Dit name confusion
Le Huart
an ancestor decided to use either the dit name or the actual surname and
abandon completely the other.
For example, I have a Beaubien line, with copy of baptismal record of 1832
that does not mention Trottier, the original surname at all.
My father's family name is Rivard. No one has ever heard about the "dit
Lavigne" part.
I have a g-g grandmother whose death certificate lists Laflamme as her
surname. However, her father's grave in Portland, ME has the headstone as
Kemner, the Breton form of the family name Quemeneur.
Did our Quebecois ancestors use both names for official documents and only
the dit name for everyday use? And when/how did they decide to use one or
the other as evidenced by Rivard dropping the Lavigne and Beaubien dropping
the Trottier? Cousins I have who do not do any genealogy are always
skeptical when I tell them of their original family name.And since there is
no one alive to ask, was there any historical event that caused one or the
other to be used, and what would cause them to choose one or the other. I
can see picking Laflamme over Kemner as the latter sounds more German than
French, but why Beaubien over Trottier?
Just something that bothers me.
Denis Beauregard
écrivait dans soc.genealogy.french:
>I understand when and how dit names came about. My confusion is how and when
>an ancestor decided to use either the dit name or the actual surname and
>abandon completely the other.
There is no general reason, i.e. they can do it for a lot of reasons.
For example:
- they/someone else (notary, priest) don't like the nickname
- they/someone else don't like the original name
- the clerk prefers to use one name
- there is another family in the area and the clerk knows it and chose
the name to use accordingly
- they change almost in every record and when they stopped to change,
this was the one they were using
Add your own ;-)
>For example, I have a Beaubien line, with copy of baptismal record of 1832
>that does not mention Trottier, the original surname at all.
>
>My father's family name is Rivard. No one has ever heard about the "dit
>Lavigne" part.
>
>I have a g-g grandmother whose death certificate lists Laflamme as her
>surname. However, her father's grave in Portland, ME has the headstone as
>Kemner, the Breton form of the family name Quemeneur.
>
>Did our Quebecois ancestors use both names for official documents and only
>the dit name for everyday use? And when/how did they decide to use one or
There is no universal rule. Some did and some didn't. But I would
say the change can be for a person, i.e. the father was using 2 names
and the son decided to use only one (sometimes a name not even used
by the father).
>the other as evidenced by Rivard dropping the Lavigne and Beaubien dropping
>the Trottier? Cousins I have who do not do any genealogy are always
>skeptical when I tell them of their original family name.And since there is
>no one alive to ask, was there any historical event that caused one or the
>other to be used, and what would cause them to choose one or the other. I
>can see picking Laflamme over Kemner as the latter sounds more German than
>French, but why Beaubien over Trottier?
>
>Just something that bothers me.
As for the fact that only one name was chosed and kept forever, there
are some theories, likely all possible depending on the person.
- invention of the typewriter
- invention of the bank or paycheck
- moving to an area where it was not usual to have dit names, i.e. to
USA
- moving to a place where either the name or dit name was not enjoyed
i.e. some known public man with a bad reputation. Just like Berlin
in Ontario changed to Kitchener during WW 2 or the German family
reigning in England changed to Windsor.
- the priest's choice. I have a line of Jarret dit Beauregard using
Jarest as long as the families were in St-Charles, but when a
sibling was moving out, he always switched to Beauregard. So, the
Jarest are all close cousins from the line in St-Charles
etc.
Denis
--
0 Denis Beauregard
/\/ www.francogene.com
|\ >>Adresse modifiée souvent/email changed frequently<<
/ | Relationniste - www.sgcf.com - 60 ans en 2003 !
oo oo Société généalogique canadienne-française
Denis Beauregard
or the government about that. My answer:
Some people will pretend there was a church edict, but this is false.
The proof is you will find today people with their dit name.
For example, Paul Gerin-Lajoie was the minister of education in
the 1960s. This is Gerin dit Lajoie. There are some Beaugrand-
Champagne, etc.
I have seen death records after 1900 with dit names on them.
What likely happened was the pressure from banks etc. so that
someone has only one name. But there is nothing in the Quebec
law forbidding the dit names.
Bébert
"Le Huart" <fritz...@adelphia.net> a écrit dans le message de
news:XJuZa.12045$jg.42...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
> My father's family name is Rivard. No one has ever heard about the "dit
> Lavigne" part.
Maybe the following will help.
On Michel Lacoursière pages http://pages.infinit.net/lacmeech/
there is a quote from: Extrait de Nos racines l´histoire vivante des
Québécois, Vol. 8 page 161
about the origins of the Rivard surnames..
I extracted the following from his main page:
Quatre-vingt huit années de vie dont 55 ont été consacrées à sa famille et
à son pays d´adoption s´achevaient pour Nicolas Rivard. À son chevet, dix
enfants, 82 petits-enfants et une veuve, Catherine Saint-Per.
Les enfants et les petits-enfants du couple ont d´abord grossi leur rang en
Mauricie. On les rencontre aujourd´hui au quatre coins du Québec où ils sont
connus sous d´autres patronymes. Nicolas Rivard a laissé le sien, mais
également celui de Lavigne. Son fils François, empruntant le nom d´un
lieu-dit, dans le Perche, légua à ses descendants le nom de Lacoursière.
Pierre se distingua de ses frères en adoptant le surnom de La Nouette,
pendant que Jean adoptait celui de Préville et Julien celui de la Glanderie.
Les générations suivantes ont vu apparaître les Dufresne et les Beaucour.
Rivard est décédé au mois de mai 1699, laissant une femme et douze enfants.
les six fils qui se sont mariés ont adopté un surnom: Claude et Nicolas
étaient sieurs de Loranger, Mathurin prit celui de Feuilleverte, François
fut connu sous le nom de Montendre, Louis-Joseph devint seigneur de
Yamachiche, sous le nom de Bellefeuille, et René-Alexis, dont les
descendants se sont fixés aux États-Unis, choisit le surnom de Maisonville.
Par leurs alliances, les filles de Robert Rivard sont devenues des
Dumontier, des LeSieur dit Duchaine, des de Lafond et des Lefebvre.
Gary Boivin
"dit" names. Many families had prior to this time quit using either their
name, their original "dit" name, and with some their newer "dit" names (your
Beaubien line). In some cases the family members didn't know which was the
"dit" name and which was the real one (Your Laflamme's). In some cases
siblings used different names thinking the other one was stupid for not
knowing the original name.
The US wasn't keen on the use of "dit" names either. In many cases
Francophones would use their "dit" name there simply because it was easier
to say in English like your Quemeneur line choosing to keep Laflamme (which
is easier to say and spell).
As for when they used the "dit" name. There are probably as many different
reasons as there are people. In some case people used the "dit" name when
working and the real name with family and friends.
Usually when a "dit" name started to be used, the other name was never used
again --- with the only reference to it being in the Church Registry. After
a couple of generations many didn't even know they had a "dit" name or
didn't even know what it was (your Rivards). As some of my wife's older
relatives have said: "On a un autre nom de Deguire mais on s'en sert pas"
(We have another name of Deguire but we no longer use it).
Even though the Province of Quebec discouraged the use of "dit" names
doesn't mean that Canadian Francophones quit using them. I know of many
people in Ontario that do and I know of two Albertans that use "dit" names.
Gary Boivin
Sommerville from Detroit.
This was posted on one of the Quebec Lists...
1 August 1866, Civil Code of Lower Canada -- the Province of Quebec,
Article 56a, "specifically forbids" changing a surname.
The pamphlet written by Leon Roy does not specifically address the question
of _choosing_ one or another "dit" name. After a discussion of past
practice, he says, in part, in section 90 -- Double (Sur)names of Certain
Families -- : "However, sometimes families of the same (sur) name become so
numerous with time and when living in the same place that some of them
finally take second (sur) name. When accepted by the neighbours, and as
time goes by, _and after many many years_, this extra (sur) name, in turn,
takes the place of the original one."
And in section 91 -- Immutability of the Surname: "In practice, very few
surnames still remain intact after a period of eight to ten generations.
When so modified, or even changed entirely, if the new form, or the new
surname acquires a certain stability among the descendants of that ancestor
who was first given such a surname, then it becomes the common and real
family name of all members of that family. Such has often been the case in
French Canada. But this does not mean that we should not do all we can to
prevent such a change, especially now, since Article 56a of the Civil Code
forbids it." This article was written to interpret the rules of the Civil
Code primarily for English language users .
Leon Roy, "The Keeping of Church Registers of Juridical Status in the
Province of Quebec", pp. 167-229, _Rapport de L'Archiviste de la Province
de Québec pour 1959-60_.
In another article, in French, Leon Roy discusses the issue of "dit" names,
and says that in order to properly identify family connections when writing
birth civil records, a child whose parent uses a dit name should be
recorded by the dominant name with the surname name added for the father,
for example, for a child of someone with the surname/s MICHEL dit TAILLON:
[standardized to] TAILLON. "we have baptized Marie-Estelle-Lucie Taillon,
daughter of Moise (Michel-dit) Taillon and of . . ." (my translation). He
too says use of the "dit" will thus eventually die out.
Leon Roy, "De la Tenure des registres de l'état civil," _Rapport de
L'Archiviste de la Province de Québec pour 1957-59_.
---- Original Message -----
From: "Le Huart" <fritz...@adelphia.net>
To: <GEN-...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 10:51 AM
Subject: Dit name confusion
Denis Beauregard
("Gary Boivin") écrivait dans soc.genealogy.french:
>In the mid 1800's the Province of Quebec officially discouraged the use of
>"dit" names. Many families had prior to this time quit using either their
Any document to prove that Quebec officially discouraged that ?
Until now, nobody ever sent me any documented proof, no text
of law, etc.
Beaucoup de gens disent que c'est officiel, mais PERSONNE
n'a jusqu'à présent été capable de me montrer un texte de
loi pour le démontrer...
Denis Beauregard
("Gary Boivin") wrote in soc.genealogy.french:
>As for why Quebecois quit using "dit" names, I will quote Suzanne (Boivin)
>Sommerville from Detroit.
>This was posted on one of the Quebec Lists...
>
>1 August 1866, Civil Code of Lower Canada -- the Province of Quebec,
>Article 56a, "specifically forbids" changing a surname.
Wrong. First of all, because of the Dominion of 1867, you can't
rely on the 1866 civil code.
>practice, he says, in part, in section 90 -- Double (Sur)names of Certain
>Families -- : "However, sometimes families of the same (sur) name become so
nothing about forbidding dit names
>And in section 91 -- Immutability of the Surname: "In practice, very few
>surnames still remain intact after a period of eight to ten generations.
nothing about forbidding dit names
>prevent such a change, especially now, since Article 56a of the Civil Code
>forbids it." This article was written to interpret the rules of the Civil
>Code primarily for English language users .
nothing about forbidding dit names
>Leon Roy, "The Keeping of Church Registers of Juridical Status in the
>Province of Quebec", pp. 167-229, _Rapport de L'Archiviste de la Province
>de Québec pour 1959-60_.
>
>In another article, in French, Leon Roy discusses the issue of "dit" names,
>and says that in order to properly identify family connections when writing
>birth civil records, a child whose parent uses a dit name should be
>recorded by the dominant name with the surname name added for the father,
>for example, for a child of someone with the surname/s MICHEL dit TAILLON:
>[standardized to] TAILLON. "we have baptized Marie-Estelle-Lucie Taillon,
>daughter of Moise (Michel-dit) Taillon and of . . ." (my translation). He
>too says use of the "dit" will thus eventually die out.
no article in the law
>Leon Roy, "De la Tenure des registres de l'état civil," _Rapport de
>L'Archiviste de la Province de Québec pour 1957-59_.
So, NOTHING IN THE LAW forbidding dit names.
And indeed I have seen dit names in Quebec records after 1900.
Denis Beauregard
<pa...@spam.com.invalid> écrivait dans soc.genealogy.french:
>On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 08:22:55 +0000 (UTC), gbo...@telusplanet.net
>("Gary Boivin") wrote in soc.genealogy.french:
>
>>As for why Quebecois quit using "dit" names, I will quote Suzanne (Boivin)
>>Sommerville from Detroit.
>>This was posted on one of the Quebec Lists...
>>
>>1 August 1866, Civil Code of Lower Canada -- the Province of Quebec,
>>Article 56a, "specifically forbids" changing a surname.
There should be some mistake here.
Lower Canada was replaced in 1840 by Canada East. And Province of
Quebec was only created in 1867. From 1840 (Union Act) to 1867
(Dominion), Canada was one colony comprising south of Quebec and
Ontario so you can't have a different law in Quebec and Ontario.
Law was different before 1840 or after 1867.
Suzanne B Sommerville
>Subject: Re: Dit name confusion<
Denis,
You'll have to take your objections to the author of the articles. I'm just
quoting him.
>Leon Roy, "The Keeping of Church Registers of Juridical Status in the
>Province of Quebec", pp. 167-229, _Rapport de L'Archiviste de la Province
>de Québec pour 1959-60_.
>Leon Roy, "De la Tenure des registres de l'état civil," _Rapport de
>L'Archiviste de la Province de Québec pour 1957-59_.
Suzanne
Suzanne B Sommerville
<
It gets even more complicated. Jules Trottier and Catherine Loiseau founded
quite a tribe after their marriage around 1625 in France. It became
necessary to distinguish the various branches.
One branch adopted the name DesRuisseaux and settled in Detroit. Another
descended from Michel Trottier, sieur de Beaubien, Alexis, who married
Marie-Louise Roy in Detroit in 1735. Another Trottier, but this time a
female, Marie-Catherine Trottier dite Beaubien, married Jean Baptiste
_Cuillerier_, and had two sons, both of whom followed their mother to
Detroit when she remarried to François Picoté de Belestre, and her sons
used _both_ the name Cuillerier and _Beaubien_.
I have not personally traced this line on PRDH yet (have had no reason to
do so), but this is Télesphore Saint-Pierre's take on it in his _Histoire
des Canadiens français du Michigan et du comté d'Essex, Ontario_ (1895). He
says Tanguay was absolutely befuddled by the family! "having Jean-Baptiste
Beaubien [ dit Cuillerier, son of Catherine] descending from Jean Trottier,
deceased seven years before his son's birth" in 1709. Jean-Baptiste married
Marie-Anne Barrois in 1742, and had 12 children, again all according to
Saint-Pierre. In this case, then, the "dit" name came from the mother. The
marriage record at Saint-Anne de Detroit identifies them for their 26 Jan
1742 marriage as Jean-Baptiste Cuillerier dit _Beaubien_ (Jean Cuillerier
and Marie Catherine Trottier) and Marie-Anne Barrois (François and Marie
Anne Sauvage). François was also known by the name of Lootman!
The next generations continued to use the name Beaubien (at least 15
marriages under that male name alone to 1850), and there is even a street
in Detroit, now pronounced (approximately) _Bo_ be inn
Suzanne
Bertrand Desjardins
> >>As for why Quebecois quit using "dit" names, I will quote Suzanne
(Boivin)
> >>Sommerville from Detroit.
> >>This was posted on one of the Quebec Lists...
> >>
> >>1 August 1866, Civil Code of Lower Canada -- the Province of Quebec,
> >>Article 56a, "specifically forbids" changing a surname.
>>> Gary Boivin
>
> There should be some mistake here.
>
> Lower Canada was replaced in 1840 by Canada East. And Province of
> Quebec was only created in 1867. From 1840 (Union Act) to 1867
> (Dominion), Canada was one colony comprising south of Quebec and
> Ontario so you can't have a different law in Quebec and Ontario.
> Law was different before 1840 or after 1867.
> Denis Beauregard
Cet échange a immédiatement attiré mon attention parce que je suis un de
ceux qui a pris pour acquis qu'il y avait eu une forme d'intervention
officielle au 19e siècle pour que les gens qui utilisaient des doubles noms
(Roy dit Desjardins, Gauthier dit Larouche) choisissent l'un ou l'autre. Je
voyais là la seule explication à la quasi-disparition tout de même
relativement rapide de l'habitude (des proches parents se sont ainsi appelés
d'une part «Roy» et d'autre part «Desjardins», au gré de choix manifestement
individuels survenus entre 1850 et 1880 pour la plupart, me semblait-il).
La référence à un article précis d'un code officiel m'a fait bondir...mais
il s'agit d'une mauvaise lecture des articles de Léon Roy. En effet,
celui-ci précise en note (dans la version française seulement) que «Notre
Code civil est en vigueur depuis le 1er août 1866», mais la première mention
de l'article 56a est accompagnée de l'indication «(1951)»; il est donc très
clair que cet article qui «détermine les noms et prénoms juridiques de la
personne» date de la révision de 1951 du Code...
Bien plus, Léon Roy écrit plus loin «...Et pendant quelques générations, les
descendants furent tantôt désignés sous l'un ou l'autre des deux noms,
jusqu'à ce que ceux-ci soient devenus plus régulièrement associés. La
confusion était telle, parfois, qu'on en vint même à inverser nom et surnom,
exemple : Traversy dit Langlois, au lieu de Langlois dit Traversy...Enfin
beaucoup plus tard, mais surtout depuis une cinquantaine d'années, la
plupart des familles s'étant rendu compte par elles-mêmes, des nombreux
ennuis suscités pour tout le monde par leur double nom, adoptaient
graduellement l'un ou l'autre nom comme nom définitif de famille.»
Bref, non seulement Léon Roy ne prétend pas qu'il y ait eu intervention
officielle de l'État pour décourager la preatique, mais il exprime
clairement l'avis que la chose s'est fait d'elle-même (peut-être encouragée
par l'alphabétisation des personnes?).
Je dois donc me rallier à notre ami Denis [une fois n'est pas
coutume...:) ].
Bertrand Desjardins
PRDH
www.genealogie.umontreal.ca
Helene Lamarche
EN me basant sur des traditions familiales (non vérifiées cependant), ce ne
serait pas tant une législation formelle qui aurait amené la disparition des
noms dits que l'obligation au recensement de 1871 de ne déclarer qu'un seul
nom.
C'est l'époque où mon arrière-grand père tout comme ses enfants mineurs
laisse tomber Bricault pour Lamarche tandis que les aînés (dont un Jésuite)
consevent le nom de Bricault.
Est-ce plausible ?
Hélène Lamarche
Suzanne B Sommerville
my imprecision. I was quoting from two different sources, the English
version and the French version:
>Leon Roy, "The Keeping of Church Registers of Juridical Status in the
>Province of Quebec", pp. 167-229, _Rapport de L'Archiviste de la Province
>de Québec pour 1959-60_.
>Leon Roy, "De la Tenure des registres de l'état civil," _Rapport de
>L'Archiviste de la Province de Québec pour 1957-59_, pp. 187-333.
In going back and forth between the articles about "double" or dit names,
I neglected to note that the section I quoted in the French version was
preceded by the C.c. 56a (1951) _only_ on page 214, not on page 225, the
source for the passage I cited, which shows only C.c. 56a.
Nevertheless, the English version definitely says: (p. 171) "It is mainly
the old French Code of 1667, with its modification, jointly with the new,
usually known as the Code Napoléon, which finally gave birth, on the first
of August 1866, to our actual Civil Code of Lower Canada--the Province of
Québec."
I understand the source of my error. Why the author used this language, as
objected to by Denis, I will never know.
It appears it is the 1951 amendment which specifically forbade the
_changing_ of a surname.
Here is what I originally wrote, with correction added in brackets.
<<<<<<<<<<
1 August 1866, Civil Code of Lower Canada -- the Province of Quebec,
Article 56a [1951], "specifically forbids" changing a surname.
The pamphlet written by Leon Roy does not specifically address the question
of _choosing_ one or another "dit" name. This 1959-60 article was written
to interpret the rules of the Civil Code primarily for English language
users. After a discussion of past practice, he says, in part, in section
90 -- Double (Sur)names of Certain Families -- : "However, sometimes
families of the same (sur) name become so numerous with time and when
living in the same place that some of them finally take second (sur) name.
When accepted by the neighbours, and as time goes by, _and after many many
years_, this extra (sur) name, in turn, takes the place of the original
one."
And in section 91 -- Immutability of the Surname: "In practice, very few
surnames still remain intact after a period of eight to ten generations.
When so modified, or even changed entirely, if the new form, or the new
surname acquires a certain stability among the descendants of that ancestor
who was first given such a surname, then it becomes the common and real
family name of all members of that family. Such has often been the case in
French Canada. But this does not mean that we should not do all we can to
prevent such a change, especially now, since Article 56a of the Civil Code
forbids it."
Leon Roy, "The Keeping of Church Registers of Juridical Status in the
Province of Quebec", pp. 167-229, _Rapport de L'Archiviste de la Province
de Québec pour 1959-60_.
In another article, in French, Leon Roy discusses the issue of "dit" names,
and says that in order to properly identify family connections when writing
birth civil records, a child whose parent uses a dit name should be
recorded by the dominant name with the surname name added for the father,
for example, for a child of someone with the surname/s MICHEL dit TAILLON:
[standardized to] TAILLON. "we have baptized Marie-Estelle-Lucie Taillon,
daughter of Moise (Michel-dit) Taillon and of . . ." (my translation). He
too says use of the "dit" will thus eventually die out.
Leon Roy, "De la Tenure des registres de l'état civil," _Rapport de
L'Archiviste de la Province de Québec pour 1957-59_.
This is as close as I can come right now to answering your question
.>>>>>>>>>
I guess I didn't come all that close to answering the original question,
which was: > it was said that the Québec government imposed a stop on the
use of dit names in the mid 1800s. Does anyone have references...>
Suzannne
Message text written by INTERNET:GEN-...@rootsweb.com
>X-Message: #2
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 15:26:32 GMT
From: "Bertrand Desjardins" <Bertrand....@UMontreal.CA>
To: GEN-...@rootsweb.com
Message-ID: <IMs_a.49711$Yz.3...@charlie.risq.qc.ca>
Subject: Re: Dit name confusion
> >>As for why Quebecois quit using "dit" names, I will quote Suzanne
(Boivin)
> >>Sommerville from Detroit.
> >>This was posted on one of the Quebec Lists...
> >>
> >>1 August 1866, Civil Code of Lower Canada -- the Province of Quebec,
> >>Article 56a, "specifically forbids" changing a surname.
>>> Gary Boivin
>
> There should be some mistake here.
>
> Lower Canada was replaced in 1840 by Canada East. And Province of
> Quebec was only created in 1867. From 1840 (Union Act) to 1867
> (Dominion), Canada was one colony comprising south of Quebec and
> Ontario so you can't have a different law in Quebec and Ontario.
> Law was different before 1840 or after 1867.
> Denis Beauregard
Cet échange a immédiatement attiré mon attention parce que je suis un de
Bertrand Desjardins
news:e8A_a.66412$ij4.8...@weber.videotron.net...
>
> Bonjour,
>
> EN me basant sur des traditions familiales (non vérifiées cependant), ce
ne
> serait pas tant une législation formelle qui aurait amené la disparition
des
> noms dits que l'obligation au recensement de 1871 de ne déclarer qu'un
seul
> nom.
> C'est l'époque où mon arrière-grand père tout comme ses enfants mineurs
> laisse tomber Bricault pour Lamarche tandis que les aînés (dont un
Jésuite)
> consevent le nom de Bricault.
>
> Est-ce plausible ?
>
> Hélène Lamarche
>
recensement effectué dans le cadre de la toute nouvelle confédération. Il
faudrait :
- trouver la consigne du recensement de 1871 à l'effet de ne déclarer qu'un
seul nom
- vérifier à quel point elle a été respectée
- vérifier un certain nombre de cas (baptêmes d'enfants de 1865 à 1875 pour
une même famille) pour voir si l'abandon définitif du 2e nom date de ce
moment
Il serait irréaliste de penser qu'une seule exigence administrative ait
modifié d'un seul coup une tradition séculaire mais il est fort plausible
qu'elle ait contribué à accélérer les choses...
Bertrand Desjardins
PRDH
www.genealogie.umontreal.ca
Ontarois
Guillot et d'autres Diotte. Ils sont dans la soixantaine et ont les mêmes
parents. Ils semblerait que certains ont été baptisés sous le nom de Guillot
alors que d'autres ont été baptisés sous le nom de Diotte.
"Bertrand Desjardins" <Bertrand....@UMontreal.CA> wrote in message
news:qUM_a.54599$Yz.1...@charlie.risq.qc.ca...