Confirm Anne Couvent as Gateway Ancestor to Henry III?

[Girl57]

Hi, everyone. Haven't been around for a while but glad to be back.

In working on French Canadian genealogy, found my 10th great-grandmother, Anne Couvent, b. abt 1604 at Brecy, St-Michel, Aisne, Picardie, France, who is listed in several spots as a gateway ancestor to French nobility and King Henry III. Anne m. Philippe Amiot/Amyot abt 1626 and went to New France abt 1635 or a bit before. She died 25 Dec 1675 in Quebec. Her parents were Guillaume Couvent and Antoinette de Longueval.

I am a complete novice at this and wonder about reputable people or sites to consult to confirm this. How are the below?

https://www.magnacharta.com/gateway-ancestors/

http://www.francogene.com/gfna/gfna/998/qrd30.htm

Would appreciate any insight or suggestions. Thanks a lot. Jinny

[P J Evans]

Francogene, I think, is fairly reliable. (My sis-in-law's stepfather has one of the Couvent sisters on his tree.)

[Denis Beauregard]

On Thu, 8 Oct 2020 09:47:44 -0700 (PDT), Girl57 <jinn...@gmail.com>
wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:

>Hi, everyone. Haven't been around for a while but glad to be back.
>
>In working on French Canadian genealogy, found my 10th great-grandmother, Anne Couvent, b. abt 1604 at Brecy, St-Michel, Aisne, Picardie, France, who is listed in several spots as a gateway ancestor to French nobility and King Henry III. Anne m. Philippe Amiot/Amyot abt 1626 and went to New France abt 1635 or a bit before. She
died 25 Dec 1675 in Quebec. Her parents were Guillaume Couvent and Antoinette de Longueval.
>
>I am a complete novice at this and wonder about reputable people or sites to consult to confirm this. How are the below?
>
>https://www.magnacharta.com/gateway-ancestors/

No source and no lineage.

>http://www.francogene.com/gfna/gfna/998/qrd30.htm

Source given and if you click on the name, you can follow the links
to ancestors. But I don't see Henri III.

Well, it is my site too :-)

>Would appreciate any insight or suggestions. Thanks a lot. Jinny

Denis

--
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

[Girl57]

Thank you, PJ and Denis (Denis, nice to "see" you again).

Found one other site that gives the whole lineage (and others):

http://www.habitant.org/couvent/index.htm

This site refers, in relation to Anne Couvent, to an article with this citation:

Gagné, Roland-Yves, and Laurent Kokanosky, "Les origins de Philippe Amiot (Hameau), de son épouse Anne Couvent et de leur neveu Toussaint Ledran," Mémoires de la Société généalogique canadienne-française 58, no. 1, issue 251 (Spring 2007): 17-58.

Are you familiar with the publication named here? I will look for it and hope it points to some primary sources. Thanks again for responding, and continue to welcome any input. Jinny

[Girl57]

Update: Just noticed link on the site to the cited journal...I would love to purchase a copy of the relevant issue, but it was published quite a while ago. Will contact organization and see what I can do.

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

That article is available at https://scribd.com/document/351950010/Les-origines-de-Philippe-Amiot-Hameau-de-son-epouse-Anne-Couvent-et-de-leur-neveu-Toussaint-Ledran.
Regardless, there's, indeed, a Henry III descent. It's:
Henry III
Beatrice de Dreux
Blanche d'Artois
Marie d'Artois
Marie de Dampierre
Yolande de Bar
Jeanne de Grancey
Marie de Chateauvillain
Robert de Sarrebruche
François de Barbançon
Marguerite de Barbançon
François de Joyeuse
Jean de Joyeuse
Louise de Joyeuse
Antoinette de Longueval
Anne Couvent

[Denis Beauregard]

Le Fri, 9 Oct 2020 11:09:07 -0700 (PDT), Paulo Ricardo Canedo
<paulorica...@gmail.com> écrivait dans soc.genealogy.medieval:

>> > Found one other site that gives the whole lineage (and others):
>> >
>> > http://www.habitant.org/couvent/index.htm
>> >
>> > This site refers, in relation to Anne Couvent, to an article with this citation:
>> >
>> > Gagné, Roland-Yves, and Laurent Kokanosky, "Les origins de Philippe Amiot (Hameau), de son épouse Anne Couvent et de leur neveu Toussaint Ledran," Mémoires de la Société généalogique canadienne-française 58, no. 1, issue 251 (Spring 2007): 17-58.
>> >

>That article is available at https://***/document/351950010/Les-origines-de-Philippe-Amiot-Hameau-de-son-epouse-Anne-Couvent-et-de-leur-neveu-Toussaint-Ledran.

>Regardless, there's, indeed, a Henry III descent. It's:

Copyright infrigement. Before paying to this site, I would suggest
buying a copy directly from info @ SGCF.COM

[deca...@aol.com]

On Friday, October 9, 2020 at 2:09:09 PM UTC-4, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> That article is available at https://scribd.com/document/351950010/Les-origines-de-Philippe-Amiot-Hameau-de-son-epouse-Anne-Couvent-et-de-leur-neveu-Toussaint-Ledran.
> Regardless, there's, indeed, a Henry III descent. It's:
> Henry III
> Beatrice de Dreux
> Blanche d'Artois
> Marie d'Artois
> Marie de Dampierre
> Yolande de Bar
> Jeanne de Grancey
> Marie de Chateauvillain
> Robert de Sarrebruche
> François de Barbançon
> Marguerite de Barbançon
> François de Joyeuse
> Jean de Joyeuse
> Louise de Joyeuse
> Antoinette de Longueval
> Anne Couvent

On the contrary, this is not a valid descent from Henry III, king of England. For one, Blanche d'Artois (d. 1302) was a descendant of Henry II, king of England, not Henry III, king of England (see Richardson's Plantagenet Ancestry (2011) Vol. I, pp.102-104 [ARTOIS 5]). Secondly, the descent from Henry III, king of England to Anne Couvent as found in Gary Boyd Roberts' RD900 (2018) is based on at least one alleged connection, similar to the descent for Mary (Gye) Maverick from Henry III.

[Peter Stewart]

On 10-Oct-20 7:53 AM, deca...@aol.com wrote:
> On Friday, October 9, 2020 at 2:09:09 PM UTC-4, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
>> That article is available at https://scribd.com/document/351950010/Les-origines-de-Philippe-Amiot-Hameau-de-son-epouse-Anne-Couvent-et-de-leur-neveu-Toussaint-Ledran.
>> Regardless, there's, indeed, a Henry III descent. It's:
>> Henry III
>> Beatrice de Dreux
>> Blanche d'Artois
>> Marie d'Artois
>> Marie de Dampierre
>> Yolande de Bar
>> Jeanne de Grancey
>> Marie de Chateauvillain
>> Robert de Sarrebruche
>> François de Barbançon
>> Marguerite de Barbançon
>> François de Joyeuse
>> Jean de Joyeuse
>> Louise de Joyeuse
>> Antoinette de Longueval
>> Anne Couvent
>
> On the contrary, this is not a valid descent from Henry III, king of England. For one, Blanche d'Artois (d. 1302) was a descendant of Henry II, king of England, not Henry III, king of England (see Richardson's Plantagenet Ancestry (2011) Vol. I, pp.102-104 [ARTOIS 5]).

You have the wrong woman - the Blanche of Artois who died in 1302 was an
aunt-by-marriage of the Blanche who was a granddaughter of Henry III as
Paulo posted - she was the wife of Philippe of Artois, seigneur of
Conches and died in 1327.

Peter Stewart

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

Apologies for posting the link, then.

[deca...@aol.com]

On Friday, October 9, 2020 at 7:10:43 PM UTC-4, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> Apologies for posting the link, then.

The Blanche who died in 1327 is more commonly known as Blanche of Brittany (or Blanche de Dreux), not Blanche d'Artois. Sorry for posting the Blanche who died in 1302 instead of 1327. Regardless, Anne Couvent's descent from Henry III doesn't seem to be completely proven, just as Mary Gye's descent from Henry III.

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

First, as Peter already showed, you confused two different Blanches.
Regardless, do you know, exactly, what the alleged connection is? If it's François de Joyeuse being Marguerite de Barbançon's son, the evidence appears to be enough. On 20 March 1733, Jean-Baptiste ds Joyeuse reported to the notary Pierre Hanonet of Verdun how François was the black sheep of family. His first wife was of a much lower social status and he was disinherited. That explains why he isn't mentioned in his parents' will.

[wjhonson]

When Mathieu Amiot (dit or sieur de) Villeneuve died and was buried 19 Dec 1688 in Quebec, he was at that time called "aged 70".

*IF* Anne Couvent was his mother, and not a second wife to his father Phillippe that would place a rather tight five year constraint on three generations of women backward from him.

So I think there *is* a place for doubt in this line.

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

FWIW, his Wikitree profile, https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Amiot-2, has him being a decade younger than that.
Regardless, I've never seen anyone expressing any doubt on him being Anne Couvent's son.

[Denis Beauregard]

On Fri, 9 Oct 2020 16:39:32 -0700 (PDT), wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com>
wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:

>When Mathieu Amiot (dit or sieur de) Villeneuve died and was buried 19 Dec 1688 in Quebec, he was at that time called "aged 70".
>
>*IF* Anne Couvent was his mother, and not a second wife to his father Phillippe that would place a rather tight five year constraint on three generations of women backward from him.
>
>So I think there *is* a place for doubt in this line.

No. Mathieu is found in many census and other records:

born about 1629 (confirmation 1659) (census 1666)
1627 (census 1667)
1628 (census 1681)


So born about 1628, not 1618.

Moreover, his parents are named on his marriage record and his
marriage contract.

[Girl57]

All: Thank you to you who are knowledgeable about this line and many others connected. Read through all comments and, am I correct that this line is basically sound?
Sorry...had bad day yesterday...Accidentally deleted part of a line from my tree (worked on it for months) and messed things up "royally," so didn't have a chance to get back here. If you could confirm my conclusion from your comments, that would be great. And thanks for easier suggestion for obtaining article that wouldn't infringe copyright. I appreciate all. Back soon.

[wjhonson]

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"

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?

[P J Evans]

Guillaume Audouart, of Quebec, in Nov 1650., per Francogene.

[Girl57]

All, Look forward to hearing from Denis about Mathieu marriage contract naming his parents.

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 enough evidence, even though Francois doesn't appear in his parents' will/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 someone here does...LOL). Also interesting to note that authors have said (can't 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 connection).

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

[Girl57]

Forgot article link:

https://www.scribd.com/document/351950010/Les-origines-de-Philippe-Amiot-Hameau-de-son-epouse-Anne-Couvent-et-de-leur-neveu-Toussaint-Ledran

[Denis Beauregard]

On Sat, 10 Oct 2020 13:25:07 -0700 (PDT), Girl57 <jinn...@gmail.com>
wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:

>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"
>>
>> 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?
>All, Look forward to hearing from Denis about Mathieu marriage contract naming his parents.

http://www.francogene.com/genealogie-quebec-genealogy/000/000126.php

[126] AMIOT de et dit VILLENEUVE, Mathieu (Philippe AMIOT ou HAMEAU &
Anne COUVENT [1]), captain of militia (capitaine de milice), born
about 1629 (conf. 1659) (census 1666), 1627 (census 1667) or 1628
(census 1681) Soissons (diocèse) (Aisne : 02722), buried 1688-12-19
Québec

* married 1650-11-22 Québec, marriage contract 1650-11-19 (depositary
Guillaume Audouart)

MIVILLE, Marie (Pierre MIVILLE dit LE SUISSE & Charlotte MAUGIS [96]),
baptized 1632-12-13 Brouage com Hiers-Brouage (Notre-Dame)
(Charente-Maritime : 17189), dead 1702-09-05, buried Québec
(Hôtel-Dieu)

>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 enough evidence, even though Francois doesn't appear in his parents' will/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.

One suggested that one son could be from another wife even if no other
wife is named or even suggested by records. Perhaps the same case. In
my own opinion, we have to go with known records. If there is no
glitch (like a chronological impossibility), then there is no reason
to reject something.

>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 someone here does...LOL). Also interesting to note that authors have said (can't 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 connection).

Yves told me, years ago, that he was searching all his own
ancestors in Europe. So, he tries to develop as far as he can
all the data he found in French archives, and is happy when he
finds more unexpected results. On my side, I am more generalist
so I may check all families but at this time, I focus on DNA and
not on finding more European data. That said, I found more about
my own Anthiaume in Paris but am not a good enough paleographer
to read all these records. I think it may be possible to find one
more generation and identify the grand-parents of Marguerite
Anthiaume, the wife of André Jarret de Beauregard and I already
have new uncles/aunts.

[Girl57]

Denis, Thanks for the good information and insight. Re: "One suggested that one son could be from another wife even if no other
wife is named or even suggested by records...," am wondering whether Anne Couvent was just a very young mother...If she was born abt 1604, as records indicate, and Mathieu b. 1618 (in glitch scenario)...she would have been about 14 years old at his birth? This is not impossible, correct? I have found among my other French Canadian ancestors (not sure about more remote French ancestors) that girls were sometimes married even younger than that. And starting so young can sometimes account for the large number of children born before the mother's menopause)?

I also love finding unexpected results and am happy to keep digging through records...am specialist type...it's a joy. Isn't is great finding new cousins, aunts, and uncles? But also just learning about DNA and head is spinning...Wow. Impressed with your work on that. Thanks again for all insight, and hope to "hang on" to this line...One can't sneeze at Eleanor of Aquitaine...Jinny

[Denis Beauregard]

On Sat, 10 Oct 2020 14:08:06 -0700 (PDT), Girl57 <jinn...@gmail.com>
wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:

>Denis, Thanks for the good information and insight. Re: "One suggested that one son could be from another wife even if no other
>wife is named or even suggested by records...," am wondering whether Anne Couvent was just a very young mother...If she was born abt 1604, as records indicate, and Mathieu b. 1618 (in glitch scenario)...she would have been about 14 years old at his birth? This is not impossible, correct? I have found among my other French Canadian
ancestors (not sure about more remote French ancestors) that girls were sometimes married even younger than that. And starting so young can sometimes account for the large number of children born before the mother's menopause)?

But this is not the issue. I think there was a debate about
that long ago. It was in France for I think a wife of Joyeuse.

I didn't accept that issue and kept as is what was found.

At least one of my ancestor was married when 11, so in the
colonial times, and not limited to New France, girls were
married very young while usually not pregnant before 16. No
idea however if this topic was ever verified.

>I also love finding unexpected results and am happy to keep digging through records...am specialist type...it's a joy. Isn't is great finding new cousins, aunts, and uncles? But also just learning about DNA and head is spinning...Wow. Impressed with your work on that. Thanks again for all insight, and hope to "hang on" to this
line...One can't sneeze at Eleanor of Aquitaine...Jinny

Sometimes, in DNA, we find who was in the bed 300 years ago...

[John Higgins]

What is your source for this information regarding Francois de Joyeuse? Is it the Gagné/Kokanosky article cited elsewhere in this thread? (I assume you read it through scribd.com?)

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

I don't have an account there and haven't read the article. I took this information from https://www.geni.com/people/François-de-Joyeuse/6000000006909087261, that cites the article. I'm sure Denis Beauregard can confirm the article does say that.

[Girl57]

Denis can confirm that's what the article says...I would love that as I don't read French well enough. I'm in a free one-month trial to scrbd.com and viewed it, and could make out just enough so I think that's what it says but not sure. In process of trying to order a hard copy of the piece as originally published by Societe Genealogique Canadienne-Francaise (SGCF), but ordering link on their site wasn't working as of yesterday.

Denis, yes, we don't know who was "in the bed" 300 years ago! Relatedly, this week I discovered that in 1679, one of my French Canadian 10th great-grandfathers was almost hung for molesting his eldest daughter and going after two more...His punishment was reduced, all his possessions confiscated, and he lived for years basically alone and died penniless. Can you imagine him knowing that his descendants would learn of this 341 years later (just through traditional records)?

[John Higgins]

Thanks for this clarification. I agree with you that the information likely comes from the Gagné/Kokanosky article. FWIW that article is cited in the Genealogics database for François de Joyeuse and his connections.

Oddly I can find no information whatsoever on the four-volume genealogy & family history, "Their Roots Run Far and Deep" by Paul Alan Fine which is mentioned in the Geni entry for François de Joyeuse.

[Girl57]

Not able to track that work down? I'm not sure I've checked Geni yet for this line.

I spent part of this a.m. trying to read a specific section of the Gagne/Kokanosky article, and there's a section that talks of a Francois marriage disapproved of by his parents, and more, maybe even including support that Francois Joyeuse is son of Robert. I may have to go through the whole section, phrase by phrase, translating on Google.

Have also visited the site linked to below, and seen some of the sources cited on pages of individuals in the Anne Couvent line...Some of them sound like a "Burke's Peerage" sort of work, for France (is there such a thing?) But I am not knowledgeable about France, or relevant era in France, and don't know what the standard source materials are. Are you familiar with the site?

https://mount-royal.ca/heritage/getperson.php?personID=I185&tree=godbout

Also wondering about Baronial Order of Magna Charta...If they list Anne Couvent as a gateway ancestor, someone must have submitted a line for her that was checked carefully by genealogists, correct? If so, where would this info be stored or published so others can refer to it? Or is it considered proprietary for some reason?

One more question: Of what social standing do we think Philippe Amiot and Anne Couvent were when they decided to go to Canada? (I am proud of my ancestors for their courage no matter what their standing was)...Just wondering why they would have left France if they were doing well, unless someone offered Philippe a good position in the colony. Also don't have any idea how many generations it might take -- between a king of England or a king of France -- and a descendant that wasn't in the nobility? Maybe this varied widely according family circumstances, each generation place in their family's birth order, etc. My history weak here!

[Denis Beauregard]

On Sun, 11 Oct 2020 13:56:51 -0700 (PDT), Girl57 <jinn...@gmail.com>
wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:

>Have also visited the site linked to below, and seen some of the sources cited on pages of individuals in the Anne Couvent line...Some of them sound like a "Burke's Peerage" sort of work, for France (is there such a thing?) But I am not knowledgeable about France, or relevant era in France, and don't know what the standard source
materials are. Are you familiar with the site?
>
>https://mount-royal.ca/heritage/getperson.php?personID=I185&tree=godbout

I think you should consider this as a personal site.

The usual large databases for medieval genealogy include
www.genealogics.org which is quoted quite often here, and Roglo
http://roglo.eu/roglo

As for Quebec data, I maintain my own database so I see no reason
for me to explore the many personal web sites for data before 1850.

[Girl57]

Thank you, Denis. Am so new to this I don't yet know what's what. I have of course seen your site and appreciate it. For now, will do as you suggest and go with the evidence and trust what's at hand unless something else emerges. The Gagne article is written by an obviously experienced and very knowledgeable genealogist. Will also find a way to translate the French so I understand better. Appreciate everyone's input.

[wjhonson]

As to Paul Alan Fine I think you will find that this citation is some kind of personal work, not published, just copied and sent to various people. Paul has several like this, at least three. If he is alive he lives in Minnetoka, per a quick Goog

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

According to the Geni summary, François's wife of much lower social status was not Nicole de Beauvais, it was an unknown first wife.

[Denis Beauregard]

On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 18:41:38 -0700 (PDT), Paulo Ricardo Canedo
<paulorica...@gmail.com> wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:

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.


Denis

P.S. I wouldn't rely on Geni for any thing unusual...

[Girl57]

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 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. 

[Del Rock]

I am asking the EXACT same question that you did... how are we to believe the 1733 notarial record is true if it is just the words of one person about their own connection? I just would like to know if that's all there is because to me it isn't completely solid.

[JPD]

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 E. Larocque]

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

While this is a great thing having the research translated into English, it still doesn't address the dearth of proof connecting the de Joyeuse line. I am unconvinced that this connection is based upon one man declaring in a notarial act that he is a descendant of a disowned son Francois, son of Robert de Joyeuse.

Darrell

[Jinny Wallerstedt/Girl 57]

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?

[taf]

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) --
> 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?

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 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', anything even hinting at the desired connection tends to have its probative value exaggerated.

taf

[Jinny Wallerstedt/Girl 57]

taf, 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.

[taf]

On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 8:29:54 AM UTC-8, Jinny Wallerstedt/Girl 57 wrote:

> 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."

Yes, and each researcher has their own personal standards of evidentiary sufficiency, for when enough is enough. It can also change over time for the same researcher. A long-term 'possibility' tends to drift into 'likelihood' as time passes and no better evidence presents itself. The opposite can also happen. I have been reasonably satisfied with a connection as sufficiently documented, but retained niggling concerns that over time came to overwhelm my comfort until I downgraded it in mind. One just has to develop instincts, learn from past incorrect calls.

[Denis Beauregard]

On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 16:59:59 -0800 (PST), "Jinny Wallerstedt/Girl 57"
<jinn...@gmail.com> wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:

Rolland Yves Gagné made a lot of research in French archives,
decoding old notary papers, for many families. In some cases,
he found 2 or 3 or more unexpected generations in France. In
other cases, a Royal connection was expected, in some cases
because someone else published a link to royalty that was
proven to be wrong (Catherine de Baillon is an example).

You should read the article before commenting it.

By the way, I met Gagné first in a library years ago, and recently
in a genealogy meeting in Montréal where I met him many times.


Denis

[Hans Vogels]

Op zondag 29 januari 2023 om 17:29:54 UTC+1 schreef Jinny Wallerstedt/Girl 57:

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

[Jinny Wallerstedt/Girl 57]

Hans, 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.

[Darrell E. Larocque]

I 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!

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 (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.

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!

Darrell

[Jinny Wallerstedt/Girl 57]

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 cited in 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 in evidentiary standards that taf mentioned.

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's English version. I tried to get a copy some ways back, without success. I can read only enough French to be dangerous.

[Darrell E. Larocque]

I have shared this link a few times but not here I don't think. It is VERY detailed, so here you are!

Cawley, Charles. Foundation for Medieval Genealogy Medieval Lands

https://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/champorret.htm#FrancoisJoyeusedied1556B

> 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 cited in 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 in evidentiary standards that taf mentioned.

I think that Medieval Lands does one whale of a job going point by point about the problems... once you review it and if you review the English translation of the Gagne and Kokanosky research I'd be happy to get your comments!

> 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's English version. I tried >to get a copy some ways back, without success. I can read only enough French to be dangerous.

Two journals from July and October 2021 split up the research, but you have to pay in order to get the translated copy in English. I contact ed them and that was the only way I could get copies was to pay!

https://www.habitantheritage.org/cpage.php?pt=40

[Darrell E. Larocque]

Jinny,

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-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 Europäische Stammtafeln [1292], but Gagné & Kokanovsky reproduce numerous archive documents which confirm the existence in the later 16th/early 17th century of “Jean [I] de Joyeuse dit de Champigneulle” and his five children (shown below), one of whom was the maternal grandmother of Anne Couvent. The authors supplement this information with archive documents produced by Jean Baptiste to the imperial authorities to confirm the nobility of his ancestry, in particular a notarial act dated 20 Mar 1733 which declares his descent from Robert de Joyeuse Comte de Grandpré who, according to this 1733 act, disinherited his second son François after an unequal first marriage. The 1733 act also records Jean [I] as François's son by his second marriage and Jean Baptiste's subsequent descent from Jean [I]'s supposed second son Pierre [I] [1293]. Problems arise when trying to reconcile the information in the 1733 act with the earlier documentation as follows:"

https://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/champorret.htm#RobertJoyeusedied1660B

Darrell

[Jinny Wallerstedt/Girl 57]

Darrell, so appreciate info and links. I had no idea this analysis was out there. Will go through it carefully.

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, 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 want to gain experience looking at evidence and others' evaluations.

Darrell, will look forward to any additional insights and comments from you, Denis, and anyone interested. Thank you again.

[Darrell E. Larocque]

> Darrell, so appreciate info and links. I had no idea this analysis was out there. Will go through it carefully.
>
> 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, 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 want to gain experience looking at evidence and others' evaluations.
>
> Darrell, will look forward to any additional insights and comments from you, Denis, and anyone interested. Thank you again.

It's not a problem! I am also a descendant of Anne Couvent through many Huard males once and also Joly/Chamberland again, where Anastasie Chamberland married Pierre Huard II, completing the connection from both daughters of Mathieu Amiot- Anne Marie and Marguerite Amiot. It make me extremely uncomfortable to push the I BELIEVE button on this line and it may never be able to be fully proven because of missing records and I'm not going to remove the uncertain label in my mind. I'm going to emphasize that this is NOT about questioning Gagne and Kokanosky's research, but the source in which one person makes claims that are questionable without additional proof. I know that we aren't at the level of their expertise, and that's why I offer Foundation for Medieval Genealogy comments which do come from someone with that level of expertise.

I don't have any more insights... I am hopeful that in the future we can see a breakthrough in this line which answers questions!

Darrell