Huguenot-L Archives

Archiver > Huguenot > 2004-12 > 1104267030


From: "Tony Fuller" <>
Subject: Re: [Huguenot] Help needed - How many Pierre VIDEAU's?
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 20:51:14 -0000
References: <200412280738.iBS7ckxI003993@lists2.rootsweb.com> <41D1A64D.1040207@atc.edu>


Hi Ray

Wasn't checking up on your message, just wanted to read the original.

Here's my take on things for what it's worth.

I looked in Baird and there is a reference to the extended family, p.296,
Some confusion here about terms, may be able to explain them ..... both the
references to the Hug Soc of London QS are for denization, rather than
naturalization, denization being the lesser of the two processes. People
who received den did not become full members of the host community but they
could elect at a later date to be naturalized - all to do with money
usually.

I have no problem about naturalization in the Colonies as there were various
pieces of legislation which allowed that and I think that the family took
advantage of it in the New Country - they don't incidentally appear in the
QS edition on American naturalizations though the SLEIGH family does appear.

But I'm about to throw an enormous spanner in the works for you, although
you may already know about it.

Pre-spanner first. I think that what you have in the QS is two families,
related but not the same necessarily. There are many instances in the
records of nat and den when you see a family and son/daughter in law going
through the process together and the reference you quote from Vol 18, p.129
seems to be that happening.

I think that the family quoted on p.192 is another family - there is
absolutely no reason at all why Peter VIDEAU would be naturalized twice and
there are many many instances of wives and children taking den or nat away
from a husband who had been in England for some years. Just for your
information, the reference also appears in Durrant Cooper.

I don't know whether you followed up the references to the names in other
volumes of QS but I had a quick electronic scan and came up with the
following baptism from the records of Threadneedle Street Church, 18 Nov
1685:

VIDEAU, Jeanne Elizabeth, fille de Pierre V. et Jeanne Elizabeth More (with
an acute accent over the e), sa femme. M.Jean Forfet et Madeline Burgaud.
Nov. 18.

So there's the spanner, according to the transcription of the original
documents, the mother's name isn't MAUZE but MORE (with the accent).

Sorry to add to the confusion but in my experience, you're looking at two
Pierre V families.

Regards

Tony
List Daddy



This thread: