 459 : Noël Langlois & Françoise Grenier sont parmi ceux arrivés en 1634. Voir Dionne, Narcisse-Eutrope (1906). Samuel Champlain : fondateur de Québec et père de la Nouvelle-France : histoire de sa vie et de ses voyages. Volume 2.
  • May 16, 2018 - According to p.107 of Binet's article, the date of arrival in Canada for Jean Côté and Noël Langlois are also not known exactly. But this does not prevent deducing with a high degree of probability that they both arrived in Canada in 1634.
  • May 16, 2018 - This is Binet's well-considered opinion. There is no suggestion that everything Binet says in this article is necessarily gospel. Binet has a Ph. D. and specializes in retirement on Beauport genealogy and history. I therefore consider Binet's article to be an excellent source.

On 21 May 2018 Bud St Amand wrote:

The opinion of a PhD does not equate to documentation. It is nothing more than an opinion. Whether or not he is correct doesn't change the fact that these people were indigenous due to the fact that they inhabited the country before 1763.

International law is not subject to change of any kind, by anyone in the world, for any reason. Get over it.

On 22 May 2018 Claude Lambert wrote:

Honour code says:

IV. We know misunderstandings are inevitable. We try to minimize them by being courteous to everyone, even those who don't act accordingly.

WikiTree is about genealogy, not international law.

On 23 May 2018 Bud St Amand wrote:

Genealogy is about documented evidence of a person's ancestry, not about assumptions based on...nothing more than an assumption.

Honor code also says....We care about accuracy. We're always aiming to improve upon our worldwide family tree and fix mistakes.

If the person is by international law indigenous and has the same rights as an indigenous person, has descendants who have lived among the tribal nations, and has a 300 year old oral and documented history denoting the latter, then that is a little more than an assumption.

Is it discourteous of me to point this out, or discourteous of you to insist that you should continue to post inaccurate information?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WikiTree profile: Françoise Garnier
in Genealogy Help by Anonymous Lambert G2G6 Mach 1 (10.9k points)
retagged by Anonymous Lambert
I had a look at the profile a couple of days ago and (to me at least) Danielle and yourself make a convincing case for Françoise Grenier being French-born.

Taking into account the "glamour" attached to having Native American ancestry (in recent decades at least), I would say the burden of proof lies with those who argue for Native ancestry. Or in other words, the most sound hypothesis is that she was French born, unless convincing evidence to the contrary can be provided.

I also agree that it is extremely unlikely that NONE of the baptism records of her children would indicate they are metis, if her mother was a Native American.

And that is even before considering the sources you list above.
What is this "Glamour" you speak of lol. There is nothing  glamorous about the way the government or some people treats natives in this country!
Over the past few months, I have exchanged emails with DNA matches that were absolutely obsessed with proving they had native American ancestry, even going as far as trying to disprove my documented family tree and the DNA test results. This is obviously not the case for everyone but there seems to be quite a few of them.
Oh yes, there is indeed a certain degree of prestige or glamour now associated with having some native ancestry, and there is also a lot of work done by Métis communities in this respect.  I don't know how often I've been asked if so-and-so had native ancestry.  It's an ''in'' thing in genealogy at least.
She has been discussed on about every F-C Facebook site, see: https://www.facebook.com/groups/185614864933040/search/?query=grenier for some discussions.
thanks James, but not going to join Facebook groups to see what they said, already have enough groups there.  :D
the blogspot makes assertions and discounts DNA evidence in a rather high-handed manner.  Lots of suppositions in there.  No evidence, they are claiming all sorts of women as of aboriginal origin, who all bear French names.  There was no ''Frenchification'' of names in this era for family names.

8 Answers

+11 votes
 
Best answer

OK, we've been over this before, but I will summarize a few points already made:

Bud quotes international law to say everybody here before 1763 is qualifiable as indigenous.  Including French immigrants prior to that date.  Mixing apples and oranges here.  What international law may or may not say is rather irrelevant to genealogy, where we are looking at blood-lines, ie who was ancestor to whom etc.  So if a person's ancestors are from France, then it is a French blood-line.  If they are Iroquois, or Ojibwai, or Cree, or MicMac, or whatever other lineage avers, then they are classified with the general appellation ''Native'' or ''Aboriginal''.  Same holds true in Australia for that matter, who also have people termed ''Aboriginals''.  And for that matter, how old is this ''international law''?  May seem a quibble to ask that, but laws are made by men, and change over time.

So, case in point that started this whole discussion in the first place, the couple Noël Langlois and his wife Françoise Grenier/Garnier (tagged in question):

In ''Catalogue des immigrants 1632-1662'': pg 31 and 38; Marcel Trudel, Éd Hurtubise HMH 1983 ISBN 2-89045-579-3 we find the following data (my translation):

1- 1634, ships arrived end of May beginning of June, 4 ships, a smaller boat, and an English ship captured by the fleet along the way.  There are about 100 immigrants, of which only 42 are identified.

2- Noël Langlois and Françoise Garnier are both tagged as having uncertain date of arrival.  They marry on 25 July 1634 in Québec.

Gervais Carpin in his book ''Le réseau du Canada: Étude du mode migratoire de la France vers la Nouvelle-France (1628-1662), Éd: Septentrion - 2001 - ISBN 2-89448-197-7 does not list name of passengers of ships except those from Perche, of which he made a particular study.  He does state however that there were 12 ships sent to New France that year of 1634, of which only 9 are identified, 5 going to Acadie and Cap-Breton, 4 to the St-Lawrence valley, so there are 3 unidentified.

As far as the statement made by Bud that 

--''France kept records well before it's people migrated here. The lack of such a document is really indicative that she was not from France.''  

Huh?  Well, you can ask Isabelle about the Paris archives, some of which went up in smoke, so trying to track people there is a nightmare.  And considering how often there has been war ravaging the country over the centuries, it's rather a miracle that so many records do survive to now.  But if you try and find church records before the 1600s or so, they become scarcer and scarcer, and marriages mostly don't name parents, so things come to a dead stop unless one can find other documentation.  

And since the Notre-Dame records burned in 1640, and were reconstructed from memory by the clergy at the time, the marriage of Noël and Françoise does not list parent names (nor do any other reconstructions in the batch).  So we can't even look for records of parents in France in the first place, since we don't know who they were.  The conclusion that ''the lack of such a document is clearly indicative that she was not from France'' is the biggest jump to conclusions I have seen in a long time.

Would be nice to find some women among our Wikitreers who descended from Françoise on a strictly matrilineal line, to possibly get MtDNA done.  That would help put this to rest one way or another hopefully.

by Danielle Liard G2G6 Pilot (375k points)
selected by Angela Cortner
Hello. I may be a little late to the discussion, I am a womb to womb descendant of Françoise Garnier. I have not taken an MtDna test, only autosomal. If anyone wishes to finance the test, I will be happy to do so.
Hello Pierrette, since we're all volunteers, I don't know if anybody would take you up on this, but would be nice.
Pierrette, if there were sufficient commitments from others, I would be happy to PayPal $20 towards it.

But I would want to see a well-sourced maternal ancestry all the way back.  Currently, yours stops at Sophie.
Noel Langlois' parents are on the marriage contract to his 2nd wife, Marie Crevet.  Entered as Guillaume Langlois and Jeanne Millet.

I also want to comment on archival material.  I watched a presentation once of ancient documents sitting in boxes, piled high, and rotting.  Sad to see.
hi Deb, rather old conversation this one.  And yes, old papers often get left to rot, unfortunately.
Yes Danielle an old conversation but never resolved.

My 2x gr-grandfather's parents names were on his marriage document also. His father was correct but his father's wife was his stepmother and not the woman who gave birth to him.

Now if there was a birth document with that info on it we'd have to take it as fact.

Also Noel was the ship's pilot at a trading post that was established in 1608 by Samuel de Champlain. So really being on Giffard's recruitment list doesn't mean he arrived at the same time as Giffard. It only means that he was recruited by Giffard. It would make a lot more sense for him to recruit someone who had already established a rapport and could speak with the natives.

Like I said before, there are too many assumptions being made from the available information. The first French settlement was made actually by Jacques Cartier in the 1530's. In his 3 voyages he managed to bring nearly 1700 men to Quebec. I wonder how many natives with French names resulted from that settlement. And let's not forget Champlain and his desire to merge the natives and the French into one people. Giffard was Champlain's successor, he did not bring the first French settlers, not by a long shot. If he had, then it would be a little more reasonable to make those assumptions!

Also something to consider is that  Indians, converted to Catholicism, were considered as "natural Frenchmen" by the Ordonnance of 1627.

Bud, we've been over this back and forth until we're blue in the face, let's not start up again with unsourced assertions.
And let's not continue them either ok? Francoise was aboriginal according to her descendants, you have nothing to prove otherwise!

Look up the ordanace of 1627, Jacques Cartier's history and Champlains...they are NOT unsourced assertions. Neither is the testimony of her descendants.....But your assertions are!
Also, what does the Se following Francoise's name on her marriage document signify? Sauvagesse perhaps?
–3 votes

It doesn't matter whether she came from France , Canada or Timbuktu. Due to the fact that she inhabited the country well before 1763, she was indigenous. Trying to prove that she was not native doesn't change the rights of her descendants which are identical to those of the tribal nations. 

This is from ILO Convention 169, which is what inspired UNDRIP.

(b) peoples in independent countries who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, or a geographical region to which the country belongs, at the time of conquest or colonisation or the establishment of present state boundaries and who, irrespective of their legal status, retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions.

It also says that it is not meant to replace international law, which is what the RP became when it was ratified at Fort Niagara with the exchange of 3 wampum belts in 1764. The RP administers to "Indians or any of them" equally, so in this country and all of the 13 colonies none of the other stipulations apply.

She and all her descendants already have indigenous rights, so it is not incorrect in any way to regard her as such. Unless you can come up with a document showing that she was born in France, then she is of unknown origin as is usually the case with indigenous peoples. France kept records well before it's people migrated here. The lack of such a document is really indicative that she was not from France.

 

by Anonymous St Amand G2G1 (1.6k points)
reshown by Jillaine Smith
Not sure I’m following: most of my ancestors were here “well before 1763”, yet they were practically all French settlers.
Did you read b) from ILO Convention 169 above? It means that all the people who were settled here before the British invasion are indigenous. That is a fact that most people don't seem to know because the government doesn't offer up that information freely, but it is a fact and since Canada ratified it, it is law.

Just trying to put some truth into "Truth and Reconciliation".
In case you didn't know, ILO Convention 169 was an international conference that laid out the ground rules for international indigenous rights.
I'm puzzled as to why you refer to the "British Invasion" as being different from the earlier "French colonization"? They are both covered in point b of that convention you're citing.
I suppose we can all find some dates and documents that will make all Dutch and English descendants in South Africa or Brits in India indigenous, if we only look hard enough.
Well people, we are talking about this country and this occupation of it. The question was "Is Françoise Grenier, married to Noël Langlois in 1634, aboriginal or French-born?"

The answer to that is, we may never know. But she certainly was indigenous.

Do her descendants have aboriginal rights? Yes they certainly do, their rights are identical to those of the tribal nations.

I am related to all of these people including Radegonde Lambert and I really don*t care if they are aboriginal or french. I just want sources

Kim

half my ancestry was here before 1763 in Quebec, how do I register for indigenous rights.
I am a French Canadian , according to the Canadian government I do not have the same rights and priviledges as first nation native peoples. The first nations native people are referred to as being indigenous not French Canadians with ancestors as far back as the 1600's
+8 votes
The bulk of the people with the Grenier surame in that time period were from the Languedoc area of Southern France.  Many were glass makers.

They were known as Gentlemen Glassmakers later on.  I have no idea how that relates to this lady in that time period but it might help someone who is researching.  

Unfortunately due to something happening in my life outside of WikiTree I can't stop to help research this but if someone will remember to contact me in July, I will be happy to provide what information I have on Grenier line of glass and crystal makers.   Please note there is also some belief that this spelling is a variation of Greiner which was used in Germany and the Alsace Lorraine (many in Moselle) area of France.
by Laura Bozzay G2G6 Pilot (665k points)
Hi Laura, there are Grenier and Garnier immigrants in respectable number, so there is no indication this is relevant to Languedoc Grenier.  Most probably not in fact, she is among the very early arrivals, who were recruited from places closer to the seaports on the Atlantic.
Hi,

I am French and specialist of french noble families. People from Canada and USA often make the mistake of believing they are related to whatever noble family whose name resembles theirs (for instance John Talbot believes he descents from the noble English family Talbot, even if this family is now extinct). This is the case for Grenier too : the noble glass makers were not ALL the Grenier living in France, but a few family in Languedoc. Their full name was not "Grenier" but "de Grenier". None lost the "de". Today some branches stil exist : "de Granier de Cassagnac", "de Grenier de Cardenal", "de Grenier de Fonblanque", "de Grenier de Latour" and " de Grenier de Lassagne". So no Grenier mentionned here in thie forum is related to them.

Actually my sources for this are French sources.  Not Canadian or USA.  I am looking at a number of sources including:

Les Gentilshommes Verriers   page 11

histoire de la famille Grenier     

par Michel Grenier

This is written in French by a member of the family.  It is part of a 22 page document that covers multiple families.  Michel's write up encompasses centuries 418 - 1752.  He includes multiple variations on how the name was written and changed in various centuries / locations.  

The only guild a noble could belong to was the glass guild.

Another source is A. Marcus whose works are found gallica.bnf.fr / Bibliothèque nationale de France.

Also my sources include copious works in the possession of GenVerre. a French genealogical and historical organization whose focus is on glass and its makers. .  

I would be interested in seeing what you have.  We are always looking to add to the vast library of source materials we have been gathering.  

Trying to say focused on resolution of the G2G question at hand, I support Danielle Liard's view reflected in the May 24 comment immediately above to the effect that Françoise Grenier's origin is likely not relevant to the Languedoc Grenier hypothesis.

Filae shows the following name popularity ranks in contemporary France:

  • the de Grenier's rank is 79, 922
  • the Grenier's rank is 323 
  • the Garnier's rank is 35.

Since her origin in France is not known and all the very early migrant contingents to land at Quebec came from provinces close to Atlantic ports, it follows as a matter of probability that Françoise Grenier is neither a Languedoc Grenier nor a noble de Grenier.

Edit: Add link for Les gentilshommes verriers

merci du lien, intéressant.  Ils sont un siècle après Françoise.

The book you quote is not found anywhere on the web. So it is a self edited book, with no reliable genealogical info.

The reliable books edited on the subject are "Les Grenier, Granier, gentilshommes verriers" written by Robert Planchon, and "Les verriers du Languedoc", by Saint-Quirin. Another good one is "Monographie d'une famille et d'un village : la famille de Robert et les gentilshommes verriers de Gabre" by Elisée de Robert-Garils. All those sources explain that, nowadays, the remaining noble glassmakers Grenier families are ONLY "de Grenier de Latour", "de Grenier de Lassagne", "de Granier de Cassagnac", "de Granier de Liliac", "de Grenier de Fonblanque" and "de Grenier de Cardenal" families. No others, may you like it or not. No Mr or Mrs Grenier is related to these families. And neither is the writter you quote, Michel Grenier, even if, like many french, canadian or US people, he desperately tries to link himself to whoever noble people bear a name close to his...

Excuse me, Family ''de Grenier'', can you please refrain from making statements like this: 

The book you quote is not found anywhere on the web. So it is a self edited book, with no reliable genealogical info.

First of all, not all published works are on the web, so that is certainly not a criterion.  Many limited edition books from serious genealogists are not found with a search on the web, but can be found when searching the catalogs of large libraries.

No problem Danielle Liard, you're right about the fact that many works of serious genealogists are not found on the web. But this Michel Grenier's book, linking all Grenier name bearers to noble glassmakers, really can't be considered serious genealogical work. As I wrote earlier, serious works on them all give the same info : none of them was called "Grenier" alone, but all branches full name was "de Grenier de" followed by a land name (Latour, Cassagnac, Fonblanque, Cardenal, Lanouyère, Arbas, Laplane, Monbac, Vidalens, Combebelle, etc etc). None of them moved to Quebec or Canada. As noble families, several books and articles, since 19th century, mentionned them and those facts. And these sources are far more reliable than Michel Grenier or whatever web genealogy amateur, for sure.

Have you actually read the book?  I haven't, so I don't know that he links all the Grenier together.  de Grenier was the actual name for the family in question, de Latour, Cassagnac etc are land titles appended to their names.

Nice little synopsis in here.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grands_noms_de_l%27art_verrier_et_leurs_%C5%93uvres

Meanwhile, this has gone very far afield from the original question.  And the name Grenier and its common variant Garnier most likely stem from the French word for attic or similar.  Not rare at all

+4 votes
I found this which many of you have likely seen,

https://ancestryquebec.wordpress.com/2012/06/05/noel-langlois-1605-1684/

but if not, it brings up the fact you have DNA in living descendants that can be tested.  Since this is a purely female line question, and since the person in question is farther back than an autosomal test would cover, I would suggest an MtDNA test be done on a living female descendant of Francoise.  

I would try via the facebook groups contacting descendants and see if any have taken DNA tests.  

Interesting to me is that Pelletier has married in with this family and it is another surname from glass makers of France.  That does not mean he was a glass maker many of the children went different ways.  Many wanting land and became farmers. Some married into mason families since masons and glass makers built all the churches in France and there was more allowed marriages across those 2 groups than others.  

It is not unreasonable to hypothesize and then work to see if there is proof that a church was being built in Paris and a Grenier (also seen as Grenier)  was involved who was her father.  I will go back through my glass archive records and see if I can find any thing.  I will do more in-depth work after June 1.  

I know there was a large settlement of Pelletier line in Saskatchewan because I have a lot of records on that family as I have aided descendants in tracking that line which descended from glass and crystal makers of France.  I will also check that batch of research.  

As to international law about indigenous classifications that is not genetic nor racially accurate... it may be legal but it is not DNA scientifically accurate.  Parsing words about that stuff is counter productive.  

I would go to the DNA and see what shows up.  

I also have some ship records that are not public from very early landings in the New World.  I will also check those.  

Ok, I have to close a company by May 31 and a on a crazy time line.  So after June 1 I will do a lot of research from stuff that is not online and most people do not have access to...
by Laura Bozzay G2G6 Pilot (665k points)

I want to add this (someone sent me a private email and said the 

https://ancestryquebec.wordpress.com/2012/05/20/filles-a-marier-marriageable-girls/   filles à marier  which was a term on the marriage record  is something specific and it mean she came from France:

Peter J. Gagné has defined the qualifications to be considered a fille à marier as follows:

  •  Must have arrived before September 1663
  •  Must have come over at marriageable age (12 thru 45)
  •  Must have married or signed a marriage contract at least once in New France or have signed an enlistment contract
  •  Must not have been accompanied by both parents
  •  Must not have been accompanied by or joining a husband

[Source: Before the King’s Daughters: The Filles à Marier, 1634-1662 by Peter J. Gagné. Pawtucket, RI: Quinton Publications, 2002. pp 13-38]

There is at least one female-line descendant of F. Granier who is an active WikiTreer.
Claude has added DNA data on the profile.  Nice work Claude.
Yes, nice work indeed.
+3 votes
I said I would do some research into records I have.  

Here is something I have on an Anne Pelletier  who married Jean Clerc in Etival-Clairefontaine June 5, 1685   This is from a Pelletier gedcom file I have from a Pelletier family member.

I checked my glass maker files and did not see her.  I did find information about the Grenier family that I have sent to Isabelle to see if she thinks anything is relevant.  One thing that struck me is it talks about some Grenier men who came to Canada in positions of authority.  This makes me wonder if she could have been illegitimate and her father had her come as a fille a marier to provide for her future.  Just thinking out of the box.  No proof of this but it does make me wonder because I have seen illegitimate sons sent to extended family living in other parts of the world for training and then to make their way in life.  Or perhaps she was orphaned and relatives sent her to the new world to find a husband.  

I did see where DNA data has been added but I do not see surnames going back farther than Francoise Grenier.  Does the DNA research show earlier surnames?  Or does it show any connections to people who have earlier surnames?
by Laura Bozzay G2G6 Pilot (665k points)
The 20% rule likely does not apply because the population was too small.

According to the Association Perche-Canada:

*in 1635 there were 132 French immigrants in Canada, 40 or so of whom, including Françoise Garnier Grenier, had arrived in 1634.

*of the 132 people, 35 were from ancient Perche province, which represents about 25% of the total.
Laura, marriage license????  Do you mean the marriage record?  No such thing as a marriage license back then.  And the marriage record is a reconstruction done by clergy after the records all got burned in 1640.  

The ''fille à marier'' is actually the general term used back then, it was applied to the ''filles du roi'' by the people of the time, Filles du roi is actually our terminology for that group sent between 1663-1673 who were financially supported by the king.  But census data calls them ''filles à marier''.  The whole category filles à marier is actually based on certain criteria for women before the filles du roi, but I can argue the case that there were actually more sent by various agencies during and after the filles du roi era.

As far as Françoise being related to your Grenier glassmakers, it is and will remain pure speculation, the records simply do not exist to give us the data on who her parents were.

The only Grenier recorded other than Françoise in the early days was Antoinette Grenier, who came from Paris and married Jacques bernier in 1656.  She was around 19 at the time.  

Other than that, there were a number of Garnier who came to the colony in the early days.  Marcel Trudel made a catalog of immigrants for the period 1632-1662 for any who left any sort of record.  He himself admits his list is incomplete, there were certainly more who came but didn't stay and left no paper trail of any sort.
Hi Danielle,  what I saw was posted on a a family write up by a descendant of Francoise and it might have said marriage record or contract because the fille a marie had to sign a contract.   I did post the link to it in an earlier thread.  That is why I went and researched the fille a marie.  And yes it is not the same as the fille a roi.  The fille a marie were earlier than the roi version.  They signed a contract to marry a settler and then were given transport to the settlement.  The plus was they could change their mind and then they were returned to France.  Some did that according to the various sites I found. But they were not given money by the King.  So very different treatment.  

Now the info on the male Greniers who went to Nouvelle France are from the glass maker archives I have.It is from a missive written by one of the descendants.   This line goes back to the 1200s if not earlier. I have found the glass maker records are generally very good.  Sometimes they contain the names of the women and sometimes not.  Interestingly, I have two ancestresses who actually ran glassworks in the 1600s and 1700s  They did contracts with nobility, oversaw both men and women workers, handled money, and a few even learned to read and write although even the men often signed documents with something like the foot of a glass or some tool a glass maker might use.  Generally at least one or two family members in each generation were educated to read and write and acted like business / sales managers.  By the 1700s most seemed to be reading and writing.  At least marriage and baptism records appear to be signed in different hands.  Because clergy were often not resident where the glasshuts were, the Master Glassmakers (Maitre Verriers) and their wives handled things like birth, marriage and death records and even performed place holder ceremonies that were then officially blessed by clergy when they came through.  Kind of like a Deacon and Deaconess.  This is why you see them listed as parrain and marraine on many birth records.  

One of my great grandfathers (4 x) wrote a chronicle that has been translated into at least 3 languages.  He lived in the 1700s.  His work goes back to the 1500s and came from church records and family records and is quoted by historians and is in the Rakow Library of Corning.  He was a master glassmaker and worked in 7 or 9 (I have to go look) countries before returning to France and establishing a new glassworks.  The Walters and Stengers intermarried and ran glass works in Meisenthal, Soucht, Goetzenbruck, St Louis - Bitche, and several others in the Moselle region.   These are not where you find Grenier (Greiners yes but not the southern spelling of Grenier).  The Grenier were originally from Languedoc and then moved up into Paris area and dispersed through a lot of Southern France.  Those are the Grenier records I accessed.  

Yes I was very careful to point out it is speculative but the data I found on the fille a marie was very specific and Francois fits into the time period.  At the very earliest year.  now in those write ups it was very specifically stated that about 20% were related to people already in Nouvelle France.  Also one thesis looked at religion and where the majority of the girls came from.  So there are records.  There is a record for a Francoise Grenier but later than this one.  But it would not be outside of possibility that one Grenier woman went that route and had success so others followed.  Particularly with the glass making families they were used to moving around.  I have one many times great grandfather (13th or 14th) who traveled over 350 miles from one glass location to another in the 1500s and he is actually one of many who did things like that.  These families did not share the secrets of making glass instead they sent sons and daughters to distant locations to find wives and husbands from extended family.  I belong to an organization that is dedicated to the preservation of knowledge about glass techniques and genealogy.  We publish a magazine twice a year that is well received by historians and others knowledgeable about this industry.  My family has made countless donations to the Corning Museum of Glass of primary records.  The most recent being 17 notebooks of formulas interspersed with family news in the form of journals kept over the lifetime of one of the master glass makers.  I have electronic copies of all 17 notebooks.  So the records I am looking at are not things you would ever have seen.  They are not online (yet), they are not in archives (until we gave them to Corning and St Louis Crystallerie in France).  We also have documents from nobility who signed contracts with them to make glass and or crystal (depending on the century) for them.  We have boxes and boxes of this kind of primary source materials that no one has looked at sometimes in centuries.  We are working to go through them, organize them, and share them.  It is a daunting task and will likely not be completed in my lifetime as more and more get sent to me all the time.  The good news is I work with people on this project all over the world and we are getting more and more published.  One of the reasons I am on WikiTree is to upload info I have on the families.  

So while I am not saying she is from a glass making family, I am saying the surname is associated with that industry and I did check those records.  I found Grenier men sent to Nouvelle France in that time period.  I did not find her specifically in our records.
Charles Garnier was a tailor, as was his uncle Jean Garnier, they both are among the early settlers here.

Laura, if you have an actual contract available, would be interested in seeing it.  We have to see whether it is in fact for Françoise Grenier who married Noël of course.

I posted this link earlier which shows her marriage.  It is written by a descendant from what I understand.  

https://ancestryquebec.wordpress.com/2012/06/05/noel-langlois-1605-1684/   this is the document that named her a fille a marie which sent me off to research that group.  

In researching that group I cam across numerous mentions that the women had to sign a contract and possibly had relatives already in Canada.    So I looked for who I had in my research notes who went to Canada with the same or similar name in that time period.  Obviously this was not appreciated.  

I do not have any copies of the contracts they signed but because the writers of history on the fille a marie seem to agree on that point I have to assume they exist and were used to create the 2 or 3 lists of the girls / women who are said to be fille a marie.  It was stated where I found the lists (all of that research is in the links I had already posted above that are worth reading) that the lists are not necessarily complete.  But I not going to do any more research on this since you do not see the value.

In one of the lists I did find a different Francoise Grenier listed.  But in reading her information she was later than this Francois and married someone else so we have proof of 2 different ladies being listed as fille a marie with the same name.  

I only offered some other possibilities since your research have found nothing.  When you hit a brick wall sometimes you find the way to get through it by looking in obscure possible places.  

I will stop since obviously you are not interested in looking at things that might find an answer.  If you are content to have a brick wall I am content to leave it there.  

yeah, that marriage is what remains after the fire destroyed all records in 1640, it is a reconstruction done after the fire by clergy of the time, and omitted all parents' names, not just theirs.

Just because they say she is a fille à marier doesn't mean they are correct.  Most likely she was, but until we find a contract of engagement in France hiring her, we are no further forward.  And the fact is that not all filles à marier were hired on contract, some were brought by religious orders, like Marguerite Bourgeoys brought some over in 1659 to Montréal.  There was no requirement to already have relatives here, although many probably decided to come because they did indeed have such.

It's not that I don't appreciate your efforts, but since we have no hard data to confirm such, speculation gets losts in meanders.  If there was a woman whose MtDNA matched hers closely back in France, that might give new avenues, but until then, no sense in pursuing this.  Thanks for your efforts though.

According to https://www.museedelhistoire.ca/cmc/exhibitions/hist/verre/vecan01f.shtml

"En 1712, un fonctionnaire de Nouvelle-France écrivait à son supérieur, en France : «Il faut espérer que Sa Majesté jugera bon d'envoyer dans ce pays toutes sortes d'artisans, particulièrement des potiers et un souffleur de verre.» En dépit de cette requête, rien n'indique qu'on ait jamais fabriqué du verre en Nouvelle-France. Lorsque la Grande-Bretagne prit possession des colonies, le roi dissuada le gouverneur de Québec d'établir des industries locales qui feraient concurrence aux verriers britanniques."

Indeed, been reading Marcel Trudel's book ''La Nouvelle-France par les textes; les cadres de vie'', he covers some of the attempts at establishing industries in the colony, which was actually discouraged, he cites the example of weavers, they never got here as there were already many established in France, raw materials they would take, not finished products.  The only industry that ever really got started and continued into the late 1800s was Les Forges St-Maurice.

I agree with what you said Claude.  But I also know that French Glassmakers worked in English glass shops.  I have a list somewhere...

I am doing this from memory so I could be wrong but I do a lot of work on Greiner (the northern version of Grenier) with Larry Greiner who has amassed a massive work on that surname.  It is unpublished as yet.  I have copies of some of his research but not all of it.  He continue to add more to what he has already assembled and I have indexed.  

It seems to me we found a Greiner who was working in England.  Can't remember if it was with Ravenscroft or at Whitefiriars...  but it seems to me it was one or the other.  I think the name transmuted into Greener.

I know that French / German glass makers were coming to what became the US but well before the Revolutionary War.  There were glass bowers at Jamestown in the 1600s.  In the colonies these ventures were very short lived until after the war.  Interestingly Benjamin Franklin was instrumental in getting that industry up and running in the colonies.  

The Stangers which were born Stenger in Wingen Sur Moder were brought over to work for the Wistars.  They came to the US Colonies in 1768 on the Betsy.  They eventually opened the Glasboro NJ glass works  These were French glass workers who are often mistakenly said to come from some town in Germany (we have proof they came from Wingen and all the birth records, hand writing matches, and genealogies as amassed by Professor Luc Stenger who has presented this research to the Corning Museum of Glass, to Llalique and is the President of a World History Site that is a family Glass works. He is also one of my cousins.  We are also related to Greiners.)

This is what I speculate just because this is the kind of thing the family would do...  send sons to far off places to see if they would make a good settlement for a future glassworks.  They would buy land.  They would become established in the community and often would become officials in government or a company that was running colonies.  Then when it made sense they would build a factory.  They looked for locations that had an abundance of beech trees (they burn at the right temp for a long time) and if beech was not available the next best wood.  Sand, water, and an ability to make potash from decayed leaves.  Those are the building blocks needed to make glass.  

http://www.arboquebecium.com/en/product/american-beech/  says:The American Beech is a beautiful tree, pretty hard to find in nurseries, even though it is a relatively abundant tree in the southern Quebec forests. This tree lives a long time. Recently, researchers have discovered that this tree would be the late-successional tree in Quebec. So it lives longer than the Sugar Maple and would be the last tree standing in a very old forest...

Quebec has many water sources and sandy beaches and a number of potash companies so they would have found everything they needed in Quebec.

No, I do not show that they built a glass works in that time period.

It looks like the first glass made in Quebec seems to be the 1840s  http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/glass/

 

–5 votes
The original question was whether Francoise Grenier was Aboriginal or French born. There is no evidence that she or her husband Noel was on the ship that arrived in 1634. There is also no evidence that Francoise was a "fille a marier". There was another Francoise Grenier who was and who arrived in New France several years later.

Everyone has overlooked a key point. There was a trading post established by Champlain near Beauport in the very early 1600's. Noel was of that trading post. Giffard recruited him but that does not mean he was on the ship that arrived at the same time as Giffard did, nor does it mean that he married Francoise a month after meeting her.

As I have previously stated, both of these people's burial records state that they were of this country. Their descendants have proven over and over again that they are of aboriginal descent. There is no proof that they were not, therefore it is inaccurate to report that they were from France and arrived with Giffard in 1634!
by Anonymous St Amand G2G1 (1.6k points)

What is the evidence  of a 'trading post established by Champlain near Beauport in the very early 1600's?

What is the evidence that 

  • Noel was of that trading post
  • Descendants have proven over and over again that they are of aboriginal descent?

The burial records says that they long lived in Canada but Noël Langlois was not always an 'habitant'.

You overlook the key point that most French people had to return to France after the Kirke brothers occupied Québec in 1629:

  • According to Prise de Québec par les frères Kirke : « Le 19 juillet 1629, il [Champlain] cède la ville aux Anglais, 21 ans après la fondation de Québec. . . . Comme la plupart des Français qui sont à Québec au moment de la capitulation, Champlain est ramené en Angleterre, puis rapatrié en France. . . . Le 29 mars 1632, en vertu du traité de Saint-Germain-en-Laye, le conflit prend fin officiellement : »
  • Paraphrasing from Michel Langlois: Noël Langlois est arrivé au pays soit en 1633 avec les menuisiers et charpentiers venus avec Champlain ou en 1634 avec le groupe initial recruté par Giffard.
  • According to Réjean Binet : « Noël Juchereau fut témoin au mariages de Noël Langlois à Québec en juillet 1634 et de Jean Bourbon en novembre 1635. . . . . Noël Langlois fait vraiement partie du groupe initial d’engagés de Giffard puisque ce dernier est présent au mariage de Langlois et de Françoise Garnier célébré le 25 juillet 1634, le jour même où Giffard prend possession de sa seigneurie. Puis, il reçoit une concession de terre trois ans plus tard, c’est-à-dire à la fin de son engagement de 36 mois, indiquant une arrivée très probablement en 1634 et non en 1633. »

There in proof that Françoise Grenier is haplogroup J2, which conclusively indicates that she was not aboriginal and that she was not only European but very probably born in France.

Also, given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary in Noël Langlois's WT profile and elsewhere, the notion that  Noël Langlois is aboriginal is preposterous.

Noël Langlois was an 'habitant' but he was also a pilot. Indeed, as Burleigh says:

"Robert Giffard, the seigneur of Beauport, persuaded [Noël] Langlois to become a settler in the new land. It is probable that Abraham Martindit L’Écossais, the king’s pilot at Quebec, and possibly related to him by marriage, greatly influenced his decision." 

None of the other points raised really matter, there are no documents to back up those claims. The burial records of both these people say they were from this country and there is no proof they were not.

The DNA results do not prove a thing except that there may have been an adoption somewhere along the matrilineal line of the person that tested. Conclusive proof would be to dig up Francoise's remains and test her DNA.

Further to the death registrations, in Louis Langlois (Jean, Noel) marriage record the entire wedding party is cited as being "de nation" parent et amis des maries. Also Jean Langlois (Noel, Noel) is confirmed Algonquin in his land concession. It is a preposterous argument that the notary and Jesuit priests got his name wrong when they most probably knew him personally and were making a legal and binding contract. Jean's mother was from France, his father therefore was Algonquin and was the son of Noel Langlois and Francoise Grenier.
You need to get other knowledgeable members  to support this issue. In the meantime, for a second time in this discussion, I for my part consider the question closed.
You need to get some documents to support your position. I have provided you with 4 of several, whether or not anyone else supports them, they do exist and I have copies of each of them. You have NO documents that support that either of these people were born in France. A story is nothing more than that, genealogy is not about story telling.
–4 votes

The arguments raised about this woman's ancestry, raise more questions than provide answers. 

Firstly in the dismissal of application to add Francoise Grenier as an Algonquin ancestor, we find that her progeny does in fact reside in Algonquin communities and have maintained their cultural practices for more than 400 years. Does this and the oral history maintained by the Algonquins that Francoise was from an Algonquin village support the notion that she was from France? NO it does not. Nor does Chadwick's decision. He says he doesn't doubt that she was aboriginal, but cannot prove without a doubt Algonquin ancestry.

Another point raised in this decision states that since one of her male descendants is cited as being Huron we cannot certainly say that Francoise was Algonquin. WHAT? If this gentleman married a Huron, he would be adopted into that tribe and apart from himself and his own descendants, this would have no effect on any of Francoise's descendants. He could have also been adopted for several other reasons. Further arguments about this individual state that in his land concessions that the notary and Jesuits "made a mistake" and that the person cited was actually John Hunnewell, an Englishman who was given the name Jean Langlais while imprisoned. Wrong again. This is a pure fabrication. It was noted that he was sauvage (verifier) on the cover page of one of the land concession documents. On another it says clearly Jean Langlois sauvage and not Langlais. It was also suggested that his wife was the aboriginal and her lineage gets traced to France without any problem. Who's fabricating what here?

Well Francoise had a French name, so she must have been from France? Not necessarily, since she was married in a church, she must have been baptized and would have been given a French name at that time. We do not have her baptism or an original marriage record to verify her parents names or her origin (or Noel's for that matter). 

It is pure speculation that this woman was from France and according to thousands of her descendants who have lived and continue to live in Algonquin communities, she was Algonquin.

In his marriage to Francoise Deno (Deneau), Louis Langlois, son of Jean Langlois and Marie Cadieux is quoted along with the whole wedding party as being "de nation". It is not stated what nation but usually when that word was used it was in conjunction with aboriginals.

 But the DNA results of two of her descendants support a European origin, so I must be mistaken? Not really, DNA results, especially those that support European origins can be inconclusive for many reasons. 

There is not one ounce of doubt in my mind that Francoise Grenier was aboriginal.

by Anonymous St Amand G2G1 (1.6k points)
edited by Anonymous St Amand
The truth is that you are alone Bub whereas the consensus is made up several other WikiTree members.

"Michel Langlois's reputation and competence is beyond reproach." Apparently not! 

Yes, it seems that me and my documentation are alone. It still lends more credence to aboriginal ancestry than the suppositions you hold so dear to your heart.

I have for now said all I am going to say about this G2G question thread. Many thanks for your views Bud.

Edit: '. . .  this G2G question thread.'
the act of concession you provide is only the cover sheet and the listing at the back.  Doesn't at all say who this Jean Langlois is, who his parents were, nothing.  And it was in 1745.
As I have said, it was confirmed at Chadwick's hearing that this was Jean Langlois, grandson of Francoise Grenier.

Chadwick's decision includes on p. 8 the following Summary of Findings by Joann McCann:

  • She married Noel at Beauport and died there, clearly outside of Algonquin territory.
  • None of her three surviving sons, Jean, Jean and Noel appeared to have a son or grandson who was Jean Langlois, Huron. (Emphasis added)
  • Jean Langlois who received four land grants was called Sauvage and Huron and could not write and was married to Madeleine Pageau.
  • Various genealogists and PRDH put forth that he was John Hunnewell alias Annaouil dit Langlais.


Chadwick's Decision also includes on p. 10 the following excerpts taken from Conclusions by Joan Holmes:

  • No convincing evidence has been presented that shows that Françoise Garnier/Grenier was aboriginal or Algonquin.
  • In doing so she points out that no documentation has been found for Françoise Garnier/Grenier that identifies her parents, birthplace or ethnic origins.


Chadwick's concluding Decision section states in part (p. 12):

  • The research of Joann McCann and Joan Holmes conclude there are no historical documents that establish Françoise Grenier was an Algonquin.

There is only one person that fits the 4 land concessions and that is Jean Langlois, son of Noel Langlois dit Traversy. 

John Hunnewell was not sauvage, he was an Englishman and if the land concession was meant for him, the name would have been either John Hunnewell or Annaouil dit Langlais. NOT Jean Langlois sauvage or Huron.

Jean was born and raised in Huron territory (Beauport) because of his granfather's occupation as a ship navigator who was given land in Beauport for that very reason. That does not mean his wife was not Algonquin, nor does it mean Jean was a Huron but that's what was written on one of the 4 land concessions.

Nancy ward demonstrated that Noel jr, who was born in December 1651 had a child Jean Langlois in 1688. She states that Jean Langlois received a land grant in the territory where 15,000 Algonquins were settled. In this 1746 land concession he is described as “Sauvage”. John Hunnewell just doesn't fit this and he doesn't fit any of them!

You can stick to your beliefs Bud.

In the meantime, the consensus of WikiTree members is as Chadwick and Joan Holmes say:

  • No convincing evidence has been presented that shows that Françoise Garnier/Grenier was aboriginal or Algonquin.
  • No documentation has been found for Françoise Garnier/Grenier that identifies her parents, birthplace or ethnic origins.

Furthermore, mtDNA test results show that Françoise Grenier was European, not Amerindian.

There is really no use debating this question further.

For the record, Mme Dominique Ritchot says:

  • This Jean Langlais is most probably John Hunnewell, aka Annaouil dit Langlais, an anglo-american captive from Scarborough (Maine), who was adopted in the Huron nation of Jeune-Lorette (near Quebec City), where he married a French-canadian woman, Marguerite Pageot. In his marriage contract, passed August 19, 1761 drawn before the notary Genest, he states that he is « of English nation, the son of Richard Enahouil, a native of a place named La Pointe Noire [Black Point] in New England ». He can, by no way, be the grandson of Francoise Garnier.

Also for the record, this is what Serge Goudreault has to say as cited on p. 16 of Michel Langlois' article:

  • En second lieu, il est impossible qu’elle soit la grand-mère du Huron Jean Langlois, car ce dernier s’appelle Jean Langlais (anglais de nation). Également connu sous le nom de John Hunnewell, il avait été capturé par des autochtones lors d’un raid qu’ils effectuèrent à Scarborough (Maine) en juin 1723. L’enfant fut confié aux bons soins de la communauté huronne de Lorette où il s’implanta de façon définitive. En 1745, le capitaine William Pote signale l’avoir rencontré alors qu’il se trouve lui -même en captivité en Nouvelle-France (Pote, p. 20)^. Ce Jean Langlois dit Hunnewell épouse marguerite Pageau en 1761 et il précise alors qu’il est natif de La Pointe-Noire en Nouvelle-Angleterre. Les enfants qui naissent de cette union portent le nom de Anahouil ) déformation de Hunnewell), patronyme qui s’est modifié par la suite en Aylwin. De toute évidence la Française Françoise Grenier ne peut être la grand-mère de l’Anglais John Hunnewell. De plus, ces deux individus n’ont aucune racine autochtone et il devient dès lors impossible d’en attribuer à Élisabeth Langlois épouse de François Gagné par simple association patronymique. »  

Edit made Jul 1 ~3:20 pm adding PRDH Pionnier 169868 record for:

  • Jean Baptiste Aylwin , immigrant, born at Black Point, Nouvelle-Angleterre (Scarborough, co. York, Maine, Etats-Unis) and first married in 1761 with Marie Marguerite Pageot.

Edit made Jul 1 ~4:30 PM adding Généalogie Québec 149415 record for Jean Baptiste Aylwin (1710 - 1766), which includes a transcript of the marriage contrat dated 19 août 1761 with madeleine pageot and part of which reads;

  • « . . . Jean Enahouil anglois de nation fils de Rachur Enahouil natif du lieu vulgai rement nomme La pointe noire Dans La Nouvelle angleterre Etant plus de trente ans en la mission des hurons De La Nouvelle Lorette . . . »

Edit made Jul 2 ~10:15 AM marked ^ above making reference to p. 20 of William Pote's ''Journal of Captain William Pote, Jr: During His Captivity in the French'':: '. . . and told me he hoped I Should make as Good a heron, as one John Honewell an English man that had Lived with ym Near thirty years, and was maried amongst them and had Severel Children,'

+3 votes

Here are some of the living direct maternal line descendants of https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Grenier-41 .  They would have inherited her mtDNA.  Pay for one or two of them to take an mtDNAPlus test at

https://www.familytreedna.com/?idev_id=600&utm_source=600&utm_medium=affiliate

See if their mtDNA haplogroup is A, B, C, or D (which are Native American mtDNA haplogroups).

https://www.wikitree.com/treewidget/Poirier-112/890#mt

https://www.wikitree.com/treewidget/Garon-23/890#mt

https://www.wikitree.com/treewidget/Anctil-63/890#mt

https://www.wikitree.com/treewidget/Désilets-129/890#mt

https://www.wikitree.com/treewidget/Laflamme-259/890#mt

https://www.wikitree.com/treewidget/Laforest-278/890#mt

https://www.wikitree.com/treewidget/Boucher-3334/890#mt

Several of these mtDNA descendants have already tested their autosomal DNA or Y-DNA, but none have yet tested their mtDNA.

by Peter Roberts G2G6 Pilot (556k points)
edited by Peter Roberts

Related questions

+11 votes
6 answers
+7 votes
10 answers
+4 votes
1 answer
168 views asked Mar 17, 2019 in Genealogy Help by Danielle Liard G2G6 Pilot (375k points)
+7 votes
4 answers
216 views asked Mar 12, 2018 in Genealogy Help by Chris Ferraiolo G2G6 Pilot (439k points)
+2 votes
1 answer
+6 votes
7 answers
314 views asked Jan 2, 2019 in Policy and Style by Gerald Baraboo G2G Astronaut (1.0m points)

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

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...