Germain Doucet, II - Father of Germain Doucet II

Since Geni doesn't yet have support for adoption <sigh>, what we could do is add a second father and leave a conflict, describing in the curator notes the current research (referencing this thread). If someone wants to come up with a brief note, I can add it and configure the relationships to best fit.

Ok.

PS.. I meant they shared a great-grandparent, not grandparent.

I would like to add another thought that might help in this discussion.

We do know if Germain Sr was married once or twice. Prof White has said that there is no proof one way or another.

However, it remains to show that it is possible that Germain and Pierre could have had the same mother.

It was common in those days for French girls to marry men much older than themselves. The lower age limit was 12 for girls so we see many marriages between girls of 13, 14 and 15 and men in their late 20s and 30s. Military men and men of means tended to wait till marriage.

The young couple would have waited to consummate the marriage until the girl was capable of having children so we do see a variation between the marriage date and the date of the first birth. But i do have ancestors that had their first child at age 13,14 and 15.

It is very possible that Pierre Doucet, born in about 1621, could have been born was his mother was still a teenager. That would have made his mother in her mid to late 30s to early 40s when Germain was born.

Although it is suspicious that there are few children known between the birth of Pierre and the birth of Germain, it is possible that the couple lost children. And we know only the name of the surviving children.

A brief note..

Recent DNA test results done on descendants of Germain Doucet and Pierre Doucet supports the conjecture that they did not have the same father. However, based on a marriage dispensation issued in 1726, they did share a parent. Without further information, that parent is assumed to the mother, whose identity is not known.

OK?

If we assume that Marie Bourgeois is Pierre's mother, then I expect we should assume that as the identity of Germain's mother, correct?

I added the Native American father and added a note, but was limited by size on the text amount. I thought this was a good summary of the possibilities.
* Germain Doucet (1595) and his wife adopted an Indian child and named him Germain Doucet
* One of Germain Doucet’s older daughter’s had an illegitimate child and named him Germain Doucet, in honor of her father.
* Germain’s wife became pregnant by a Native man.
* A Native person adopted Germain Doucet’s name out of respect. When Native people were baptized in the Catholic faith, they were given non-Native names.

F. René Perron of Sèvres wonders if this Doucet couple really had children, and/or if Germain Doucet and his wife were, in fact, raising as their own children … their nieces and nephews … a supposition that author Maurice Caillebeau, from Poitiers, also adheres to. In addition, Stephen White has also shared that there is no proof that Henriette Pelletret's husband, Pierre Doucet, was a son of Germain Doucet de La Verdure. That supposed connection always depended upon the belief that all the Doucets in Acadia were nearly related [4], a fact that the DNA results of this study appear to be disproving.

Some blog resources on the DNA that I thought were good at explaining the debate.
* http://dna-explained.com/2012/09/18/germain-doucet-and-haplogroup-c3b/
* http://geninfo.org/Pillard/Doucet-DNA.htm
* http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Doucet/default.aspx?section=res...
* http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Doucet/default.aspx?section=yre...

Prof White has said that we do not know the name of Germain Doucet de La Verdure's wife.

Thanks for pointing out the problem with Pierre's parentage. I was going to check that too.

If Pierre and Germain were not the sons of Germain Sr, makes me wonder about "their sisters".

Tagging other profiles that relate to this discussion so that it shows up on their discussion tab.

Germain Doucet
Pierre Doucet
1st wife of Germain Doucet
Unknown indigenous male

Considering the time frame it is also possible that some of the French women were held captive by the natives for some time. During this time they may have been raped or had a willing relationship and as a result produced a child. It would not have been uncommon for a decent man to accept the child as his own regardless as to the child's actual paternity.
As for few children between the time of a first child and a last child isn't uncommon. Infant mortality was very high back then.
My mother had me at 17 and her last child at 39; so, I am 22 yrs older then my youngest sister. Not only that but because my mother was married when she had me I was registered as being her husband's child though that isn't the case. Neither myself or my youngest sister belong to her husband. My mother was separated when she had my youngest sister but in those days if you were still married the children were automatically registered as belonging to the husband regardless.
I am now over 60 and it has only been the last 20 yrs or so that you could even put another father down if you were married to someone else.

The problem with "a Dispensation" is it also pertained to adopted children. I remember reading in a catholic bible many years ago that you could not marry an adopted child, stepchild, or step sibling. They fell within the dispensation clause; however, this did not pertain to people of the protestant faith or who had no faith. Also some people just didn't tell the priest that they had any connection.
Ex. for this is a catholic girl (someone I know) who married her stepbrother. This happened within the last 20 yrs. She didn't bother to tell the priest she was marrying her stepbrother because if she did she was told that she would not be allowed to marry him.
Having said this I have a branch in my family tree where all the majority of relatives that married each other are all first and second cousins. No dispensations were ever taken. This I can trace back to the 1700's where for generations they just kept marrying their first and second cousins right up till the present.

My concern is over the origination of Marie Bourgeois and the references made to her, particularly as the sister of Jacques Bourgeois. Jacques' father was Nicolas Grandjehan, who died before Jacques was baptized. He was given his mother's maiden name (there is no such person as Nicolas Jacques Bourgeois as it relates to these relationships).

There appears to be no conclusive evidence to suggest how or where a Marie Bourgeois fits into a familial relationship with Jacques Bourgeois.

Paula Thornton, here is another thread that discussed that topic more directly.
http://www.geni.com/discussions/124812

Fabulous! Thanks Jeff.

Actually according to a passage in the Catholic Bible that I read not to long ago even adopted children were not allowed to marry cousin's within the fourth degree (even if these cousins weren't blood related due to adoption). It also stated that if a mother was married for a second time, step children could not marry each other, that they were to be considered the same as biologically related children.

Also depending on the mind set of the parents, maybe the grandparents brought up the illegitimate children of their children as their own so their daughter's had a better chance of getting a husband. Let's face it not all men would marry women back in those days if they had children by other men.

The biggest obstacle I see here is if Germain ll was Germain's wife's child, I can't see her leaving her small son in this country when she returned to France. Remember he was about 11 when they went back to France.

The other alternative could be that Germain ll was Germain Sr. son but perhaps somewhere down the paternal lineage someone jumped the fence and had an affair with a native person that was never mentioned, found out about or recorded

Personally I think since Germain Doucet Sr. and his wife didn't take Germain Doucet ll (he was about 11 at the time) back to France with them it is more likely that he was their daughter's child.

You don't need to be married to be able to produce a child, so I never use such "rules" to exclude parenthood in genealogy ;-)

I agree. Back in the day it was common to hide the fact that one's daughter had a child out of wedlock and God forbid the shame. Often time the grandparents would bring up the child as their own so that their daughter had a change to get married as most men would not marry a woman if she wasn't a "virgin" or had a child by another man. Not in those days at least. It was very rare or well hidden or not mentioned at all.
I know what I just said is true because I have seen a lot of this growing up. It has only been the last 30 yrs that children born to unwed mothers hasn't been such a taboo.

My 10th great grand uncle. I also have radegonde lambert and henri sachem in my tree as 10th great grand parents.