Marguerite Gaulin (1627–1703)
Why This Page Exists
Genealogy is documentary research before it is story-telling. The story is the form in which the research is presented — not its substance. The two pages serve different purposes: the biography is the narrative; this page is the machinery.
The documentary biography of Marguerite Gaulin tells her life across seventy-six years and two continents. This methodology page documents how that biography was assembled: which sources were used at which evidentiary weight, how source conflicts were resolved against the primary record, what techniques were applied when no record survived, and which questions remain genuinely open and why.
It also names what was not done. Conclusions are sourced to primary records wherever those records survive; secondary references are flagged as such; discrepancies are documented before they are resolved; and language is calibrated, throughout, to distinguish documented fact from probable inference. Where a question cannot yet be answered from the available record, the biography says so, this page says how to try, and neither invents the missing detail.
This is the standard of the Board for Certification of Genealogists (BCG) — the Genealogical Proof Standard, the Reasonably Exhaustive Search requirement, and the discipline of citing every claim to a verifiable source. For a portfolio-grade documentary biography, the rigor matters. This page is where the rigor is visible.
The Research Arc
The Marguerite Gaulin project unfolded across eight successive research sessions, each adding a layer of documentation to what the previous session had established. The arc moved geographically as well as evidentiarily — from compiled secondary references through Quebec primary records, back across the Atlantic to the original French parish registers, and forward again into the Beauport baptism network.
By the end of Batch 8, the documentary footprint stood at seventy catalogued documents, forty-seven of them primary-source. Fifteen of nineteen source discrepancies were resolved. Three remained genuinely open and are documented as such below; one further carries a working identification pending Parchemin verification. The Buisson fief documentary chain stood image-verified end to end, save the 96-livre receipt of 1 June 1667 referenced in earlier research notes.
The Source Hierarchy
Genealogical claims are not all worth the same. A parish register entry made by the curé who witnessed the baptism in 1657 is not the same kind of evidence as a 2010 user-submitted entry on a public family tree, even when both name the same date. The Genealogical Proof Standard requires that conclusions rest on the strongest available evidence, with weaker evidence flagged for what it is. This project applied four tiers.
Primary Sources
Records produced contemporaneously by people whose institutional role required them to record what they witnessed. These carry the highest evidentiary weight.
- Parish register entries (baptism, marriage, burial) — original ink on the register page
- Notarial acts (marriage contracts, inventories, sales, quittances)
- Royal censuses (Nouvelle-France 1666, 1667, 1681)
- Sovereign Council judgments
Derivative Primary Sources
Curated transcriptions and indexes of primary sources, produced by scholars or institutions with documented methodologies. Reliable as pointers but not the document itself — when the original register is accessible, we return to the register.
- PRDH-IGD (Programme de recherche en démographie historique)
- Fichier Origine
- Genealogy of French in North America (Beauregard)
- Godbout's Origine des familles canadiennes-françaises (1925) — a special case: verbatim parish-register transcriptions compiled before twentieth-century access restrictions, treated as primary when no register photograph is available
Published Secondary Sources
Compiled biographies and historical works that synthesize primary research. Useful for framing questions and corroborating primary findings, but not themselves evidence. Where they conflict with the primary record, the primary record governs.
- Gagné, Before the King's Daughters: The Filles à Marier, 1634–1662 (2002)
- Lebel & Laforest, Our French-Canadian Ancestors, vol. 3
- Specialized monographs on Beauport, Perche emigration, and seigneurial history
Not Used as Evidence
Crowd-sourced public family trees and unsourced online compilations are useful only for identifying potential records to verify. They have no independent evidentiary value and are not cited in this biography.
- Wikitree, Geni, Ancestry public trees, FamilySearch user-submitted lines
- Unsourced blog posts and forum discussions
Defensible Language
Words are not neutral in genealogical writing. The phrase "Marguerite was born in 1627" makes a different claim than "Marguerite was probably born in 1627" or "Marguerite's baptism record places her birth in May 1627." Each carries a different evidentiary weight, and a careful reader should be able to tell, from the language alone, what kind of evidence stands behind any given sentence.
The biography uses the following calibration:
| Phrase | Evidentiary basis |
|---|---|
| "baptized," "married," "buried" | Primary register record cited; date and place specified |
| "the record shows" | Primary record exists and is transcribed in the research log |
| "per [Source]" | Secondary or database source named where primary is unavailable |
| "highly probable" | Strong indirect evidence; multiple independent secondary sources align; no primary conflict |
| "likely" / "appears to" | Preponderance of evidence; some uncertainty remains |
| "inferred from" | Explicit inference from indirect evidence; the inferential step is named |
| "open question" | Discrepancy unresolved; no clear primary record found |
The discipline matters most at the seams — the moments where the documentary record runs thin and inference begins. The crossing of the Atlantic in 1654 is one such moment: no passenger list, no contract, no register entry places Marguerite on any specific ship. The biography says so in those words. It does not invent a name or a port.
Resolving Source Discrepancies
Across the published references, the database compilations, and the primary records, nineteen substantive discrepancies surfaced during the research. Fifteen resolved against the primary record. Three remain open and are flagged as such in the biography. One further carries a working identification — provisionally confirmed against indirect evidence but pending direct primary-source verification.
The resolution method, in every case, was the same: locate the primary source closest to the event in question, transcribe it carefully, and let it govern. Where two primary sources disagreed (rare, but it happened — the 1666 census misrecorded "François Creste" where the 1660 baptism register named Françoise), the source closer in time to the event being recorded took precedence.
The Nineteen Discrepancies
Each discrepancy is named, the sources in conflict are identified, the resolution method is documented, and the status is marked. The full text of each is preserved in the working research log (sheet "Discrepancies," entries DC-01 through DC-19).
DC-01: Marguerite's Baptism Year
Godbout (1925), AD-61: baptized 14 May 1627
DC-02: Marguerite's Burial Month
Beauport register (primary): buried 15 January 1703
DC-03: Mother's Surname — Boulemer vs. Bonnemer
Saint-Martin parish register (Godbout): Marie Boulemer
DC-04: Antoine Crête × Jeanne Legrand Marriage
Saint-Aubin de Tourouvre register (AD-61): married 29 October 1619
DC-05: Identity of Infant Marguerite Buried 1663
1666 census + primary burial register: the younger Marguerite II (six weeks old) was buried 18 May 1663; the elder Marguerite I survived and married Pierre Gaillou in 1678.
DC-06: Louis Crête's Marital Status
Saint-Sauveur de La Rochelle register: Louis married Madeleine Briault on 28 May 1685, three months before his death
DC-07: Louis Crête's Age at Death
Saint-Laurent burial register + 1656 baptism: age 29 at death
DC-08: Jean Crête's Age at Death
Tourouvre baptism (1626) + Beauport burial (1717): died at age 90
DC-09: Diocese Designation at Jean Crête's Baptism
1626 primary register, Saint-Aubin de Tourouvre: diocese of Chartres confirmed
DC-10: 1666 Census — "François Creste, 5"
All other sources, including the 1660 baptism register and 1667 census: the 1660-born child was female — Françoise
DC-11: Marguerite's Exact Year of Atlantic Crossing
Fichier Origine: arrived ca. 1652–1654
Primary records: she was present in Beauport for her 13 September 1654 marriage
DC-12: Existence of Pierre Gaulin's Baptism
Other secondary references: a fifth child, Pierre, may have been born ca. 1627
DC-13: Pierre Gaulin's Twin Status with Marguerite
Primary record: Marguerite's 1627 baptism stands alone in Godbout's transcription
DC-14: Buisson Fief Vendor — Giffard vs. Guion/Collin
Primary Vachon Vol. II p. 21 (D-059): the sellers were Claude Guion and Catherine Collin, his wife, of Île d'Orléans
DC-15: Marguerite Crête I's Husband — Gaillou vs. Gaultin
1706 Chambalon Quittance (D-040): "Pierre Gaultin"
DC-16: Pierre Soudain Identity — the "Bellerose" of 1707
1707 Duprac Quittance (D-065): Marie Crête's current husband named "BELLEROSE"
DC-17: 1706 Quittance — Three Sisters or Four Heirs?
Same document references 1/4 share: implies four total heirs
DC-18: Jean Lefebvre's Full Name — Jean vs. Jean Baptiste
PRDH Family record for Marie Crête II × Lefebvre: JEAN BAPTISTE Lefebvre
DC-19: BAnQ Catalog Metadata — 1660 vs. 1666 for the Guion/Collin Sale
Body of D-069 and three independent corroborating acts (D-059, D-067, D-068): all confirm 4 August 1666
Note on additional resolutions. Two further research findings — the documentation of Marie Crête's three successive marriages (Pepin 1670, Brideau ca. 1687, Soudain dit Bellerose 1705) and the verification that earlier "Jourdain" transcriptions of Marie's second husband should read "Brideau" — were captured during the same research arc but tracked in the People Summary and Children sheet of the research log rather than as separate Discrepancy entries. Both are fully sourced in the biography. The discrepancy count above (19 tracked, 15 resolved, 3 open, 1 working ID) reflects the working log's formal discrepancy register.
Open Questions — What to Search Next
The three open discrepancies are not failures of the research. They are honest acknowledgments that the documentary record, as it currently survives or as it has been examined, does not yet answer them. For each, the next research action is specified.
1. The Atlantic Crossing, 1652–1654
2. The Possible Pierre Gaulin Baptism, ca. 1620–1632
3. Twin Status of Pierre and Marguerite
Three Methodological Techniques Worth Naming
Three specific techniques produced disproportionate analytical value during this project. Each is worth naming because each can be applied to other research subjects.
1. Reading the Baptism Network
Ten Crête children were baptized between 1656 and 1671. Each register entry names the officiating priest, the godfather, and the godmother. Read individually, the entries record sacramental events. Read across fifteen years as a single corpus, they reveal a social network — who came to officiate, whose family stood as godparents, and how the household's social position changed.
The result was the recognition that the Crête-Giffard relationship was quasi-familial rather than patron-client. Robert Giffard personally emergency-baptized the infant Françoise in 1660; his son Joseph and his granddaughter Françoise Juchereau stood as godparents. By 1666, the Grand Vicar of Bishop Laval was officiating, and the wife of the seigneur of Beauport was godmother to a child who took the seigneur's name. The 1666 acquisition of a parcel within the Dubuisson fief — transacted by Claude Guion and Catherine Collin of Île d'Orléans before Notary Paul Vachon, but ultimately rendering foi et hommage to the Giffard line as overseigneurs of the holding — viewed alongside this baptism record, becomes embedded in an existing close relationship with the seigneurial family rather than a transactional event between strangers. The Giffard family was not the vendor of the parcel, but the Crête household sat squarely within the Giffard seigneurie at every documentary level.
The seigneurial documentary chain offers a parallel-track confirmation. Six years after the 1666 sacramental apex, Jean Crête transported himself to the principal door of the Beauport seigneurial castle and performed the full ritual of foi et hommage to Robert Giffard — one knee on the ground, bare-headed, no sword or spur, calling out three times to Monseigneur (D-067). Seven years later, with Robert dead and Joseph Giffard succeeded, Jean Crête rendered his aveu et dénombrement (D-069) detailing the parcel to the third generation of the Giffard line. The relationship documented through the baptismal register and the relationship documented through the seigneurial register are the same relationship, viewed from two different bureaucratic angles. Each strengthens the other.
The technique — reading a network across many register entries as if it were one document — transfers to any family with multiple baptisms in the same parish across several years.
2. Working with Negative Evidence
Several conclusions in this biography rest on the absence of records that should exist if a contrary claim were true.
Louise Crête, baptized 1670, does not appear in the 1681 census of the household. No burial record has been located, but the absence of any later mention establishes that she died before age ten. The absence is the evidence.
No son named "François Creste" appears in any Crête register entry before or after the 1666 census. The single recorded "François" in the 1666 enumeration, against the silence of every other source, becomes evidence not of a missing son but of a census-taker's recording error.
The same logic applies to the Pierre Gaulin question: his absence from Godbout's careful 1925 transcription — produced when register access was less restricted — is evidence that the twin claim should be treated as unsupported until a primary record surfaces.
The technique also works in reverse. When a primary record arrives, it can convert what had been negative-evidence inference into a documented fact. Marguerite's illiteracy had been a working inference for years — supported by the absence of her signature on the surviving notarial acts where Jean signed in his own hand. The November 1693 marriage contract of son Pierre to Marthe Marcou (D-057, Notary Paul Vachon, certified copy by Duprac) closed the question directly. The third page of the contract names Marguerite Gollin explicitly among those who "declared not to know how to write or sign." Inference became record.
The contrast was confirmed directly by the 1673 aveu et dénombrement (D-069), the third page of which carries Jean Crête's signature in his own hand: "Jehan Creste." The literacy contrast within a single household becomes, in primary-source terms, gender-asymmetric: Jean signed his name; Marguerite did not. This is the documentary footprint of seventeenth-century habitant education in microcosm. Both pieces of evidence, the absent signature and the present one, now do BCG-grade work.
3. Triangulating Across Three Censuses
The 1666 royal census of New France is well-known. Less commonly examined together with it are the 1667 and 1681 enumerations of the same households. For the Crête family, all three exist.
Read across the fifteen years they span, the three censuses document not just continuity but trajectory: fifteen arpents under cultivation in 1667 became forty in 1681; six cattle became thirteen; and the household gained two firearms and added a servant. They also document a small consistency problem worth noting in its own right: the census-taker mis-recorded Marguerite's surname differently each time — Golin in 1666, Gosselin in 1667, Gaudin in 1681. The instability extended beyond the censuses: Notary Romain Becquet's sale to Denis Roberge of 14 April 1676 (D-061) renders the surname "Gosselin" in a notarial setting where stability would have been expected. Four distinct primary-source spellings across fifteen years — Golin, Gosselin (twice, in 1667 and 1676), Gaudin — with no surviving Crête-line act in which Marguerite herself rendered the spelling. The surname was the household's least stable variable across primary sources.
The technique is the lesson: never read a single census in isolation. A second enumeration of the same household is the cheapest cross-check available in seventeenth-century New France research.
Six Cases in Evidence Analysis
The Genealogical Proof Standard requires more than the assembly of sources — it requires the analysis and correlation of those sources into reasoned conclusions. The six cases that follow walk through specific claims in this biography step by step, showing how the evidence was weighed, how conflicts were resolved, and how each conclusion was reached.
Marguerite Gaulin's Parentage
Marguerite Gaulin (1627–1703) was the daughter of Vincent Gaulin and Marie Boulemer of Saint-Martin-du-Vieux-Bellême, Perche.
Sources Considered
- 14 May 1627 — Saint-Martin-du-Vieux-Bellême baptism register, transcribed verbatim by Godbout (1925): names Vincent Gaulin (Gollin) and Marie Boulemer as parents
- 13 September 1654 — Notre-Dame de Québec marriage register: names Vincent Gaulin and Marie Bonnemer as parents of the bride
- 12 September 1654 — Marriage contract before Notary Choiseau, Saint-Martin: both parents named, with Vincent not marked as deceased and Marie marked as "défunte"
- Fichier Origine #241711 and GFNA #2351: derivative-primary indexes citing the same parentage
- Lebel & Laforest and Gagné: secondary works citing the same parentage
Analysis and Correlation
Three independent primary sources name the same parental couple: the baptism (1627) at one end of Marguerite's life, and the marriage record and marriage contract (1654) twenty-seven years later. The surname appears with two orthographic variants — Boulemer in the Saint-Martin register, Bonnemer in the Notre-Dame de Québec register — which Godbout's index explicitly cross-references as the same individual. The 1654 marriage contract dated one day before the marriage ceremony provides triangulating documentation of the parents on both sides of the Atlantic crossing.
Conflict Resolution
No primary or secondary source names different parents. The orthographic variance between Boulemer and Bonnemer is documented as DC-03 and resolved against the primary Saint-Martin register, with both forms acknowledged as referring to the same woman.
Marguerite Gaulin's identification as daughter of Vincent Gaulin and Marie Boulemer is established by three independent primary sources and corroborated by multiple secondary sources, with no conflicting evidence. The conclusion meets the Genealogical Proof Standard.
The Two Marguerite Crêtes
The Marguerite Crête who married Pierre Gaillou in 1678 and died at Batiscan in 1734 was Marguerite I (b. 1659), not Marguerite II (b. 1663). The infant Marguerite Crête buried 18 May 1663 was Marguerite II.
Sources Considered
- 27 March 1659 — baptism of Marguerite Crête (the elder) at Giffard's house, Beauport
- April 1663 — baptism of Marguerite Crête (the younger); the church register identifies the parents as Jean Crête and Marguerite Gaulin
- 18 May 1663 — burial of "petite fille agée d'un mois et demy, fille de Jean Creste, habitant de Beauport" (one and a half months old)
- 1666 royal census — lists "Marguerite Cresté, 7" alive in the Jean Crête household
- 6 November 1678 — marriage record: Marguerite Crête × Pierre Gaillou
- 4 October 1706 Chambalon Quittance (D-040) — names Marguerite Crête as Mme Gaillou of Batiscan, procuratrice
- 12 October 1734 — burial of Marguerite Crête at Batiscan (Saint-François-Xavier)
Inferential Chain
The 18 May 1663 burial age — one and a half months — matches Marguerite II's spring 1663 birth, not Marguerite I's 1659 birth. The 1666 census shows a seven-year-old Marguerite alive in the household three years after the 1663 burial: the age is exactly consistent with Marguerite I (b. 1659, age 7 in 1666) and impossible for Marguerite II (who would have been 3 if alive). The 1678 marriage to Pierre Gaillou and the 1734 Batiscan burial both require a living adult Marguerite; her age at death in 1734 (approximately 75) is consistent with the 1659 birth.
Conflict Resolution
Earlier secondary sources had the case inverted, claiming the elder Marguerite died as infant and the younger married Gaillou. This was DC-05, resolved by the burial age and the 1666 census against the secondary literature.
The inferential chain from burial age + census enumeration + adult life records is consistent only with Marguerite I as the survivor and Marguerite II as the 1663 infant burial. No alternative interpretation is consistent with all four primary records. The conclusion meets the Genealogical Proof Standard.
Marguerite Gaulin's Illiteracy
Marguerite Gaulin was illiterate; Jean Crête was literate. The household exhibits the gender-asymmetric literacy pattern characteristic of seventeenth-century habitant Quebec.
Inferential Phase (before 1693)
Across multiple notarial acts in which Jean Crête signed in his own hand — the 1658 sale to Chevalier (D-058), the 1666 acts (D-059, D-067), the 1671 sale to Mourier (D-060), the 1685 partage (D-062), the 1689 donation (D-064) — Marguerite's signature is absent. She is named in the body of the act but does not sign. The pattern was suggestive but not conclusive: absence of a signature could indicate illiteracy, indisposition, absence from the act, or other factors.
Documentary Phase (1693 onward)
The 2 November 1693 marriage contract of son Pierre to Marthe Marcou (D-057), drafted by Notary Paul Vachon and certified-copied by Duprac, names Marguerite Gollin explicitly among those who "déclared not to know how to write or sign." The previously inferential conclusion became a direct documentary finding.
Contrast Documented Directly
The 25 April 1673 aveu et dénombrement (D-069), page three, carries Jean Crête's signature in his own hand: "Jehan Creste." Jean's literacy is direct documentary fact in the same archival corpus as Marguerite's illiteracy — the two findings reinforce each other and together document the gender-asymmetric education pattern of the household.
Methodological Significance
This is a case where negative evidence functioned as a working hypothesis later confirmed by direct evidence. The discipline matters: had the 1693 contract never surfaced, the conclusion would have remained inferential and the biography's claim about Marguerite's illiteracy would have been written in calibrated probability terms. With the 1693 record in hand, the claim becomes documented fact.
Both findings — Marguerite's illiteracy and Jean's literacy — are established by direct primary-source evidence. The earlier inferential phase exemplifies disciplined use of negative evidence: a hypothesis held appropriately, then confirmed when a direct record surfaced.
The Crête-Giffard Quasi-Familial Relationship
The Crête-Giffard relationship was quasi-familial in character — a relationship of close personal bond and seigneurial intimacy — rather than ordinary patron-client or arms-length seigneurial commerce.
The Documentary Network (Eight Independent Acts)
- 13 September 1654 — Jean Crête and Marguerite Gaulin married in the manor house of Sieur Robert Giffard (Beauport)
- 27 March 1659 — Marguerite I baptized "chez Mr Giffard"; Father Paul Ragueneau officiating
- 1 August 1660 — Françoise Crête emergency-baptized at home by Robert Giffard personally when in danger of death; solemn ceremonies seven days later with Joseph Giffard (Robert's son) as godfather and Françoise Juchereau (Robert's granddaughter) as godmother
- 2 May 1666 — Joseph Crête baptized; officiant Charles de Lauson de Charny (Grand Vicar of Bishop Laval); godfather Nicolas Juchereau Sieur de Saint-Denis (Robert's son-in-law); godmother Michelle Thérèse Nau, wife of Joseph Giffard, seigneur of Beauport; child named Joseph for the seigneur
- 11 August 1666 — Jean Crête performs foi et hommage to Robert Giffard at the principal door of the seigneurial castle (D-067); the medieval ritual preserved intact
- 25 April 1673 — aveu et dénombrement rendered to Joseph Giffard (D-069) after Robert's death and Joseph's succession
- 5 November 1673 — Surveyor Jean Guyon's division (D-068) physically marks the boundary parcels
- 1705 and 1712 — Continued seigneurial relationship through Nicolas Dupont (adjacent seigneur 1673; Pepin arbitrator 1705; Crête-Lefebvre rent tutor 1712), demonstrating that the seigneurial network around the Crête family continued past the Giffard line itself
The Correlative Argument
No single document above establishes a quasi-familial bond. Each one, read alone, could be explained by ordinary patron-client behavior — the marriage at the manor house, the baptisms with the seigneurial family at the font, the 1666 land transaction (now known to have been with Guion/Collin rather than Giffard directly), and the seigneurial obligations rendered formally. But when read across two registers and fifty-eight years, the documents do something different than each alone could do.
The 1660 emergency baptism, in particular, exceeds patron-client behavior. Robert Giffard personally administered the sacrament to a habitant's daughter in danger of death — an act of pastoral and personal intimacy, not a routine seigneurial gesture. The naming of the 1666 son Joseph, after the seigneur, with the seigneur's wife as godmother, signals more than acknowledgment of overlordship. The continuity of the seigneurial relationship across generations (Robert 1654–1668; Joseph 1666–1690s; Nicolas Dupont 1705–1716+) demonstrates a relational network that outlasted any single party.
The Counterargument and Its Limits
An alternative reading would hold that Robert Giffard simply baptized many habitant children in danger of death, that the Joseph naming was conventional, and that the seigneurial obligations were standard practice. The current research does not, however, document Robert Giffard personally administering emergency baptism to any other habitant household's children, nor does it document any other habitant-class Beauport baptism with both the seigneur's wife as godmother and the child named for the seigneur. The 1660 act and the 1666 baptism are documentary peculiarities specific to the Crête household.
The quasi-familial reading is established by correlation across eight independent acts spanning two documentary registers (sacramental and seigneurial) and fifty-eight years (1654–1712+). The patron-client alternative does not account for the documentary peculiarities specific to the Crête household. The conclusion meets the Genealogical Proof Standard while remaining open to revision should comparable patron-client documentation surface for other Beauport habitants of similar economic standing.
The Four-Heir Structure of Marguerite Gaulin's 1706 Succession
The 1706 Chambalon Quittance documents four heirs at one-quarter each to Marguerite Gaulin's succession, corresponding to her four surviving daughters; the surviving son Pierre had already received his share through the 1693 Buisson fief transfer.
The Apparent Tension
The 1706 Quittance (D-040) names three daughters explicitly: Marguerite Crête (Mme Gaillou, of Batiscan, procuratrice), Marie Françoise Crête (Mme Delauney), and Marie Crête (Mme Soudain). The same document references "le quart" — one-quarter share — which implies four total heirs. The arithmetic does not close on the three named persons.
Correlation with Other Documents
The 2 November 1693 marriage contract of Pierre Crête (D-057) names three Crête sons-in-law as beaux-frères of the groom: Jean Brideau (Marie's second husband), Henry Delauney, and Jean Lefebvre. The PRDH Family record confirms Jean Lefebvre as the husband of Marie Crête II (b. 1668, m. 22 October 1685 Beauport). The 1706 Quittance text explicitly identifies Jean Lefebvre as the beau-frère advancing the funds from which Marguerite Crête received her quarter share.
The Implied Fourth Heir
The fourth heir is implicit in Jean Lefebvre's beau-frère role: his wife is Marie Crête II, the youngest surviving daughter. She is the same daughter who, together with her husband, tended Marguerite during her terminal illness in winter 1702–03 (D-014, D-015) — making her the natural beneficiary of the funds Jean Lefebvre is now distributing.
Pierre's Already-Received Share
The 1693 marriage contract documents that Jean and Marguerite granted Pierre six arpents of the Buisson fief at his marriage — "l'avancement d'hoirie" in customary law: an inter vivos donation that counted against his eventual succession share. This explains why he does not appear in the 1706 Quittance: he had already received his portion thirteen years earlier.
The Total Survivors
All five Crête survivors at Marguerite's death (January 1703) are accounted for: four daughters at one-quarter each in the succession, one son who had received his advancement in 1693. The arithmetic closes.
The four-heir structure is established by correlation of D-040 (the explicit 1/4 share), D-057 (the three sons-in-law named including Lefebvre), the PRDH Family record (Lefebvre = husband of Marie II), and the customary-law interpretation of the 1693 Buisson fief transfer as Pierre's avancement d'hoirie. The conclusion was DC-17 and is resolved.
The Buisson Fief, 1634–1712 (Seventy-Eight Years)
The Buisson fief has a complete primary-source documentary chain from its 1634 origin at Mortagne, Perche, through Pierre Crête's 1712 rent receipt — image-verified end to end, save the 96-livre receipt of 1 June 1667 referenced in earlier research notes.
The Chain
- 14 March 1634 — Robert Giffard grants the Buisson fief (1000 arpents) to Jean Guion before Notary Mathurin Roussel at Mortagne, Perche, France [cited in D-069]
- By 1666 — Jean Guion and Mathurine Robin both deceased [D-067, D-069]
- 4 August 1666 — Claude Guion (son and heir) and Catherine Collin sell the parcel to Jean Crête before Notary Paul Vachon (D-059)
- 11 August 1666 — Jean Crête performs foi et hommage to Robert Giffard at the seigneurial castle (D-067)
- 1 June 1667 — 96-livre receipt referenced in earlier research notes [unretrieved — L-33]
- April 1668 — Robert Giffard dies; Joseph Giffard succeeds [historical record]
- 25 April 1673 — Jean Crête's aveu et dénombrement to Joseph Giffard (D-069)
- 5 November 1673 — Surveyor Jean Guyon records the physical division (D-068)
- 2 November 1693 — Jean and Marguerite grant Pierre Crête six arpents of the Buisson fief at his marriage (D-057)
- 29 July 1693 — A separate Chambalon sale by Sieur des Méloizes to Pierre Crête, Jean Baptiste Lefebvre, and Jean Baugis [referenced in D-070; underlying contract not yet retrieved — L-34]
- 31 July 1712 (with 18 January 1716 endorsement) — Nicolas Dupont, as tutor of the des Méloizes minor heirs, acknowledges receipt of rent from Pierre Crête for the 1693 land (D-070)
What the Chain Demonstrates
This is a documentary chain across two continents (Perche to New France) and seventy-eight years, with eleven nodes named, of which nine are image-verified primary sources presently in the research log. The chain is structurally complete: every transfer of right has its instrument, every renewal of seigneurial obligation has its act, and every change of personnel (Robert → Joseph Giffard; Jean → Pierre Crête; Sieur des Méloizes → minor heirs under Nicolas Dupont) is documented at its juncture.
Reasonably Exhaustive Search
The BCG requirement of reasonably exhaustive search is met for the Buisson fief documentary chain. The one unretrieved element (the 96-livre receipt) is named, its archival series identified (BAnQ Vachon greffe and Lordships Collection P240/D26), and the search continues. The biography's claims about the Buisson fief stand on a primary-source foundation that the typical New France habitant family record does not possess.
The Buisson fief chain demonstrates Reasonably Exhaustive Search, Complete Source Citations, Analysis and Correlation across documents, and Resolution of the Giffard-vs-Guion/Collin vendor question. It is a portfolio-grade example of multi-document genealogical reasoning.
Source Weighing — Selected Claims
For four key claims in the biography, the sources contributing to the conclusion are weighed explicitly. The evidentiary weight reflects both the tier of the source and the proximity to the event being recorded. Where sources conflict, the resolution rests on the highest-weight evidence aligned with the analytical record.
Claim 1: Marguerite Gaulin was the daughter of Vincent Gaulin and Marie Boulemer.
| Source | Tier | Date | Weight | Position |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Saint-Martin baptism register (Godbout 1925 transcription) | Primary (verbatim transcription) | 1627 | Highest | Vincent + Marie Boulemer named |
| Notre-Dame de Québec marriage register | Primary | 1654 | Highest | Vincent + Marie Bonnemer named (variant spelling) |
| Choiseau marriage contract | Primary (notarial) | 1654 | High | Both parents named; Marie marked défunte |
| Fichier Origine #241711; GFNA #2351 | Derivative-Primary (index) | Modern | Supporting | Confirms primary citations |
| Lebel/Laforest; Gagné | Secondary (published) | 1979, 2002 | Corroborating | Aligns with primary |
| Conclusion | Established — three independent primary sources, no conflict | |||
Claim 2: Marguerite Gaulin was born in May 1627 (DC-01).
| Source | Tier | Date | Weight | Position |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Saint-Martin baptism register (Godbout 1925 transcription, verbatim) | Primary (transcribed) | 1627 | Highest | Reads "Le quatorzième de may aud[it] an 1627" |
| Fichier Origine #241711 | Derivative-Primary | Modern | High | Cites the same date and parentage |
| Lebel & Laforest | Secondary | 1979 | Superseded | States "ca. 1625" — superseded by primary |
| Conclusion | Resolved — primary transcription gives 14 May 1627; secondary "ca. 1625" reflects pre-Godbout estimation | |||
Claim 3: The 1666 Buisson fief parcel was sold by Claude Guion and Catherine Collin, not by the Giffard family (DC-14).
| Source | Tier | Date | Weight | Position |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vachon Vol. II p. 21 (D-059) | Primary (notarial citation) | 1666 | Highest | Names Guion/Collin as vendors directly |
| Act of Faith and Homage (D-067) | Primary | 1666 | Highest | Cites "acquisition faicte... de Mre Claude Guion et de Catherine Collin" |
| Aveu et Dénombrement (D-069) | Primary | 1673 | Highest | Restates the Guion provenance with full chain back to Jean Guion 1634 |
| Earlier working narrative | Inferential | — | Superseded | Had attributed sale to Joseph Giffard — incorrect |
| Conclusion | Resolved — three independent primary acts confirm Guion/Collin as vendors; earlier inference corrected against the primary record | |||
Claim 4: Louis Crête married Madeleine Briault on 28 May 1685, three months before his death (DC-06).
| Source | Tier | Date | Weight | Position |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Saint-Sauveur de La Rochelle marriage register | Primary | 1685 | Highest | Records the marriage 28 May 1685 |
| PRDH Couple #5533 | Derivative-Primary | Modern | High | Records the same marriage |
| Saint-Laurent burial register | Primary | 1685 | High | Records burial 25 Aug 1685 "on the boat of Sieur Niel on the day of his return from France" |
| Lebel & Laforest | Secondary | 1979 | Superseded | States Louis died a bachelor — superseded by primary marriage record |
| Conclusion | Resolved — primary marriage record confirms; the France-voyage burial language is consistent with the May marriage at La Rochelle | |||
Counterfactual Reasoning — What Would Falsify These Conclusions
A BCG-grade conclusion is not only one that the evidence supports — it is also one that has been tested against the question of what alternative evidence could overturn it. For the three most consequential conclusions in this biography, the falsification conditions are named explicitly.
Counterfactual 1: Pierre Soudain dit Bellerose (DC-16)
- A primary record of Marie Crête's marriage to a person named "Bellerose" after 20 December 1705 — would establish a fourth marriage and a different husband
- A primary record of Marie Crête's marriage being annulled, or of Pierre Soudain's death by April 1707 — would require an explanation for "Bellerose" other than the working identification
- A Parchemin or Tanguay entry naming a "Pierre Bellerose" distinct from Pierre Soudain, present in Quebec 1705–1707 — would suggest a different individual
- A Parchemin or Tanguay entry naming "Pierre Soudain dit Bellerose" or "Pierre Soudain alias Bellerose"
- A Chevalier de St Louis registry confirming the dit name for Pierre Soudain
- Any second notarial act naming the same person under both surnames
The military context (compagnie de Vaudreuil) is consistent with a nom de guerre, and a fourth-marriage hypothesis would require documentation of either Soudain's death or an unrecorded second marriage in eighteen months — both implausible against the documentary record. The working identification is appropriately held and clearly labeled as such pending the falsification or strengthening evidence above. Research lead L-29 is open.
Counterfactual 2: The Two Marguerite Crêtes (DC-05)
- A primary record after 1663 explicitly naming a Marguerite Crête born 1663 in adult life — would invert the conclusion (Marguerite II survived, Marguerite I died young)
- A burial record for Marguerite I before 1678 — would require a third Marguerite to explain the 1678 marriage to Gaillou
- A 1666 census reading showing a 3-year-old Marguerite instead of a 7-year-old — would force a re-reading of the census
The 1666 census entry for "Marguerite Cresté, 7" is unambiguous. The 18 May 1663 burial of "petite fille agée d'un mois et demy" matches a spring 1663 birth exactly — Marguerite II. The 1734 Batiscan burial of Marguerite Crête (Mme Gaillou) at approximately age 75 is consistent with the 1659 birth and impossible for the 1663 birth (who would have been 71 only if she lived to 1734). The four independent primary records align on Marguerite I as survivor, Marguerite II as infant burial.
No alternative interpretation is consistent with all four primary records. The conclusion would require a substantial documentary find that contradicts existing primary evidence — not merely additional context.
Counterfactual 3: The Crête-Giffard Quasi-Familial Reading
- Discovery that Robert Giffard personally emergency-baptized multiple habitant children of similar economic standing — would suggest the 1660 act was routine seigneurial pastoral behavior rather than a peculiarity
- Discovery that Joseph Giffard's wife stood as godmother to many habitant children of similar economic standing — would weaken the 1666 baptism's exceptional reading
- A record of Crête conflict with Giffard, or of rapid distancing in the 1670s after the 1668 death of Robert — would suggest the relationship was contingent rather than enduring
The current research has not located evidence of Robert Giffard performing emergency baptism for any other habitant household, nor has it located any other Beauport baptism with both the seigneur's wife as godmother and the child named for the seigneur. The 1673 aveu et dénombrement demonstrates the relationship continued into the second Giffard generation. The Nicolas Dupont continuity through 1712 shows the social network extending beyond the Giffard line itself. The eight independent documents reinforce one another; none alone establishes the conclusion, but their correlation does.
The conclusion is appropriately strong for current evidence but remains open to revision should comparable patron-client documentation surface for other Beauport habitants of similar economic standing. This is the appropriate epistemic posture for network arguments.
Research Planning — What Remains and Where to Search
A Reasonably Exhaustive Search is not the same thing as a finished search. For each open question and pending lead, the next research action is specified, the archival series identified, and the priority assigned. This is the discipline of named-next-step research planning: every open question has a search.
DC-11 — Marguerite's Atlantic Crossing Year, 1652–1654
The single most consequential gap in the biography — the act that turned a Perche girl into a New France colonist remains undocumented in its details (year, port, ship, fellow passengers).
DC-12 — The Possible Pierre Gaulin Baptism, ca. 1620–1632
Secondary literature names a Pierre Gaulin as sibling of Marguerite; Godbout's 1925 transcription of the Saint-Martin register does not include him. Whether absent, omitted, or never-existed remains undetermined.
DC-13 — Pierre Gaulin's Twin Status with Marguerite
Conditional on DC-12. If Pierre existed, his twin status with Marguerite (14 May 1627) is testable. Absence of any record cannot disprove twin birth, but its presence with a 14 May 1627 date would settle the question.
L-26 — Image Acquisition for the Eight Parchemin Citations
D-058 through D-065 are currently CITATION VERIFIED from the Parchemin database. Primary images are needed for BCG portfolio review.
L-30 — Trottain Procuration of 27 September 1706
Named directly in the 1706 Chambalon Quittance (D-040). Provides the chain of authority for Marguerite Crête I's appearance at Quebec by procuration.
L-33 — 96-Livre Receipt of 1 June 1667
The single remaining unretrieved element of the Buisson fief documentary chain. Referenced in earlier research notes; not yet primary-verified.
L-34 — 29 July 1693 Chambalon Joint Sale
Underlying contract referenced in D-070: Sieur des Méloizes sold to Pierre Crête, Jean Baptiste Lefebvre, and Jean Baugis. Three months before Pierre's 2 November 1693 marriage.
L-29 — Pierre Soudain dit Bellerose Verification
Confirm or refute the working identification linking D-042 (Soudain marriage contract) and D-065 (Bellerose quittance).
L-31 — Marriage Record of Marguerite I × Pierre Gaillou, 6 November 1678
Verify primary surname spelling: GAILLOU (PRDH canonical) versus GAULTIN (1706 Chambalon variant).
L-27 — Identify "Jean Gaulin of Saint-Bernard, Charlesbourg"
Named in 1685 Vachon quittance (D-063) alongside Jean Crête, Marguerite Gaulin, and Marie Rocheron. Likely Marguerite's nephew or another Gaulin sibling-line relative.
L-32 — Collin / Gollin / Gaulin Surname-Root Check
Catherine Collin (1666 Buisson fief co-vendor) and Marguerite Gollin / Gaulin share a surname root. Possible distant kinship.
L-28 — The 1673 Aveu et Dénombrement
Closed via D-069 (image-verified). The 1673 aveu now anchors the Buisson fief documentary chain back to the 1634 Mortagne origin. The remaining 96-livre receipt of 1 June 1667 is split out as L-33.
The Documentary Footprint
The complete record of sources consulted, individuals documented, and questions tracked is preserved in the working research log maintained alongside this biography. The headline figures, at the end of Batch 8:
Of the twenty-three research leads still pending after Batch 8, the highest-priority items are the three open discrepancies above; image acquisition for the eight Parchemin-cited notarial documents (D-058 through D-065 — Vachon, Becquet, and Duprac greffes, 1658–1707); the procuration of 27 September 1706 before Notary François Trottain at Batiscan; the 96-livre receipt of 1 June 1667 referenced in earlier research notes (the single remaining unretrieved element of the Buisson fief documentary chain — now formally tracked as L-33); the 29 July 1693 Chambalon joint sale referenced in D-070; and Parchemin verification of the Pierre Soudain dit Bellerose working identification. None of the pending leads call into question the central documented arc of Marguerite Gaulin's life.
Closing Reflection
A documentary biography is not the same thing as a biography. It is a biography that shows its sources, names its uncertainties, and submits its claims to a discipline of verification. The story of Marguerite Gaulin survives in the records that survive. Where they speak, the biography speaks with them. Where they are silent, the biography is silent or admits the silence.
The reader who has followed this far understands what the biography asks them to trust and what it asks them only to consider. The Atlantic crossing of 1654 is documented in its outcome — she was in Beauport by September — but its details (port, ship, date, fellow passengers) are not. The marriage in Sieur Giffard's manor house is documented exhaustively, down to the priest's name. The ten children are documented from baptism to death wherever the registers survive. The relationship to Robert Giffard is documented not through a single record but through a network of baptisms, fief transactions, and witnessing relationships that no one of these documents would carry alone.
For the descendant who wants the story, the biography is the answer. For the genealogist who wants the verification, this page is. Together, they are what a Storyline Genealogy project is meant to deliver: research worked to a professional standard, presented as a life.