Francois Joseph Savoie SOLVED

I should mention a couple of things.

This has been an ongoing discussion since I joined Geni in 2008 or so. Despite this particular discussion title, the issue is “not” solved or resolved to the GPS (Genealogical Proof Standard). If I’m wrong about that, there would be a peer reviewed article published - has there been?

The burden of “proof” is on those making the claim. You can’t prove a negative; in other words, I can’t say he’s not the son, but that doesn’t mean he is. So the way geni (tries) to present these controversial claims is conservatively, by linking within profile for an easy jump / see. But not as a tree link.

De linking happens as attention is drawn to an issue. There are of course many disputed claims still attached on geni. Start discussion from profile if as a member you cannot detach, and explain why.

Once people start adding DNA information, the picture generally becomes a bit clearer (usually in the negative).

A Y-DNA mismatch shows that there is a discontinuity *somewhere* along the alleged connecting line, usually (but not always) where someone made a Wild Mass Guess as to who belonged to an "important" family.

Sometimes there's an "oops" on one line or the other, but we don't know where (e.g. Richard III v. the Somersets).

Sometimes there was a bad guess at first and later evidence shows it wasn't so (e.g. the *real* Bourbon Y-DNA, which is R1b-something, *not* G, in spite of earlier "evidence").

Sometimes there's enough triangulation (multiple tested lines) to show that one line is *probably* correct, and therefore the other line belongs to some other family (e.g. various wanna-Lee claimants).

The unknown at the moment seems to be whether the Savoys of Carignano have *one* Y-DNA test (one or more "oopses" possible), or multiple confirmed and matching tests (no room for "oopses" then).

From Erica Howton: "The burden of “proof” is on those making the claim." If you mean what you say here, how come Joshua M Swerling is not asked to proof his statement that this connection "is a fabrication." He is making a positive statement that he provided no evidence for. His statement that was used to remove a long standing connection here on Geni. He should be made to provide the evidence that it is a fabrication as he stated. By doing so Joshua M Swerling should be able to state who created the fabrication and when it was created. Where is the evidence for his statement.

That’s up to him. The tree is looking for documents.

Joseph, you are deliberately jamming your fingers in your ears and going "LALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

If the Savoy line is E-L117, as claimed, and the Savoie line is R1b-something, they *aren't* direct-male-line related. Not at all. Not since the Stone Age, at latest.

E-L117/E-M35 is associated with a lot of Eastern Mediterranean and Middle Eastern lineages - it is not strictly "Jewish", though there is a pronounced Ashkenazi component. But it also got into the English nobility via the Howard Dukes of Norfolk - which may indicate a *very* ancient migration, possibly Roman. (The Romans drew from across the Empire to man the Legions, and moved them around for strategic purposes.)

The Norman/Irish D'Arcys also belong to this group - but the Maryland Dorseys do *not*. (*They* are consistently R-M269, which is *very very* common in Ireland, and the original family name may have been O'Dorchaidhe.)

People who hate it that Y-DNA blows up a cherished family myth often take refuge in autosomal DNA, trying to claim that it shows that the treasured relationship was "real". Unfortunately that's not what autosomal DNA proves, or *can* prove. It can show that a given group of people were more-or-less generally related, a result that often turns up when the founding gene pool was very small and the groups stayed in the same area for generations. But as for when, where, how, and through whom - not so much. It can even produce *pseudo-*relationships due to men from two different paternal lineages marrying women from the same family. So if you're going to work with autosomal, you need a *really really good*, watertight paper trail, or you may get lost in the brambles.

Maven B. Helms, this is about restoring a long standing connection between Francois Joseph Savoie and Thomas Francis of Savoy, prince of Carignano. Joshua M Swerling stated that this connection was fabricated and yet offered no proof. Can he provide any information on when this was fabricated and who created it?

This was based on a deathbed confession of Francois Joseph Savoie that he was the son of Thomas Francis of Savoy, prince of Carignano. He did not mention who is mother was, implying that he was the illegitimate son of Thomas Francis of Savoy, prince of Carignano. This story has been passed down by his descendants for centuries in Canada, New England and Louisiana and has endured centuries and existed in distinct geographical communities long before mass communication and the internet.

You want us to believe that "uneducated plowman" in Arcadia on his deathbed just made up a story that he is the son of a minor royal house. He had no advantage to himself or his descendants in doing so. His deathbed confession was believable enough that it was accepted then without question. In fact, this connection was never challenged until very recently.

As for DNA connections, we have made connections with with people today that can only exist if it is true that Francois Joseph Savoie is the Thomas Francis of Savoy, prince of Carignano.

We have thousands of connections here on Geni that are based on far more filmy evidence (ie, ancient Jewish mythology) but they are accepted without question by yourself. In the case of Francois Joseph Savoie and Thomas Francis of Savoy, prince of Carignano,, you are applying an arbitrary standard that is not universally applied here on Geni. If the Francois Joseph Savoie and Thomas Francis of Savoy, prince of Carignano connection should not stand, then neither should these mythological connections.

There is room for a reasonable compromise. This issue is not going away until we descendants of Francois Joseph Savoie are heard.

Now really. Geni attracts all kinds of head cases demanding special, exceptional rules for *their* particular situation, and they all make things unpleasant for everyone else in the hope that the curators or the management will give in to them.

What you don't realize is that you HAVE been heard - but "being heard" is not what you want. What you want is for Geni to make a special exception and *change the tree* to recognize *your* special, exceptional relationship to *your* special, exceptional ancestor for whom all the rules MJST be broken.

This is *absolutely no different* from the guy who pestered us for *years* with increasingly bizarre stories about how his father's "deathbed confession" that he was a long-lost descendant of Henry VIII involved a massive conspiracy ranging from Wales to Massachusetts to Virginia and any and every known historical person named Perrot or Rice or any variant of either.

No, the mythological connections aren't "accepted without question" - they are IGNORED by most of us as having no practical relevance. (We even have, or had, separate and separately-maintained trees for the characters in the Harry Potter books and such, but that's "just for funsies" and they are firmly kept in their own corner.)

You don't want "compromise". You want SURRENDER. You won't get it.

“ De linking happens as attention is drawn to an issue. There are of course many disputed claims still attached on geni. Start discussion from profile if as a member you cannot detach, and explain why.”

Many descendants “have” spoken on discussion and made clear they don’t believe the origin claim.

And there is a reasonable compromise: profiles are linked within the “about.”

Thank you for your sensible comments Maven!

Joseph,
God bless you, but you have zero proof of the supposed deathbed confession or anything other than some wishful thinking that Francois is of royal lineage.
There must be some actual evidence to support these kinds of claims. When there is a lack of sufficient evidence, even if one suspects that there might be a connection, one should defer adding the connection to the tree and leave it as unknown.

Maven B. Helms, your personable attacks on me are very unprofessional. Why are you even making this your issue? I don't bother other people and their connections. Are you even a descendant of Francois joseph Savoie? It doesn't appear that Mr. Joshua M Swerling , who first kicked over this can of worms isn't a descendant either.

Comparing Francois joseph Savoie to some story about Henry VIII is a non-starter. The story Francois Joseph Savoie and Thomas Francis of Savoy, prince of Carignano is simple: Francois Joseph Savoie is a illegitimate son of a minor royal house. In order to start a life of his own, he joined a group for French settlers to Canada. On his deathbed, he confessed his parentage. He did so, not because of any possible gain for himself or his children but so that they and the children would no the truth.

From Glenn Laffy: Joseph,
God bless you, but you have zero proof of the supposed deathbed confession or anything other than some wishful thinking that Francois is of royal lineage.
There must be some actual evidence to support these kinds of claims. When there is a lack of sufficient evidence, even if one suspects that there might be a connection, one should defer adding the connection to the tree and leave it as unknown."

Glenn, I am not the one requesting the change. I am asking that an ill advised change to a long standing connection be undone. Mr. Joshua M Swerling made the change request by stating "it was fabricated." He has never provided any evidence that it was fabricated . He needs to prove his justification. I think that it is very telling that he has totally disappeared from this conversation.

Well, Mr. Bolton , ***YOU*** have provided no evidence either, just a hearsay statement about a "deathbed confession" that may or may not be for real. Did anyone ever print it in a book anywhere? A newspaper? A magazine? That's not proof either, but it would be *something* to support your story.

Such evidence as we have from DNA states flatly that any connection between the Acadian Savoies and the House of Savoy *cannot possibly* be direct-male-line. At the most generous reckoning, there must have been a transmission through at least one female (not male) descendant. (A more skeptical reckoning would be that there is no connection beyond the coincidental similarity of last names.)

People make up stories aggrandizing their ancestors all the time, and have done so ever since it became important to *have* ancestors. That's just people being people.

Attacking the messenger *does not* invalidate the message, it only makes you look like a bad sport.

Speaking of printed sources, I found a printed transcription of the original census listing Francois and his family; https://archive.org/details/gnalogiedesf00gaud/page/58/mode/2up , top right page.

The surname, at the time, was spelled "Sçavois". Make of that what you will.

Maven, that is impressive. Looks like you really solved it.

Apparently sçavoys is an ancient form of savois. From savoir, to know.

Whereas, Savoie, the place in France is a name derived from something else entirely. "From the Roman name, Late Latin Sapaudia, Sabaudia, referring to fir trees; see sappinus (“type of fir”)."

"It is widely accepted that Savoie takes its name from the Latin Sapaudia or Sabaudia, meaning land covered in fir trees."

However, savoir is from a similar root "from Latin sapere; see sapient".

Ancestral story seems to have been researched in 1951.

https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/memories/LHXQ-QBY

(I’ll upload the two book pages; pretty sure from a book published in the early 1980s)

Of course it had been uploaded already.

https://www.geni.com/documents/view?doc_id=6000000082250768895

There are no citations supporting the claim.

I notice there isn't even a reference to the alleged "deathbed confession".

The story was changed to Francois Joseph Scavois being a "bastard" son when somebody did the math and found that he must have been born about four years before Prince Tommaso married Marie de Bourbon (circa 1621 vs. 1625).

Here is what MedLands has to say about the genesis of the territory of Savoy:

"The territories of the counts of Savoy lay within the southern part of the Welf kingdom of Burgundy and, later, in north-west Italy. The development of the kingdom of Burgundy, and the rise of the nobility within its territory, is discussed in the Introduction to the BURGUNDY KINGDOM group of documents. The county of Savoy (Saboia, pagus Savogiensis) was situated in the north-east part of the diocese of Grenoble, although no specific reference has been found in primary sources to counts in this area before the 11th century. The family of the counts of Savoy first acquired power in the central part of the Burgundian kingdom during the latter part of the reign of King Rudolf III, when the Comtes de Genève and the Comtes d'Albon were also emerging as local power forces in the area.

Humbert [I] Comte de Maurienne served Emperor Konrad II, after the emperor inherited the kingdom of Burgundy following the death in 1032 of King Rudolf III, and was rewarded with the grant of Chablais and Saint-Maurice en Valley. Humbert collected various dispersed territories in the area south of Lake Geneva, especially in the ecclesiastical dioceses of Belley, Aosta, Maurienne and Tarentasia. Comte Humbert's landholdings were gradually expanded by his descendants and united under a single government. The most important step in this process was the marriage of Humbert's son Odon to Adelaida, heiress of the marquisate of Susa, whose territories extended between the Alps and the River Po (including Auriate, Turin, Ivrea and Aosta) and as far as the Mediterranean coast between Ventimiglia and Albenga, and also included control of the Alpine passes of Mont-Cenis and Saint-Bernard[1]."

So basically its original roots were Burgundian and North Italian. France qua France got into the picture much later.

Incidentally, I went through MedLands' Savoy references, and found *none* - *not one* that made any use of a cedilla. "Savoie" and "Savoia", of course, and earlier "Savoye" and "Sabaudie/Sabaudia"

But.

No.

Cedillas.

Not.

Ever.

I have already provided evidence that the connection between Francois Joseph Savoie and Thomas Francis of Savoy, prince of Carignano exists. Quite frankly, there is stronger case for the connection between Francois Joseph Savoie and Thomas Francis of Savoy then there is for the hundreds of mythological connections that are allowed to stand on Geni.
In this case, we have a disinterested party (Mr. Joshua M Swerling) requesting a change to someone else’s tree and provides no evidence to support his request. Yet, the Geni rule is that the person requesting a change to a connection should provide evidence. No evidence was submitted by Mr. Joshua M Swerling yet the change was made anyway. Next, we have connections to mythological persons such as Noah, Adam, King David and many others that are presented as fact on Geni with no evidence and against all logic.

Maven, I asked if you were a descendant of Francois Joseph Savoie... are you?

From Maven Helms: Speaking of printed sources, I found a printed transcription of the original census listing Francois and his family; https://archive.org/details/gnalogiedesf00gaud/page/58/mode/2up , top right page.

The surname, at the time, was spelled "Sçavois". Make of that what you will.

Meaningless, since many names in French Canada are spelled phonetically or change over time. If you were as sharp of a researcher as you like to present yourself, you would have known that.

From Erica Howton, "Ancestral story seems to have been researched in 1951.

https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/memories/LHXQ-QBY

(I’ll upload the two book pages; pretty sure from a book published in the early 1980s)"

From me: I believe the book was published back in the 1950s. However, the story of Francois Joseph Savoie's deathbed confessions goes back much farther, centuries in fact. I have been in contact with many Savoies in New England, Canada and Louisina. All most all of them have new seen Louis Savoy's book. All of them have stated the story of Francois Joseph Savoie and his father being Thomas Francis of Savoy was pasted down to them from their grandparents and great grandparents. It was the last story my great Aunt Rita Savoie told me on her deathbed back in 2011. She never used the internet and never read Loius Savoy's book either.

The only way this oral tradition could have the geographical dispersion it has would be that it has a very old origin going back to a time before the population was dispersed throughout North America.

Francois Joseph Savoie's deathbed confession was believed to have been given to his children as well as the attending priest. No one can explain how and why a story like this would just be made up. No one would have any reason to do so.

“ Yet, the Geni rule is that the person requesting a change to a connection should provide evidence. ”

I have not seen such a rule. There is plenty of evidence presented on this discussion and others, pro and con. Who suggests disconnect is irrelevant. When one is talking about a person in the 1600s, it’s not “family history,” it’s just plain history. And it’s not “my family” - that’s for private sites. It’s the human family on geni’s one world tree.

Do you have an interest in helping to fix the Biblical tree? If so, please post suggested corrections from profile. Not here,

Oral traditions can be quite old, which doesn't make them any truer. You have not explained the y DNA mismatch nor the disavowal from Europe. You have not presented a peer reviewed professional published analysis.

Quoth Joseph Bolton: "I have already provided evidence that the connection between Francois Joseph Savoie and Thomas Francis of Savoy, prince of Carignano exists."

No, that is exactly what you have NOT done. You have repeated and repeated and repeated a *STORY* about a "deathbed confession", and you have not even provided a printed source where this story can be found.

The Nicketti hunters did better than that.

From Joseph Bolton:
“ Francois Joseph Savoie's deathbed confession was believed to have been given to his children as well as the attending priest. No one can explain how and why a story like this would just be made up. No one would have any reason to do so.”

There are plenty of reasons to do so... the main one being a desire to be related to royalty, perhaps combined with a misinterpretation of something someone once said, such as, “I wouldn’t be surprised if Francois kept his relationship to royalty a secret but finally told his children that he was the illegitimate son on his deathbed.” And this got twisted into people thinking that he actually did confess that.

https://www.acadian.org/acadianmyths.html

MYTH # 2:

Francois Savoie's parents are unknown. He was NOT of the House of Savoy.

[This is a 'nobility myth' that has no basis and is merely wishful thinking! Such unfounded claims were often made, when the researchers payment was based on 'finding' nobility]! Posted on the 'Acadian and Cajun Genealogy, History, Culture and Music' Facebook Group by Paul Leblanc on 07-15-2011