Henri membertou Sachem Membertou, Chief of the Mi'kmaq - Chief Membertou was grandfather to Jeanne Marie Kagigoniac not father

David Lee Kaleita I personally think the other one is a mistake. I don't understand why it is an MP either. No real information on it. Should you ask Mimi?

I found a clue in my own research notes. the parents of Eustache Lejeune dit briard are supposed to be Martin Lejeune and Anne-Marie Gaudet. I haven't verified the other siblings of Eustache yet, but I bet none of them are children of Jeanne.

I'm beginning to think the misplaced Jeanne should be gutted, and renamed to Anne-Marie Gaudet, and fix the rest from there. I'd really like to hear from Private User first though, since she's the one who marked Jeanne Marie Kagijonias as a master profile

See 1686 census that mentions that Pierre Lejeune married Marie Thibaudeau and Martin Lejeune married Jeanne, an indian. http://www.acadian-home.org/census1686.html

This is also an interesting article I found online:
Lejeunes immigrated via interesting path By Damon Veach Genealogycolumnist/The Times-Picayune April 12, 1998 The first Lejeune to arrive in Acadia from France was Pierre LeJeune, along with his wife, whose name is not known, and their three children, Edmee or Aimee, Pierre II and Catherine. This LeJeune family was from the Poitou region of France. By the census of 1671, Edmee was married to Francois Gautrot (Gautreaux), and Catherine was married to Francois Scavois (Savoie). Pierre II is not mentioned in the census of 1671. However, in the census of 1686, two LeJeune men are listed, Pierre III (age 28) and Martin Lejeune dit Briard (age 25). They are listed as brothers, and because of their young ages, the Pierre III of this census could not be the same Pierre II listed as having arrived in Acadia in the 1630s. (Were these two LeJeune men the sons of the young Pierre Lejeune II who arrived with his sisters, Edmee and Catherine?) Father Clarence-Joseph D'Entremont, in his book, ``LeCanada-Francais Documents sur l'Acadie,'' asserts that the Pierre II who arrived in Acadia as a child married a MicMac woman. The census of 1686 listed Pierre Lejeune III as being married to Marie Thibodeau and Martin LeJeune as being married to Marie-Jeanne Kagijonias, a member of the MicMac tribe. After Marie-Jeanne's death, Martin married Marie Gaudet,the daughter of Jehan (Jean) Gaudet an d Marie-Jeanne Henry. A 1693 censuslists a sister to Pierre III and Martin named Jeanne, who was married to Francois Joseph, a member of the MicMac tribe. Pierre III and MarieThibodeau had nine children, four boys and five girls. The five girls were: Marie-Marguerite, who was born in 1686 and married in 1708 to Jean-Joseph Boutin; Jeanne, born about 1690, who was married in 1712 to Jean Roy II; Marguerite, who was born in 1695 and married in 1714 to Alexandre Trahan; Anne LeJeune, who was born in 1696; Catherine LeJeune, who was born in 1698 and married first Antoine LaBauve dit LaNoue, later Claude-Antoine Duplessis. The boys were: Pierre IV, who was born in1689 and was married in 1712 to Jeanne Benoit; Germain, who was born in1693 and married Anne-Marie Trahan; Jean, born in 1697, who married Francoise Guedry or Guidry ; and Joseph, who was born in 1704 and married to Cecile Pitre in about 1724. Martin LeJeune dit Briard had four children with his first wife, Marie-Jeanne Kagijonias, and eight children with his second wife, Marie Gaudet. The three sons born of his first marriage were: Claude, who was born about 1685 and was married in 1705 to Anne-Marie Gaudet; Germain, born in 1689, who married Marie Guedry or Guidry in about 1729; and Bernard, who was born in 1693 and married to Isabelle Saulnier or Sonnier in about 1720. Their only daughter was Anne Lejeune, who was born in 1686 and married in 1702 to Rene LaBouve. Following the death of his first wife, Martin Lejeune dit Briard married Marie Gaudet in 1700. It is interesting to note that Martin's son, Claude, married his stepmother's sister two years later. Martin Lejeune and Marie Gaudet's eight children were: Theodore; Paul, who was born in 1702 and married in 1727 to Marie Benoit; Martin, Paul's twin, who was married in 1729 to Marie Renaud; Eustache, who was born in 1714 and married in 1747 to Marie-Anne Barriot or Barrilleaux; and Pierre. The three remaining children were girls named Claire, who was born in 1706 and married Francois Viger; Marguerite I; and Marguerite II. In order to escape the encroaching and increasingly hostile British , a number of the LeJeune families left for Ile-Royale, present day Cape Breton Island, which was protected by the French fort at Louisbourg. For example, Paul Lejeune and Marie Benoit are shown on the 1752 census at Baie-des-Espagnols, Ile-Royale. The Acadians living on Ile-Royale were not affected by the Acadian deportations of 1755. However, after the fall of Fort Louisbourg to the English during the summer of 1758, there was another round of deportations from Ile-Royale and Ile St-Jean. One of the sons of Paul Lejeune and Marie Benoit was named Jean-Baptiste. He was born in 1728 and was married in about 1748 to Marguerite Trahan, the daughter o f Etienne Trahan and Francoise Roy. They were listed in the1752 census as living at Baie-des- Espagnols. The census showed that they lived between the homesteads of Jean-Baptiste's parents and Marguerite's parents. In 1752, they had three children - Jean-Baptiste II, Blaise and Marguerite. A mystery surrounds the eventual deportation of Jean-Baptiste Lejeune and his famil y. The 1763 census of Port Tobacco, Md., shows that the children of Jean-Baptiste and Marguerite were living there at that time. Jean-Baptiste and Marguerite were deceased. However,the census showed that they had two children between 1752 and 1763, both probably born in exile after the deportation. These two children were named Joseph and Nanette. The children were all listed as orphans and living with relatives or friends. The mystery is that the Acadians deported from Ile-Royale were all sent to England or France. For example, Jean-Baptiste's mother, Marie Benoit, and at least one of his sisters were deported to France. It is not known why Jean-Baptiste and Margueritewere deported to Maryland. Perhaps they had moved back to the Nova Scotia mainland between 1752 and 1755 and were caught up in the initial round of deportations. Most of the initial deportees of 1755 were scattered among the American colonies. In any event, Jean-Baptiste, Blaise, Joseph, Marguerite, and Nanette all eventually left Maryland en route to Louisiana with their uncle, Honore Trahan and his wife, aboard the English schooner Britain. This ship, ill-equipped and barely seaworthy, eventually ran aground near present-day Goliad, Texas. Eventually, the Acadians and the Germans were given Spanish passports for an overland journey to Louisiana. They traveled by land from Goliad to Natchitoches. Somewhere along the way, Nanette Lejeune left the travel party, although it is not known why.

This is the Bras D'or native site. For those of you that are interested it gives a list of mi'k maq families. It lists "Jeanne Lejeune (Kagigconiac / Kagijonias), Miq'Maq" as the wife of Martin Lejeune ((s/o Pierre Lejeune ll & Mi'kmaq woman). The mi'k maq woman is daughter Doucet (d/o Germain Doucet Sr. by a native and not his French wife).

http://www.brasdorfirstnation.com/Oral_History.php

Nada Krizmancic I copied and pasted the article. A few hundred pages, and am in the process of 'tightening' it up. Hopefully I will condense it to 150 pages!

Thanks Roxanne!

Good luck with that Barbara! :) If I find a cleaner version online, I will let you know.

http://www.bearriverfirstnation.ca/Bear_River_First_Nation/Chief_an...

http://qalipu.ca/

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/10/01/how-the-o%E2%80%99learys-an... Sheppard Family listed in Article.

U6A from what I read is from the Iberian Peninsula (most likely Portuguese) which means that Edmee and Catherine's mother's maternal line was European; however, it still does not rule out that the girls' mother's paternal line still could be native.

There is no proof yet that Pierre b. 1595 married in France or Acadia.

As for Jeanne Kagigoniac being their mother is not likely as she married Martin Lejeune, grandson of Pierre Lejeune ll.

First, I will answer the question about the documentation.
Various historians have included it in their documents, as well as the Jesuits and priests of the region. Check out the profiles because last time I checked they were there. If not, I can provide the sources myself for that.

Second, about DNA testing:
Although DNA testing can help with some things, it is not 100% accurate. mtDNA can actually be transferred over to the male line accidentally. There have been many cases of mutations that result in problematic testing. mtDNA testing is between 80-99.9% accurate. I state this only because I have met many people who essentially worship DNA testing as a fullproof way of proving things but it is not 100%, so just keep that in mind. Also, U6A is moreso North Africa, which would indicate Arabic. It would likely be just below Portugal and Spain. It is possible that if you trace is through the maternal line that Edme and Catherine's mother is European, and through her maternal line leads back to an Arabic woman who came into Spain during Muslim occupation of Spain, and then came up into France. This is always a possibility. However, many First Nations as well, particularly in the eastern woodlands have a funny thing about their DNA - you can test a full blooded Ojibwe for example for their mtDNA, and it's likely to pop up as saying European in origin, even if they're 100% Ojibwe. This is very common among Algonquian peoples, including the Mi'kmaq. This of course may be due to the possibility of viking intermarriage, or perhaps even an Atlantic crossing thousands of years ago that left the DNA unchanged for some reason. Another possibilty though is of course, just random mutations in the mtDNA or an error in the testing.
To conclude:
mtDNA testing can help, but it is not absolutely fullproof. The thing is, nothing ever is absolutely 100% fullproof as many scientists will testify. It is a sad reality that people mistakingly believe that we can have 100% accuracy in anything. For geneaology, there is always new discoveries and we will never know everything for absolute 100% certainty.
We can, of course, make speculations and opinions, as we do.

Some organizations will have Edme's mother listed as Mi'kmaq woman, and others as an unknown European woman. In the end, it does seem to all be up to opinion, and this is of course, because of the lack of anything that will ever be able to tell us with 100% absolute certainty about anything.

Since Geni is not designed to handle alternate realities elegantly, we need to come to a consensus on what we want the Geni World Tree to show. We can describe the conflict and confusion in the notes (i.e., the "About" section and/or Curator notes), but the tree itself needs to show a single proposal.

The question remains: how should it look in the Geni World Tree?

Personally, I believe the Lejeune sister's were probably Metis.
To date, though some say they came to Canada with their father & mother, there is no proof of this... only speculation.
In the early 1600's there weren't to many European women and the ones that did come were few and most were married.
All we know for sure is that a Pierre Lejeune (they assume his name was Pierre..) b. abt 1595 came to Acadia. He supposedly had three children. Edmee b. 1625, Pierre b. 1628 and Catherine b. 1633. His name has never been found on a ship's list. At least, I have not come across this as yet.
As for the mtDNA for these girls (U6A) since there were Portuguese families that came here before the 1600's it is possible that some of these women intermarried with the natives; hence, European DNA.
Is it not true that U6A in Acadia is only in the Lejeune line?
There is just as much chance that they were Metis... their mother could have had maternal European DNA (U6A Iberian Peninsula which includes the Portuguese people) and their father could have been native.

I'm wondering if anyone has been in contact with a descendant or the tribe who descends from Henri Membertou? Just like the Mayflower Society or any other Society, they may have accepted lineages that descend from him. The "Silver Books" for example. Maybe the Membertou tribe of the Mi'kmaq Nation would be able to settle this, if not dna wise, but what they consider acceptable for membership, or validation. That is what would settle it for me, what the tribe considers acceptable

I am not yet a historian, though I am on my way to becoming one. I do much historical interpretation. I am not by any means a professional, and I am only stating my opinion that I base off the works of many professional historians.
Roxanne has already stated a brief history, and I will state a bit more. Some of you may disagree, and others will agree. I doubt we will ever come to a conclusion that all will agree with. The Geni world tree thus cannot conclusively have a specified parentage for them.

Prior to the 1660's, Acadia had a ratio of approximately 5:1 men to women. There were far more men in Acadia than women, and this was not simply just Acadia, this was all throughout New France. This is most likely due to the fact that the French used their colonies mostly for trade and business, not for settling as much.

Before the 1630's in fact, families did not arrive. Even after, mostly single men looking for work did, and they often settled with Native women.

Portuguese explorers did tend to explore the area slightly, but not to a great degree, prior to the 1600's.

Thus, as Roxanne speculates, there are many possibilities.
It is my belief that they are in fact, Metis due to various reasons, however, not all will agree with me.

Oral history, along with written history has passed down this line for generations, stating the line to be a Metis one. Although historians can of course, be wrong, as all humans can be, Jesuit records along with Historians, and even oral history, have all stated the same thing. It is always possible that many people are wrong, but I believe based on this, and some records which were written at the time of their lives, that it has strong value. Furthermore, on records, Edme, Catherine, and Pierre have all been written down with a similar title: "Micmac", "Sauvage/Sauvagesse", "Metisse" "Chicot", etc. Now, it is highly unlikely they would have such titles on these records had they not been of such parentage.
Shame of course accompanied having any Aboriginal ancestry for years, and so of course many families would hide any ancestry they had, attempt to change records or destroy them, change names, etc. so this I believe may be the cause of confusion. Shame causing denial, destruction and of course, debate.
Finally, due to the dating, of them being born prior to when most families came over, makes me believe they would have been Metis. It is of course possible they were born in France, and came over later, but as has been stated, there is no ship record on that fact, as well as the records stating they were born in Mirligoueche, a known Metis community, though some state they were botn in Lahave or a Micmac Indian village. All of these at the time though, were Mi'kmaq and Metis communities. Few Acadians of French only origin lived there, and those who did intermarried with the Mi'kmaq.
Due to the dates of this, records stating they were in fact born here, and the fact that years ago, this ancestry would be shameful to be Metis and would be insisted on as pure French only, I conclude that in my opinion, this line is a Metis line.
Various organizations have this line as a Metis line, though not all do since it is still under debate and likely always will be.
As stated before, I am on my way to become a Historian, but I am not yet a professional. I use professional historical sources and analyze them, extracting the most likely possibility and that is, in my opinion, the most likely possibility.

Thank you Brittany, I am a descendant of both Edmee (Aimee) and her sister Catherine, and my family history has always been that we were from Mi'kmaq ancestry from Nova Scotia. I would like to correspond with any other descendants from this family. Thank you!

My maternal grandfather's maternal line includes Francois Savoie and Catherine Lejeune. It is only recently since searching my tree that I came across the possibility of being Metis.

Since the Lejeune's were born prior to 1633 I am more inclined to believe that they were Metis. I have been told that their is no proof as to who their parents were. The name Lejeune, for all we know, may only have meant the young ones.

Regarding what Brittany said about DNA testing, the thing is, it's accurate enough that I think reputable historians and genealogists will generally defer to it when the DNA results conflict with records and/or traditions (barring cases where the results are so wildly different that there had to have been an error in testing). I don't mean historians and genealogists will always assume the DNA is right and the records/traditions wrong, just that they'll assume it must be possible to somehow reconcile the records/traditions with the DNA, failing which it is highly likely (if not certain) that there are errors somewhere in the records/traditions, not in the DNA. At least in a case like this where we're dealing with different continents, and populations that were separated for a very long time.

In the case of the Lejeune sisters, there are two possibilities: 1) that U6a has a subtype that is North American, and 2) that the Lejeune sisters had European matrilineal/uterine ancestry. Until credible analysis shows U6a to have a subtype that is indeed North American (which IS remotely possible; in fact if I recall correctly something like that did happen with X mtDNA), the second possibility seems more likely.

Now, if we take this as our starting point, we actually CAN find possible scenarios. Some sources say that when exploring the Minas Basin around the year 1607, Samuel de Champlain found an old cross, indicating Europeans had already been in the area. It could have been a remnant of an expedition by Joao Alvares Fagundes of Portugal, who had explored the area around 1520. We don't know if there were any women with Fagundes at that time, but there are historians who say he tried to establish a small colony (possibly in Cape Breton) in 1525, and that he had with him 10 families from the Azores. Supposedly they had a rough winter and abandoned their settlement. It's not too far-fetched to think some of those Portuguese women (and perhaps men) stayed behind, a possibility which is similar to theories about what happened to settlers from the Roanoke colony in the US. The Azores and mainland Portugal are quite diverse in terms of mtDNA, but U6a is definitely found in both.

So it is possible (even if it's not too likely yet) for the Lejeune sisters to have had European matrilineal ancestry even if they were Native or Metis.

Jordan I am not denying that it's accurate enough for many to use it, I am simply stating my displeasure for when a few people, none of whom are on here, but a few I've met, who will insist because it's 99% accurate that something IS correct, instead of saying something most likely is correct.
That being said, I doubt we'll ever know the truth and can all only ever form opinions about it. I do think though that a possibilty could be that a porteguese woman who was somehow there, may have intermarried in the early 1500's with a mi'kmaq man, producing a daughter, whose mtDNA thus would be U6A. I do find it odd that she would be there at all since it was very rare for any but a man in Europe to explore... but it is of course, possible. Then, it would be possible for her to marry another Mi'kmaq man, producing a daughter with her own maternal DNA, would pass it along to her own daughter, who perhaps was Jeanne. She would appear to be full blooded Mi'kmaq by that point of course, and based on the traditional Mi'kmaq culture, the Porteguese woman herself would have been declared a full blooded Mi'kmaq after being adopted within the tribe. Her children would have Mi'kmaq blood and never be thought of as anything else, so it could easily be a lost story. It is possible, though I do not personally believe it is necessarily the truth, nor likely, but it is, a possibility.

Does anyone have contact with any members of the Membertou tribe? I'm wondering what is the 'accepted' traditional ancestry of this family.

There is a Bras D'or Indian site online where you can contact the tribe.

Last time I checked, the Bras D'Or First Nation had this as the accepted traditional ancestry for the family. It may have changed, but the last time I checked they had this as a Mi'kmaq line.

Thank you Roxanne & Brittany, I am working on it right now, and may contact the tribe in the near future!

Pierre Lejeune b. 1595 & wife unknown wife....possible parents of
1. Edmee/Aimee b. abt. 1625,
2. Pierre b. abt. 1628
3. Catharine b. abt. 1633

Pierre Lejeune b. abt. 1628 brother of Edmee & Catherine Lejeune.

Pierre Lejeune b. 1628 had three children:
1. Pierre lll,
2. Martin who married Jeanne Kagigoniac,
3. Jeanne

I got this from the Bras D'or Native site:

The MI'KMAQ Family of
Pierre Lejeune and his Mi'kmaq Wife

Portrait in Honor of Lejeune Family by Nancy Swan

Children
Pierre Lejeune & Marie Thibodeau

Germain Lejeune

Marriage 1 - Anne Marie Trahan
Joseph Lejeune & Martine LeRoy

Marriage 2 - Marie Guédry
Christophe Lejeune & Louise Gallant [Haché]
Paul Lejeune & Hélène

Martin Lejeune
Marriage 1 - Jeanne Kagigonias
Marriage 2 - Marie Gaudet

Jeanne Lejeune
Marriage 1 - François Joseph
Marriage 2 - Jean Gaudet

The only thing that confuses me is the name Germain as that use to be Pierre lll.

Pierre Lejeune who married Marie Thibodeau is Pierre lll. I missed read this.... Germain is his son.
Martin and Jeanne are Pierre lll's siblings.

I am so totally confused! I was on that site, and had Jeanne Kagigoniac in the wrong position. When I moved her to where the Bras D'Or's position, then she loses her relationship to Henri Membertou? Is this correct?

The census of 1686 listed Pierre Lejeune III as being married to Marie Thibodeau and Martin Lejeune as being married to Marie-Jeanne Kagijonias, a member of the Micmac tribe. After Marie-Jeanne's death, Martin married Marie Gaudet, the daughter of Jehan (Jean) Gaudet and Marie-Jeanne Henry. A 1693 census lists a sister to Pierre III and Martin named Jeanne, who was married to Francois Joseph, a member of the Micmac tribe.

I suspect that the Jeanne Marie Kagigoniac who married Martin Lejeune is a member of the Membertou clan but not necessarily Henri's granddaughter.

I don't believe she was b. around 1600 but rather closer to when Martin Lejeune was born (abt. 1661).

I suspect Pierre Lejeune b. 1595 (now some say Pierre may not have been his first name as there is supposedly no proof of documentation to say his name is Pierre but rather they call him Pierre because of his son Pierre who married daughter Doucet d/o Germain Doucet Sr. & a native woman but not his first wife).
It is said that Pierre b. 1595 came to Acadia with his wife and three children yet no ship's list has them on it. It is just as possible that he married a native woman when he got here. Now since Edmee's and Catharines DNA shows U6A, this is from the Iberian Peninsula which means that their mother's maternal line was most likely Portugeuse, however, this doesn't rule the possibly that their mother's father could of been native. Remember the Portuguese were here in the 1500's...long before the French arrived.

I meant to say that Catharine's and Edmee's U6A DNA doesn't rule out the possibility that their mother's paternal line might be Native.