Archiver > QUEBEC-RESEARCH > 2011-06 > 1308337804

From: "Andy Scott" <>
Subject: Re: [Q-R] Translation
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 13:10:04 -0600
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>

Thanks Suzanne... I have noticed this as well!

Andy Scott

-----Original Message-----
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Suzanne
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: [Q-R] Translation

In some records, more than two male witnesses were recorded.
I have observed that the two men on most were often the bedeau of the parish
and sometimes a member of the fabrique or lay governing body of the church.
I have seen more people, including women, indicated as present and also
their signatures at burials in the older records. For example, Angelique
Couc signed the burial record of her sister Jeanne in 1679. These tend to
disappear, replaced by just two witnesses, sometimes one and the priest. 
Just because there is no mention of family at a burial, however, does not
mean they were not present. They just did not witness the writing of the
burial act. Not too many years ago, my brother and father were invited to
witness and sign the burial of my aunt in Montreal, but I was not. I was
definitely present, though.
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 14:57:06 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [Q-R] Translation
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Thank you Doreen for the quick translation of the Martin death. Reading 
what you wrote brought up a quick question. In burials, is it always two
that are the witnesses. (It seems that way to me but I could be wrong.)
Thanks  once again Clyde
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~For the list web page, goto:
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: