Pre-1600 Perche Boucher Family Tree

I agree with all the surprises regarding dating of some profiles, some women have not yet been born when they had their first child, some child has an estimated range that sometimes results in that they were born long after that their mother died or it consist of other overlaps.

Suppose some were really young, still they need to be at least fertile, a minimum of 11 year would be the lowest grade, but in average it would be "13.7", she must be able to ovulate, if she gets pregnant at that age, she still have to carry the foster 9 months, so in any case she most likely would be somewhere earliest 14 year old when to became a mother.

This is based on the common development rate in the western world and very few would indeed be so young so this is nothing else than exeption cases. In the average case, the women give births a couple of years later.

Also, very few woman give births after the age of 55, the period when they can give births are thereby limited to max 45 year, this is not rocket science, still a lot of people are making incredible guessings, basic knowledge would be needed.

If for example someone have a birthsdate for mrs x, lets say 1400, then her child could earliest have been born 1411, adjuste to etnicity and customs, this would be set to 1414 for europeans, adjusted to practice, this would be 1416. A women born 1400 would almost never give births after 1450, so if that woman only had one child, the child would be estimated to be born around 1418-1450. You add some years and deduct some to keep you in the track of probability, then you also must take the continuity of the next generation in consideration, so if you are sure for example that the next x was born 1460 then, the mother couldn't have been born 1400, you have ended up with an error somewhere.

And if anyone have made an estimating resulting in the child beeing born before the mother, they need to think again about it.

Sorry can not assume that earliest date a woman can have a child is 13.7 years old. There are cases of women ovulating at 11.

I have instances in my family tree when children were born to mothers as young as 13 and in their 50s. The calculation makes NO assumption as to how rare it is (actually not as rare as you might think) to give birth at 13 or over 50. We just do not know a particular woman's circumstances and should not make assumptions.

The safest is to go with are 'before' or 'after dates' basing the calculation solely on the legal requirements for marriage age, given that the child is legitimate, and the biological upper limit for menopause (after which no conception is possible). There is NO assumption of a particular woman's ability to have a child at a certain age or not (other than post-menopause), no imposing Western values of today on the women in the past..

If , for example, her only known child was born in 1599, she would have had to be born BEFORE 1587. Plus, she would also would have been less than 56 to have given birth so she would have been born AFTER 1544. If more children born to this woman are found, the range can be adjusted.Using this techniqur I have NEVER had an instance whenn the child was born before the parent because we are working from the child to parent.

Note, and this is very important.. I use the words BEFORE and AFTER and BETWEEN. For the more mathematically inclined, .. the symbols are 'less than" and "greater than".

Ok, but during the middle ages there were doubtly any ceasarean, if there was, the probability for the young mother to die would be extremly high. If she had more than one kid, you can assume that she did the labour in normal way. Also, if a women get a child at old age, the risk for that child to be damaged are very high, mongolism for example.

The rate for ovulation has rather sunked nowadays compared to back then, so it would not be totally wrong to assume that it would not be commonly lower then nowadays, instead, the situation is vice versa.

When it comes to noble families we know just as for some royals,
that they often were younger than common people when they married, wheater un earlier sex debut can force any women (child by todays view) to mature faster, I really don't know but it could theoretically be the case?

Obviously it is easier to work backwards from known dates, but some times there are gaps with no data at all, just names.

i am in no help but consideration of datation from actual calendar gregorean to julian or other calendar change i may forget
can be hazardus guessing .

and we have to think that all data we have also have been redate to fit time

those calendar change dosent help us in genealogy

This is where we differ.. you are making assumptions. I am not. All I am trying to do is to come up with a range of years inwhich is included the actual YOB. What the risks are to the mother are immaterial to the calculation. Wheither she died or did not is immarterial. I are NOT making any value judegments as to the health of the child etc..

If we reduce the age of the possible last child to 45.. sorry but I have ancestors who lived in the 1600sand had a living child post age 50. 56 gives a good "outter bound". We know that she would have been less than 56 when her last child was born. (Actually, now that I re-think this age , 60 would be better-round up from 56. We are estimating and you use round-up and round down numbers when estimating. ).

In France and New France,girls would not have sex until they had their first periods. The young couple would typically live with a parents until that time. When we have the actual marriage date and the date of the birth of the first child, you can see sometimes (not always) a delay of several years. But this "delay" is impossible to estimate. Plus, we also know that marriage was delayed if the girl's guardians could not afford a dowry. But since we have no idea of the financial situation, we cannot factor that into the estimation.

Royality and the "well off" did tend to marry earlier than the poor folks but we have no idea of accessing the parents' financial situation. We do have instances of girls having children at 13 in history; ever heard of Mary Beauford. She conceived just about the time of her 13th birthday.

As for gaps and just names, that in itself is problematic. With the Bouchers, we go back only to Gaspard's presumed grandfather.. Jean Boucher. That's it. We have NO proof, no documentation to support going back further. For royality, we have family histories/peerage etc..on which dates of certain events can be used to help estimate YOB ranges.

But for everyone else, the lines end in the 1600s/late to mid 1500s. This is the case for 99.9% of the French Canadian tree.

Martin.. interesting question. Thanks for bringing that up.

France adopted the Geogorian Calandar on 9 Dec 1582 by adding about 10 days. Also, in 1564 via the Edit of Roussillon, the first day in the year was set to January 1st across all of France.

We have one date I used in my estimation of YOB above.. that is 2 March 1577. Assuming that was in Juilan Calendar (prior to 1582), the date in Gregorian calandar is March 12, 1577- no big deal in the calculations.

By the way, you have to be careful about many of the "on line calculators" from Juilan to Gregorian dates. The calculation are based on the assumption that the date is for an area which had not already standized the start of the new year. France did that in 1564. England had a start of the new year of 25th of March until 1752.

An interesting point. England and its colonies adopted the Gregorian calender in 1752 but at that time New France was still a colony of France and not ceded to England until 1764. Since our dates are based on church records in France and in Quebec which were based on Jan 1 as the first day of the year and the Gregorian calandar, it is vary straighforward for the Canadian French Canadian tree.

Plus, since our estimates are from child to parent and the child's dates is in the Gregorian calender, the estimates are in the Gregorian calender.

Of course, it would be a different story in another country-like England .

DLD wrote
"The calculation makes NO assumption as to how rare it is (actually not as rare as you might think) to give birth at 13 or over 50. We just do not know a particular woman's circumstances and should not make assumptions."

The mothers' age divided on parity, 1973-2013. Percentage distribution Sweden, just for a comparition.
Age and above
40 + 0,4 % 1973
40 + 1,0 % 1996
40 + 2,0 % 2009
40 + 2,2 % 2013

Ever heard of IVF?

The timing of menopause vary, but usually falls between 45 and 55 years of age. In Sweden is the average age 51 years; at least 95% of all women have passed through menopause at age 55 and at 58 years, very few are still menstruating, but it doesn't matter as for you see, already at the age of 40, women that gave births were as few as 0,4 %, in 1973 and the only reason that this has increased is mostly because of modern medical care and health improvements and later mostly
with the help of IVF.

Just that a mother gives birth after 45 years of age belongs to the extremes, it's not impossible, but very unlikely, ( I've actually once been together with a woman whose mother was 46 years old when she gave birth to her, and a former friend of mine were 41 when she had her second child,) still, if you look at that 40+ = 0,4 %, the number of fertile women decreases highly for every plus year you add, at the age of 50
it would certainly be less than one per thousand that have that
fertility capability left, there we can talk about making assumptions!

Being able to menstruate at that age is not equal to be fertile, and it's absolute not the same as being fruitful. The most extreme outer limits would be from age 6 (Guiness book of records), to age 60, but that is an assumtion that do not belong to 99.99% of the cases.

Calendar converters
http://www.stevemorse.org/jcal/julian.html
https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/

This is ridiculous. Really, being a very education women in my 60s, I need no lessons on fertility nor of menopause nor of various forms of assisted conception. OF COURSE, I know that fertility varies from woman to woman. . It also varies in men. That HAS NOTHING to do with the discussion.

We are discussiing SOLELY coming up with an estimate on the range of YOB of a French woman. who lived in the late 1500s and gave birth to a legitimate child in about 1599 and was known to have been married by 1577. This is nothing to do with Sweden nor IVF nor fertility rates based on age or weght nor any other factor that will impact fertility.

If you don't like my upper limit age of 56 or 60, THEN DON"T USE it for your estimates for your ancestors, use another number.

By the way.. that julian conversion site is MISLEADING. It lists Canada as switching in 1752..

Gee, I guess this Steve Morse should learn some Canadian history. He list 1752 as the year the Gregorian calendar was adopted in Canada.
In 1752, THERE WAS NO CANADA. The area that was generally referred to as Canada was New France and in 1752, it was still a colony of France and using the Gregorian Calender, with Jan 1st as the first day of the New Yeat. Canada, as a country, actually DID NOT exist until 1867.

Now, if he is referring to small British colonies in the now Canada, or the land held by the Hudson's Bay Company--fine but that was NOT Canada.
One has to be careful with some of these sites on the internet..

"If you don't like my upper limit age of 56 or 60, THEN DON"T USE it for your estimates for your ancestors, use another number."
No, I would never use your upper definition in any estimation, a 50 year old women would be my absolute limit, if she is not proven to be elder than that in a record. I would rather believe that something else is wrong than put that up.

Or we could just leave it blank. haha

Sometimes that is better.

Since I'm just a common illiterate fool, who don't know anything, I will post what other know about the topic.

"Female fertility is affected by age. After puberty, female fertility increases and then decreases, with advanced maternal age causing an increased risk of female infertility. In humans, a woman's fertility peaks in the early and mid-20s, after which it starts to decline slowly, with a more dramatic drop at around 35.[1] Menopause, or the cessation of menstrual periods, generally occurs in the 40s and 50s and marks the cessation of fertility,

A study of a population of French women from 1670 and 1789 shows that those who married at age 20–24 had 7.0 children on average and 3.7% remained childless. Women who married at age 25–29 years had a mean of 5.7 children and 5.0% remained childless. Women who married at 30–34 years had a mean of 4.0 children and 8.2% remained childless. The average age at last birth in natural fertility populations that have been studied is around 40."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_and_female_fertility

And this one I really liked, there are so few documented cases of woman above the age of 50 in the world, that they know about them all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy_over_age_50

I didn't have a birth date for Gaspard's brother Nicolas Boucher, but there was one there already, so I left it. Not sure how accurate it is though.

I also made notes on the profiles of Marin Boucher & Jeanne Boucher about their possible, but unconfirmed, relation to Gaspard Boucher. Hopefully DNA will help us sort that mystery.

Jeff, other than his brother was named Nicolas.. that is all we have.
It is from a notary record of an inheritance. All we know that he was born after 1577 since his mother was still married to her first husband in 1577.

As for Marin & Jeanne, you are correct that the exact relationship to Gaspard is unknown. With the same last name, it is safe to assume a relationship along the paternel line.. but that's it. They were "related" but how close a relationship, we don't know.

Unfortunately, DNA is not always the answer. It assumes an unbroken DNA male line and that, unfortunately, it is not always correct. Things happened.. And even if it did show they were related on the male line, we already know that. They could share a great-grandfather or Great-great-grandfather or grandfather. DNA is not precise enough to tell us which one.

The mystery will probably never be solved.

they hide behind the leaf of the tree

Bureau Boucher,seigneur de Piscop

http://gw.geneanet.org/wailly?lang=en;p=bureau;n=boucher

http://www.geni.com/path/Bureau-Boucher-seigneur-de-Piscop+is+relat...

bureau boucher is related to marin and gaspard but as you see bureau genealogie is not complete we maybe figure out in 2015

Nope...

We have no idea who Marin Boucher's parents were. The records are just NOT there. We only know the name of Gaspard's parents and SUSPECT we know the name of his father.. NO documentation means NO PROOF.

That's it. End of the time. They may have the same last name as Bureau Boucher but it is like saying that all Smith and Jones are related within a couple of generations because they have the same last name.

As for the Legardeur line.. the connection to the son-in-law of Pierre Boucher, I suspect that too has some "creative connections'. I am going to check that line.

I can understand going back further in France with that line since the Legardeurs were sieurs in France and their family could be documented better than the families of "tradesmen" like Gaspard and Marin Boucher. But that does not mean that Bureau Boucher is related to Gaspard and marin.

Martin, just some friendly advice..

Do not trust any undocumented or unsourced tree on the web, no matter how nice it looks. That includes Geni. And even if the tree is sourced, check the sources.

Madam DLD i accept this friendly advice :-)

By the way.. A check of the actual records proves the first error in that line..

The connection to the "distant Boucher line" is via the Amours line
but ..

it has Charlotte Francois Legardeur, daughter of Pierre-Noel & madeleine Boucher married to Rene Damours.

I found the actual marriage record in Drouin. It clearly states that Charlotte was the daughter of Charles Legardeur & Genevieve Juchereau.