On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 1:26:31 AM UTC-4, Denis Beauregard wrote:enough evidence, even though Francois doesn't appear in his parents'
On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 18:41:38 -0700 (PDT), Paulo Ricardo Canedo <paulorica...@gmail.com> wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:
sábado, 10 de Outubro de 2020 às 21:25:09 UTC+1, Girl57 escreveu:
On Saturday, October 10, 2020 at 3:53:16 PM UTC-4, wjhonson wrote:
I reviewed the entry in the Drouin Collection and realize when I blow it up very large that it says he was buried "soisante et dix ans"All, Look forward to hearing from Denis about Mathieu marriage contract naming his parents.
You are free to review it yourself on Ancestry where they have the actual photo image.
I do not see any marriage record nor contract.
Who was the notary?
Re: other possible glitch, would like to hear more about "alleged"/in doubt connection in the line. Is it the uncertainty that Francois de Joyeuse was the son of Robert de Joyeuse and Marguerite de Barbancon? Paulorica mentioned that there's
someone here does...LOL). Also interesting to note that authors have said (can'twill/wills...because he was disinherited after marrying a woman of lower social status (was this Nicole de Beauvais)? Paulorica, would like to know where these details can be found.
Wouldn't authors Gagne and Kokanosky [in article linked to below] probably have considered this known issue, cited it, and supported existing evidence, or offer new? I don't read nearly enough French to glean relevant details from article (if
connection).remember where I read it) that findings of noble connections of Anne Couvent were incidental to their project...The intent was primarily to illuminate French roots of our French Canadian ancestors (i.e., they weren't reaching to try to prove a royal
Thank you again for taking the time -- really appreciate. This would be, if it's sound, a great line to have...I'll take it! And if it isn't, still a very interesting read. Jinny
According to the Geni summary, François's wife of much lower social status was not Nicole de Beauvais, it was an unknown first wife.The royal lineage is by François and not his wife, so this is not
very relevant with that purpose.
As for the 1st and 2nd wives, this is discussed in the article, using
a notary record made in 1733 by a descendant of that lineage and based
in records available at that time. Some were destroyed during WW 1.
sites. Paulo, thanks for note about wives...I do want to make sure my data are correct. Pardon the genealogical pun, but getting it right is never a "straight line," is it? Will be back with more questions, I'm sure.Denis
P.S. I wouldn't rely on Geni for any thing unusual...Denis, Once again, thank you for the helpful info. Since hard for me to read Gagne/K article, great that you can point out important bits that I missed or haven't reached yet, including 1733 notary record. Also helpful to know relative reliability of
--
Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG)
Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - http://www.francogene.com/gfan/gfan/998/
French in North America before 1722 - http://www.francogene.com/gfna/gfna/998/
Sur cédérom/DVD/USB à 1790 - On CD-ROM/DVD/USB to 1790
I would like to point out that Gagné and Kokanosky's French article has been translated into English, see the following for details: http://habitant.org/longueval/index.htm
I would like to point out that Gagné and Kokanosky's French article has been translated into English, see the following for details: http://habitant.org/longueval/index.htm
I'm still having trouble thinking that Gagne and his co-author -- who it seems did extensive and careful work (and with no primary intention to connect to royalty) --
would have a line they'd discovered goes back to noble and royal ancestors dependent on a single piece of
non-contemporary evidence. I'm new at this (and my terminology may be wrong)...is this naive? And while errors
of course happen a lot, wouldn't this be a significant omission?
On Saturday, January 28, 2023 at 5:00:01 PM UTC-8, Jinny Wallerstedt/Girl 57 wrote:something exotic, like a royal line, one tends to _want_ it to be true and as a result, to use progressively more relaxed standards of evidence the more they embrace the possibility. Rather than 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence',
I'm still having trouble thinking that Gagne and his co-author -- who it seems did extensive and careful work (and with no primary intention to connect to royalty) --I can't address the specific case, but in general most genealogists, and scholars in general, experience an unconscious bias - if their discovery is mundane, it isn't interesting enough to use anything but the most stringent standards, but if it is
would have a line they'd discovered goes back to noble and royal ancestors dependent on a single piece of
non-contemporary evidence. I'm new at this (and my terminology may be wrong)...is this naive? And while errors
of course happen a lot, wouldn't this be a significant omission?
taftaf, Good learning here for me.
Re: other cases, when new to this -- and probably even when experienced -- it's tricky knowing when
what appears to be a growing body of indirect/circumstantial evidence adds up to "very likely."
On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 6:21:09 PM UTC-5, JPD wrote:
I would like to point out that Gagné and Kokanosky's French article has been translated into English, see the following for details: http://habitant.org/longueval/index.htm
Darrell: I can't read French, don't yet have a copy of the English translation of the Gagne article,
and haven't seen the 1733 notarial record. I'm curious in what context the party to the record cites
his descendant relationship to Francois de Joyeuse...who this party was, and why he mentioned it. The
answers to these questions wouldn't address a possible lack of other evidence, but they might shed some light
on, and lend credibility to, what's there.
I'm still having trouble thinking that Gagne and his co-author -- who it >seems did extensive and careful work (and with no primary intention to connect to royalty) --
would have a line they'd discovered goes back to noble and royal ancestors dependent on a single piece of
non-contemporary evidence. I'm new at this (and my terminology may be wrong)...is this naive? And while errors
of course happen a lot, wouldn't this be a significant omission?
On Saturday, January 28, 2023 at 9:34:22 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:something exotic, like a royal line, one tends to _want_ it to be true and as a result, to use progressively more relaxed standards of evidence the more they embrace the possibility. Rather than 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence',
On Saturday, January 28, 2023 at 5:00:01 PM UTC-8, Jinny Wallerstedt/Girl 57 wrote:
I'm still having trouble thinking that Gagne and his co-author -- who it seems did extensive and careful work (and with no primary intention to connect to royalty) --I can't address the specific case, but in general most genealogists, and scholars in general, experience an unconscious bias - if their discovery is mundane, it isn't interesting enough to use anything but the most stringent standards, but if it is
would have a line they'd discovered goes back to noble and royal ancestors dependent on a single piece of
non-contemporary evidence. I'm new at this (and my terminology may be wrong)...is this naive? And while errors
of course happen a lot, wouldn't this be a significant omission?
taftaf, Good learning here for me.
With the Anne Couvent line, I'd assumed that a spot of possibly slim evidence would have been
flagged awhile back. Not reading French and without much experience, it's hard to
evaluate the picture and others' different points of view about it.
I'd love this to be true...Eleanor of Aquitaine as an ancestor would be like winning the genealogical lottery
(even if one's line is through King John), wouldn't it? It hadn't occurred to me that such a line might
emerge through my fascinating-in-their-own right French Canadian ancestors.
Re: other cases, when new to this -- and probably even when experienced -- it's tricky knowing when
what appears to be a growing body of indirect/circumstantial evidence adds up to "very likely."
And as you pointed out months ago, both intensive work and reasonable distance/detachment
play their roles.
I always value your input, taf. Thank you.
Op zondag 29 januari 2023 om 17:29:54 UTC+1 schreef Jinny Wallerstedt/Girl 57:something exotic, like a royal line, one tends to _want_ it to be true and as a result, to use progressively more relaxed standards of evidence the more they embrace the possibility. Rather than 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence',
On Saturday, January 28, 2023 at 9:34:22 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
On Saturday, January 28, 2023 at 5:00:01 PM UTC-8, Jinny Wallerstedt/Girl 57 wrote:
I'm still having trouble thinking that Gagne and his co-author -- who itI can't address the specific case, but in general most genealogists, and scholars in general, experience an unconscious bias - if their discovery is mundane, it isn't interesting enough to use anything but the most stringent standards, but if it is
seems did extensive and careful work (and with no primary intention to connect to royalty) --
would have a line they'd discovered goes back to noble and royal ancestors dependent on a single piece of
non-contemporary evidence. I'm new at this (and my terminology may be wrong)...is this naive? And while errors
of course happen a lot, wouldn't this be a significant omission?
Hans, thank you so much for this...I'm eager to read it. And I'm relieved that it's in English.taftaf, Good learning here for me.
With the Anne Couvent line, I'd assumed that a spot of possibly slim evidence would have been
flagged awhile back. Not reading French and without much experience, it's hard to
evaluate the picture and others' different points of view about it.
I'd love this to be true...Eleanor of Aquitaine as an ancestor would be like winning the genealogical lottery
(even if one's line is through King John), wouldn't it? It hadn't occurred to me that such a line might
emerge through my fascinating-in-their-own right French Canadian ancestors.
Re: other cases, when new to this -- and probably even when experienced -- it's tricky knowing when
what appears to be a growing body of indirect/circumstantial evidence adds up to "very likely."
And as you pointed out months ago, both intensive work and reasonable distance/detachment
play their roles.
I always value your input, taf. Thank you.There are more people looking at Eleanor of Aquitane as an ancestor.
A Dutch reseacher traced/is investigating her descent through a blog dealing one generation at the time.
https://www.dutchgenealogy.nl/?s=Was+Eleanor+of+Aquitaine+my+Ancestor%3F
Hans Vogels
On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 1:59:48 AM UTC-5, hansvog...@gmail.com wrote:is something exotic, like a royal line, one tends to _want_ it to be true and as a result, to use progressively more relaxed standards of evidence the more they embrace the possibility. Rather than 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence',
Op zondag 29 januari 2023 om 17:29:54 UTC+1 schreef Jinny Wallerstedt/Girl 57:
On Saturday, January 28, 2023 at 9:34:22 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
On Saturday, January 28, 2023 at 5:00:01 PM UTC-8, Jinny Wallerstedt/Girl 57 wrote:
I'm still having trouble thinking that Gagne and his co-author -- who itI can't address the specific case, but in general most genealogists, and scholars in general, experience an unconscious bias - if their discovery is mundane, it isn't interesting enough to use anything but the most stringent standards, but if it
seems did extensive and careful work (and with no primary intention to connect to royalty) --
would have a line they'd discovered goes back to noble and royal ancestors dependent on a single piece of
non-contemporary evidence. I'm new at this (and my terminology may be wrong)...is this naive? And while errors
of course happen a lot, wouldn't this be a significant omission?
taftaf, Good learning here for me.
With the Anne Couvent line, I'd assumed that a spot of possibly slim evidence would have been
flagged awhile back. Not reading French and without much experience, it's hard to
evaluate the picture and others' different points of view about it.
I'd love this to be true...Eleanor of Aquitaine as an ancestor would be like winning the genealogical lottery
(even if one's line is through King John), wouldn't it? It hadn't occurred to me that such a line might
emerge through my fascinating-in-their-own right French Canadian ancestors.
Re: other cases, when new to this -- and probably even when experienced -- it's tricky knowing when
what appears to be a growing body of indirect/circumstantial evidence adds up to "very likely."
And as you pointed out months ago, both intensive work and reasonable distance/detachment
play their roles.
I always value your input, taf. Thank you.There are more people looking at Eleanor of Aquitane as an ancestor.
A Dutch reseacher traced/is investigating her descent through a blog dealing one generation at the time.
https://www.dutchgenealogy.nl/?s=Was+Eleanor+of+Aquitaine+my+Ancestor%3F
Hans VogelsHans, thank you so much for this...I'm eager to read it. And I'm relieved that it's in English.
Fortunately, I've just found my copy of the Gagne article in French and will go through parts of it
with Google translator to try to clarify some details about the notarial record and will report back.
I never asked Darrell if his question about the evidence arose with not having read the piece, or
after reading it.
On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 9:28:25 AM UTC-5, Jinny Wallerstedt/Girl 57 wrote:it is something exotic, like a royal line, one tends to _want_ it to be true and as a result, to use progressively more relaxed standards of evidence the more they embrace the possibility. Rather than 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence',
On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 1:59:48 AM UTC-5, hansvog...@gmail.com wrote:
Op zondag 29 januari 2023 om 17:29:54 UTC+1 schreef Jinny Wallerstedt/Girl 57:
On Saturday, January 28, 2023 at 9:34:22 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
On Saturday, January 28, 2023 at 5:00:01 PM UTC-8, Jinny Wallerstedt/Girl 57 wrote:
I'm still having trouble thinking that Gagne and his co-author -- who itI can't address the specific case, but in general most genealogists, and scholars in general, experience an unconscious bias - if their discovery is mundane, it isn't interesting enough to use anything but the most stringent standards, but if
seems did extensive and careful work (and with no primary intention to connect to royalty) --
would have a line they'd discovered goes back to noble and royal ancestors dependent on a single piece of
non-contemporary evidence. I'm new at this (and my terminology may be wrong)...is this naive? And while errors
of course happen a lot, wouldn't this be a significant omission?
Bullock) Clement as a Gateway ancestor, glaring inaccuracies in Morrill Kindred in America and absolute fabrications the life of Philibert Couillaud by Robert de Roquebrune. Even just today I have found another bogus attribution for the Reade ancestry.taftaf, Good learning here for me.
With the Anne Couvent line, I'd assumed that a spot of possibly slim evidence would have been
flagged awhile back. Not reading French and without much experience, it's hard to
evaluate the picture and others' different points of view about it.
I'd love this to be true...Eleanor of Aquitaine as an ancestor would be like winning the genealogical lottery
(even if one's line is through King John), wouldn't it? It hadn't occurred to me that such a line might
emerge through my fascinating-in-their-own right French Canadian ancestors.
Re: other cases, when new to this -- and probably even when experienced -- it's tricky knowing when
what appears to be a growing body of indirect/circumstantial evidence adds up to "very likely."
And as you pointed out months ago, both intensive work and reasonable distance/detachment
play their roles.
I always value your input, taf. Thank you.There are more people looking at Eleanor of Aquitane as an ancestor.
A Dutch reseacher traced/is investigating her descent through a blog dealing one generation at the time.
https://www.dutchgenealogy.nl/?s=Was+Eleanor+of+Aquitaine+my+Ancestor%3F
Hans VogelsHans, thank you so much for this...I'm eager to read it. And I'm relieved that it's in English.
Fortunately, I've just found my copy of the Gagne article in French and will go through parts of itI have read it as I asked about the English translation a few months ago and found it thanks to someone pointing me to it- the source translated to English presented here, matter of fact!
with Google translator to try to clarify some details about the notarial record and will report back.
I never asked Darrell if his question about the evidence arose with not having read the piece, or
after reading it.
I use the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy's full explanation of the concerns regarding the de Joyeuse line because it is so very detailed and easy to understand.
As taf has said, I have developed a wary eye when it comes to something this substantial. I have been burned several times in the past which have led to this attitude- the delisting of Jabez Warren as a Mayflower ancestor, the delisting of Elizabeth (
The problem isn't their research- and I must stress that- the problem is the trust that one would have in documents where someone claims to be the relation of a disinherited Francois, son of Robert de Joyeuse, that can't be proven through other means.I just wish that there was some proof and maybe one day it will present itself. I don't want to put my faith in the word of one man alone in proving this ancestry. I hope everyone understands!
DarrellDarrell, thank you for your comments. I didn't know that the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy had weighed in on the Anne Couvent line...I Googled but didn't find. Is this material online?
On Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 3:40:59 PM UTC-5, Darrell E. Larocque wrote:it is something exotic, like a royal line, one tends to _want_ it to be true and as a result, to use progressively more relaxed standards of evidence the more they embrace the possibility. Rather than 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence',
On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 9:28:25 AM UTC-5, Jinny Wallerstedt/Girl 57 wrote:
On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 1:59:48 AM UTC-5, hansvog...@gmail.com wrote:
Op zondag 29 januari 2023 om 17:29:54 UTC+1 schreef Jinny Wallerstedt/Girl 57:
On Saturday, January 28, 2023 at 9:34:22 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
On Saturday, January 28, 2023 at 5:00:01 PM UTC-8, Jinny Wallerstedt/Girl 57 wrote:
I'm still having trouble thinking that Gagne and his co-author -- who itI can't address the specific case, but in general most genealogists, and scholars in general, experience an unconscious bias - if their discovery is mundane, it isn't interesting enough to use anything but the most stringent standards, but if
seems did extensive and careful work (and with no primary intention to connect to royalty) --
would have a line they'd discovered goes back to noble and royal ancestors dependent on a single piece of
non-contemporary evidence. I'm new at this (and my terminology may be wrong)...is this naive? And while errors
of course happen a lot, wouldn't this be a significant omission?
Bullock) Clement as a Gateway ancestor, glaring inaccuracies in Morrill Kindred in America and absolute fabrications the life of Philibert Couillaud by Robert de Roquebrune. Even just today I have found another bogus attribution for the Reade ancestry.taftaf, Good learning here for me.
With the Anne Couvent line, I'd assumed that a spot of possibly slim evidence would have been
flagged awhile back. Not reading French and without much experience, it's hard to
evaluate the picture and others' different points of view about it.
I'd love this to be true...Eleanor of Aquitaine as an ancestor would be like winning the genealogical lottery
(even if one's line is through King John), wouldn't it? It hadn't occurred to me that such a line might
emerge through my fascinating-in-their-own right French Canadian ancestors.
Re: other cases, when new to this -- and probably even when experienced -- it's tricky knowing when
what appears to be a growing body of indirect/circumstantial evidence adds up to "very likely."
And as you pointed out months ago, both intensive work and reasonable distance/detachment
play their roles.
I always value your input, taf. Thank you.There are more people looking at Eleanor of Aquitane as an ancestor.
A Dutch reseacher traced/is investigating her descent through a blog dealing one generation at the time.
https://www.dutchgenealogy.nl/?s=Was+Eleanor+of+Aquitaine+my+Ancestor%3F
Hans VogelsHans, thank you so much for this...I'm eager to read it. And I'm relieved that it's in English.
Fortunately, I've just found my copy of the Gagne article in French and will go through parts of itI have read it as I asked about the English translation a few months ago and found it thanks to someone pointing me to it- the source translated to English presented here, matter of fact!
with Google translator to try to clarify some details about the notarial record and will report back.
I never asked Darrell if his question about the evidence arose with not having read the piece, or
after reading it.
I use the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy's full explanation of the concerns regarding the de Joyeuse line because it is so very detailed and easy to understand.
As taf has said, I have developed a wary eye when it comes to something this substantial. I have been burned several times in the past which have led to this attitude- the delisting of Jabez Warren as a Mayflower ancestor, the delisting of Elizabeth (
I just wish that there was some proof and maybe one day it will present itself. I don't want to put my faith in the word of one man alone in proving this ancestry. I hope everyone understands!The problem isn't their research- and I must stress that- the problem is the trust that one would have in documents where someone claims to be the relation of a disinherited Francois, son of Robert de Joyeuse, that can't be proven through other means.
Darrell
Darrell, thank you for your comments. I didn't know that the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy had weighed in on the Anne Couvent line...I Googled but didn't find. Is this material online?
I spent some time two days ago with the French version of the extensive Gagne and Kokanosky article. I am not qualified to evaluate it, but my impression was that the authors had located primary/contemporary sources that support the relationships citedin the 1733 notarial act/genealogy created at Jean Baptiste de Joyeuse's request. This must not be correct as, if it were, we wouldn't be relying on the undocumented testimony of one person? It seems this case might be a good example of the differences
Don't want to muddy the water now with my many other questions, not having read English version of article or seen the FMG analysis. >Darrell, any link you might have to the latter would be appreciated, as would advice about getting a copy of article'sEnglish version. I tried >to get a copy some ways back, without success. I can read only enough French to be dangerous.
Darrell, so appreciate info and links. I had no idea this analysis was out there. Will go through it carefully.much less this period. But as Anne Couvent was my 10th great-grandmother, I'd love for this case to be good teacher. Want to underscore, especially to Denis, that I am not critiquing Mr. Gagne and Mr. Kokanosky's work -- not qualified, of course. Just
Am just starting to learn about medieval and early modern genealogy, and a case like this goes a long way in beginning to understand fundamentals, with evidence evaluation topping the list. This will be tough, with no background in French genealogy,
Darrell, will look forward to any additional insights and comments from you, Denis, and anyone interested. Thank you again.
Jinny,Yves Gagné and Laurent Kokanovsky as part of their investigation into the ancestry of Anne Couvent who emigrated to Quebec from France in 1636 [1290] . This branch of the family is omitted in the reconstructions of Caumartin, Père Anselme [1291] , and
Here is another Medieval Lands links which, if you scroll a tiny bit below, you will see an outline of a point by point analysis of the research.
It begins:
"The final part of this Grandpré/Joyeuse section considers the ancestry of Jean Baptiste de Joyeuse, created Graf von Joyeuse (count in the kingdom of Bohemia) by Empress Maria Theresia in the mid-18th century, which was researched in 2007 by Roland-
https://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/champorret.htm#RobertJoyeusedied1660BDarrell, so appreciate info and links. I had no idea this analysis was out there. Will go through it carefully.
Darrell
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 293 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 241:57:03 |
| Calls: | 6,624 |
| Files: | 12,175 |
| Messages: | 5,320,145 |