Philibert Couillaud dit Roquebrune
The Subject
Philibert Couillaud was born around 1641 in the diocese of Nevers, Nivernais — one of fewer than thirty settlers from this region in all of New France between 1650 and 1750. He arrived with the Carignan-Salières Regiment in 1665, was confirmed at Chambly in 1669, and by 1675 had settled permanently in the Seigneurie de Contrecoeur. He married Catherine Laporte dit Saint-Georges — daughter of pioneer Georges Laporte dit Saint-Georges — around the fall of 1675. He died sometime before 9 March 1701, leaving no burial record. Together with Catherine, he fathered at least eleven children across a twenty-five-year span. Their descendants bear the surnames Larocque, Roquebrune, Larock, Rock, Rockburn, and more than a dozen variants — an estimated 420,000 to 840,000 individuals across fourteen generations.
His name appears in the documentary record in at least nine distinct spellings: Couillaud, Couillaut, Couillat, Coulleau, Caillou, Rocbrune, Rocquebrune, Roquebrune, and Larocque. He could not read or write. He left no birth record and no death record. His marriage contract has never been found. What remains is a scattered archive of civil records, notarial obligations, lawsuits, and legal proceedings generated by his presence — and by his absence.
This methodology documents how the facts of his life were established from these fragments, what evidence was examined and excluded, and how the legal documents generated after his death paradoxically provide the most specific information about his life — including the financial terms of the marriage contract that does not survive.
| Full Name | Philibert Couillaud dit Roquebrune (also Larocque) |
| Born | c. 1641, diocese of Nevers, Nivernais, France |
| Parents | Unknown. No primary document names his parents. |
| Arrived New France | 1665, with the Carignan-Salières Regiment |
| Confirmed | 21 May 1669, Chambly (Saint-Joseph), by Mgr de Laval. PRDH #403509 |
| Marriage | c. fall 1675, Contrecoeur (Ste-Trinité). No marriage record survives. |
| Spouse | Catherine Laporte dit Saint-Georges (baptized 12 Oct 1663, Montréal) |
| Spouse's Parents | Georges Laporte dit Saint-Georges & Nicole Duchesne |
| Children | 11 documented (PRDH Family #4480); possibly 13 per Larocque analysis |
| Death | Before 9 March 1701. No burial record survives. |
| PRDH Family # | 4480 |
| Dit Name Origin | Roquebrune / Rocbrune — toponymic, from roc brun (brown rock); first attested 1667 |
| Descendants | 420,000–840,000 (PRDH estimate); ~80% of North American Larocques (Larocque family research) |
Why Direct Proof Was Systematically Unavailable
Establishing the facts of Philibert Couillaud's life confronts three compounding evidentiary obstacles that do not appear in most colonial genealogical cases: a fraudulent noble pedigree embedded in the secondary literature, two separate fires that destroyed parish records, and a subject who was illiterate and left no autograph documents. Each obstacle required a distinct methodological response.
The Fraudulent Noble Pedigree
For generations, a segment of the genealogical literature placed Philibert as a son of the alleged noble Bernard de Laroque, connecting him to southern French aristocracy. This lineage was fabricated by Robert de Roquebrune (1889–1978) — a Québec novelist, archivist at the Archives of Ontario, and journalist who invented a noble pedigree for his own family and published it under his own authority. The fabrication was perpetuated because de Roquebrune was a credentialed archivist writing in the mid-twentieth century, and early researchers had no reason to challenge his claims.
The fiction has no evidentiary foundation. No primary document — French or Canadian — names Philibert's parents. The only contemporaneous record identifying his origin is the 1669 confirmation register at Chambly, which states explicitly: "Philbert Couilliau de Nevers." Nevers is in the Nivernais — not the south of France, not a region associated with the fictional Bernard de Laroque, and not a location consistent with any element of the fabricated genealogy. Per research analyst Michel Larocque, who has studied this question extensively, the Bernard de Laroque lineage should be rejected entirely on the grounds that (1) no primary document supports it, and (2) the only contemporaneous origin statement directly contradicts it.
The Two Fires: The 14.5-Year Documentary Void
Contrecoeur is among the few Quebec parishes to have lost its registers twice. The first loss was 2.5 years (June 1678 through January 1681) — the result of a fire at the home of surgeon Jean Bouvet dit Lachambre, who housed the visiting missionary priest and kept the registers. A compiler's note in the surviving volume documents this explicitly.
The second and far more consequential gap spans 14.5 years: 1687 en partie through all of 1701 (manquent). The register index names each missing year. This gap encompasses not only seven of Philibert's eleven children — including the direct ancestors of the Larocque surname — but also the period of his death. He died in this documentary void. No baptism records, no burial records, and no marriage records from Contrecoeur survive for this entire period. Every fact about his family during this period must be established from sources external to the parish register.
The Illiterate Subject
The 18 May 1688 notarial obligation before Royal Notary Claude Maugue records, in formal legal notation: déclarant n'scavoir écrire ny signer, selon l'ordonnance — "declaring he did not know how to write or sign, according to the ordinance." In place of a signature: an X. This means Philibert never wrote a letter, signed his name, or left a document in his own hand. Every record of him was created by someone else — a notary, a priest, a census-taker, a judge. The researcher is entirely dependent on others' transcriptions of what he said and did.
First Appearance in New France: The 1667 Land Sale
The earliest trace of Philibert Couillaud in New France is a 1667 land sale before notary Bénigne Basset on the Côte-Saint-Martin, Île de Montréal. The land was originally conceded by Gouverneur de Maisonneuve on 17 November 1665 — the year Philibert arrived with the regiment. The sale documents him as part of a group of soldiers of the Company of Contrecoeur, paying 470 livres tournois with a condition of three years of labor (à pioche).
Page two of the document reads: "Aux Nommés Rocbrune, le Vallon" — his dit name, spelled Rocbrune, used publicly in 1667, eight years before his marriage. This is the earliest attested form of the name in New France, and it is crucial: it establishes that Roquebrune was not a name assigned to him by later genealogists or derived from his children's usage, but a name he was already called in his own first years in the colony. The abbreviated form Laroque would appear in the hand of Notary Adhémar as early as 1680 — on the concession deed Philibert signed with the Seigneur de Contrecoeur — confirming that the name's evolution was already underway within Philibert's own lifetime, not solely a development of the next generation.
The 1667 land sale confirms Philibert's presence in New France in the immediate aftermath of his arrival with the Carignan-Salières Regiment. It establishes the dit name Rocbrune in the earliest possible contemporaneous document — two years after his arrival, eight years before his marriage. This is the foundational identity document of the entire research file.
Three subsequent notarial acts deepen the evidentiary portrait. On 8 September 1679, Philibert served as a formal witness to an annulment before Notary Pierre Mesnard at Contrecoeur — confirming established community standing and formally noting his illiteracy, a year and a half before the 1681 census. On 12 February 1680, he purchased a 60-arpent concession (2 arpents frontage × 30 arpents depth) directly from Seigneur Anthoine de Pecaudy before Notary Adhémar (No. 481) — resolving the previously open question of whether the primary concession document survived and explaining the 5 arpents under cultivation recorded in the 1681 census (13 months later). The Adhémar document is also the earliest known instance of the abbreviated form Laroque — used by the notary himself, in Philibert's own lifetime, on his own concession deed. Just two days later, on 14 February 1680, he appeared again as a witness before the same Notary Mesnard for a debt assignment, his illiteracy formally noted a second time. These three acts establish continuous presence at Contrecoeur from 1667 through 1680 and corroborate the 1681 census from multiple directions.
Origin Confirmed in His Own Era: The 1669 Confirmation Register
The single most authoritative document in this research file is a confirmation register entry from Chambly on 21 May 1669. Bishop François de Montmorency-Laval — the first Bishop of New France — confirmed nine soldiers of the Carignan-Salières Regiment at Fort Saint-Louis (Chambly). Philibert appears as "Philbert Couilliau de Nevers" — the Bishop's notary recording his surname phonetically and his origin precisely.
This document has several exceptional qualities. First, it is contemporaneous — created in Philibert's own lifetime, four years after his arrival, by a representative of the highest religious authority in New France. Second, the origin statement is direct and unambiguous: de Nevers. Third, Philibert is the only soldier from Nevers in the entire group, making this an unequivocal identification. Fourth, it is the only document in the research file that records his origin in a hand contemporary with his life. Against this evidence, the fictional claim that he descended from southern French nobility has no standing.
The 1669 confirmation register is the foundational origin document. "Philbert Couilliau de Nevers" — written in his own era, by a notary of the Bishop of New France, at a ceremony that specifically gathered soldiers of the Carignan-Salières Regiment — is the authoritative statement of his geographic origin. It eliminates the fraudulent noble pedigree, confirms the Nivernais origin, and places him precisely in the post-demobilization period when soldiers were settling in the colony.
Established in Contrecoeur: The 1675 Church Construction Contract
On 1 December 1675, Philibert Couillaud appears as a witness to the construction contract for Contrecoeur's first chapel — negotiated between settler Antoine Emery dit Coderre and master carpenter Jean Duval. This is the earliest documented civil act in Contrecoeur, and Philibert's presence as a witness confirms he was already permanently settled in the seigneurie at this date.
The evidentiary significance of this document extends beyond simple presence. The chapel contracted in December 1675 is, almost certainly, the chapel where Philibert and Catherine Laporte were married. Catherine had reached the canonical age for marriage — twelve years — on 12 October 1675, seven weeks before this contract. Research analyst Michel Larocque places the marriage in the fall of 1675, on the basis that a settlement of this size would have married its new couples at the earliest liturgically permissible opportunity. The chapel was their community's first permanent religious structure. Appearing as a witness to its construction contract, at the moment the marriage was almost certainly being arranged, is the closest the documentary record comes to placing Philibert at his own wedding.
The 1675 church contract establishes Philibert's permanent settlement in Contrecoeur at the precise moment the marriage with Catherine Laporte is believed to have occurred. It is the earliest Contrecoeur document in the research file and the foundation for all subsequent Contrecoeur-based evidence. His standing as a witness — not a party — confirms he was already an established community member by this date.
The Family Established: The 1681 Census of New France
The 1681 Census of New France is the only surviving snapshot of Philibert Couillaud's household taken during his lifetime. The original manuscript records: "Philibert Couillaut — 40 ans, Catherine Laporte sa femme 17, Enfants Jean Baptiste 4, Jean François Juzoil 1. 1 fusil — 5 bêtes à cornes — 5 arpents en valeur."
He is listed as the third household in the seigneurie — immediately after seigneur Antoine Pécaudy de Contrecoeur and his family, a position in the census order that reflects his standing as one of the earliest and most established settlers in the community. Fourteen pioneer households with sixty-nine persons total are enumerated.
What the Census Records — and What It Omits
The census records two children: Jean-Baptiste (age 4, born c. 1677) and Jean-François Juzoil (age 1, born c. November 1680). The PRDH structured card (Census #98944) reads the five-year-old son as "Jean" rather than "Jean-Baptiste" — a distinction that matters for understanding the family, as discussed in the children's birth date note below.
Catherine Laporte's recorded age of seventeen is almost certainly wrong. She was baptized on 12 October 1663 and would have been seventeen only if the census were taken in late 1680 — she was almost certainly seventeen going on eighteen in 1681. Her age in later records is consistent with 1663 as her birth year. This is a standard census-age inaccuracy of the period.
The 1688 notarial obligation (Evidence Line 5) independently corroborates the census geography: it explicitly places Philibert's property in Contrecoeur between the holdings of his father-in-law Georges Laporte and his brother-in-law Louis Laporte — the Laporte family neighbors whose presence in the seigneury is confirmed by the census.
The 1681 census is the only surviving contemporaneous record of Philibert's household during his lifetime. It confirms the marriage, names two children, establishes his property holdings (one musket, five cattle, five arpents cleared), and places him as the third household — the most established non-seigneurial family — in the pioneer community at Contrecoeur. The geographic corroboration with the 1688 obligation strengthens both records mutually.
A Man in Full: The 1688 Notarial Obligation Before Royal Notary Claude Maugue
The notarial obligation of 18 May 1688, drawn up before Royal Notary Claude Maugue in Montréal, is the richest single document in the research file. In a single two-page act, it records four independent findings unavailable elsewhere: Philibert's precise property location, his social relationships, his witnesses, and the most intimate fact of his biography — that he could not read or write. In the place of a signature, he made an X.
The obligation records Philibert ("Rocbrune") borrowing 118 livres 18 sols 10 deniers from Montréal merchant Charles de Couagne. The debt was substantial — roughly equivalent to several months of agricultural labor. It was never repaid. After Philibert's death, Catherine faced this obligation compounded with interest, alongside a 150-livre debt to Marguerite Sédillot and a new 195-livre Couagne loan she herself took out on 9 March 1701. Total debts exceeded 463 livres.
The Property Location
The obligation explicitly describes Philibert's mortgaged property as being located in Contrecoeur between the holding of his father-in-law, Sr. Georges Laporte dit Saint-Georges, and his brother-in-law, Louis Laporte. This is the most specific geographic statement in the entire research file. It corroborates the 1681 census independently, confirms the family geography of the Laporte-Couillaud settlement cluster, and establishes precisely where on the Contrecoeur riverfront the family lived for twenty-five years.
The Witnesses
Two witnesses appear at the obligation: François Bailly, physician, and Nicolas Droissy, master pastry baker (maître pâtissier). Both men were established Montréal figures. Their presence confirms that Philibert traveled to Montréal for this transaction — a reminder that Contrecoeur settlers maintained regular commercial ties to the colonial capital even in the late 1680s, when the seigneurie was barely fifteen years old.
The Illiteracy Notation
Page two records the most personal line in the research file. In the formal legal notation used by all notaries of the period when a party could not sign: déclarant n'scavoir écrire ny signer, selon l'ordonnance. "Declaring he did not know how to write or sign, according to the ordinance." Philibert placed his mark — an X — in the space reserved for his signature. This one notarial phrase transforms every other document in the file: the census was filled out by a census-taker, the obligations were read to him by a notary, the lawsuits were conducted on his behalf by his widow. He never read a single word written about him.
Note on notary identity: Both the 1687 Sédillot obligation and the 1688 Couagne obligation were executed before Royal Notary Claude Maugue. Earlier versions of this research file incorrectly identified the notary as Antoine Adhémar. The notary is confirmed as Maugue by the document itself and by the 1701 Aubuchon lawsuit, which references "l'obligation du 25 Februier 1687 devant Maugue."
The 1688 Maugue obligation yields four independent findings from a single document: precise property location (between his father-in-law and brother-in-law in Contrecoeur), social connections (Montréal physician and pastry baker as witnesses), the specific debt that would burden Catherine after his death, and the definitive evidence of illiteracy — the X mark that serves as both evidence and epitaph. No other document in the research file contains this density of biographical information.
Death and the Legal Cascade: 1701–1728
Philibert Couillaud left no death record and no burial record. The register that would have contained them — the Contrecoeur parish register, 1687–1701 — does not exist. Yet the legal documents generated after his death are, paradoxically, the most information-dense sources in the entire research file. Through three separate legal proceedings spanning twenty-seven years, they establish his death terminus, document his debts, recover the financial terms of his lost marriage contract, and trace the disposition of his land through his widow and children.
The Death Terminus: 8 March 1701
On 8 March 1701, the heirs of Marguerite Sédillot — represented by Joseph Aubuchon — filed a civil complaint at the Royal Jurisdiction of Montréal against "Catherine De Laporte veuve de deffunt philibert Couillau dit Rocquebrune vivant habitant de Contrecoeur." The phrase veuve de deffunt — "widow of the late" — is legally precise. Catherine is responding as a widow. Philibert was alive for some portion of the 14.5-year register gap; he was dead before 8 March 1701. His death must have occurred between late 1686 (when the last surviving Contrecoeur register entry was made) and 8 March 1701. No narrower estimate is possible from existing evidence.
The Aubuchon Lawsuit (BAnQ TL4,S1,D480): 1701–1707
The lawsuit (BAnQ TL4,S1,D480) is a four-page civil proceeding that ran from 8 March 1701 to 21 October 1707, before Lieutenant Général Deschambault. It is the only surviving legal record that names Philibert explicitly and describes his debts. It references "l'obligation du 25 Februier 1687 devant Maugue" — confirming the existence and notary of the 1687 Sédillot obligation (the original of which is lost). Catherine is sued as widow and as natural guardian of her minor children, establishing that some children were still legally minors in 1701. Son Antoine Couillaud signs on one of the pages — the first documentary appearance of an adult child. By 1707, Catherine has a tenant (Louis Delaporte, her brother-in-law) farming her Contrecoeur land, suggesting she had already relocated toward Varennes by this date.
The 1711 Land Auction (BAnQ TL4,S1,D1280)
By 1711, Philibert's Contrecoeur concession had been abandoned. The seigneur, Antoine Pécaudy, petitioned the Royal Jurisdiction to have it sold at auction, noting that neighbors had been burdened by ditch maintenance and other obligations that the heirs were not fulfilling. The complete judicial file — sixteen pages compiled in a single PDF — documents six sequential events: the seigneur's petition, the permission to sell (read publicly at the Contrecoeur church exit on 29 March 1711 by bailiff Bourdon), public notices affixed at Notre-Dame in Montréal on 17 May, 24 May, and 30 May 1711 by bailiff Meschin, the initial auction (Antoine Couillaud bids 214 livres), Antoine's formal opposition invoking the douaire préfix of his mother's marriage contract, the final adjudication at 278 livres, and the distribution of proceeds to Antoine.
Antoine's opposition is the critical legal act. By formally invoking the douaire préfix — the widow's dower right established in the marriage contract — he raises the sale price and ensures Catherine receives the dower funds. He is the highest bidder at his own action. He purchases his father's land, pays his mother's dower, and keeps the concession in the family. The 1711 auction is a remarkable demonstration of the legal sophistication of the second generation of settlers, conducted entirely through formal legal channels.
The 1728 Dower Document: The Marriage Contract's Ghost
On 15 October 1728, a legal dispute arose between two of Philibert and Catherine's sons — Philibert fils and Antoine — over Catherine's dower rights following her remarriage to Jean Charpentier. The document references: "Contrait demariage d'Autre feu [Philibert père]" — the marriage contract of the late Philibert Couillaud. The specific terms cited are the most precise statement of those terms in the entire research file: a dower of 15 livres per year for 30 years.
The marriage contract itself is lost. This 1728 dispute is the only document that reveals its financial terms. Both sons were using it to argue their respective positions — which means the contract was a real document, referenced by both parties from personal knowledge or family records, not invented for the occasion.
The three legal proceedings from 1701, 1711, and 1728 form a cascade of evidence that begins with death and ends with the recovery of the lost marriage contract's terms. Together they establish: Philibert's death terminus (before 8 March 1701), his debts (150 livres to Sédillot, 118 livres to Couagne, a third obligation to Lamorche), the existence and financial terms of the marriage contract (15 livres/year dower for 30 years), and the disposition of his land through son Antoine. The legal record created by his absence is more detailed than most of the evidence created by his presence.
The Register Gap: Documentary Proof of the Documentary Void
The 14.5-year gap in the Contrecoeur parish register is not an inference — it is explicitly documented in the register itself, in three independent archival components that survive in the same volume.
The Surviving Children's Baptism Records
Five of the eleven documented children have surviving baptism records. Three are in the Contrecoeur register; two were baptized in neighboring parishes — an unusual fact that itself carries evidentiary weight. Each is documented below with both the original parish register entry and the PRDH structured card.
1. Jean-Baptiste (Sorel, 1677): Confirming the Pre-Chapel Period
Jean-Baptiste Couillaud was born 15 October 1677 and baptized 20 October 1677 at Sorel (Saint-Pierre-de-Sorel) — not at Contrecoeur. The reason is straightforward: Contrecoeur's first chapel was contracted on 1 December 1675 and would not have been in regular liturgical use by October 1677. The nearest established parish was Sorel.
2. Marie-Anne (Contrecoeur, 1681): First Baptism at the New Chapel
Marie-Anne Couillaud was born 3 October 1681 and baptized 4 October 1681 at Contrecoeur (Ste-Trinité) — the first surviving baptism of a Couillaud child at Contrecoeur, confirming the chapel was in regular liturgical service by 1681. Godfather: Jean Maseau. Godmother: Anne Michel. The officiating priest was Benoît Duplein, Missionary of the Seminary of Québec.
3. Antoine (Boucherville, 1683): An Unexplained Parish Choice
Antoine Couillaud was born 6 November 1683 and baptized 7 November 1683 at Boucherville (Ste-Famille) — not at Contrecoeur, where the chapel was by then well established. Why Antoine was baptized at Boucherville remains an open research question. Possible explanations include a temporary closure of the Contrecoeur chapel, a commercial trip to Boucherville, or a social connection requiring a Boucherville godparent. Notably, both godparents — Antoine Laporte and Angélique Laporte (daughter of Georges and Nicole Duchesne Laporte) — were from Boucherville, suggesting a family connection there.
4. Catherine (Contrecoeur, 1685)
Catherine Couillaud was born 12 January 1685 and baptized the same day at Contrecoeur (Ste-Trinité). Godfather: Jacques Delaporte. Godmother: Anne Rivière, spouse of Jean Cellurier Desloriers. Priest: Benoît Duplein.
5. François (Contrecoeur, 1686): The Last Record Before the Gap
François Couillaud was born 3 December 1686 and baptized 6 December 1686 at Contrecoeur — the last surviving baptism record before the 14.5-year register gap. The next Contrecoeur record after this entry is from 1701. Six more children were born during this void. Godfather: Louis Latonne. Godmother: Marie Paviot. Priest: Sennemaud.
The Fraudulent Noble Pedigree: Bernard de Laroque
A claim circulates in some genealogical databases and online family trees that Philibert Couillaud was the son of Bernard de Laroque, a southern French noble. This lineage, if true, would provide Philibert with noble parentage, a documented French father, and a connection to aristocratic families of the Languedoc. It is entirely fabricated.
The claim was constructed by Robert de Roquebrune (1889–1978) — a Québec-born novelist, journalist, archivist at the Archives of Ontario from 1934, and writer of romanticized Quebec history. De Roquebrune was a credentialed archivist with a public platform, and he used both to invent a noble ancestry for his own family. He published this fabricated genealogy under his own authority, and it was accepted in the mid-twentieth century because researchers had limited ability to verify claims about pre-1665 French records.
Why It Was Rejected
The rejection rests on a single evidentiary principle: the 1669 Chambly confirmation register records "Philbert Couilliau de Nevers" — not de Laroque, not de Roquebrune, and not any southern province. Nevers is the capital of the Nivernais — a landlocked region of central France, entirely unconnected to the southern French aristocracy to which de Roquebrune's fabricated pedigree would attach him. No primary document — French or Canadian — names Philibert's parents. No baptism record for him has been found in France. The 1669 confirmation is the only contemporaneous statement of origin in his entire file, and it gives Nevers.
The fraudulent pedigree is documented here for methodological transparency, because it continues to appear in published genealogies and online trees. Researchers who encounter the claim of noble Bernard de Laroque parentage should note that this claim originates with a twentieth-century novelist, contradicts the only contemporaneous origin document, and has no primary evidentiary support.
The Bernard de Laroque noble pedigree is rejected on the following grounds: (1) No primary document — French or Canadian — names Philibert's parents. (2) The only contemporaneous origin record, the 1669 Chambly confirmation register, identifies his origin as Nevers — a region incompatible with the fictional southern French noble lineage. (3) The fabrication is traceable to a single identifiable source: Robert de Roquebrune, a twentieth-century novelist who invented a pedigree for his own family. (4) Per research analyst Michel Larocque, who has investigated this question in detail, no corroborating evidence for the Bernard de Laroque claim exists in any primary French or Canadian archive.
Birth Dates Beyond the Gap: What the Record Can and Cannot Tell Us
Five of Philibert and Catherine's eleven documented children have surviving baptism records, all from before the 14.5-year register gap. The six children born during the gap — Michel, Marie Hilaire, Philibert fils, Marie Barbe, and likely one or two others — have no primary baptism documentation and almost certainly never will. The Contrecoeur register that would have recorded them does not exist.
What we do have for those children are adult records: marriage acts, death records, and census entries that state ages — and all of these are subject to the recording inaccuracies typical of 17th- and early 18th-century colonial New France. The PRDH acknowledges this directly in Louis's record, noting the problem of age statements in older individuals. Any birth year derived from a stated age in a marriage or burial act is an estimate, not a confirmed date.
One specific question that the surviving census record raises: the PRDH's structured card for Census #98944 reads the five-year-old son in the 1681 household as "Jean" — distinct from Jean-Baptiste (age three). If this reading is correct, there was a first child Jean born c. 1676 who does not appear separately in the standard PRDH family reconstruction. This remains an open question; the original manuscript is authoritative, and researchers should consult it alongside the PRDH card. The full analytical detail — including inter-birth interval analysis — is documented in the Complete Research File.
The table of children below lists the eleven children as documented by PRDH Family Record #4480. Birth years for children born during the register gap are estimates derived from adult age statements. Louis's birth date (PRDH c. 1679) is specifically flagged as uncertain; a c. 1689 birth year better fits his marriage age and the family's inter-birth interval pattern. Researchers should treat all gap-period birth years as approximate.
The Eleven Documented Children of Philibert and Catherine
PRDH Family Record #4480 documents eleven children. Of these, five have surviving baptism records. Six — including the direct Larocque and Rock surname lines — were born during the 14.5-year register gap and have no surviving primary baptism documentation. PRDH Individual records for all ten surviving children are preserved in the research file. Jean (c. 1676) has no known descendants.
| Jean (c. 1676) | No baptism record (pre-gap or first fire). Proposed first child per Larocque 13-child hypothesis. No known descendants. |
| Jean-Baptiste (1677) | Baptized 20 Oct 1677, Sorel (Saint-Pierre). Died 4 Jul 1753, Varennes. Married 1704 Marie Anne Jeanne Célerier Deslauriers. Brother of Louis I; 6th great-granduncle of the researcher. PRDH #38748. |
| Louis (c. 1679 or c. 1689) | Burial 5 Jun 1764, Oka. Married 21 May 1716, Pointe-Claire — Marie Madeleine Sabourin. 6th great-grandfather of the researcher. Direct ancestor through the Larocque / Roquebrune line. Birth date uncertain (see note below). PRDH #38856. |
| Marie-Anne (1681) | Baptized 4 Oct 1681, Contrecoeur. Married before 1700, Léonard Girault Lachaume. Murdered her husband 28 Feb 1702; fled to New England. Condemned in absentia; hung in effigy. 128-page trial transcript survives. Died outside Québec. PRDH #32586. |
| Antoine (1683) | Baptized 7 Nov 1683, Boucherville (Ste-Famille). Died 15 Jan 1749, St-Denis-sur-Richelieu. Two marriages. Purchased father's land at 1711 auction (278 livres). PRDH #38645. |
| Catherine (1685) | Baptized 12 Jan 1685, Contrecoeur. Died 26 Oct 1750, St-Denis-sur-Richelieu. Two marriages: before 1700, Noël Boulier Lafosse; 4 Feb 1709, Louis Dragon Quay. PRDH #5592. |
| François (1686) | Baptized 6 Dec 1686, Contrecoeur. Last surviving baptism record before the 14.5-year gap. Married Nov 1717, Sorel, Marie Josephe Greslon Laviolette Grenon. PRDH #38855. |
| Michel (c. 1694) | Born during gap; no baptism record. Death stated 100 years old (=1672 per burial record — flagged as error); marriage act states 24 years old in 1718 (= born c. 1694, accepted). Died 22 Oct 1772. PRDH record. |
| Marie Hilaire (c. 1696) | Born during gap; no baptism record. Child born out of wedlock, 26 Dec 1715, Varennes (son Louis, father unknown). Married 25 Jun 1722 Montréal, Jean Baptiste Schofield Lépine. Died c. 1727. PRDH #38859. |
| Philibert fils (c. 1697) | Born during gap. Died 8 Oct 1751, Montréal. Married 30 Sep 1721, Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, Jeanne Brunet Bourbonnais. Subject of 1728 dower dispute with brother Antoine. PRDH #38858. |
| Marie Barbe (c. 1700) | Born during gap; no baptism record. Child born out of wedlock, 23 Mar 1721, St-Sulpice (son François, father unknown). Three marriages (1723, 1731, 1765), all at Québec (Notre-Dame-de-Québec). Died 24 Nov 1770, St-Joseph-de-Beauce. PRDH #74820. |
The Dit Name: Roquebrune, Larocque, and Their Descendants
Researchers encounter a family identified by two primary names — Couillaud dit Roquebrune and Larocque — plus at least seven additional variants. Understanding how these names relate to each other and to the documentary record is essential for accurate identification across the family's multiple lines.
Rocbrune / Roquebrune / Rocquebrune is the form used in all documents associated with Philibert himself: the 1667 land sale (Rocbrune), the 1688 obligation (Rocbrune), the 1701 lawsuit (Rocquebrune), the 1711 auction (Roquebrune), the 1728 dower document. This is his name in his own era.
Larocque — a simplified, Gallicized derivative of roc (rock) — was adopted by some of his children and became dominant in the next generation. It is not a name Philibert himself used. The transition from Roquebrune to Larocque occurred across approximately one generation, with some lines using one form and some using the other simultaneously in the early 18th century.
The origin of the name is toponymic: roc brun in Occitan/Old French means "brown rock" — a reference to a rocky outcrop or fortified height. This is consistent with the habitual dit-name practice in New France, where place-of-origin references and topographic nicknames were common. Philibert's name may reference his region of origin, a specific landmark near Nevers, or a characteristic he was associated with in the regiment. No primary document explains the choice.
English Anglicization in the 19th and 20th centuries produced further variants: Larock, Rock, Rockburn, Rockbrune, Roque. Research analyst Michel Larocque estimates that approximately 80% of all Larocques currently living in North America trace their descent through Philibert Couillaud dit Roquebrune. This figure, derived from PRDH genealogical data, reflects the extraordinary demographic inheritance of a single pioneer settler from Nevers who cannot have numbered his own name among his accomplishments — he signed with an X.
Assessment of Proof
The reconstruction of Philibert Couillaud dit Roquebrune's life rests on six converging evidence lines, built sequentially across a documentary record that spans from 1667 to 1728. Each line establishes something the others cannot; together they provide a BCG-compliant preponderance of evidence for the central facts of his biography despite the absence of a birth record, a marriage record, and a death record.
- The 1667 land sale (Basset greffe, BAnQ-Montréal): Earliest presence in New France; establishes the dit name Rocbrune in 1667, eight years before the marriage.
- The 1669 Chambly confirmation (PRDH #403509): The sole contemporaneous origin document. "Philbert Couilliau de Nevers" — confirmed by Bishop de Laval. Eliminates the fraudulent noble pedigree.
- The 1675 church construction contract (BAnQ): Permanent settlement in Contrecoeur at the moment of the probable marriage. The chapel they contracted to build is the chapel where the marriage almost certainly occurred.
- The 1681 census (Library and Archives Canada): The only living-era household snapshot. Confirms marriage, two children, property holdings, and position as the third household in the pioneer community.
- The 1688 Maugue obligation (ANQ, Montréal): Single richest document. Property location, social connections, specific debt, and the illiteracy notation — the X mark — in one two-page act.
- The legal cascade of 1701–1728 (BAnQ TL4,S1,D480 and D1280; Archives du District de Montréal): Death terminus established; 150-livre obligation documented; 1711 auction confirming marriage contract existence; 1728 dower document recovering contract terms (15 livres/year for 30 years).
Two items were examined and excluded or flagged. The fraudulent Bernard de Laroque noble pedigree is rejected on the grounds that no primary document supports it and the 1669 confirmation directly contradicts it. Louis's birth date (PRDH c. 1679) is flagged as uncertain — a c. 1689 birth year better fits his marriage age and the family's inter-birth interval pattern, and researchers should treat it as an estimate derived from an imprecise adult age statement.
The identification of Philibert Couillaud as a soldier of the Carignan-Salières Regiment, permanent settler of the Seigneurie de Contrecoeur, husband of Catherine Laporte dit Saint-Georges, and father of at least eleven children, is established by a preponderance of evidence meeting BCG standards. The evidence chain runs from 1667 to 1728 — sixty-one years of documentary record across six distinct archival collections. No primary document contradicts any element of this reconstruction. The central biographical gap — the 14.5-year register void that consumed his death and seven of his children's baptisms — cannot be filled with existing evidence. But the chain that surrounds that gap is documented, evaluated, and holds.
Philibert Couillaud arrived in New France as one of over a thousand soldiers sent by Louis XIV to garrison a colonial frontier. He stayed. He cleared five arpents of land in Contrecoeur, raised eleven children, borrowed money he never repaid, and died unrecorded in a parish that had lost its own registers to fire. He left an X where his name should have been. His descendants number in the hundreds of thousands. This is the full account of what can be established about his life — and of how it was established.
This methodology accompanies the Philibert Couillaud dit Roquebrune case study and documentary biography. For the complete evidence inventory with all primary source images organized by category, see the research file.
Case Study Summary → Documentary Biography → Complete Research File →