Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Who is Francoise Grenier (Garnier)?

She is among the many “marriageble women” in the colony of New France (1600 - 1650) who’s origins have been generally labelled as “unknown” or “unsubstantiated” and recognized as “Metis” by Historian Dick Garneau. They include Jeanne Du Roucy (Voizy?) wife of Nicolas Pelletier, Francois Tourault wife of Jacque Archambault and Marguarite Langlois wife of Abraham Martin. This discussion addresses what this means historically and genealogically.

The substance of this discussion was gleaned from the internet, and has not been substantially referenced. It is left to readers to do their own internet research and draw their own conclusions.

Descendants of Francoise Grenier have posted on the web that her parents were: Guillaume Grenier and Michelle Marille. This has not been substantiated in official genealogy databases in Quebec. These “official” Quebec sources simply state that her “origin” is “unknown".

From my research, no family member has done any sort of research in France to back up her parental names. These names have simply been provided by several of the Langlois Families on many genealogical websites.

Genealogical historians of Francoise Grenier such as Gagne, Trudel and Auger all show bias! The assumption is that she was one of Robert Gifford’s (New France) recruits on board ship in the spring of 1635. This is a false claim for the following reasons:
  1. No documentation, comment, account, log of events or names in New France archives indicates specifically that Francoise Grenier and Noel Langlois met on board ship. If she were on board, this would  have been very noteworthy and Gifford, if he were a friend of Longlois, would have made some sort of record. Being married in July soon after arriving to New France is not reasonable evidence that the couple knew each other earlier.
  2. Giffard made several voyages to Quebec between 1621 and 1627" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Giffard_de_Monce]. It is likely that Gifford knew Francoise Grenier casually as a child or a young women of 15 in New France before he was captured by the British in 1628. It is also reasonable to say that she would have been given at a young age to people in the colony for upbringing by her Native relatives.
  3. Many indigenous children were trained by “Madame Hebert”, and others, beginning in 1617 and onwards–even during the English occupation of 1629 - 1632. More likely they were of “mixed blood”. All these children had French names or were provided French names as part of their “Frenchification”.
  4. It is unlikely that an acculturated or “Frenchified” child would have been described as “savage” by anyone in the colony, especially Catholic priests, though privately everyone would have been aware of their origin.
  5. Historical sources on the web indicate that Madame Hebert had a household of indigenous children whom she dressed and tutored daily in all aspects of French culture. The girls she taught would never have returned to their families in the bush and would become a “girl of marriageable age” in the colony. It is reasonable to assume that more girls than boys were harboured by Madame Hebert and others.  This outcome would have been very pleasing to Champlain!!
  6. There are two main reasons for the loss of aboriginal identity of the children: One, as previously stated, acculturated children would not be considered or recorded as “savage” and two, church records were destroyed in New France by fire before 1650. The reconstitution of records would have been very difficult and would account for many, many discrepancies.
  7. Since it is factually true that indigenous children were acculturated in the colony, it is reasonable to assume that any adult of “unknown origin” or “unsubstantiated origin” must be included in genealogical records as indigenous until  proven otherwise.
Further, New France historical activity is recorded but records of this traffic were very few:
  1. New France inhabitants traveled by cargo ships to and from France continuously over the years starting from 1608. Many people in the early 1600's were aboriginal or mixed blood "Metis" residents who embarked or disembarked ships as they anchored off the settlement of New France.
  2. Some indigenous and certainly the mixed blood people were included in the deportation of New France residence by the British in 1629. Many returned after 1632, some much later, after France regained the settlement.
  3. European women and children were significantly absent on records preceding 1629--though the men who came from France were significantly recorded from the very beginning. When it was indeed significant, such as the arrival of Mrs Hebert and her husband and family in 1617,  such traffic was recorded. Since new potential wives were absolutely important to a majority male colony in the early days, one could ask why were they not clearly recognized in ships logs etc.?
  4. Champlain, in a discussion with an aboriginal chief, stated that it was his desire to have their two cultures mixed together to make a hardy new assimilated people for New France. That was before he later discovered that young Frenchman in the much restricted French culture tended to assimilate with the unrestricted culture of North American native population. Natives were not fully assimilated into French culture as Chaplain predicted.
  5. The New France migration of Native/Metis families back to France in 1629-1632 introduced the   likelihood that some of the males and females may have married into the French population of France and even had children there before they returned to New France. The implications are substantial! Even professional genealogists can't duck this possibility---they can only hide behind their statistical screen!
Modern family DNA testing for Francoise Grenier, as were many others with "unknown" origins, has been made by several direct matrilineal descendants that indicates she is classified in the European Haplogroup of “J”. Formal native markers were not found. This, however is not conclusive evidence disqualifying Native origins: Over many family generations grandmothers may have been adoptees into the family, thus terminating previous native markers. DNA testing of Francoise Grenier herself (not possible now) would be the only way to fully substantiate her suggested origin. 

In addition, the history of Canada virtually makes DNA unusable as a testament of implicit origin. Visitors to the shores of Newfoundland and Labrador, and maybe other locations in the Maritimes  archaeologically   places Europeans settlements and temporary villages in Canada from 700 to 1000 years ago. The Vikings and their families settled on the shores of Newfoundland. European fishing ships frequented the upper St. Lawrence and Labrador coast in the summer months before 1400. Temporary villages were set up along the shoreline for processing. It is likely that some villages were occupied for at least two seasons. While historians agree that the Vikings had their families with them, there is no reason to doubt that European fishing ships did not have some families on board in it's yearly voyages to Canadian shores. The implications of these facts in our history tell us that we cannot discount the possibility of more recent mtDNA (European female DNA) introduced into the indigenous population. Metis (French and Native) people, as well as many Natives who met the French for the first time, carried both European and Native markers in their respective populations but only one (or the other) marker can be observed with present DNA testing---not both. Virtually half the population could be Metis but testing will not find Native markers. For these reasons DNA is ruled out as an acceptable proof of origin for those  in the colony whose origin is "unknown"

  • Update:  November 30, 2013. A new DNA test called an "autosomal" test now uses thousands of snp markers of all ancestral grandparents to determine a "percentage" of Aboriginal ancestry. Some only report 2% or higher. This can only get better over time as more markers are found! 

The onus has been placed on readers to accept or reject this conclusion and, if rejected, to substantiate an alternative interpretation with documentation such as church baptismal records or an alternatively plausible theory.

Roland E. Belanger BA. BEd. 

Conclusion concerning Francoise Grenier by Luc Lacroix, Aboriginal Genealogist.  Here is a copy of his report (generally circulated on the web):

UPDATE SEPT 26, 2014
From  Judith Pidgeon-Kukowski, Wyandot Nation (Quebec Vital and Church Records (Drouin Records) for Beaumont Quebec, La Nativite; de Notre Dame, 1688 page 3)



I recently received an email from Judith Pidgeon-Kukowski, Wyandot Nation, who has provided information that lends a great deal of credence to Francoise Grenier’s aboriginal origin!

I believe that there is now sufficient evidence to verify that Francoise Grenier (of unknown origin) was indigenous and of Algonquin Stock (using, of course, family oral tradition for this specific origin)

Here is a link with other supporting documents:
http://www.lardie.behindnelliesclock.com/francoise_grenier.htm (website of Peggy large)

(I have made backup copies of these documents in the event that this link is lost)

Essentially these documents verify the findings of Luc Lacroix (document provided above)! Arguments by some genealogists that Jean, (grandson to Francoise Grenier and Noel Langlois), had a Native mother can’t be substantiated, especially when one reads his baptismal record 15 Jul 1688 provided above.  The following finds his mother being traced back to France: http://www.nosorigines.qc.ca/GenealogieQuebec.aspx?pid=1016   This leaves only his father Noel (jr) whose parents are Noel (Sr) and Francoise Grenier. And, yes, for those who are ney sayers, please by all means try to find another Jean Langlois that fits the land grant document in which a Jesuit states that Jean is an “Indian”!

In addition, I have sufficient doubt that Noel is fully French. I suspect that he is Innu (Montagnais) mixed blood. PRDH are negligent in documenting his birth in France approximately 1605, (St-Leonard-des-Parcs, Alencon, Normandy) They cannot substantiate this. The only database that has credence for the origin of Noel Langlois is fichierorigine in Quebec! They do not list any individual unless there is proof of origin.

It is far more likely that Noel originally came from New France, migrating to France in 1629 (with the English occupation) then returned later after 1632 when France regained control. Noel's parents that are listed cannot be verified either. Please by all means prove me wrong! His birthdate would be, more correctly, about 1610-1611 in New France. He would be 6 to 7 years of age when given to Marie Rollet to be educated.

With both parents, Noel (Sr) and Francoise, having native physical features their grandson would, indeed, also have Native features identified by a Jesuit priest in the land grant in question.

Roland Belanger BA BEd, Elder Montagnais Metis First Nation

98 comments:

  1. Bookmarking your blog, very interesting. Where can I find more on the Jeanne Du Roucy (Voizy?) possibly be metis? I am descended from the Charron and Provost lines, and this is the first I heard of this. Thank so much, Christine

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, no doubt Metis, but don't ask the direct descendants of the Pelletier family!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Great site Are there place with the facts of these people they are all in my family tree any help would be gratful
    Francois Tourault wife of Jacque Archambault Marguarite Langlois wife of Abraham Martin Jeanne Du Roucy (Voizy?) wife of Nicolas Pelletier

    ReplyDelete
  4. These are women without origin!

    Francoise Tourault's daughter Anne, according to Tanguay, was born in 1621, New France. Some people say that he was mistaken, but I disagree! The reason is simple. All three sisters Anne, Jacquette and Mary-Anne do not have baptismal records (anywhere), because, I believe, logically they were born in New France between 1621 and 1628. The Jesuit priests did not record these births because bush marriages (and resulting children) were not recognized by the church. I believe that Jacques, Francoise and their little girls returned to France in late 1628 (just before the British occupation of New France)They were married the following January in 1629. Somewhere in France there is a baptismal record for Francoise and her daughters (not yet found). Records have been found for all the other children born in France. The whole family returned to New France after the birth of the last child in 1642.

    Similarly, Jeanne Du Roucy was said to have been married in France (no marriage record exists) and had two children (no baptismal records to confirm this) in France, before immigrating to New France. What was said came, I believe, from the Pelletier family who have made a lot of effort to distance themselves from their Native ancestry. Many official Quebec genealogical records have unsubstantiated information provided by families who deny native ancestry!

    The Langlois family is similarly suspect!

    There were so many years of discrimination by the British Colonial government, who can blame our families for hiding their native heritage.

    Roly

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do - I have tried for years to get proof of my native blood and come up with French - yes I like my French but I want my Native heritage just as much! Paulette

      Delete
    2. Don't be hard on yourself!! Canada is a multicultural country and the charter of rights protects your identity in whatever way you decide. Declare your identity as Metis First Nation, join a family group that will accept you and begin your new journey into discovering your native roots!!

      Delete
  5. I have started with Gadriel Decoteau Lajoie married to Marie Laforest and Joseph Dulignon Lamirande all the way to Pierre Dunlignon Lamirande in the 1500's in Trois riviers do you know if anybody in these families are registered to the Ardoch Algonquin first nation.
    Thank you

    ReplyDelete
  6. I wish I could help you here! I think that the Ardoch Algonquin Nation are primarily from the (mostly) English settlers of the 1800's who mixed with the local Algonquin people. They were never given a territory or placed on a Reservation. The descendants are "mixed blood" who seen to have a legitimate claim to a territory.

    Is 1500 accurate? Three Rivers was an major Indian Village which possibly traded for furs directly with Europeans (the basque maybe?)who anchored off shore.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous

    Have you any idea what tribe Francoise Toureau could have belonged to?

    ReplyDelete
  8. No idea! Most numerous Native people around the first days of the colony were the Innu or Montagnais as the French called them.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I like your article, I am a descendant of Francois grenier . Before I found the information on the met is history website there was a story of Algonquin blood in our family. The cool thing is I found that link.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi, long shot here as your comment is thee years old. I have recently been told that I am a descendant of Francois Grenier as well. Would you be willing to share any info you might have on her lineage?

      Delete
    2. If you read this whole blog you will find that she has no previous lineage (ancestry)! Despite comments made by statistical (and I contend biased) genealogists on the web. Everything points to an indigenous ancestry that may be algonquin or Huron Wendat. And don't be fooled by descendant mtDNA results. There are too many unsubstantiated generations to a living descendant that frankly is just too convenient for desperate researchers who want to "prove" a European origin.

      Delete
  10. It's surprising how many grandchildren Francois Grenier has today!!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Luc Lacroix, an Aboriginal genealogical researcher has given his own statement with evidence from Jesuit land records that indicate a grandson named Noel Langlois, of Francoise Grenier was an "Algonquin savage". His mother's lineage traces back to France verifiably, and on his father's side, well his grandparents would be Francoise Grenier and Noel Langlois. We know Noel is French, which only leaves Francoise Grenier. Lacroix gives evidence and supports that Francoise Grenier was an Algonquin woman.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your message. Does Luc have a public forum somewhere?
      There is plenty of documentary evidence that descendants of our GGrandmother Francoise Grenier intermarried with local Natives. The problem is that some Eurocentric Quebec Historians (who are now dead) made bold statements that Francoise came from France---this without any reference sources whatever. Membership to local Algonquin bands (and government status) were rejected on this rather flimsy reference---though other documentation to prove otherwise doesn't exist......yet......Roly

      Delete
    2. I agree with Rolan, I lived in Ottawa for three years and regularly
      visited the National Archives and read many historical books
      on Nw France. There is a reason a person entering the archives are not allowed to bring in pens. Some of the records I reviewed were altered by visitors and names substituted by other names. Specifically for me when I searched for records for Fort St. Frederick and found my ancestor on the payroll lis as the King's Miller and his original name scratched out and the modern version of the family name substituted. Additionally the wife of Charles Brunet/Besset/Brinet was originally Anne des voyaguer which is in the orginal records but later altered to Desvoyaux. Another point is are the conflicts with Jette, Tanguay, Drouin and Marcel Trudel. A more objective point of view can be gleened by Marcel Giraud's books. I am related to all the women that you have listed and have had problems with the Pelletier family genealogists. It seems that some of these families are trying to establish some connection to a family with a crest and connection to nobility. Being conected to a First Nation for some people has a negative bias attached to it. This is even apparent in my own family.

      Mike

      Delete
    3. I agree with the anonymous above me!
      Sadly there are many people who will try and connect themselves to nobility or royalty desperately, and scoff at the notion that they may have First Nations ancestry - even with proof, they will often doubt it. I once saw a forum and people were saying that the assumption that an ancestor MUST be native if there's no proof of origin is "sad" and "ridiculous". They seemed to think it preposterous that a Frenchman would marry a Native woman - this reflects their own bias (and racism, based on the attitude) however, and a lack of historical knowledge on their part, since MANY Frenchmen married local Native women. It wasn't uncommon at all! Sadly, these people will attempt to vilify us and say that we call them racist for having a different opinion.
      No, we don't think they're racist because they believe an ancestor is from France if there is no evidence one way or another. We think they're racist when they REFUSE to consider an alternative, or believe that nobody would marry a Native, or insist on a lack of mixed-bloodness even when evidence shows clearly the mixed-bloodedness.
      People will cite Trudel's catalogue still, though I must point out to them when they do that that is purely his speculation, and he even noted himself that he doesn't have evidence to support her exact year arrival or even where she's from or her parentage... And yet, these records point to an Algonquin heritage... I'm more inclined to believe she was Algonquin based on the evidence pointing towards that, since there are primary documents and a genealogist to support it, while the French theory has no evidence and historian speculation that is rather flimsy based on lack of evidence... Normally Trudel has good work, he did well documenting the Couillards and Olivier LeJeune (a young black boy from Madagascar), though in the case of Francoise Grenier, I would say he was negligent in that regard.

      Its a sad situation how many will adamantly deny any non-white heritages when all the evidence points to a non-white heritage...

      Delete
  12. Roly,

    I've bookmarked this blog. I too am descendant of the majority stated in your post, so hello to all of my "cousins!"

    I have only found ONE significantly documented direct link in either side of my family to Aboriginal blood. The reason it was documented? The Ouendat parents of Annennontak wanted her to marry a Frenchman. Therefore, Annennontak, Arendanki, and Outroihoandet were baptized by the Jesuit and given the names of Catherine Annennontak, Nicolas Arendanki, and Jeanne Outroihoandet. Annennontak wed Jean Durand, her first husband.

    Now, having said that, I love American history. I have found family born in southeast Michigan (where I live) as early as 1702. Yes, documented births. Documents that are held at Detroit St. Anne Church, where several of my family members are buried. Considering that in 1702, the Detroit River was where the Three Fires Nation was well known, and that the Ouendat (Wendat/Wyandot/Huron/Huronne) were pushed to by the Mohawk as well as other Iroquoian nations, and then often "adopted" as part of the Three Fires Nations, it remains difficult to believe there isn't other Aboriginal blood in my veins.

    I also have found that both sides of my family resided together along the St. Lawrence River for several generations prior to migrating to Michigan and Wisconsin. Most of my family still lives in those states and just on the other side of the border in Canada. The French are well documented, but as you show here, I have had trouble finding anything on MANY of the women these Frenchmen married.

    Best of luck to us all,
    Aubrey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately, the times did not give much importance to recording everything except for the occasional special event, and only if it suited the sensibility of the person doing the recording!

      Roly

      Delete
  13. I found this discussion to be most interesting. I may have missed it, but has anyone read the decision rendered on May 12, 2013 in this matter by The Honourable James B. Chadwick, Q.C. Designate Appointed Pursuant to the Protocol for Consideration of Potential Additions to the Schedule of Algonquin Ancestors.

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CEEQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.greatergoldenlake.com%2Fadob%2FFrancoisGrenierDecisionMay14.pdf&ei=gwG8UuW9BKPSyAHX7YCQAw&usg=AFQjCNGwtJOVIeJ6F4x7O18ZnE6QcSHzVw&sig2=Bma-cZavCLLGyK_VwkyVeQ&bvm=bv.58187178,d.aWc&cad=rja

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I think most descendants are aware of this court decision as well as other decisions made rejecting Algonquin band membership.

      From a debate stand point it was easy for antagonists to shoot down any evidence not supported by some historical data or fact. (I question their historical interpretation! Typical of Quebec French purity. The stigma is so ingrained!)

      The onus was on the defender to "prove" without doubt Algonquin kinship.

      This court case does not disprove kinship--it was simply thrown out as an unproveable proposition from the courts point of view!

      From our point of view she is and always will be our Algonquin "mixed blood" ancestor!

      Roly

      Delete
  14. I'm still optimistic that some dusty, overlooked records archive will become digitized one day and contain the elusive proof one way or the other. For now this remains an intriguing part of my husband's ancestry.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Can I assume that the Drouin, and Tanguay records for all her children, grand children, and great grand children have been searched thoroughly?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The research on Francoise Grenier is more than most but cannot be considered complete. There may still be records out there from families that have not come forward! Or other records could be held in some other obscure location. Only time will reveal!

      Delete
  16. The court case mentions that descendant Maxime Vachon was listed as Metis in 1871. Does anyone know where to find this information? I went through the baptismal and census records that were available, but did not find anything.

    ReplyDelete
  17. An interesting thing about DNA testing that should be noted and is often ignored by various genealogists: when a haplogroup comes up that is Scandinavian in origin, this does not necessarily mean that the ancestor is 100% European - many genealogists seem to conveniently forget that Vikings, who originate in Scandinavia, traveled all over Europe and North America circa 1000 years ago. They did bring women with them in some cases too. They DID settle in Newfoundland temporarily and they easily could have, and some evidence suggests they even did - intermarry with the local Indigenous population. Now let us not forget as well, that Indigenous peoples in North America did not remain in one place, at gatherings, they could intermarry between Mi'kmaq, Algonquin, Cree, etc. oral history supports this, which is how the Scandinavian haplogroups could have arrived in North America. Some genealogists seem to conveniently forget that people moved around everywhere before the year 1492! Viking DNA can be found in the English, Scottish, Irish, Russians, French, Italians, Native Americans, etc. A Scandinavian haplogroup only means one thing: that at some point down the line, there is Scandanavian heritage, and it could be from vikings 1000 years ago who intermarried with Native Americans, it could be the vikings intermarrying with the Frankish tribes of France, it has endless possibilites. So when a genealogist tries to settle the matter with a haplogroup that is Scandinavian - it does not actually constitute ruling out anything. I was told by one Metis elder before, that his oral history (hes is from the eastern coast btw) discussed the vikings and in their oral history, they are most definitely partially descended from vikings.
    Just an interesting tidbit I thought I'd share

    ReplyDelete
  18. I was looking at a family picture of my 2nd great grandmother Philomene Froment who was born 1845 (daugther of Jean Baptiste Froment and Marie Sophie Tessier Lavigne) She married Pierre Veve October 2, 1866 in Ste-Melanie D'Aillebout, Quebec. In my reading I am seeing a lot of Froments in metis discussions. Philomene's paternal great grandmother was Marie Thecle Mandeville who was descended from the Pelletier (Vouzy) line. I agree that many of these ancestors have native american heritage. I recently joined a tribe in Vermont partly because of Claude (Landry) ancestors which I had previously mistaken to be French descent. It's important to keep an open mind and read the writings of those who study the ancestors.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hi Roly - Francoise Garnier/Grenier is also in my family tree a few times over. Another woman who has questionable french roots is Jeanne Aunois who married Pierre Lefevbvre in 1646 in Trois Rivieres. Also, Catherine Pillard who married Pierre Charron. DNA show her to be A10 haplogroup. Would you have any information on these ladies ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't have anything on Catherine Pillard. Jeanne Aunois, however, is also my grandmother. She was known to have have a relationship with local native women (Algonquin) evidenced by her baptismal sponsorship of their children in Three Rivers. Since her parents and origin is unknown she is very likely Algonquin Mixed blood as well.

      Delete
    2. There is some proof that Catherine Pillard was of native origin. http://michaelmarcotte.com/amiot.htm
      http://www.geninfo.org/Pillard/La_Rochelle.htm

      Delete
  20. Roly,
    Regarding Luc Lacroix's discovery of the Jesuit land records which state that the grandson of Francoise Garnier Noel Langlois is identified as Sauvage... is it not possible that Noel was adopted?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Lot's of controversy on this! The Jesuits term "Sauvage" meant that he would not be converted to Catholicism (or was he?). I don't think he was adopted, otherwise why classify him as an uncivilized Frenchman by name. Maybe born out of wedlock to a Native women and never baptized! The Jesuits had zero tolerance for unconverted Frenchman and mixed blood people.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Just a trivia note on "sauvage". I know savage has a very negative connotation now, but originally the difference between savage (meaning wild) and civilized (meaning city dweller) was simply the distinction between a society living in permanent structures and a society in a "state of nature". The negativity associations developed over time. A similar process shaped the words pagan (originally meaning peasant or country dweller) and heathen (meaning dweller on the heath). Societies worldwide have always frowned upon those who live outside their own norms. I would guess reference to someone as "sauvage" (adjective) meant a person living outside European norms while "sauvage" or "sauvagesse" (nouns) simply referred to a person's origin without reference to their conversion. I have seen marriage records which seem to confirm this interpretation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, some terms used by early European's may have had a Neutral meaning---but priests and other catholic French people used "Sauvage" categorically and in a Derogatory way. There was nothing endearing about what it meant. What they called non-catholic people was equally derogatory! Frowning on someone else's culture (or religion) is putting it mildly. Early Catholicism and it's clergy were notoriously insensitive and unyielding when dealing with anyone who where not prepared to follow the rules. If the priest relented, at the request of a French father, to baptize the child of a native mother (who was unbaptised), "sauvage" was applied intentionally and unflatteringly! Other children were simply not baptized if the parents were not officially married and a spouse had not convert to Catholicism.
      It's not surprising why Frenchmen readily acculturated to an aboriginal lifestyle---especially when aboriginal girls didn't have a religious hangup about sex!

      Delete
    2. Sauvage/Sauvagesse in terms of marriage records means the person is of Native/Indian descent.

      Delete
    3. Sheryl, I can't leave this be!! Suppose the same couple had married in France. Would the priest have used these derogatory descriptive words? doubtful! Maybe "personne de pays" or some other nice reference.
      "En sauvage" in my youth was not complementary--nor would it have been pleasant in 1600---I believe those who used these words were ignorant and self righteous! So you know what I think of the Jesuits and certain others living in the 1600!
      Roly

      Delete
  23. Interesting blog, I'm French Canadian and while family trees are only as good as the information available today my tree does put me as a descendant of Francoise Grenier. Growing up I heard many family members saying that it was likely we had some "native" blood and they based this on physical traits of many family members (hair, skin, etc) and the fact that most branches of our family tree goes back to the early 1600 in Quebec. Well, I did study and work in genetics and for fun I had 1 million DNA markers tested and my ancestry came back 100% European, 0% native. Not even a fraction of % native... That said, it's hard to be sure after so many generation that there are no anomalies in the family tree (for example while I trust they are, unless I get my dad or grandfather tested it's impossible to be sure they are really my dad and grandfather... and that goes for every generation for everyone in the tree) Still it's interesting to know that while we might have some "asian" physical traits there doesn't seem to be any DNA. I would have been glad to see some but based on the DNA and tree I'm 100% French....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi cousin, don’t be so hard on yourself!!! From the considerable oral history of the Langlois Family there is no doubt in my mind that she is indigenous. In fact Grandfather Noel Langlois had to be indigenous too. There are no documents disputing this.

      If you have some knowledge of DNA, then you must know that there are 3 BILLION DNA bases in every human being----- broken down into the relatively new SNP (Single Nucleotide Polymorphism) trait markers. (which is not even complete yet and maybe 4 years new). It’s so new that most companies have not determined just what markers are really North American Native. Get your SNP autosomal markers evaluated in 50 years from now ---then tell me that you're still 100% French!!! All early French Canadians descendants are aboriginal despite their objection to this!!!

      Also, history is now being rewritten! Significant European contact was made with North American Natives centuries before Columbus and every other “official” European explorer. This was a secret well kept by 12th and 13th century European traders!!

      What does it matter if you are culturally instead of genetically aboriginal. If you choose to identify as First Nation Metis---a constitutional right in Canada-----and you’re accepted in the First Nation (Metis) community of your choice----you ARE aboriginal!!!!!!

      I would be surprised if our government or any aboriginal group would use DNA to support membership---just think what the Nazi’s in 1930’s would have done with this technology!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Our courts are very sensitive to this!)

      Roly
      MontagnaisMetis.ca

      Delete
    2. You take great liberty and assumption with your comment: "All early French Canadians descendants are aboriginal despite their objection to this!!!". ...Interesting discussion but your blog might receive more credibility if facts were accurate right from your opening paragraph which suggests hobbyist Dick Garneau is a historian. He openly admits himself to being an "amateur historian"

      Delete
    3. First Dick Garneau and I do not hide behind anonymous discussions and comments. We allow ourselves to be open to constructive criticism. Secondly, despite what Dick admits to, he is indeed a modern historian–much to the dismay of statistically oriented individuals and researchers. His approach is fresh and admittedly controversial----but critically appropriate today.
      Historians are story tellers not record keepers. They are not constrained entirely by facts, though it does have some influence on their summations and conclusions.

      Often facts do not tell the real story, nor is the real story substantiated by institutional record keeping for lots of reasons. To support one’s conclusions using the woefully inadequate records (or lack of) from the colonial aristocracy and disregarding all other facets of the human condition, is blatantly irresponsible!.

      Dick and I will agree on this. “French Canadian descendants ARE aboriginal” both socially and/or genetically! Canada would not be the same without this influence! It is unfortunate that being aboriginal was an impossible burden for French “with native ancestry” during British colonization.

      Yes Dick Garneau and I “take great liberty and assumptions” to shock those who think that everything in our history and genealogy is all in a neat little package that cannot be contested if it does not have verification from an institutional record.

      One’s “Credibility” does not rely entirely on facts as you presume, but relies greatly on who can rationally relate the whole story!

      Delete
  24. I Think that once someone is able to establish that they are metis by verification through indian affairs that they should scan their card that documents who they are related to and post it on a public website. Since the Government takes issue with making a list of names public.If they need to they can blur out the information on the living people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think Aboriginal Affairs will ever create such a registry. Most Metis and new First Nation & Metis groups will not accept any sort of blanket identity for being a Metis or live with a government operated listing. What will happen is more court cases to force the government to to negotiate in good faith!
      Roly

      Delete
    2. I don't think that a Metis government registry will ever be implemented! Most Metis and new First Nation (Metis) groups will ever tolerate such a mandate. There will be court cases, however, to force the government to negotiate in good faith with groups that do not qualify under the "Powley" test. Groups waiting for government action will be waiting for a long time!!
      Roly

      Delete
    3. I was referring to the deceased ancestors that the Gov't uses to verify status etc, as I can certainly see why people would be up in arms. The Gov't put up personal info of the new band in newfoundland on the internet. Everyone in the world can see their names and dates of birth.

      Delete
  25. I have found a baptismal record for Jean Langlois son of Noel Langlois Traversy and Genevieve Parent. It is from Quebec Beaumont dated 16 July 1688. He is the man who received the Jesuit land. So when the Jesuits in the land claim call him "sauvage" it can’t be because he was not baptized. The fact that he wants and is receiving land to farm would be considered civilized. This dissuades me from reading him as uncivilized but rather of an indigenous ancestry.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Is this baptismal record new? According to my records Noel Langlois (Jr) was married to Amee Caron, in 1677. She died in 1685. Your record indicates that Noel Married again after his 1st wife died.
    Your right, if the priest stated in the land grant that he was "Indian" does this verify that his grandmother Francoise Grenier or even Noel (sr) was indigenous? Or his mother? There are many, many cousins that would like this information.
    Can you email the record to me: info@montagnaismetis.ca and I will post it to this blog site with your name (if you wish)!!

    Thank you!

    Roland Belanger

    ReplyDelete
  27. Thank you to Judith Pidgeon-Kukowski, Wyandot Nation, for the update on this blog. We now have sufficient evidence to point our Grandmother and possibly, Grandfather toward an indigenous origin!
    Roly

    ReplyDelete
  28. Sad how so many people will still deny Francoise Grenier's Algonquin origins. There is not a doubt in my mind, with all the evidence and records to show. Many people will still say she arrived in 1634 on a ship, but if you ask them for a record, they can't provide it - while if they ask you for a record of her Algonquin ancestry, you can provide it. I don't understand why people still want to try and argue her origin. It seems to stem from some notion of racial purity... some French Canadian genealogists will deny Aboriginal heritage no matter what proof there is. They'll instead constantly insist on a ship story and parentage that can't be verified and ignore every record thrown their way that shows what they don't want to accept. Sad but true...

    Furthermore, I suspect Francoise Grenier to be of the Weskarini band... many of the Weskarini were involved in early trade relations and even engaged with Champlain multiple times - they fought a war with him in 1615. The Weskarini band often vacationed in the Trois Rivieres area, and occasionally ventured up to Quebec City as well. Many of them were Frenchified in the early days and intermarried with early French settlers. For this reason, I suspect she was likely of the Weskarini band, though this is solely speculation and as far as I know, cannot be verified.

    ReplyDelete
  29. See "Marie Rollet's Children" on this blog to get an idea of the extent of missing information about the teaching of mixed blood children---there simply isn't any recording anywhere of the number of native/metis children acculturated to French norms---but there were certainly many individuals who turned up without origins in our genealogy!

    ReplyDelete
  30. How does this baptismal record prove Jean is native? I refer to this page 11.
    http://www.greatergoldenlake.com/adob/FrancoisGrenierDecisionMay14.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The court ruling is simply that the family oral history wasn't sufficient evidence to prove Francoise Grenier was indigenous (from your link).

      A grandson of Francoise Grenier, however, born in 1688, was the recipient of a Jesuit land grant to Jean Langlois (sauvage) in 1745 (age about 57):

      http://www.lardie.behindnelliesclock.com/front_page.htm

      Jean's mother was Genevieve Parent whose ancestry seems to originated from France. If so why did the land grant describe Jean as Indian, except maybe if the grant might have been contingent on the ancestry of his father Noel Jr. and grandparents, Noel Langlois and Francoise Grenier. Along with the family's oral history there is little doubt in my mind that there is indigenous ancestry in this family!

      Delete
  31. A review of the Notre Dame de Quebec Parish Register from 1622 to 1651 shows the baptismal records of all of Françoise Grenier/Garnier and Noël Langlois ten children including their first born, Robert Langlois ( b. 1635-07-18) and their last born, Noël Langlois dit Traversy (b. 1651-12-07).

    Registering the names of the father and the mother of the child along with that of the godparents has always been and still is a fundamental standard civil procedure requirement for the baptisms of children born of French Catholic couples who were legitimately married by the Church.

    Three exceptions to this very basic requirement however can be found. One was for Aboriginal children where it was normal practice to omit the names of either the mother or the father or both parents from the child baptism record and this, even when the parents were Catholic, baptized and legitimately married by the Church. Another less common exception was for slaves and/or children baptized in the Catholic Church but born of known legitimately married couples where one or both parents were Christians but not Catholic. However, the most common exception was for illegitimate children whose parents were seldom named.... this included many Aboriginals whose parents were considered as "Savages".

    Interestingly, while Françoise Grenier/Garnier and Noël Langlois are supposed to be both of “French” origins, both Catholic and legitimately married to one another, their second child, Marie Langlois (b. 1636-08-19) baptism record omits Françoise Grenier/Garnier name as the mother. Only the names of her father, Noel Langlois, her two French godparents and the attending priest are mentioned.

    The original Church register and all its records were destroyed by fire in 1640. Luckily, as the Colony was quite small and parishioners, including the Langlois family, were well known by all, the Church was able to quickly reconstitute its civil registry records. This work required a careful review by the clergy of all entries entered on the new register. All gross errors and/or omissions found were quickly corrected and these annotations can be seen at numerous places in the margins of the register. Françoise Grenier/Garnier name as mother of her child in Marie Langlois baptism record was omitted twice during this process. It was omitted and ignored once when it was first entered and, at least for a second time, when it was reviewed.

    To omit in the official Church registry of the colony the name of the mother of a legitimate child born of a French Catholic married couple like Françoise Grenier/Garnier and Noël Langlois would constitute, at any period of time, gross negligence and sheer incompetence on the part of the clergy. This makes no sense as the Church clergy were amongst the most educated people in the colony and were quite diligent in their records regarding their Catholic parishioners.

    Unless, of course, if the mother was of Aboriginal ancestry….then her name would not have been required at all for the purposes of registering the child’s baptism….. and no subsequent corrections and /or notation to the baptismal record to correct such an omission would have been warranted. Marie Langlois baptism record would consequently remain as it was originally registered without the name of her mother.

    In this instance, it would appear that Françoise Grenier/Garnier was given the same consideration and respect as thousands of other Aboriginal mothers and fathers have received at the baptism of their children by the Catholic Church for the next three hundred years…. Their true Aboriginal identities were either hidden through Francization or they were simply ignored and not mentioned at all.

    ReplyDelete
  32. This is a very, very interesting observation family church records! As far as the reconstitution of church records--for each of those that were re-inscribed there had to be some that were missed, or passed over, maybe for the very reasons that you mentioned!

    ReplyDelete
  33. It has been so interesting in reviewing everyone's research and comments. I too come from the lineage of Noel and Francoise; with each and every one of our generations referring to we are "Native American". What a shame this has been such a secret to point to a "coat of arms". I just want to acknowledge, respect and bring to light my true heritage. Karen

    ReplyDelete
  34. This blog is very interesting !
    I am a french canadian from Quebec city and I have Francoise Grenier/Noel Langlois 6 times in my fan tree. I have also 3 "known" natives ancestors ( Marie-Olivier Manitouabeouich/Martin Provost, Genevieve Gagnon Javote/Hugh Blackburn, Euphrosine Madeleine Nicolet/Jean Leblanc ) and many other unknown origin ancestors...

    So that would make me a "metis" and I have a great pleasure reading about theses cultures and history. But in my mind the geanealogy should not be an end to determine who we are and who we are not (and certainly not what right we might have or not !!) It should serve at this ; opening our mind to other cultures and realising that we are here because of evrything and everyone that happened before, we are all interconnected at some degres...

    In fact every human being on this planet is the result of a metissage of many different cultures and races, we are all metis. I have Scotish, Belgian, English, Swiss, French and native blood ! We as a specie (Homo sapiens ) even got mixed with another specie (Homo neanderthalensis)

    So just a reminder to remain open minded and cool about theses fascinating researches, and not trying to draw conclusions from suppositons but from facts, or leave unknown origin if it is indeed unknown.

    Simon

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Simon

      Are you saying that unless one has a “known” native ancestor, a person cannot identify as Metis? Then you must agree with Dominique Ritchot’s assessment that I am perpetuating a myth “on the internet” concerning Francoise’s native ancestry!

      I am a social genealogist and about the only thing that statistical genealogists, like Dominique and maybe yourself, can agree on is that we will always disagree!

      It’s evident to me that modern Quebec educators have indoctrinated Quebec children to believe that most if not all people in New France (including Acadia) were not Metis! Historical evidence from 1600 to 1629 says otherwise. It’s also very interesting that the Quebec government does not recognize Metis people or Metis rights!

      We as, social genealogists, cannot accept unknown origins as a satisfactory conclusion. But, one thing is certain. When someone like Dominique Ritchot, who is statistically inclined, argues that Francoise Garnier/Grenier is French and not Metis or Indian, then I see the real Quebec bias gushing out!

      I have at least 13 grandmothers (including grandfathers) without origin. One in particular only has a first name. Despite the most diligent research, I believe that her full name and origin will never be found. Should I then put her on an, “origin unknown”, shelf----forever. Or conclude-----given the time period and historical data there is a greater evidence that she was indeed Metis or Indian.

      The real myth is that purists among French Quebecers adamantly believe that French Canada was not founded by French “half breeds”. (A derogatory English term considered appropriate to describe most people coming from Quebec up to the 19th century).

      Roland Belanger

      Delete
  35. In the Canadian colonial environment, it is not uncommon for many of our brothers and sisters of mixed Aboriginal-European ancestry who have been colonized, assimilated and can “pass” as Non-Aboriginals to fully identify as “Canadian”, either English or French. This is their choice and their right. As long as either one of these two communities accepts them as one of their own, they are “Canadians”.

    However, subconsciously and for obvious reasons, the majority of these “Canadians” will feel “threatened” by any person who shares the same ancestry as they do but who rather identifies as Inuit, Indian or Metis, thus resisting colonization and assimilation.

    Influenced by colonialism and their instinct for self-preservation, these “Canadians” will invariably belittle those of us who identify as Aboriginals. They will distance themselves from us, their Aboriginal roots and our common culture and history. They will claim that humans are all “metis” and that we are all the “same”…. while clearly distinctly identifying themselves as “Canadians” and not as “Aboriginals” as we do. In their colonial mindset, they will preach to us that genealogy should not be “a means to an end” to determine our identities and should certainly not be used to find out what “rights” we have or have not !!!

    By doing so, just like settlers, they are denying us our constitutional rights to our distinct Aboriginal identities, cultures, languages, beliefs and right to self-determination and Nationhood as supposedly guaranteed to us under the Constitution of Canada, International Laws and various treaties.

    For thousands of years, Aboriginal Nations have had a cultural tradition of “inclusivity”. These nations assimilated within their families and communities people from all nations either through marriage, adoptions or other means regardless of their origins. These people and their descendants became citizens of these nations and identified as such.

    Powley and recent court judgments have already ruled that a person’s Aboriginal quiddity is a matter of “fact” and not necessarily of “blood” or the “number of generations” or of “status”. This means that a person can be Aboriginal by culture the same way that any immigrant to this country and their descendants can become “Canadians” by culture.

    In this context, while it would be nice to “prove” that Françoise Grenier/Garnier and other ancestors of “unknown” origins were of Aboriginal origins, it really is not that important.

    What really matters, in my opinion, is that many of their descendants, from one generation to the next, believed these ancestors to be Aboriginals. These descendants identify as Aboriginals and many have been accepted as members and/or citizens of their respective Aboriginal communities and/or nations.

    Their Aboriginal quiddity and identities are a matter of fact. Their constitutional rights to their identities, cultures, languages, beliefs and right to self-determination and Nationhood can only be disputed by others using colonialism as a criteria to exclude them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly! From this perspective proving birth origin is not that important!

      Delete
  36. So very interesting...so where does that leave "us"?

    ReplyDelete
  37. So very interesting......so where does that leave "us"?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Read above anonymous entry. This perspective sums it all up!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wrote a few days ago but my message never appeared so I will try again. I see you have my website mentioned on your blog. Behind Nellies Clock. I put the Langlois papers up. I wish everyone to know that this didn't stop the argument over who that Jean Langlois is. I would like a definitive answer as much as anyone else.

      Delete
    2. Sorry, for the late posting! I doubt that any evidence would be fully acceptable!

      Delete
  39. Mr. Belanger
    I stopped by to check what was new on your blog only to find my own site linked here. I am glad you found the Langlois papers of interest. There is still very strong opposition to accepting this as proof that Francoise Grenier was native. It is said that "Jean Langlois" native who received land from Jesuits was really John Hunnewell or Jean Langlais (meaning English) who was white and had been a native hostage. I find it hard to believe the Jesuits #1 gave Indian land to a white man and #2 misspelled Langlais as Langlois knowing that a famous Langlois family lived in the area. One would think they wouldn't want to make an error like that unless it was the truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John Hunnewell (dit Langlois) is the alternative individual proposed by Dominique Ritchot (Quebec, no examples given)-----among other arguments to support her belief that I am perpetuating a myth concerning Francoise' native ancestry! The myth I propose is the denial by many Quebecers that there were very few "halfbreed" children born in the early 1600's! (Only the documented ones can be counted!).

      So yes this argument is truly a week one--but I think they are desperately defending the purity of French decent!

      Delete
  40. Great information on multiple levels. Noel Langlois and Francoise Genier/Grenier are my 10th great-grandparents, so hello cousins. I appreciate everyone's research and sharing of their findings.

    ReplyDelete
  41. My absolute favourite response from the purist researchers is "everybody knows". I'm really tired of that. Well if "everybody knows" lets just put the proof online to refresh everyone's memory. My favourite has to be the almost mythical John Hunnewell. Google him. Don't let me influence you. His father must have been Paul Bunyon's brother. The detail of the story is amazing. The papers I put online are what they are. Signed by Jesuits, spelling seems fine throughout, Jean Langlois there big as life. Did Noel and Francoise have a grandson named Jean Langlois--yes they did? Was he alive, married and having children? Yes he was. Is he as likely a candidate as John Hunnewell? By a country mile--at least his name is spelled correctly. I will gladly put the paperwork that proves the Jean Langlois in the land records that says he is native is a mispelling for John Hunnewell as soon as someone produces it. Seems odd that it hasn't come forward unless it does not exsist.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I am really enjoying this... I believe your blog will become viral if it has not become viral already in the world of genealogy!

    ReplyDelete
  43. I've noticed that language in this debate plays a huge role in things, mostly, on how seriously I can take a person's argument. If they use the word "myth" when discussing the opposite side, I will automatically assume they have a serious issue with the opposite side's findings and therefore will be exceptionally suspicious of them. If they discuss "theory" however, I will be more likely to listen objectively.
    I notice we discuss those who believe Francoise Grenier's origins as French as their theory, while people like Dominique Ritchot will discuss the idea of Indigenous origins as "theory" - I've also noticed use of words, method, etc.
    The Indigenous theory seeks to propose an Indigenous origin using facts and records, and disbelieves a French origin through a lack of evidence, which is fair.
    The French theory seeks to disprove an Indigenous origin through harsh words such as "myth", insistence of ulterior motives in the Indigenous theory, and overall attempting to erase it through rather weak arguments rooted in bad historical analysis, while simultaneously not providing any substantial proof to support their own theory - so far, DNA has been the only thing they have come up with, but we know that DNA is not the be all end all, since many Ojibwe First Nations people have European DNA, and Cherokee people sometimes find a J haplogroup themselves - either from a lack of our own understanding of DNA markers (some "European" ones may not solely BE European), or from intermixing many generations prior (and of course, we know that European and Indigenous peoples first meeting was not the 17th century, that women did come along (Vikings) and that Indigenous peoples often met in summers and could intermarry themselves). DNA is often what is hidden behind as a "gotcha" and yet - it seems they are wilfully ignorant of the entire concept of haplogroups and DNA... now, J itself as a haplogroup, seems to be spread all over Europe, with a possible Eastern Europe origin. The Germanic peoples came from Eastern Europe and spread Westwards gradually, some eventually moving upwards into Scandinavia... where the Medieval Norse peoples lived, many of whom were Vikings. Vikings went to many, many places, the British Isles (where J is found), Iceland (where J is found and where most of the people are of Norse descent), Russia (where J is found), Iberia (where J is found), France (where J Iis found), and obviously, Scandinavia itself (where J is also found). It is also found in many middle eastern countries - there is some evidence suggesting vikings made it down there too, even, though it's not as strong as other places, including North America, where we know Vikings attempted to colonize.
    The argument that haplogroup J is found in Europe means Francoise Grenier is NECESSARILY of pure European origin is a weak one, since there are many different methods it can happen, since a haplogroup says nothing of other parentage, but refers strictly to a long stretch of maternal ancestry. Based on DNA alone I would say it is equally likely for someone of a J haplogroup to be European as to be Jewish, Arabic, or Native American, because of it's purely maternal ancestral line that leaves out every other line, and because of Vikings. DNA alone is a weak argument therefore.
    Combining the possibility of Viking DNA, along with records, historical analysis and language gives strong evidence to Francoise Grenier as Indigenous, whilst attacking opposition, lack of evidence, a weak historical analysis and a weak understanding of DNA, gives extremely weak evidence to Francoise Grenier as European.
    But of course, those who adamentally want to deny Indigenous ancestry will always find some excuse.

    ReplyDelete
  44. It is said above: “But of course, those who adamantly want to deny Indigenous ancestry will always find some excuse.”

    In the case of Françoise Garnier, she is of unknown origin. While circumstantial evidence points to an indigenous origin, no historical document exists to substantiate without a doubt either her Indigenous or her European origins. However, Eurocentric individuals will use her French name and "European" MtDNA results as conclusive "proof" that she is exclusively of European heritage and not indigenous. This in spite of the fact that the French gave very French names to all indigenous people they baptized and that Vikings had established colonies in the Americas way before the French which could easily explain the source of her “European” MtDNA as an indigenous person.

    Nevertheless, for Eurocentric individuals and settler colonialism, Françoise Garnier can only be of French origins and cannot, God forbid, be of mixed “Indigenous / European” ancestry.

    In the case of Catherine Pillard, a complete set of historical documents exists to support her origins as being European except that her MtDNA points instead to an indigenous heritage. A few genealogist and historians reviewed her case and were able to demonstrate, using historical records, that there is a very strong possibility that she might instead be the daughter of Atseña dit Le Plat, a Huron-Wendat, who was named “8enta” and baptized in 1651 as "Catherine" and could later have assumed the surname "Pillard".

    However, Eurocentric individuals refute these findings and insist that she is exclusively of French origin. Their main argument is that her MtDNA is not “Indigenous” at all but rather “Siberian” in origin and comes from a Siberian ancestor who migrated to France thousands of years ago and was immediately assimilated. This in spite of the fact that geneticists have demonstrated that this type of “Siberian” MtDNA was not present in Europe during Catherine Pillard time period having migrated thousands of years previously directly from Siberia to the Americas and not from Siberia to Europe.

    Consequently, for obvious reasons, it would appear that for Eurocentric Canadians and settler colonialism, it is much more acceptable for a person to be of mixed “Siberian / European” ancestry from antiquity than to have, God forbid, a more recent mixed “Indigenous / European” ancestry…..

    ReplyDelete
  45. In 1615, Samuel de Champlain brought four (4) Recollects missionaries with him to New France to minister to the French colony and the indigenous populations.

    The Recollects (French: Récollets) were a French reform branch of the Order of Friars Minor, commonly known today as the Franciscans or the sons of St-Francis of Assisi (French: (St. FRANCOIS d’Assise) who founded the order around 1209.

    Father Denis Jamet, the commissary responsible to oversee the establishment of the mission in New France, Fathers Joseph Le Caron, Jean Dolbeau [d’Obleau], and Brother Pacifique Duplessis [du Plessis] were the Recollects chosen to accompany Champlain. They not only ministered, it is said that they, along with Marie Rollet Hébert and other colonists, also educated indigenous children in European ways.

    These four (4) Recollects had been personally chosen for this important mission by the Provincial of the Recollects of Saint-Denis in France, Father Jacques GARNIER dit Chapouin.

    It is interesting to note that the French were known in New France to give very French names to indigenous children in honor of saints or of their benefactors, godparents, owners and/or of other individuals important to the colony……

    Baptized and educated in French manners by the Recollects, could it be possible that such a little indigenous girl, possibly of mixed Indigenous/European DNA heritage, was given the name Françoise Garnier?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That Francoise Garnier/ Grenier was in the household of Madame Hebert or some other indoctrination is not, to me a myth, as Dominique Ritchot disputes. She presents a extremely week case of Francoise' French origin on her blog trying to dispel the evidence that we have presented here!

      Delete
  46. Catherine"s "French Records" were always suspect. An exhaustive search and analysis of the records conclusively proved that the mother listed on the Marriage Act did not exist in the records in France. Those who insisted "Catherine would have no reason to lie", are now forced to back away from that argument. It must be remembered that she was probably 13 at the time based on the date of birth given by Archange Godbout and was unable to even sign her own name. In reality she likely had no part in stating who the parents were. Now, even the Charron Association is forced to change position and claim that a different person was the mother in France. Not a drop of evidenlce, of course to substantiate that claim. Of course, the PRDH has not rushed to change the error like they did in the case of Jeanne Aunois. So, really there is not "a complete set of documents" proving her origin in France. But, the single one listed is now proven wrong. There are no ship records either. The unigue DNA type has never been found in France and there is no e\xact matching FGS other than from direct descendents in Canada and the US. After only 364 years, there are hundreds of direct mtDNA descendents in the Americas with many proven DNA results with documented genealogies. After "thousands of years" there should be at least one proven case documented in France. There absolutely is not. There are also many issues of ethnic identity of large numbers of people that is either intentionally ignored or just not understood by those who insist , without any evidence, that she came from France. The DNA was always recognized as a unique form of Siberian Haplogroup A. This was determined early on by Dr. Doug Wallace, an actual DNA expert. It is not known how it would have appeared in either location. Until there is evidence of any counterpart in France, this must be considered an Canada specific variant of Siberian Haplo Group A (now given a name A10).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You mentioned PRDH and Jeanne Aunois. Could you fill me in on what PRDH changed in these records?

      Roly

      Delete
    2. I think that in Jeanne Aunois case a priest had written "savage" in the column of a document after the fact. So she was removed as being indigenous---which to me doesn't hold water. The evidence, without this priest's comment still points to her as indigenous!

      Delete
  47. Well, i don't read all the text, but i have also a person who is name Françoise Grenier who maried with Joseph Dulignon dit Lamirande (1775 - 1837), the research of this was done by an "grand" uncle of my mother, he was priest and gone to the Vatican to done his research of the Lamirande family. I have a 50 pages written by him about the Lamirande family.
    I search the children of Joseph DuLignon dit Lamirande et Françoise Grenier, in the text of Émilien Lamirande (the priest) they had eleven childs, and we know one of then who is Antoine DuLignon who maried Josephte Robida in 1827.

    ReplyDelete
  48. The origins of the above noted “Francoise Grenier/Garnier” who married Joseph Jacques Dulignon dit Lamirande on 1794-11-04 in Louiseville is fairly well documented. She was born on 1777-11-18 in Louiseville and is the daughter of Francois Grenier/Garnier (Marie Angelique Choret m. 1750-04-13); son of Francois Grenier/Garnier (Marie Louise Bisson m. 1707-11-29); son of Isaac Joseph Grenier/Garnier (Marie Houde/Houle, m. 1685-10-17); and, finally, son of François Grenier/Garnier dit Pellerin (b. 1638) and Marie Jacqueline Jacquette Frelon (b. 1635). François and Jacquette were both immigrants from France and were married on 1663-01-14 in Quebec shortly after their respective arrivals in New France.

    There is no known relationship between them and “Françoise Grenier/Garnier”, the subject of this blog, whose origins are “unknown’ and who married “Noël Langlois” on 1634-07-25 in Québec.

    As “Grenier/Garnier” is an occupational surname which was given to people who worked in granaries or mills, many families of French origin carry the name but are unrelated to one another.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Hi Roland, I have been researching Francoise Grenier and Noel Langlois on and off for years they are my ancestors as well, recently was looking over some of my info from 2010 and returned to the many roads web site to find that the history of French Canadians from 1635 to 1649 has been removed in the interest of "currency and accuracy" and have removed the "out of date content" ?? I wasn't aware that history could become out of date! It happens that these are the years that Francoise and Noel and their children (along with other metis) are mentioned and also referred to as metis. I had previously printed the pages. Would you have any insight into this or know what the original source documents are that were used by Dick Garneau?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes Dick Garneau stepped on the toes of statistical genealogists and exposed the assumptions of recent 1800-1900 Canadian historians. Dick was not the prim and proper genealogical historian. He encouraged us to question anyone who set Canadian history and genealogy in stone.

      His “putting out there” what he knew was a Quebec conspiracy to hide the real number of “half-breeds” in their history compelled people, like myself and many, many others to look for the truth!

      Of course, "currency and accuracy" is no doubt the words used by individuals who see the world as either black or white–and nothing in between. Dick Garneau’s approach and message should never be stopped.

      I have been researching Dick Garneau’s works and hope to republish most of it some time in the future. Just check our website occasionally: http:/www.montagnaismetis.ca/

      Delete
  50. I have recently learned that my great grandmother was born in Canada and was native. The really embarrassing thing is that my family won't talk about it. I have been doing some research and find it going back to Francoise Grenier. My great grandmother's name is Jennie Bomakezhick born 8/15/1898 died 2/27 1957. I have not been able to follow this real close do to all the names I have found related to her. If anyone could help I would greatly appreciate it very much. Thank you, Brenda

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please can someone help me. I've been told by done that I'll never figure this out and my family won't give me any information.

      Delete
    2. Hi Brenda
      Your Grandmother appears to be a member of the Ottawa or the Chippewa band. See for yourself:
      http://www.mifamilyhistory.org/mimack/native_american/miller/ottchippb4.asp

      Also who she married:
      Banegesic [Bomakezhick], Jennie
      b. 1891 Sault St Marie MI
      d. 1952 Duluth MN
      m. Dwyer, Roy d. 1982

      Roly (Roland Belanger)
      Montagnais Metis First Naiton
      www.montagnaismetis.ca

      Delete
    3. Brenda, you might also want to contact someone with the same genealogy:

      http://boards.ancestry.co.uk/surnames.grenier/143.2.1.1.1.19/mb.ashx

      Roly

      Delete
  51. I discovered Canadian History a Distinct Viewpoint by Richard (Dick) Garneau shortly after I returned to my genealogy project, which I hadn't had time for since I started working after college until I retired in Nov 2014. There was so much valuable information contained within those pages that I decided I'd better copy it to a flash drive before it became unavailable. I copied the section on The History of New France, Pre-Settlement History to 1539 thru Québec History 1850-1899, and Métis History, Early Years of the Métis 1500-1599 thru Métis Culture 1800-1802. my goal was to copy all three sections thru 1880 as my Great Great Grandparents, Eméri Caillé and Philomène Caillé (born Langlois LaChapelle), had brought their family to the US in the mid to late 1870s. Unfortunately, I didn't reach my goal. I am short a few chapters of Métis History and I was unable to copy any of the First Nations information. My laptop experienced a fatal crash and, by the time I got back to my copying project, Mr Garneau's information was no longer available. I'm glad I was able to save as much as I did, but I wish I had the rest of it. He discussed the "Frenchification" of the Métis children during the Expulsion that resulted when the Kirk brothers took the French colony for England and many French and Métis families were sent to France. When the Métis children returned to Canada, they had brand new "French" identities. I have seen a picture of Eméri and Philomène. If Philomène isn't Native American, she must be Métis. My dad told me their oldest son, his Grandpa Emory Adrian Cayer (aka Caillé), spoke three languages...French, English, and his mother's language. None of his kids or grandkids bothered to learn any words of Grandpa Adrian's mother's language. My dad thought Philomène was Cheyenne. as yet, I haven't been able to learn the name of the group with which she was affiliated.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Lynna

      I am duplicating (as closely as possible) Dick Garneau's complete site.
      As a social historian he shook up the assertions of Quebec statistical genealogists who believe that THERE WEREN'T ANY OR VERY FEW METIS IN NEW FRANCE----a position that we all know is the real "myth" perpetuated by many Quebecers. Here is a link that might help you--but it does have some disadvantages:
      http://web.archive.org/web/20060504185228/http://telusplanet.net/public/dgarneau/metis32.htm

      Roly

      Delete
  52. Thank you Elder Roly for your much appreciated assist. I saved the link to my French Canadian sub-folder in my Genealogy folder in Favorites. It makes me happy knowing I have access to all that information again. You made my day!

    Lynna Marie Schultz (born Cayer)

    ReplyDelete
  53. I myself traced back my French Canadian roots. Francoise Grenier,Francoise Tourault,Marie Olivier Sylvestre are my grandparents, also Jeanne Aunois is another grandparent of mine. I was wondering about a Jeanne Sasquespee? I have also found that in my line alot of documents says she is French but the last name to me don't sound French. All these grandparents are through my dads side.
    I was also wondering if their is Native ancestry amongst Scottish,English and German? My mother is Prussian,Scottish,English and German she had a DNA done twice through a neurologist and both testings came back native american and nothing else. How is this possible?
    Regards,
    Rachel Mercier

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, many of us have the same roots, because the population of New France in the beginning was very small, especially before 1629 where Metis and Natives outnumbered Europeans!

      It's very possible in your mothers case that a prior grandmother was adopted which would account for native ancestry. This was more common than one would expect--that is why the supreme court of Canada in the Powley case would not entertain as a requirement "proof" of native ancestry! While this referenced to a pre-European community--the concept must also apply to a new European community that both Europeans and Natives lived side by side as was the case in Early New France!

      Delete
    2. I was thinking the same thing. I am more looking towards my moms grandmother Nani that's what they called her. And as far as Metis I have never heard of it until last year. My Dads side of the family always told stories that we had Blackfoot in the line this was another reason why I have started doing family research on both sides. Didn't see the blackfoot. But have seen the Algonquian. So I am very interested in my Canadian/Metis heritage. And I was wondering what's with the D'Origine inconnue? I have found quite a bit of grandparents with that being labeled on documents and also through NosOrigines.
      Regards,
      Rachel

      Delete
    3. "D'Origine inconnue" is "origin unknown". When an ancestor can't be traced back to Europe this label is attached by professional genealogists. They will point out strongly that this does not mean an indigenous person---but from my research when an origin cannot be found the person is more than likely indigenous and very unlikely that records will ever be found in Europe. Given the historical period with a mix of indigenous and European people there is no doubt in my mind that a person without origin is native!

      Delete
    4. to Anonymous june 19 2016 post, I too have just found Jeanne Sasquespee as an ancestor in my tree and I would love any information you or anyone has on this lady? merci, thank you and thank you Elder Metis for all your dedication and commitment.
      I can be reached at: frenchtoast15@gmail.com

      Delete
    5. Jeanne Sasquespee looked like a good prospect to me as well. So far all I found is the name indicates someone proficient as a swordsman and the I did find one of that name with (if memory serves) with the fur trade in the Superior region.

      Delete
  54. To Elder Metis:
    I am a descendant of Jean Baptiste Reaume and Symphorose Ouaouagoukoue.Her parents were mentioned as being Ottawa Indians, but she was born in Les Pays D'En Haut, Quebec, Nouvelle-New France. It seems like that was too far west to be of Ottawa origin. Thank you for a reply.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Ottawa were traders and close allies of the Huron all of whom routinely traveled to New France.

      Delete
  55. Francoise Grenier is my 11 x Great grandmother. Thank you for the article on her. I am happy to believe even if it is only a small percentage that I truly come from the original Canadian people.

    ReplyDelete