Hi Barbara, Peter, and all, From: "Barbara" <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 1:49 PM > Peter wrote: >> > > ... although now I am willing to promote the > > idea that early (prior to) Calvinist marriages were > > legal. (now to try and explore any other reason for > > that batard Leroy child being omitted from a will.) > Hi Peter, > > I, too, have just discovered that a pivotal relative was left out of his > father's will so I have a new mystery to pursue ... Gwenn Epperson in _New Netherland Roots_, p. 95 in a chapter on searching in French parish registers says: "Protestant records also begin in the sixteenth century, but are very rare, since the records were illegal until 1789. Therefore, many Protestants are recorded in Catholic registers, as marriage by a Catholic priest was required to inherit property." Not understanding the exact time she is talking about, nor knowing your exact timeframe; it is difficult to tell if this would apply or not. There are many reasons someone could be left out of a will; our first inclination is usually that the omitted person was dead. But Kenn Stryker-Rodda in "Our Willing Ancestors" (National Genealogical Society Quarterly, vol 52 (Mar 1964), pp 3-13, writes in a section titled "Accuntuate the Positive!" : "Although there is no source more valuable than wills for the establishment of relationships, we must trust only positive evidence: that is, we must not assume that a man who mentioned his children but not his wife was a widower, nor should we jump to the conclusion that a child known to have existed a short time before must have died because not referred to in the will." He then goes on to mention several other things that could cause a child not to be named, which I paraphrase: 1) They may have already gotten their share when they married 2) There was cause for displeasure 3) They were presumed dead because of a long absence 4) They were simply forgotten 5) They were omitted when the will was copied into the will liber. Regards, Howard [email protected]

Howard wrote: > > Not understanding the exact time she is talking about, nor > knowing your exact timeframe; it is difficult to tell if this would > apply or not. > Regards, > Howard > [email protected] The DES LOGES connection begins in mid-16th century in Rheims France and I do have some information connecting her to the DELAUNE family so am fortunate that there was at least some information available on these families but you're right it is scarce so far in France. > The Gideon DELAUNE that is missing from his father's will is the one I'm interested in. There are 3 possible Gideons who cropped up in the information I received and I'm looking for the one who was in Ireland in the mid-17th century but Irish records are even more scarce. You are right, there could be many reasons why but I know a first born son Gideon died at the age of 9 and there was a third son born the year of the death of the first one and also named Gideon. I believe this one may have gone to Ireland. That's one of my primary focuses right now but was happy to find the DES LOGES name as I had not had William (Guillaume)'s wife's name until now. Thanks to a list member. I enjoy this list so much. I find the whole Huguenot era fascinating in and of itself and enjoy each member's stories as well. > Best regards, Barbara