Francois Joseph Savoie SOLVED

Maven Helms - If you would take the time to review actual images of the first Acadia census in 1671, you would see that Francois’ last name is spelled “Savoye:” I’m sure it’s just another coincidence. In 40 years of studying my family I have never seen Savoie spelled “Sçavois” - of course until now.

And to everyone else, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that the Savoie family members interested in our family lineage DO NOT CARE ABOUT TITLES, ROYALTY, OR ANYTHING OF THE SORT. I’ve got three Royal lines through my father. So what? Who cares? I’ve got many, many more ancestors who were dirt poor and had a hard time keeping food on the table. They are all equal in my eyes.

And I know this is going to send some folks into the stratosphere, but as a trial lawyer, thousands of people win cases or are convicted of felonies every single day on less evidence than what has already been uncovered in this matter. Let’s try to maintain a little perspective and decorum. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Erica Howton - Thank you for your lengthy reply, but you missed the point entirely . . .

Erica - I apologize for being a bit terse in my last response. I understand and have no disagreement with the rules and the limitations of technology. Although I’m not a professional geologist, I am fully familiar with the rules of “evidence,” if you will, in “proving” lineage. But, neither “the rules,” nor the facts exist in a vacuum or in some parallel universe. The facts have to be put into some sort of historical context to make logical sense. Using François as an example, his putative father, Tommaso, who, despite membership in both the French and Spanish Royal families, was a well-known mercenary. who had no significant patrimony and was too far down the Savoy line of succession to hold more than the title of “Prince.” Thus, Tommaso’s membership in the Royal House of Savoy is an indisputable fact - a fact that, in reality however, is tremendously misleading - at least to me. While the information on a piece of paper may fit nicely into a computer program, facts can be obscured and very messy. I can’t disregard what I know simply because it doesn’t fit into someone else’s criteria or because there may be no writing associated with it. As for the DNA aspect, I’m still waiting for someone to tell me the identity of the Savoy male who contributed his DNA for comparison. Thanks. Adele

Diane Owen,
You wrote,
“And to everyone else, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that the Savoie family members interested in our family lineage DO NOT CARE ABOUT TITLES, ROYALTY, OR ANYTHING OF THE SORT. I’ve got three Royal lines through my father. So what? Who cares? I’ve got many, many more ancestors who were dirt poor and had a hard time keeping food on the table. They are all equal in my eyes.”

I am also descended from this line... actually, I’d love the story to be true, I think it’d be cool to have proven royalty in my lineage, and with that, one can usually take lines much further back. However, I am much more interested in the truth, as you imply you are. The fact is that there is insufficient evidence to meet the genealogical standard.
When there isn’t sufficient evidence, one doesn’t make the claims that were made by some on here. For the present time, the parentage of Francois remains undetermined and should remain so on any group family tree.

Diane, you are telling an untruth. I actually found a direct image (not a transcription) of the 1671 census. The writer had a nice clear hand, and Francois' name was indeed spelled "Scavois" (with the long final "s" that looks more like an "f" or an "l" , very 17th-18th century). http://markforesttree.com/picture/1671%20port%20royal%20pg%201&... (But, for whatever reason, he didn't put in the cedilla under the c that modern usage would require.)

What we know for a fact is that the most recent male descendants of Francois S(c)avoi(s)(e) do not match the tested male descendant(s) of the House of Savoy. I think there's enough data on Francois' descendants that his line is good as far back as it is traceable (are there any weak points?). As for Savoy...?

Excellent work, Maven. That document is exactly what I was waiting to see with my own eyes.

The cedilla isn't important, as there is already a huge enough linguistic difference between Scavois/Savois and "Savoie/Savoye". Completely different connotations.

The final letter (S vs. E), along with the use of the letter C in the older form (further corroborating its intended spelling and usage), is most significant.

Families (or clerks) can choose to change the spellings of surnames (historically it was fairly common), but always at the risk of masking (whether intentionally or not) their true origins. However, in the age of DNA testing, blood inheritance makes up for much loss or murkiness of familial identity.

This vital source certainly should be included with the relevant profile, François Savoie

Also, as long as I'm here I would like to point out that I too mostly agreed with Diane, particularly with respect to the rules of evidence and how they should be used in court or for legal matters. I am a big believer in eye-witness testimony and family bibles, etc., coming from family members of good character who actually knew first-hand the parties about whom they speak. And, in the traditions of family knowledge passed down from generation to generation. The key component is "good character" and intelligence, soundness of mind. Even official clerks make mistakes, anyone can make an honest mistake. However, unfortunately some 'mistakes' are likely intentional. That is where proof comes in, because hard evidence can determine the true facts regardless of the often unfathomable intent of witnesses.

The "C" in the original record nails it for me because its documented usage in the old form of Savois is confirmation enough that the clerk did not simply misspell "Savoye". And further proof is that there are very distinct differences in old manuscripts between the formations of the final letter "s" and "e" in words or names. I am convinced even more so now, after seeing the original manuscript that Maven so generously located and presented here for our inspection.

Greetings to all,

Debra, can we know, just by curiosity what is your official and clear conclusion about this spelling matter ? For you, Francois was the son of Thomasso or my english level is so bad than I losed your points ?

You should know that I am French and that my English is better for understanding orally than for writing. I am using a fairly basic translator here.

I come first in peace, in search of the truth. I have absolutely nothing against Mr Bolton and all the others who claim to have the truth.

I also come to prove to you before exposing my more in-depth remarks my double ancestry to François.

(Way 1)

François Savoie / Catherine LeJeune

Catherine Savoie / François Levron
(married in 1676)

Isabelle Levron /
Michel Picote
(married in 1705)

Michel Picote /
Anne Blain
(married in 1731)

Marguerite Picote /
Jean-Baptiste Guildry
(married before 1753)

Elisabeth Guildry /
Antoine Belec
(married in 1773)

Antoine Bélec /
Marie Vincent
(Married in 1801)

Joseph Bélec / Theotist
Morisseau
(Married in 1835)

Joseph Bélec /
Marie Zoé Bertrand
(Married in 1861)

Eugènie Bélec /
Philippe Albert Gervais
(Married in 1890)

Eugènie Gervais
(My great-grandmother)

************************

(Way 2 )

François Savoie /
Catherine Lejeune

Andrée Savoie
& Jean Prégent

Anne Prégent
& François Pitre

Agnès Pitre
& Jean-Baptiste Boudreau

François Boudreau
& Marie-Sophie Martel

Germain Boudreau
& Marie Pilote

Joseph Boudreau 1808-1885
&1827 Félicité Bélanger 1802-1884

Louise Boudreau 1840-1915
&1859 Onesime Girard 1836-1902

Joseph Arthur Girard 1867-1956
&1890 Marie Alexina Pilote 1871-1952

Joseph Arthur Delphis Girard 1895-ca 1940
&1917 Corina Lamoureux 1894-1990

Delphis was my great grand father.

****************************

GREAT PARANTHESIS

You should know that I worked on already pre-existing work and genealogical paths less work to establish links between noble families of France and pioneer-Canadian families.

I also showed you my two ancestry not to feel "cool" but to prove to you that I too would like to be able to declare that I am descended from Henri II of France, husband of Catherine de Medici ...

However, unlike others, I am not so convinced of this and I really wish my opinion did not shock you but that you just read me impartially.

This month of May, this year for example, I was finally able to prove with a lot of effort and sufficient documentation that the Boileau / Boyleau sisters (Marie Boileau and Marguerite Boileau) were indeed descended from Henry III of England. and Éléonore de Provence. I was able to determine, thanks to his signature and the help of Stéphane Delanoue, that Jeanne de Portebise was indeed the daughter of Pierre and Marguerite d'Argenson. Many assumed it but without providing any documentation. Well now it's done!

Same fight with Pierre Le Gardeur de Repentigny, much assumed that he descended from Geoffroy des Vaux and Marguerite d'Avaugour and not of Geoffroy's first wife: Marguerite LeRiche.

Which was not too shocking however no one presented reliable sources and documentation of yesteryear yet.

I was able, with the help of Etchemins, to find a succession lawsuit concerning the affairs of Geoffroy des Vaux and to discover beyond any doubt that Marguerite d'Avaugour was indeed the ancestor of Pierre Le Gardeur de Repentigny.
Then, again this month, I discovered this same allusion in the French Securities Cabinet. This brings down Pierre Legardeur de Repentigny from Henry II of England and Louis VII of France.

However, Denis Beauregard does not yet dare to add Marie Boileau and Marguerite Boileau even with supporting documentation. Which is getting strange.

So I have, during the last 4 years and suddenly 40 hours a week without you detailing all my other work, work on the French nobility like a monster. Some genealogists had already discovered ancestries but I have studied them a lot:

Anne Leneuf du Hérisson / Catherine de Baillon / Anne Couvent / Pierre Le Gardeur de Repentigny / D'Ailleboust / Boyleau - Boileau / de Bragelonne - Bragelongne / Otis / ect ...

Now if we look at the whole, the big winners from Quebec in terms of Close Royalty in their ancestry are:

1 - Anne Convent
(Henry III of England and Louis VIII of France)

2 - Marie Boileau / Marguerite Boileau
(Henry III of England)

3 - Catherine de Baillon
(Philippe II Augustus of France)

They are kings who reigned in the 13th century, around 1250.

END OF PARANTHESIS

François Savoie would therefore be, according to your hypotheses and without sufficient documentation, the big winner of the royal ancestry having Henri II of France, a king of the 16th century.

Having also studied the nobility a lot, I have never seen a bastard child, either of princes, dukes or kings, having no title and becoming a plowman ... Never ...

The worst case scenario for them was to become clergymen.

Many illegitimate children of high nobility were either Dukes, Counts or Viscounts and still high-ranking military personnel.

DNA appears to tell two different stories at the moment. Difficult to take anything into account with irrefutable credibility. I would like to point out that Joseph Bolton's discussion with Mr Deburque was very interesting, and even if we remain impartial and logical, they still brought some interesting material. But without real proof. As a descendant of François, or simply curious about genealogy, it is important to discuss all together and to remain polite, respectful and courteous. But the most important thing is to investigate this mystery TOGETHER. I tell you, there is no sufficient documentation even if we add the calligraphy of "Scavois" which allows to determine anything quite conclusive for the moment. For my part, I find damage the lack of archives on the Acadian side such as a marriage contract between François and Catherine, a marriage certificate or any other document clearly mentioning its origin. What we have for the moment: (Elements that tilt in favor of noble ancestry): * 1 - An oral tradition 1.1 Without more information but to be taken into account. This item cannot be accepted as proof). * 2 - The DNA case of Bill Deburque / Conversation with Joseph Bolton. 2.1 DNA with enough comparisons is indeed irrefutable proof. However, in this specific case, several comparisons are missing and it is impossible to establish a precise link by linking documentations and DNA. We speak of common Italian, French, Spanish ancestors etc. This sharing of ancestors throughout Europe is not a rare case in genealogy, especially if Bill Deburque has found himself a noble European ancestor. * 3 - The name Savoie (Scavois) 3.1 Uncommon name in the families of roturiers - French laborers. For me this is point number 3 here is the most interesting and the one that digs into the mystery.

(Items that do not tilt in favor of noble ancestry):

1 - No documentation being able to know the origin of François, nor of ties of kinship with other Savoys.

1.1 No marriage contract, no marriage certificate, no contract of engagement ect ...

2 - A bastard of a man of very high nobility did not become a plowman. He generally inherited small functions, he became a high military officer or he saw himself recognized and was offered titles of nobility such as: Duke, Marquis, Count or Viscount ...

3 - There is no "of" before the name Savoie - Scavois, which proves that if he is really the son of Thomasso, he is not the son of his wife Bourbon.

4 - An R1B DNA group ... different from a European descendant of Prince Carignan. It is possible to find the name of this tested individual because I have already had access to the information in the past.

So either way, I wouldn't jump to any conclusion. The conclusion on paper, for the moment, François Savoie is the son of an unknown father and mother.

Nothing prevents us from bringing new elements in the respect and from debating on the subject. But please, you should change the title "SOlVED" to "DISCUSSION"

cordially

Jonathan Chénier-Daoust

PS : Some mistakes in english are present in my text and I apologize for this. I assure you, my french level is alot better.

What I got from Debra's post was that she had finally joined the skeptics because linguistically there is no connection between "'Scavois" (derived from Middle French "scavoir", "to know", falsely regressed to Latin "scire" instead of "sapere"), and "Savoie" (derived from Latin "sapaudia", "place of pine trees").

Oh ok thanks Maven, its more clear now.
Sorry it is too much usual to see people get fast conclusion in this discussion, I was a little bit worry about a new conclusion.

And thanks to you Sharon !

This will not necessarily provide answers, but let's dig into the past together in an impartial and neutral way.

Here is André Savoie in 1756, who is mentioned as Acadian in this notarial deed, it is interesting to see his signature here and which differs from how his name is inscribed by the notary

https://numerique.banq.qc.ca/patrimoine/details/52327/3414107?docre...

Here, to search to see if we are talking about Scavois or Savoy ... Archives of Charles d'Aulnay, Governor of Acadia:

http://anom.archivesnationales.culture.gouv.fr/osd/?dossier=/collec...+ + Charles, + governor + de + l% 27Acadie, + and + his + family + 1638/1700

http://anom.archivesnationales.culture.gouv.fr/osd/?dossier=/collec...

The signature in the first document should be transcribed, "Jeann Andres Savoir". The final letter on the surname is "R".

There are other words on the same document that legitimately end in "E", and it is readily apparent that the lower-case, final-letter "e" is formed quite differently compared to the lower-case, final-letter "r".

You need only to compare that final letter in the surname with the "R" in "Andres" to see that they are exactly the same.

Great analyse Debra.

So one more document for " Savoir " "Scavoir"
And not Savoy.

Jonathan Chenier - Thank you for your comprehensive analysis of the Savoie mystery.

Maven Helms - I apologize for making an incorrect statement. I found the reference that you cited. We certainly don’t need any additional inaccuracies in this discussion, and I will double check anything else that I post in the future.

Can anyone furnish me with the name of the male Savoie who provided the DNA sample that is being used to compare with François, et al,? I’ve asked for this info three times, and I still haven’t received any response. Do we not know who it is, or is someone using DNA from a Victor Emmanuel descendant?

Setting aside the Savoie discussion for the moment, I find it very interesting that there are documented connections between and among my Comeau ancestors in North America and their respective Royal Comeau ancestors in Europe. Same with my Boucher ancestors - although I haven’t found a connection to any Royal house.

The point is that the paper trails are there and relatively straightforward for my Comeau and Boucher lines. François, however, seems to have appeared out of thin air. Coincidence or red herring? Thoughts?

Erica Howton - Here’s the timeline in a nutshell. François born 1621. Tommaso’s older brother, Victor Amadeus, became Duke around 1630. Victor Amadeus was married to the French King’s sister, Princess Catherine of France. Amadeus died unexpectedly in 1637. Their son was only four years old at the time. Catherine planned to assume the child’s duties as his regent. Tommaso had other plans - he allegedly fought to have François succeed Victor Amadeus as Duke because - illegitimate or not - he was the oldest. It did not work out as planned. A small French force removed Tommaso from Turin and installed Catherine and her young son. Seeing no path forward in the royal family, it is believed that François renounced/withdrew from the royal family and decided to live his life elsewhere. In those days, if you renounced the royal family you became an outcast. (In that regard, there is little difference between 1637 and 2020 - other than perhaps by degree - as to what has happened to Prince Harry once he stepped back from being a full-time, working Royal). By approximately 1641, François was in Acadia as one of the earliest settlers. Coincidence of timing? Perhaps. Perhaps not. François wasn’t a ploughman who alleged that he was a prince. François was allegedly a prince who renounced his dysfunctional royal family, became an outcast, and never looked back. The fact that he was a laborer or ploughman in Acadia was a necessity if he wanted to survive, His alleged situation is completely different from what you described above. If you haven’t already read it, I suggest that you take a look at a book by John Dormandy entitled “ A History of Savoy.” Mr, Dormandy doesn’t even mention François, but he accurately sets the historical stage to look at these events involving François with some context.

Comeau is the only other family with royal ancestry that I know of in Acadia - although there are a few with minor nobility. I’ll get the info for you on the deathbed confession. One of the Savoies wrote a book about it. I believe it was also quoted and identified several years ago by Joseph Bolton on this thread, but I have the book and will find it for you. And yes, the Acadians have been fairly well studied for a variety of reasons - not the least of which is that we’re all basically related to one another given the small number of initial immigrants. Genetic defects have also been fairly well identified and studied.
Speaking of New England, three different groups of my Welsh ancestors simultaneously landed in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Maryland. There are numerous ancient Welsh royals as well as Plantagenets and Tudors.

If I recall correctly (Anne Brannen would know for sure), the pre-Henry VII Tudors *were* descended from ancient Welsh royals...but the royal English Tudor line ran into a series of bottlenecks (Henry VIII had no legitimate grandchildren and only a couple of *possible* illegitimate ones).

The Plantagenets did rather better, but only through cadet/distaff lines, no thanks to the Wars of the Roses and the genocidal policies of the Tudors. There are no *positively identified* male-line descendants that we know of, but a fair few female-line and mixed descent. (The Somersets were the best shot, and they crapped out due to cuckoos in the nest - we're not even sure which nest.)

I didn’t read you all, but why is the family tree broke?