QUEBEC-RESEARCH-L Archives

Archiver > QUEBEC-RESEARCH > 2011-01 > 1294097601


From: John Sullivan <>
Subject: Re: [Q-R] Quebec Parish Registers on Family Search - please explainsomething
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 18:33:21 -0500
References: <287047.4824.qm@web59415.mail.ac4.yahoo.com><4D224A61.8080505@videotron.ca><176169.91722.qm@web59414.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <176169.91722.qm@web59414.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>


I, undersigned, priest and canon lawyer, was in the process of writing an
explanation of the "church copy" and "court copy" of parish registers in
colonial Quebec. Then I saw Mona's post, and while I was reading it, I saw a
message at the bottom margin that there was a new message from Joan.

At this point, all I can say is, «merci, cousine Mona» and wonder if my
version would have been very different -- It certainly wouldn't have been
any better.

Fr John L


On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Joan <> wrote:

> Thanks Mona! You always give such wonderful explanations. Now I understand
> completely.
>
> Joan
>
>
> Researching BOND, MEAGHER, and PELLERIN in Port Felix, Nova Scotia.
> Researching LAFORET and SAAM in Williamsburg NY and Frankenthal Germany
> Researching CONNOLLY and McLAUGHLIN in Cty Tryone Ireland and Ontario
> Canada
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Mona Andrée Rainville <>
> To: Joan <>
> Cc:
> Sent: Mon, January 3, 2011 5:14:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [Q-R] Quebec Parish Registers on Family Search - please
> explain
> something
>
> Hello Joan,
>
> Hum... there is something in your question which first calls for an
> explanation.
>
> The obligation to keep church ledgers in duplicate did not mean that the
> original church record was copied over at the end of the year. It meant
> that
> two original ledgers were kept simultaneously and side by side.
>
> One was meant to remain in the parish, and is referred to as the "minute",
> or
> colloquially the "church copy", while the other, the "grosse", was meant to
> be
> transferred annually to the court of jurisdiction. This second record
> ledger is
> often referred to as the "court copy". Of course, "church copy" and "court
> copy" are misnomers as neither ledger is a copy, really. They were meant to
> be
> interchangeable originals.
>
> In many parishes, both ledgers were kept side by side as should be. In
> some
> parishes, the parties were only asked to sign the church ledger. And in
> some
> parishes, the procedure was not properly followed so that only one ledger
> was
> kept and then copied over, hopefully once a year.
>
> That said, it sometimes became necessary to take conservation measures when
> either the minute or the grosse of a ledger became damaged or fragile.
> Whenever
> necessary, the registers of a parish, often spanning several years, were
> copied
> over and the copy was then certified true to the original. The resulting
> ledger
> is truly a copy, a "true copy" to be precise.
>
> What you found for Château-Richer is precisely that. The ledgers were
> entirely
> recopied by hand, and if you look at image 14:727, you'll find a notice
> signed
> by the patient man who tackled the task in 1926, Amédée Gosselin, priest
> and
> archivist at the Seminary of Quebec. In it, he explains that the originals
> were
> "très détériorés", meaning they were in an advanced state of decay. They
> had
> been left on deposit with the seminary of Quebec as "ne pereant" which is
> latin
> for "lest they perish", or more to the point, for measures to be taken for
> their
> conservation.
>
> Sometimes, only the passing of years and adverse storage conditions were to
> blame. Sometimes, the damage resulted from fire or flood.
>
> And sometimes, still, these precious copies are all that remains of the
> parish
> records otherwise lost.
>
> I hope this answers your question,
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mona
>
>
>
> Joan wrote:
> > I wonder if someone can explain a certain parish register to me. It is
> Chateau
> >Richer, La Visitation-de-Notre-Dame, 1661-1690.
> >
> > It's obvious to me that this book is not the original register as all the
> >records are written in the same (very neat!) hand. I was under the
> impression
> >that the registers were copied over every year and one book was kept at
> the
> >church while one book went to the courthouse.
> >
> > Can you explain the book above? How could a book spanning 30 years be
> written
> >by the same person? Someone must have copied over 30 years worth of
> records into
> >this one register right?
> >
> >
> > I am assuming that even though this book is obviously not the one
> maintained by
> >the parish priest, it is nonetheless to be considered a primary source.
> Correct?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Joan
> >
> > Researching BOND, MEAGHER, and PELLERIN in Port Felix, Nova Scotia.
> > Researching LAFORET and SAAM in Williamsburg NY and Frankenthal Germany
> >Researching CONNOLLY and McLAUGHLIN in Cty Tryone Ireland and Ontario
> Canada
> >
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~For the list web page,
> goto:
> > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~unclefred/main.htm
> > -------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> > with the word 'unsubscribe' without
> the
> >quotes in the subject and the body of the message
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~For the list web page, goto:
> http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~unclefred/main.htm
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without
> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>



This thread: