Sunday, August 26, 2012

Genealogist, Stephen A. White Wrong on Radegonde Lambert's Origin

The main dissenter of Radegonde Lambert’s native origin is Stephen A. White, Genealogist, Centre d'études acadiennes.(**See link below to read White's dissertation) He writes in 2005:

“LAMBERT, Radegonde, came from France with her husband Jean Blanchard, according to Jean LeBlanc, husband of her great-granddaughter Françoise Blanchard (Doc. inéd., Vol. III, p. 43).”....and “The deposition of Françoise’s nephews Joseph and Simon-Pierre Trahan is to the same effect (ibid., p. 123).”
The person giving this information in the 1700's was the husband, Jean Leblanc, not his wife, Françoise Blanchard, who was the great-granddaughter of Francoise Blanchard (the daughter of Radegonde Lambert). The information he gives is hearsay, though “Francoise’s nephews” were said to confirm the same information. The issue here is the mistakes, if there really are any,  that both Leblanc and the nephews made in their dispositions:
“Both depositions mistakenly give Guillaume as the ancestor’s given name. Jean LeBlanc’s makes an additional error regarding the name of Jean Blanchard’s wife, calling her Huguette Poirier.”
In other words the first sentence above using this information would be, “Huguette Poirier came from France with her husband Guillaume Blanchard, according to Jean Leblanc.....(and) nephews...to the same effect.” 

This is a serious error on the part of Leblanc and the nephews, unless they meant exactly what they said originally. Huguette Poirier did indeed immigrate from France with her husband Guillaume Blanchard, arriving in 1640 with their son Jean. They were the first Blanchard's in Acadia. You can Google this one yourself.

White rashly discards these so called errors as an honest mistake by sighting “the censuses of 1671 and 1686 meanwhile clearly show that she was named Radegonde Lambert (see DGFA-1, pp. 143-144).”  Ironically, the census has absolutely nothing to do with these supposed disposition errors. White simply has changed what someone said to correct, in his mind, a three hundred year old error. They really meant to say............this!

White goes on to write:
“The source of these errors is probably a simple confusion arising from the fact that Jean LeBlanc’s wife’s grandfather Martin Blanchard had a brother Guillaume who was married to a woman named Huguette, as this writer explained in an article published in 1984 (SHA, Vol. XV, pp. 116-117). This Huguette was not named Poirier, however, but  Gougeon,  although her mother, Jeanne Chebrat, had married a man named Jean Poirier before she wed Huguette’s father Antoine Gougeon, and.........”
Read the previous statement carefully!  White said that the “simple” reason for the errors is that Leblanc's wife’s grandfather “Martin” had a brother named, “Gillaume”, married to “Huguette” (her first name) who was assumed to have the last name “Poirier” because “all her male-line descendants in Acadia were Poiriers,” and her last name, of course, is “Gougeon”, who was her mothers second husband’s last name as well as Hugette’s biological  father. You guessed it, her mothers first husband was a Poirier! Simple!

There really was no serious mistakes as White asserts. The dispositions in question had absolutely nothing to do with  Radegonde Lambert and her husband Jean Blanchard, but everything to do with Gillaume Blanchard and his wife Huguette. White manipulated  these dispositions erroneously by substituting his own information with what was said in 1700 —a pure stretch of imagination.

He went on to say:
“Unfortunately, we do not know just what questions Jean LeBlanc asked in trying to establish the Blanchard lineage,.........”
Note that the lineage Jean Leblanc was establishing was the "Blanchard Lineage", not the Lambert lineage. This is a veiled admission that, maybe more information is needed,  but goes on to defend his line of reasoning trying to place himself in the thoughts of Lablanc:
.....”he might certainly have had the impression that Huguette was a Poirier from the fact that so many of her relatives were Poiriers, including her grandnephew Joseph, who was also on Belle-Île in 1767 (see Doc. inéd., Vol. III, pp. 13-15).”“
One’s reputation is based on right thinking and logical assumptions.  If this is just a suggestion or possibility on White’s part, it seems to me, it is seriously flawed if applied to  Radegonde Lambert and her husband Jean Blanchard.  Anyone who seriously entertains White’s logic on this one are those people who cannot accept the alternative:

Radegonde Lambert is still, in my mind, historically Mi’kmaq!

December 11, 2013
For those who must have some sort of proof to determine Native ancestry, a new autosomal test is available from most DNA companies. The cost is between $200 and $300 Be sure to insist on ANY percentage!
 If you simply want a confirmation of Native ancestry (a positive or negative) the following DNA testing company in Toronto can provide it for $125:  http://www.accu-metrics.com/first-nation.php
Be aware that such tests are for personal use only. It is not legally or culturally accepted for any other use. A negative doesn't mean you do not have Native ancestry!

Roland Belanger BA BEd    Elder_Metis

** http://www.acadian-home.org/acadian-origins.html

61 comments:

  1. This site claims MTDNA to Radegonde Lambert is European:
    http://www.acadian-home.org/origins-mtdna.html#Radegonde%20Lambert

    ReplyDelete
  2. Absolutely correct but very questionable! She publishes a lot of so called "proof" that just about all women in Acadia 1600 - 1640 were from France. What she doesn't tell you is that Radegonde's ancestry could very well be Viking or Basque who were present well before Cartier "Claimed" America or Columbus set foot in America. Radegonde, therefore, is culturally M'kmaq.

    My correspondence with her would have us believe that the Vikings were nice, Christian settlers and the Natives were heathens bent on murder and mayhem---so mating was not possible. Also she does not tell you that The "Metis" hybrid has two haplogroup sides European and Native and only one or the other can be determined. (Among other problems with genealogical DNA conclusions). Her summary, as with Stephen White's summary, is incomplete and mostly inaccurate!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What is interesting to note is I actually looked at the specific reference in White's DGFA today... and I read the page regarding Radegonde Lambert... and he, in the version I read at least, perhaps it was a different copy than hers, he never mentioned her race anywhere that I saw. All that was written about her was who she married and that she was born about 1621 and married Jean Blanchard. That's all that was written about her by White in the version I read. Maybe I had a different copy than she did, or else maybe she took some extra liberties and put his name on them. Or both perhaps?
      Furthermore, my correspondence with her has often led to silencing on her part. She either makes a condescending remark, or else deletes and does not listen to other commentaries - she claims to do so for the purpose of "community togetherness" but she does seem to ONLY silence very specific arguments... others she allows to continue... Many have said that they've recieved DNA results for an ancestor and she didn't like them and then claimed they were impossible. She will say that she has 4 proved lines to Native Americans or something, and that she's interested in the truth and this is why she silences others - and yet, many times, it seems she's already decided what the truth is, and won't listen to evidence that contradicts her views.
      Overall, I would say be wary of her... she may put words in people's mouths, and silence others...

      Delete
    2. Not sure where White's article was first published--but it definitely was included on the Acadian Home website.

      Hopefully most people know by now that DNA cannot prove birth origin or a link to a distant ancestor without comparing actual DNA from that distant person! Also historical evidence of contact with much earlier Europeans has been purposely excluded!

      Delete
    3. But to qualify my last comments, if direct DNA testing indicates native ancestry, there certainly is proof of birth origin from a person in one's ancestral lineage. Who that person may be is unfortunately unproveable without comparing old DNA with the new living descendants-- An educated guess is, of course, perfectly acceptable!

      Delete
  3. One Major problem I have with Stephen White and Lucie is their reliance on dispensations in the catholic Registers to absolute prove familial relationship and thus kinship. It has recently come to light that a Germain Doucet born aprox 1641 in Acadia thought to be the last child of Germain Doucet and Marie Bourgeois was in fact not the child of Germain senior but is the Son of a First nations father adopted into the Doucet household. See:

    http://www.familyheritageresearchcommunity.org/doucet_dna.html
    C3b Y DNA
    The fallacy of relying so completely on the Catholic dispensations is a failure to understand and incorporate the Orthodox dogma of the 17th century Catholic Faith. Orthodox dogma defines a family not by blood but a family spiritual unit thereby adopted children are treated exactly has natural children so far as the laws of consanguinity apply. By Orthodox dogma an adopted sibling is not allowed to marry one of their 'natural' siblings - this was regarded as incestuous. The prohibition applied to all the extended 'family' uncles nieces extra. The community as a whole may know that the child was adopted but given the teachings of the church they would regard the child as a natural member of the family. This prohibition also extends to God Parents as well.

    This reality invalidates dispensations as an absolute authority on defining blood heritage/relationships and yet leading genealogist of today have failed completely to understand this distiction and its historical significance so find themselves defending undefendable positions in light of serious extensive genetic testing results.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Robin:
      My name is Keith Doucet, and I am the person who first tested positive for haplogroup C3b. I am a direct descendant of Germain Doucet, b. c. 1641. After I received my results, I received an unsolicited email from Lucie basically saying my results are wrong. My genealogy has been proven, and since first testing, I have 12 exact matches, proving beyond any doubt Germain was Native. Stephen and Lucie still will not acknowledge this. I can be reached at kdoucet62@yahoo.com

      Delete
    2. Thanks Keith! Anyone who denies an Indigenous influence in early Canada despite scientific evidence is euro-centric beyond extreme! At least our ancestors had a (British) reason for denying their heritage. DNA autosomal testing is now discovering Aboriginal markers every day that unofficially confirms Native ancestry. But, even so, we cannot deny who we are!

      Roly

      Delete
    3. I am a direct decendance of the Doucets, Lamberts,Blanchards,Lejeune,Roys, Rimbault, Petitpas,Pelletiers, pretty well every one that all you have mentioned.. and i go back 5 x Mikmaq and 5 x Algonquin and other native tribes here and there most on my dads side and here i thought he was just french... i didnt agrre with Stephen White as he said that none of these people we are talking about has Native blood .. well i do call white a racis pig as he doesnt want any of us to know the truth.. i bet they are all hiding the fact that we are Metis all in a sense cause we do have our native forfathers and mothers and they are apart of us ... I know now where i come from and who i really am as a person.. and without our Native Heritage... we wouldnt be here.. so what wrong with White is he affraid of Darwin proving him self wrong with the theory of evolution. He sure was proven wrong when they first seen sasquatch.. he is a Human Hybrid Hominid... and i believe he is the older Native tribe that has been around for 30,000 years.. well White and Darwin have to rewrite History as its not what they taught in school.. just like to me it makes all the sense in the world that most of us have French Indian.. there werent no white women in Nova Scotia till after the 1629 so of course all the french men are going to marrie beautiful native women and have children.. Most french never wanted to go back to France... Why would they want to... hahahahahahaha

      Deneze

      Delete
  4. Thanks Robin, for your input!

    Though DNA is mostly inconclusive and points only to a suggested origin somewhere on the family tree, there are those special instances, like this one, that a direct lineage result points to Native ancestry!

    The fact that it casts doubt on the validity of Catholic dispensations to base a conclusion about a family lineage testifies to the desperation of some families and certain genealogists to end, once and for all, genealogical speculation!

    Roly

    ReplyDelete
  5. As a descendant of Radegonde Lambert, I found your blog and subsequent comments very compeling and thought provoking (the Viking theory in particular). I too want to believe that she was historically Mi'kmaq, so I found your counter arguments to what Stephen White wrote very interesting. Unfortunately, after reviewing my notes and the 1671, 1678, and 1686 Acadian Census records, it appears that the couple that came from France that Jean LeBlanc and cousins were refering to could not have been Guillaume Blanchard and Huguette Gougeon (Poirier). That is because the Guillaume who married Huguette was the son of Jean Blanchard and Radegonde Lambert. He is 21 and un-married on the 1671 Census, then married to Huguette Gougeon by the 1678 Census, and listed aged 35 and having children with Huguette Goujonne(sic) on the 1686 Census...

    1671 Census at Port-Royal
    Jean BLANCHARD, 60, wife, Radegonde LAMBERT 42; Children (married): Martin 24, Madeline 28, Anne 26; (unmarried): Guillaume 21, Bernard 18, Marie 15; cattle 12, sheep 9.
    Sources:
    http://www.acadian-cajun.com/1671cens.htm
    http://www2.umoncton.ca/cfdocs/cea/livres/doc.cfm?ident=R0007&retour=nul

    1678 Census at Port-Royal
    Jean Blanchard & Radegonde Lambert
    Guilleaume Blanchard Hugette Gougeon
    Sources:
    http://www.acadian-cajun.com/1678cens.htm
    http://www.acadian-home.org/census1678.html

    1686 Census at Port-Royal
    Jean BLANCHARD 75, Radegonde LAMBERT 65.
    Guillaume BLANCHARD 35, Huguette GOUJONNE 27; children: Rene 8, Antoine 6 1/2. Marie 12, Jeanne 5, Anne 2; 4 guns, 5 arpents, 16 cattle, 20 sheep.
    Sources:
    http://www.acadian-cajun.com/1686cens.htm
    http://www2.umoncton.ca/cfdocs/cea/livres/doc.cfm?ident=R0019&retour=R0231

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm also a descendant from Radegonde Lambert. Wow.

      Delete
  6. There certainly is some confusion concerning the family names. What we know, without confusion is the following:

    Louis Guillaume Blanchard and his wife Huguette Poirier did indeed come to Port Royal in 1641 with their older children, Jean (30) and daughter Marie (28)

    There are no documents that places Radegonde Lambert on board ship with the Blanchard family. When Jean and Radegonde were married can only be estimated---most likely in 1641-42. They did have a son Guillaume before 1650. But they met and married, more logically, in Port Royal:

    The Blanchard family are documented as immigrants from France, however no such documentation exists for Radegonde Lambert. No parents, no origin--except for the fact that a Frenchman named Jean Lambert was documented to have arrived in Port Royal around 1611. Since the men on board ship were historically known to have married indigenous women, Jean Lambert could have also married a native women and had a daughter named Radegonde.

    An assumption --but a much better one than Steven White would have us believe.

    French women who actually did came from France were generally documented by each family and usually with other supporting documents as well. When there is no documentation or origin for a women, given an historical context, she must be considered indigenous until conclusive evidence proves otherwise.

    Roland Belanger


    ReplyDelete
  7. Your points about the rarity of French women in Acadia at that time and Radegonde's unknown and largely undocumented origin are well founded. And I also suspect that Jean Lambert was her father and her mother a Mi'kmaq woman, for that reason.

    That being said, I find it highly unlikely that the parents of Jean Blanchard were named Guillaume Blanchard and Huguette Poirier, and that he also had a son named Guillaume Blanchard who married a Huguette Gougeon (who may have used Poirier as a surname like her elder half-siblings Michel Poirier and Marie Poirier). This confusion is most likely due to the comments made by Jean LeBlanc in his deposition. The only source I can find that said that they were Jean Blanchard's parents was Bona Arsenault who probably assumed that Jean LeBlanc was speaking of a generation prior to Jean Blanchard, and that Guillaume and Huguette were therefore his parents, and thus this mistake has been reported erroneously on various websites.

    It's obvious that you don't place much credence on Stephen White's work, but in this case I believe his deduction to be much more logical, unless... you have other documented sources of information that show that a Louis Guillaume Blanchard and a Huguette Poirier came to Port Royal in 1641 on a ship manifest or some other kind of documentation from France or Acadia...? If so, then I would be most grateful if you would share that information, particularly since they would also be my ancestors, and I would like to therefore add them to my genealogy. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dan ...that's the rub!It's easy to give an academic spin on anything! But I don't think it should be done on more serious subjects like genealogy, except maybe facetiously.

    There were many children born in the Blanchard family and decendants generally claim HUGUETTE POIRTER (Poirier)as their great grandmother! Who am I to refute this!

    I guess someone has to search the church archives in Martaize, France. I don't have much incentive to do that--but I'm willing to add this information to my database--and even change my opinion if fact rather than conjecture is offered.

    There simply is no documentary evidence, so far, available either way!

    Roland Belanger

    ReplyDelete
  9. Roland... Well, since there is NO documentation to support that Jean Blanchard's parents were named Guillaume Blanchard and Huguette "Poirier", names which are highly questionable since as I showed earlier they are the same names as both his son and daughter-in-law's which ARE well documented on 1671-1686 census records, that means Jean Blanchard's parents should be classified as unknown.

    Anyway, I think the real problem with taking Jean LeBlanc's deposition as proof that Radegonde came from France lies in the fact that he was speaking second-person about his wife's ancestors and the information Jean gave was incorrect. Stephen White points out that Jean got both of their names wrong by incorrectly identifying his wife's great-uncle and great-aunt as her great-grandparents (whom she likely never met) instead, but takes the rest as gospel. Since Jean and the cousins mixed-up the Blanchard family relationships, then why are their statements that they both came from France any less questionable? That means even if you substitute in the proper great-grandparents' names, Jean Blanchard and Radegonde Lambert (as Stephen White suggests), in the depositions, the validity of saying Radegonde came from France is questionable at best. It could very well be that it was her father (possibly Jean Lambert) that came from France instead of her and that she was born in Acadia. Jean LeBlanc and the cousins were obviously not well versed in the great-grandparents' names, so their exact origins could be just as unclear, don't you think?

    In closing, here's how the 4 Blanchard generations from Jean LeBlanc's wife Francoise connects back to Jean Blanchard and Radegonde, with their sons Martin and Guillaume (and his wife Huguette) included accurately:

    Jean Blanchard & Radegonde Lambert (Great-Grand-Parents)

    Martin Blanchard & Francoise LeBlanc (Grand-Parents)
    Guillaume Blanchard & Huguette Gougeon (Great-Uncle and Great-Aunt)

    Rene Blanchard & Anne Landry (Parents)

    Francoise Blanchard & Jean LeBlanc

    ReplyDelete
  10. Absolutely, a rather confusing disposition and quite "unclear".
    So lets chuck it out the door for that reason alone!

    As for Jean Blanchard's parents, I think that documents can be found to verify their marriage in France, the birth of their children and more than suggest their presence in Acadia. But this has to be a project for another day! (The 1636 ships passenger list and a contractual arrangement by Louis Guillaume Blanchard for five years service in Acadia would be the first place to start).

    Roland Belanger

    ReplyDelete
  11. Some websites ie: WeRelate.com give Radegonde Lambert as being born in France specifically Martaize, Loudun, Vienne, Poitou-Charentes, France|Martaize,Loudun,Poitou. (edited by Markus3) This is a fabrication that cannot be substantiated---even with Steven White's best guess in his published works. My research is unable to verity this edited information.

    Be aware that there are a number of Canadian Eurocentric researchers, who are trying desperately to discourage and reduce our aboriginal ancestry any way they can!

    ReplyDelete
  12. According to the sources online (ancestry.com), my 10th great grandmother wa Jeanne Radegonde Lambert. My maternal haplogroup is X2a2 which is "native American". I am of Acadian descent on both maternal and paternal sides. I assume that my Mi'kmaq ancestor was Jeanne Radegonde Lambert since I have no other known Mi'kmaq ancestors.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Terry, Wow!! Did you have a DNA test?? If you have DNA indicating X2a (Native marker), it would be the first among many direct descendants of Radagonde Lambert who appear to have either X or X2b (Viking-European). PLEASE CONTACT ME ASAP!!!!

      Even so, I believe that the X2b mutation was introduced into the M'Kmaq gene pool by the early vikings whose haplogroup indicated mostly X2b during the 12 & 13 century. This is hotly disputed by those historians and genealogists who are Eurocentrically oriented.

      Either I'm correct or DNA experts have been reading this X marker incorrectly all this time!

      If you want, please email me at metisinfo12@gmail.com

      Roly

      Delete
    2. Roly,

      I believe that that the X marker has been inaccurately read several times over. Granted, that is simply a gut feeling, but it's rare that my gut is wrong.

      Aubrey

      Delete
    3. Terry we are cousins maybe 5th or 6ths. Did you do familytreedna.com family finder? I match with other Radegondes descendants.

      Delete
    4. me im descendant of radegonde Kagijonais (Mi'kmaq)
      of new brunswick this woman married my ancestor Michel richard (sansoucy) :) my grand father be pure acadien
      but not childs.

      Delete
    5. Didn't this Michel richard (sansoucy) marry Jeanne Babin & Madeleine Blanchard?
      Thanks, Carol

      Delete
  13. In 2009, yet another new Native American haplogroup X2g was discovered. Researchers have stated that further testing outside the HVR1 & HVR2 range would be required to differentiate X2b samples from X2g. The test kit results for Radegonde Lambert were produced prior to this discovery, and to the best of my scrutiny, nothing thus far published shows that any of these X2b results have been resubmitted for the deeper testing. My assumption is that this would be very expensive to ascertain beyond the commercially-available HVR1 & HVR2 tests, and a genealogical question alone is not likely to drive such testing. Certainly no test shown at FTDNA show anything any result beyond HVR1 & HVR2. Perego's markers indicating Native American Haplogroup X2g show the same HVR2 markers: 73G, 153G, 195C, 225A, 226C, 263G, and 315.1C that are found in Radegonde's results. There is nothing printed by Pergo or other geneticists regarding the X2g results, thus far, that states that the X2a markers 8913G, 12397G and 14502C must also be present in order to indicate X2g, in contrast to X2a. Peregeo rather states that additional testing would have to be done “outside the HVR1 & HVR2 ranges” to make that determination. So while FTDNA lists the results as X2b, thoat determination was made before X2g was even known to exist. It is, therefore, no longer accurate at the present time, to state that Radegonde's mtDNA has been "conclusively proven" to be "European." At any rate the DNA does not prove that the subject was European, rather only that the mtDNA is of a haplogroup of European origin. Even if Radegonde’s X2 type is X2b or X2g, WHEN her haplogroup was introduced to Radegonde’s maternal line is NOT indicated by mtDNA testing. It could have been by her mother, but it could have just as well have been via Nordic contact with Native Americans three to four centuries earlier. Nothing about mtDNA testing, thus far, proves or disproves this statement.

    Michael

    ReplyDelete
  14. I have read these posts with great interest and total confusion. There seems to be a tug of war between Acadians, and natives as to which group of people Radegonde belongs. As far as I can tell ( and I am not one of these smart people) this controversy is all smoke and mirrors. Unless someone has found Radegondes body and were able to retrieve the DNA, I would say that none of you can prove any of your arguments beyond any reasonable doubt !! I do have native ancestry and am proud of it and I don't need Radegonde Lambert or a card to prove it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. On a cultural bases there is no contest! But, statistically (and for those that need to distance themselves from their Native ancestry) proof seems to be necessary! Your right! DNA must come from a specific ancestor---but even this is not needed. Identifying (or not) that one is Metis is a right (in Canada) and a personal choice!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Everyone is entitled to their opinion about the origins of Radegonde Lambert, but science and history is pointing to her being of European parentage, and I will always side with science and history when it's up against so-called "oral tradition." The fact of the matter is that no one ever questioned Radegonde Lambert's parentage until Father Leopold Lanctot claimed her to be the daughter of one Jehan Lambert and a Mik'Maq woman in his 1994 book "Familles acadiennes" -- perhaps the worst book ever published on North American genealogy, given its ridiculous amount of proven errors. When Lanctot couldn't trace a female Acadian pioneer's lineage back any further, he irresponsibly claimed her to be Native. The Internet has allowed this error to be spread, and it continues to this day. We know Radegonde Lambert was born abt 1621. we know her mtDNA to be X2b -- a European haplogroup. The odds that she is descended from a Viking or Basque fisherman who had offspring with a Native man is extremely unlikely, given that the Vikings and Basques did not bring women with them to Canada. In the 1767 depositions, Radegonde's descendants claim her to be from France, so, given the historical evidence coupled with the DNA evidence, I firmly believe it's safe to say it's "case closed" on Radegonde being European.

    RE Germain Doucet (b. 1641), this is another matter all together. Germain's haplogroup is C3b -- an Native American haplogroup. This is now proven by several of his descendants clearly having the C3b Y-DNA haplogroup. Thus, science (oh how I love science) points to this Germain Doucet having a Native father and therefore not being the son of Germain Doucet (b. 1595), who we know is of European haplogroup R1b, which is what his son, Pierre (b. 1621) is shown to be.

    In fact, the 1767 depositions ALSO suggests Germain Doucet (1641) may be Native. While the deposition doesn't state that Germain (1641) was Native, it does state that he was "from Canada".

    To summarize, it seems extremely clear to me that Germain Doucet (b 1641) had a Native American father and the Radegonde Lambert was fully European.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your anonymity is commendable! Why stop the research??
      The case of Radegonde Lambert’s origin is not closed or clearly solved, nor will it ever be if documentation from France is not found. There is still doubt that she is fully European for the following reasons:
      There are no documents, historically or otherwise that proves European origin.
      Radegonde Lambert’s body was not discovered and exhumed. Nor am I aware that DNA has been extracted from all her direct descendants providing a DNA history from each generation. That would be the only way science would have absolute proof! DNA can be used, at best, as a possible alternative, but never as “proof” of origin. Not an acceptable argument for a conclusion without more evidence. Another “adopted” grandmother could have provided the DNA in question. There is also the possibility that the DNA in question will be found in other North American Native tribes. Time will tell. Only a direct lineage passes Native markers down to each generation, as in the Doucet case, however it only indicates that someone in one of the generations was aboriginal.
      History? Nothing has been recorded directly concerning her birth or arrival in Acadia. If your thinking of Steven White’s use of a deposition (after the fact) suggesting a reference to Radgonde Lambert..... it’s full of irrational thinking and nothing to do with Radegonde Lambert as he would have us believe. No other document exists that refers to a place in France or parents that can be traced in France.
      Anyone doing a sincere, sociological, genealogical study would have reached the same conclusion as Father Leopold Lanctot. So one can’t use his writing as an excuse for alleged internet errors concerning the origin of Radegonde Lambert.
      Oral history has to be a concern! Many families in each generation have lied about or concealed outright their Native ancestry for fear of discrimination. I applaud those families that were proud of their Native ancestry and made sure the information was disseminated to each generation.
      Archeologically evidenced, the Vikings did indeed have women and children with them when they began a settlement on Newfoundland shores. Also, Basque fishing ships frequented eastern shores every year processing their catch in small on shore communities. They had contact with local Natives for several centuries The ships numbered in the thousands...at least by Cartier’s estimate.. If true it would be narrow minded to think that no hybrid offsprings came of this or that hybrid men and women did not travel from Europe and back yearly. This possibility alone derails the idea that Radgonde Lambert was fully European.
      If the possibility exists that an ancestor is indigenous it would be a social insult not to honour this perceived heritage! There is reasonable evidence that Radgonde Lambert was both European and Native American and therefore must be included among our Native grandmothers!

      Delete
    2. Vikings didn't bring women to Canada? Well for someone very interested in siding with history, it doesn't seem you know it well.
      Norse women made up a very high percent of the explorers and raiders (Shield-Maidens), which archaeology supports.
      Furthermore, the Norse made colonization attempts in North America, and it'd be pretty difficult to colonize without women (Iceland and Greenland being their most famous colonies, but don't forget about the Normandy region of France and a bunch of the British Isles, or even Eastern Europe!). The Norse Sagas even directly discuss the women that they brought - one woman in particular stood out against the "Skraelings" as the sagas refer to the Indigenous population. The Sagas tell the story themselves, and even if you don't want to accept them, Archaeology tells the same story. Then science shows the haplogroups of many of the Vikings as well, often, it was X. Interesting, when you consider that the Haplogroup X among Indigenous North Americans is very common in northeastern North America, and virtually non existent elsewhere. Clearly, there's genetic diversity in the Indigenous populations, and we have established that Vikings CERTAINLY visisted North America AND brought women with them. How, then, knowing all this, is it a stretch? When you REALLY know the history and science, it's not.

      Delete
    3. Absolutely right! And I suspect that the Basque had women on their ships as well in the 14th and 15th century! The indigenous gene pool was forever changed by this newer DNA.

      Delete
    4. Dear Elder: My mtDNA shows markers that match others who identify themselves as direct female descendants of Antoinette Landry who married Antoine Bourg. This particular haplogroup, H3a1 is most common in the Basque region and Celtic Spain. I have tested with two companies and both show a percentage of Native, Finnish and Northern Siberian. My family is from Cape Breton and Isle Madame.

      Delete
  17. Hi Roland,

    My name is Clare O'Neill. I've been following this string with interest as I am descended from Francoise Tourault, Marguerite Langlois, Francoise Grenier, Radegonde Lambert and Huguette Gougeon (in addition to Catherine Pillard) through my maternal grandfather. I originally had my DNA tested by 23andme in 2009, and last summer uploaded my genome file to Gedmatch to widen my search for ancestors. Some other Gedmatch users looked at my Native markers and tell me that I have around 2% Native DNA. Since all of my other grandparents came directly from Ireland, some or all of the aforementioned women were absolutely Metis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Clare
      Despite opposition to our claim that our early grandmothers were native, there is no doubt from present autosomal DNA testing that this is true and also so that there was definitely Eruopean pre-columbian contact on the east coast of North America. We may have some generational distance from our native ancestry, but this does NOT negate our right to honour this ancestry today!! Many of us have now self identified as aboriginal or First Nation in this respect by joining an aboriginal (Metis) group or registry.

      Roly
      Montagnaismetis.ca

      Delete
  18. What is your registry of choice?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My registry of choice in ANY registry that does not make it's members jump through hoops to qualify. It's possible that the Canadian Government may set some rules concerning "Metis" groups and who will be allowed to negotiate with them on rights issues--but this remains to be seen!
      We have our own family registry which we hope will eventually evolve into a large and solid community: http://www.montagnaismetis.ca
      Another, which may be frowned on by other Metis groups, is http://www.omfrc.org/
      I suppose that we will eventually have to fold many groups into much broader community or nation. But, at this time, If you have defined yourself as First Nation (Metis) or aboriginal with ANY id card--you will, as an individual, be treated the same as anyone else with regard to existing government benefits.

      Delete
  19. What test would you suggest for a male that has grandparents that has Edmee, Catherine, Radegonde 12-13 generations back and several times over, as well as Gallant-Hache in multiples? Ex Marie Rose Thibodeau (1757 - 1810) has both Catherine and Radegonde (x2). Would it be beneficial for the sake of documentation for me or one of my cousins to get tested?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry for the late reply.
      An autosomal or deep ancestral DNA test should be done for your own satisfaction---but you might be disappointed.
      You don't need such a test to get a ID membership card from some Metis groups in Quebec and especialy our own Montagnais Metis group in Ontario.
      Proving via DNA a blood relationship with native ancestry is not required or encouraged! DNAtribes, I think, can give you an answer in their autosomal testing---be sure it's an 'autosomal' test though!

      Delete
  20. I think one fact that is over looked by many who make these claims of you are not indigenous is the fact many girls were sent to France to be indoctrinated. Some of these woman married in France before they arrived back in America and some married with contracts on their return to America. I accidently came on this site after doing months of research into my husbands family who has some of the names in his family mentioned above.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Article on Acadian Doucet Family - La revue L’Entraide

    In its Winter 2014 issue of La revue L’Entraide, the Société de généalogie des Cantons-de-l’Est has published “La Doucet d’Acadie, Second Regard sur le Registers,” an article written by Suzette Leclair and Kei G. Gauthier.
    The article reexamines the presumed sibling relationship among Pierre Doucet, b.c 1621, Marguerite Doucet, b.c. 1625, and Germain Doucet, b.c. 1641, in light of recent evidence that shows that male-line descendants of Pierre and male-line ancestors of Germain do not present the same yDNA pattern. Specifically, Pierre shows European yDNA, while Germain shows Native American yDNA.

    The authors discuss several errors that they discovered in the documentation used to support a sibling connection among the three Early Acadian Doucets. In short, these errors can be summarized as follows:

    1. Mr. Stephen White incorrectly used a marriage dispensation recorded at the time that a grandson of Germain married a granddaughter of Pierre to show that the two were brothers. The authors find that marriage dispensations of descendant of these two people cannot be relied upon because Germain and Pierre married half-sisters, Marie Landry and Henriette Pelletret, respectively. Because any later dispensation may or may not refer to Marie and Henriette rather Germain and Pierre, the dispensations do not provide proof that Germain and Pierre were brothers. yDNA, however, proves that they were not brothers.

    2. In his research, Mr. White ignored several later marriages between descendants of Pierre and Marguerite. Not one of these later marriages contains the dispensation that would have been required if these two were brother and sister. Hence, the two were not closely related.

    3. Marriage records from descendants of Marguerite and Germain do, as Mr. White writes, provide evidence that these two were sister and brother, although this proof is somewhat inconclusive.

    4. In his article on the Declarations of Belle Ile en Mer, Mr. White confuses Pierre with Germain. This is especially important because the declaration that correctly refers to Germain, b.c. 1641, is unique among the declarations in that it says that Germain “came from Canada” instead of “came from France” or “came to Canada.” “Came from Canada” is absolutely truthful for an individual, such as Germain, b.c. 1641, who was Native American. This actually serves as proof of Germain’s Native American origins.

    The article in La revue L’Entraide supports its conclusions with extensive references to Early Acadian documents.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. White squeezes dispensations to suit his conclusion---and I suspect ALLWAYS begins his investigation with conclusions!

      Delete
    2. Basing any conclusion solely on interelationship suggested by catholic dispensation is a b or c value source. In Catholic doctrine adopted siblings ie not direct blood relationship nescessarily are still regarded in the dispensation game as first order blood relations. Edicts against marriage are enforced as rules of consanguinity are applied because the church regarded a family as a spiritual unit not just a genetic unit. By the rules Germain Ducet was a brother whether he was of the same parents as his siblings or not.Missing dispensation mean nothing as proof that there wasn't a family relationship only that one was not readily recognized and recorded. THIS IS VERY EVIDENT DURING AND AFTER THE EXPULSION.Dispensations were a fee based service it must be remebered.Separately adopted non related sibling'
      s children would have the same order of consanguinity applied to them as blood brothers.

      Delete
  22. It's seeming contradiction with stephen white leads to me to beleave it just also approves the dna test when ever it suits its need, then the dna test of renegonde lambert is right and not for germain doucet 1641, Its a huge blunder, to shorthen he doesn't believe in dna test, so a word to the wise is enough, the familly history not always logico mathematics

    ReplyDelete
  23. I might be out o sync, but I just would like to comment on Radegonde Lambert birth year. Stephen says she was born around 1621, using 1686 census, where it was said that she was 65 yrs of age. But the 1671 census says she was 42 yrs of age. Which one is right? I think that the 1671 census had her correct age. Why?
    1- if she was 42 in 1671, then she would be 57 in 1686 !
    2- I believe the mistake was done in an inversion of the digits of her age... a common mistake with all of us. (I'm a former Math teacher). She could have 57 or 56 depending when the census was done. So, if she was 56, and if by mistake you invert the digits, you get 65.
    3- If she was 56 and not 65, this would mean she was born around 1628. This would give Father Lanctot some credit for saying that Radegonde was born around 1628 or 1629.

    I'm a descendant of Radegonde

    ReplyDelete
  24. RE: METIS DISCUSSIONS - RADEGONDE LAMBERT

    My name is Catherine Gray, formerly Richards. My father was baptized Percy George Richard, son of Ethel Brison and George Richards of East Chezzetcook, Nova Scotia. Until I started doing genealogy several years ago, I was under the impression that my heritage was French; however, I now believe that my direct line is from Chief Henri Sachem Membertou and his wife, Marie Abenaki Membertou of Pobomboup, Cape Sable, Acadia. Following is my direct line:

    Percy George Richard 1916-1988 married to Alice Torbett in Glasgow, Scotland in 1943 (WWII) - My parents
    George Joseph Richard 1889-1964 married to Ethel Mildred Brison - married 1915 in Windsor, Hants, NS - My grandparents
    James (Jacques) Richard 1844-1914 married to Mary Grady - married 1876, St. Genevieve Catholic Church, East Chezzetcook, NS - My g-grandparents
    Charles Richard 1808-1885 married to Judith Angelique Bona/Bonin 1830 - East Chezzetcook, NS - My 2 X's g-grandparents
    Boniface Richard 1758-1836 married to Anne Pettipas in 1792 - East Chezzetcook, NS - my 3 X's g-grandparents
    Charles (dit Plat) 1738-? married to Anne Madeleine Bonnevie in 1758 - Probably Port Royal - my 4 X's g-grandparents
    Michel (dit Plat) 1697-1760 married to Madeleine Doucet in 1733 - Probably Port Royal - my 5 X's g-grandparents
    Martin Richard 1665-1748 married to Marguerite Bourg in about 1691 Beaubasin - my 6 X's g-grandparents

    This is where my Metis history begins:

    Michael (dit Sansoucy) Richard 1630-1687 married to Madeleine Blanchard in Port Royal about 1656 - my 7 X's g-grandparents
    Jehan/Jean Blanchard 1611-1686 married to Radegonde Lambert in about 1642 in Port Royal - my 8 X's g-grandparents
    Jehan/Jean Lambert 1591-1671 married to Marguerite (AKA Marie) Radegone Anne Kagiajonis Membertou - my 9 X's g-grandparents
    Chief Henri Sachem Membertou 1507-1600 Pobomcoup, Cape Sable and his wife, Marie Abenaki - my 10 X's g-granparents

    ReplyDelete
  25. Over-reliance on "declarations" or registers as gospel can be a mistake.

    As a clear illustration: a pair of ancestors were listed as Irish in one census, and Scottish in the census ten years later. Did they forget where they were from? Probably not. But in the time and place they lived, there was no love for the Irish. So they tried to assimilate and pass themselves off as Scottish.

    Never, ever forget the possibility that records (or people) can lie! For all kinds of reasons. Racism seems like a longstanding and common reason to lie about one's background.

    If someone's great-grandchild says they were from France, it doesn't always make it so. Calling attention to a native background could have been undesirable.

    Raedegonde Lambert is also my ancestress, and I feel like the X2b of my cousin matches in this line (mine is through maternal grandfather, so not my mtDNA) should not be dismissed as exclusively European.

    Barry Fell may be mocked, but I think there is unwritten history in the ancient seafarers. The Sea Peoples, Egyptians, Phoenicians, Carthiginians... I believe there was further exploration than mainstream society accepts. I think perhaps Sinclair maybe, and almost certainly the Vikings are part of this continued tradition of seafaring.

    Cultural exchange along the Atlantic is supposedly "fringe" theory, but the X2b haplogroup actually supports this hypothesis!

    The Druze, to the Black Sea, to tge Orkneys, to Scandinavia, to the Algonqians??? Really? Has no one else picked up on this?? ;-D

    PS: What about Membertou's beard? Part Viking, perhaps?!

    ReplyDelete
  26. New evidence to consider (unless you want to keep your blinders on).

    https://dna-explained.com/2016/09/14/haplogroup-x2b4-is-european-not-native-american/

    ReplyDelete
  27. No more biassed than you Rob, especially if you believe that DNA is conclusive evidence!

    Some might think I have blinders on---but I never doubted the greater possibility that x2b4 might NOT be an ancient indigenous haplogroup--but one that was introduced to a native population from first contact by the Vikings or even the Basque--much earlier than French contact. While some might think that this would be impossible--interaction can be in any form and need not be a docile social event.

    In addition, since there is no other evidence, other than DNA from female descendants, (And the article did not precisely indicate which of Radegonde Lambert's daughter or daughters they were linked to) adoption can't be ruled out. And where is solid documentary evidence of her European birth origin?

    Socially, Radegonde Lambert will remain a "more than likely" candidate for an indigenous birth origin---rather than a European one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That article even cites east Anglia, Norway and Scotland are places for that group. Funny that those just HAPPEN to be major centres of Norse history isn't it? Funny that France is not mentioned. Funny that France is only connected by people assuming she is born there. Funny how they always decide that means she's born in France when this is not what those results say. They only say she has an MtDna result that is common in European populations with a Viking history.
      The rest is specultion.
      Has Dan or anyone ever actually addressed the Viking theory? They always proclaim everyone is from France but never address the Viking theory, which seems equally plausible, especially given the context, but I have never seen them even MENTION Vikings before...

      Delete
  28. I have a few lines of interest.. There is too many links to ignore on both sides of my family so I'm not concerned on whether I am or am not of Native decendents.. I will list a few and you can determine what you want. If you want my report I can send it to you just let me know

    I will list a few links.

    1: John Granger and Grace Micmac
    2:Jean-Claude Landry and Marie Salle.. Says both parents Micmac
    3:Francois Gautrot/Edmee Lejeune parents of Pierre Lejeune said to be married to the daughter of Cheif Membertou
    4:Francois Aucoin Said to have married a MicMac Women
    5:Jean Theriaul said to have married Elizabeth Unknown.
    6: Claude Petitpas and Chaterine Bugaret, This came from Stephen Whites office so I doubt he will debate this.. :O)

    And There is also Jean-Claude Landry witch I see many debates and Arguments.. I am not looking to start anything but even the Census are quite different when you look at the names.

    I am from the Petitpas/LeBlanc and Cormier/Richard.

    Will list my mothers side when I get an answer from you all..

    All I remember was Rene Rimbeau and his Wife

    I have many to list, I Have no doubt that I have so native ancestors, I have no reason to invent anything.

    All the best to all!!

    ReplyDelete
  29. I would love to know more, as i also descend from some of these lines. Thank you, Carol
    forwings@hotmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  30. Well I have been on this for a while now and it's very complicated since some of the documents have been fudeged.. I do think some of the research done by Steven White is false since I can trace some back to me and some are coming from his office but when you look at some of the info on the web it seams that it varied depending to who you talk to.

    Just for one example "Lejeune" that is a hot debate among people. Some are coming forward with dna test proving their blood line and Steven White is saying that the indo received is false.. How is it possible to say that blood test are false when you have the same results from your blood line.. :O) I question some of his declarations but I will say that you cannot just go on ancestry.ca and fill out everything and expect it to be all true.. Its to easy to change it to what you you would like it to be.. or just clicking on check boxes and going save and on to the next person.

    Hope someone will come forward and help me out a bit with a neutral point of view. I will be on this for the next few weeks until I can get most of it done..

    ReplyDelete
  31. I wanted to update my earlier note about my oldest confirmed native ancestor. The maternal DNA X2a2 (confirmed by 23andme as well as Ancestry DNA) is present in myself, my sister and my son. It can be traced back to the first native wife (Marie?) of Philippe Mius D'Entremont.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Regarding the Viking theory, I suggest picking up the excellent book "First Nations History: We Were Not The Savages" by Daniel N. Paul, in which he states:

    "Prior to 1492, Native North Americans had had innumerable encounters with Caucasians who had come mainly from what is today Scandinavia. Apparently these Caucasians were well received because early reports indicate that blue-eyed and light-skinned Native Americans were not rare. In fact, Mi'kmaq were able to dress up in French and English uniforms and mingle with European soldiers while gathering information for war councils, leading some of the French and English to wonder whether the Mi'kmaq were possibly a Caucasian race."

    ReplyDelete
  33. Check Lucie LeBLanc on the Acadian site and check what she has to say about that.. :O)

    "The Mi'kmaq were the first Indians to come into contact and befriend Europeans. The Vikings and Basque fishermen were distant towards this people, considered primitive because of their different lifestyle and language. "

    Of course she would know it all..... lol

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sure, Lucie believes that Christianity kept all those good Christian men from mating with local native women ---and she's out to "prove" it with DNA...lol

      Delete
  34. Elder, I am glad you decided to join in our little conversation.. :O) I have read your previous post and found them to be very interested and your a big reason why I'm out to prove what I can on my ancestry.

    I keep on reading all the post that lucie has posted and how she believes that Steven White is the know it all and the never wrong even when he does admit to some problems and when they are dis-proven he comes up with a clever way of saying that he was right but miss understood.. DNA will be very interesting when everyone gets tested and comes forward with their results. I know he is good at what he does but no one is perfect but Lucie seams to think so. Funny how she chimes in but when it gets difficult she backs out of the conversation. Steven is making some trees for people that are not proven making them believe that they are. Makes me think that many people have it wrong and he is sending them on the wrong path. I have made a new line for my cousin that had his done by his office. He said that it was his link and it was wrong. Makes you think.. Glad I was able to catch it.

    Regards!

    ReplyDelete
  35. :O) I think she will be disappointed with the new DNA that will come out... Way to many dead ends to still prove.. More will come out and get tested.

    Nice to see you reply Elder! Loved reading your previous post and discussions.

    Happy New year! Like one would say.. proof is in the puddin! :O)

    ReplyDelete
  36. Hi Elder

    Seams like like my last 2 post were not approved.. :O)

    The more I find stuff, the less my post are posted for some reason.. I will keep it short and simple this time.. What I was saying is that with the new dna test that are coming out it looks like some are being posted and some are being ignored. I am not here to invent things or start anything as my lines have been proven many times but I will say this. DNA can explain some things but it cannot prove everything. Until all DNA test are posted and more people get tested we will find more answers. Some things will take some time. I will not say that Steven White does not do a good job as he has been committed to this for a while now but for some that wants to prove that their ancestor are all from Europe and leave it at that.. I will never understand. We should be proud of everything we find as its the way it happened.. I never would want to live a lie.

    Thanks for everything you do Elder

    all the best in 2017

    ReplyDelete
  37. Thanks! The problem with DNA is that people try to positively reference a certain ancestor who lived many generations ago. Without a sample DNA from those ancestors proving positively a relationship is virtually impossible.
    Mapping all native DNA markers would require autosomal testing of most aboriginal people in North America so that it can be compared to the general population...and that's not going to happen!

    ReplyDelete