A strange Quebecois marital situation

Question

Antoine married Josephte in 1809 and she did not die until late October 1825. Antoine then married Rosalie on 5 Dec 1825, at first glance just a case of unseemly haste. But Antoine Jnr was born in 1820 and his mother was Rosalie (as per PRDH and the Drouin image). The facts are faithfully recorded on nosorigines. So, how did the Church let this pass unnoticed? Has anyone seen a similar situation?

Comments

for some reason my answer disappeared.  In any case, there is a particular point on his parents' marriage, they had dispensation of 2 banns and also dispensation of any impediment from the bishop.  So the situation was obviously known about by the clergy, even though the details of any reason for the dispensation are not recorded in the marriage act.

Answer 1

I'm not sure the Québécois are any weirder or immoral than anyone else...

My question is, was Antoine Jnr baptised in a larger town or away from Antoine snr's wife's parish? I have a few of these in early 19th century England: the father and the mistress appearing as legitimate parents in the baptism record when I know they're not married (some married later, some never did) -  but they're all in larger places like London or Bath, and sometimes under a false surname. I wouldn't expect the priest to demand proof of marriage before baptising a child if the parents look like a respectable couple.

Comments

I think your explanation is quite plausible.  Saint-Philippe, the place of Antoine's baptism, was quite far away from the parishes where the other children were baptized (Saint-Benoît and Terrebonne) and was on the other side of the Saint Lawrence River.

---

And he married Rosalie at Ste-Scholastique and all the subsequent children were baptised there. Antoine jnr certainly is an outlier! Thanks for all the interest, everyone.

I'd share the best answer between Suzanne and Greg, but unfortunately Greg will just have to bask in the warmth of Suzanne's star ;)

---

nope, all these places are little more than villages at this time.  Even today they're not that big.  And at least one family member is godfather to the child.

---

Sorry I closed before Danielle could chime in. My main experience with French Catholic records is with the Seychelles. They were very explicit about whether a child was born out of wedlock and then legitimated by a subsequent marriage. In some cases this might involve six or eight children.

So to paraphrase you, the circumstances of the birth of Antoine jnr were known and, apparently, accepted. So, where does that leave us? An aberration we can't fully explain? An example of something that was not that unusual?

I guess I need to look closer at Rosalie's background. She was supposedly born at St-Eugene, which is at least on the south side of the river, but not particularly close to St-Philippe.

---

err, nope, you are carrying things too far there, we don't know that the priest of that parish knew about all of this, he was remote from where Antoine's wife was living.  

One thing I noted with interest was that the first wife's last child is well before this one is born.  Wonder if she was ill or refusing her husband and he went elsewhere.  All speculation of course unless we could get our hands on the actual dispensation document from the bishop for the 2nd marriage.

---

Looking at the PRDH couple's record for Rose's parents, they were married at St-Eustache; the first few children, including Rose, were baptised there; the last children were baptised at St-Benoit. So there seems to be no connection with the other side of the river before Antoine's birth.

Danielle, do you know if those dispensation documents are still likely to exist?

---

lol, million dollar question, they might, but where is another story.  No idea where to look frankly.

Antoine the father was a day labourer, might have gotten a job over on the other side for a while.  Either the grandfather of the child or an uncle was godfather.  So the family knew about the situation.  Hard to tell what was going on at this remote date.

Answer 2

Well! That is... uh... something. I haven’t seen this exact same situation in my family lines... uh... yet.

Comments

You will, Pip. You will. =)

---

Well, the benefit of that is that it will surely make my family more interesting than it now is!

---

Careful. You may eat those words. =D But, hey. It goes to show that drama is not a current thing.

Answer 3

Chris, you're going to find a lot of strange things in the Quebecois side. Lots of kissing cousins and the like. Usually it happens way back in the 1600s. Populations were small and France was sending in people by the boat load to keep up with the British colonies in what would one day become the United States.

In this case, it's not at all that strange. He may have:

1. Had someone on the side.
2. Wanted to marry right away.

I suspect he wanted to marry right away after his wife died because he needed someone to look after his kids. Usually this happened in the 1600s. Bit odd to see it happening in the early 1800s. Then again some traditions were kept around, I guess.

I have people who married young, spouse died young and the guy marries some lady a month or two later. That was in the 1600s. This is...wow.

Comments

If the widower had small children, he'd often remarry speedily to have someone to look after the children. People could be pragmatic about such things. Sometimes a widow and a widower would marry and combine households.

Answer 4

Not so strange to me. This is a situation that has happened since before written history and will probably continue until our descendants are cyborgs with circuitry instead of emotions. Antoine had a child with his mistress, and when an opportunity arose to marry her, he did so.

Comments

But it would be odd, in my experience, for the Catholic Church to recognise Antoine as a legitimate child.

---

Henri de Laborde de Monpezat, known a Henrik, prince consort of Denmark, was born 13 years before his parents were married. His 8 siblings were all born before the marriage, as well. And at the time of his birth (1934) his mother was married to someone else (and did not divorce until 1940). So... not an unheard of situation.

Answer 5

Antoine Perron
Born 24 Jan 1820 in St-Philippe, Laprairie

"Québec, registres paroissiaux catholiques, 1621-1979," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-L993-NVQ3?cc=1321742&wc=9RLX-FM4%3A22325401%2C22325402%2C22632501 : 16 July 2014), Saint-Philippe > Saint-Philippe > Baptêmes, mariages, sépultures 1809-1823 > image 419 of 578; Archives Nationales du Quebec (National Archives of Quebec), Montreal.

Comments

According to his baptism church record, his correct LNAB would be "Perron Desnoyers" [https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-L993-NVQ3?i=418&wc=9RLX-FM4%3A22325401%2C22325402%2C22632501&cc=1321742]

---

Perron dit Desnoyers Gaston?  On a tout de même établi des conventions pour ces choses.

---

Last Name at Birth (LNAB)

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Name_Fields#Last_Name_at_Birth

"Dit" names should not go in this field (LNAB). They can go in the Current Last Name, Other Last Name, or Nickname field, as appropriate.

Donc, LNAB = Perron
et Desnoyers dans Other Last Name
pour respecter les conventions

Answer 6

You wrote:

But his father had married Josephte Belleville in 1809 and, according to PRDH[3], she did not die until 31 October 1825. The burial record[4] does not explicitly name her as the spouse of Antoine, but the age of thirty six is correct.

See the source # S259  (FamilySearch)  ( Ancestry.ca S260 ? )

(...) Josephte Belleville, femme d'Antoine Perron, décédée d'avant hier, agée de trente-six ans (...)
 

"Québec, registres paroissiaux catholiques, 1621-1979," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-899Q-MSWN?cc=1321742&wc=9RLX-16X%3A16144001%2C17487201%2C17915702 : 16 July 2014), Mirabel > Saint-Benoît > Baptêmes, mariages, sépultures 1821-1836 > image 246 of 732; Archives Nationales du Quebec (National Archives of Quebec), Montreal.