Les Filles du Roi: Reality, Myth, and Ignorance.

[Merlot]

Hello Lilly,

I could not read the French text in your link, but I found this:

http://pages.infinit.net/gautreau/salpee.html

This hospital owes its name to the arsenal built under King Louis Xlll to manufacture gun powder with saltpeter. In April of 1656, Louis XlV signed a decree establishing the building of a general hospital witch would take care of the to many poor persons, orphans and beggars of the capital. The hospital complex would be composed of a few buildings: "LaPitié" (the pity) for children, "Bicêtre" (?) for male adults and "La Salpêtrière" (saltpeter works) for female adults. In 1662 the institution already had more than 10,000 residents. In 1660, Liberal Bruant started the extension works on the old arsenal (to become the Salpêtrière). These works were later carried out by Le Vau, who saw quite big, for he wanted to double the floor space of the actual building. This hospital complex is of particular interest to us. Most of the young women called at the time "filles du Roy" (King's daughters), who were sent to Canada between 1663 and 1673, following a request from Jean Talon, came from this complex. Those candidates were given a dowry by the King to help settle themselves in Canada. In 1684, King Louis XlV had an independent section added to the "Salpêtrière". This added section was built for girls under detention at the request of their husband or their families, as allowed by the laws of those times….. The name "Salpêtrière" given to this prison and immortalized by the priest Prévost in his book "Manon Lescaux", gave a false impression as to witch building should really bear the name. In fact, the name belonged to the dwelling for poor but honest young women and not to the prison witch boarded "Manon Lescaux" and more criminalized women in the book. This famous prison did not yet even exist when these young women were offered to go to Canada and help in the settlement of this new country. According to Yves Landry, demography specialist, in his most recent survey, the total number of girls sent to Canada is equal to 770 from witch 737 directly contributed to the establishment of a family. Catherine Renusson, however, came from Normandy in 1676 therefore, not in the 10 year period of the "filles du Roy". We know by her marriage contract that she was sheltered by the daughters of the congregation on November the 23rd, 1676, when, at the age of 22, she married Vincent Chamaillard, a 33 year old sabot maker and ploughman who came to Canada from Poitou in France in 1665. This couple had 7 children. She will marry two more times without children, once in 1689 with Augustin Alonza and in 1709 with Gilles Gautreau.

This puts a big dent in the more distasteful theory.

Legends and myths, something that remains for a very long time.

I was reading somewhere that the selection system was not perfect so within the other 300 something women who came from else where, there could have been some prostitutes but they were not the majority as myth suggests.

My father is a France and Nouvelle France history geek. Would be interesting to peruse through his books and see what I can find.

I had a college course on Nouvelle France during the 17th century as part of my masters degree. Les filles du roi et les coureurs de bois were part of the study. We obviously dealt with well documented evidence and well researched books, hence the deep disdain for rumors, myths, supposition, and totally unsupported generalities. If it is very doubtful les filles du roi de Paris were prostitutes it's practically impossible in Normandie or other rural areas. One of my filles du roi ancestors was from St. Maclou dans la Normandie, which even today is just a tiny village...not the sort of place where a prostitute could possibly flourish.

Cheers,

Merlot

 

[eastender]

Not So...............

Hello Lilly,

Yes, all of les filles du roi arrived in Nouvelle France between 1663 and 1673, and they came from other areas besides Paris and Normandy. If prostitutes were only taken to La Salpêtrière after 1684 then the issue concerning les filles du roi is resolved for these women.

Great point...what is the rationale for insisting someone is something there is no evidence for. It's a very strange devotion to insist on labeling people something all evidence says they weren't. It's a strange obsession.

Hmmm,

Merlot

All this means is that starting in 1684 prostitutes were systematically INCLUDED at La Salpêtrière. It does not mean that they were EXCLUDED prior to 1684.

This would be similar to the post WWII era when Canada made an effort to accept specific ethnics that were DPs from Soviet Bloc countries and were to be repatriated and imprisoned in their country of origin. This would NOT mean that people from such ethnic backgrounds did not arrive in Canada many generations before.

The reasoning in this thread is faulty on both sides. The above being a prime example.

 

[YouVantOption]

One of my filles du roi ancestors was from St. Maclou dans la Normandie, which even today is just a tiny village...

Ah, now it becomes clear. You have a personal stake in the matter, and are fraught with traditional Roman-Catholic mores. Merlot is offended because I implied that his ancestor might have been a prostitute.

Ok, merlot, I'm sorry. I'm sure your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandmother wasn't a prostitute, no how, no way. No, she gave it away for free to the first guy who vied for her affections on the dock (that is what I understand to be documented, right? They lined up when the ships sailed in?)

The reasoning in this thread is faulty on both sides.

All I'm saying is that there appears to be some historical revisionism*, and there does appear to be some reasonable possibility that among LFDR, there were some prostitutes.

In any event, one thing we can agree upon is that genetically, they were of good stock, one need only look at present day 'pure' laine to see women who look very French - dark hair, dark eyes, beautiful. Of course, that is probably easier to admit than Grandma-ma was turning tricks back in the day in France because she was an orphan with no other way to make money to eat.

* Quebecois have done this before. Look at the white-wash people try to apply to the vile racist Lionel Groulx, or the denial of institutionalized anti-Semitism here viz. the evisceration of Esther Delisle.

 

[Merlot]

Hey YVO,

Sweetheart,

I told you I wasn't gonna play anymore. You seem to be suffering from anal leakage. I'd get some babywipes for that keyboard of yours.

You seem to have trouble with your word. Three times you have said you were out of this thread. Now go wipe your own leakage!

All I'm saying is that there appears to be some historical revisionism*, and there does appear to be some reasonable possibility that among LFDR, there were some prostitutes.

Possibility is one thing, but you still have shown absolutely no evidence. You only refer to the myth which your teachers may have taught you. I learned myths in school too. In my area, the intrepid, courageous, God-fearing Pilgrims landed at Plymouth, MA in 1620 to establish freedom and brotherhood for all, and created a bi-cultural utopia with the Native Americans. Wonderful! Except that they wanted everyone to think and act as they did, slaughtered the natives and stole land from them, and hanged their own people as witches based on spectral evidence (spirits no one but the accuser could see). So what you call "revisionism", as if it's a dirty word, is simply unveiling the truth by stripping away cherished misconceptions and falsehoods...which have been accounted for in this thread.

As for me, I have mentioned my French-Canadian heritage years ago, and previously in this thread. Did you wake up and finally actually read completely today instead of promising to stop posting here then lurking and coming back. My real issue after all is there is no factual evidence supporting your "possibility", and slandering all French-Canadians without fact is just plain shady and "thoughtless"...as someone else said. In the end, the list shows nearly every single women was married, had children and succeeded courageously in a very harsh land. We all know what possibilities there may be with anyone in any country at any time. So, why do you insist on tarnishing this whole group without proof on any of them??????????

Now if you are going to keep posting try not to keep saying you won't.

LOL,

Merlot

 

[Elvis]

All this means is that starting in 1684 prostitutes were systematically INCLUDED at La Salpêtrière. It does not mean that they were EXCLUDED prior to 1684..

Eastender,

No. Prostitutes were considered as criminals and were formally excluded from La Salpêtrière. It took a new Royal Edict to allow them in, in 1684.

 

[eastender]

Based on..................

Eastender,

No. Prostitutes were considered as criminals and were formally excluded from La Salpêtrière. It took a new Royal Edict to allow them in, in 1684.

Based on two assumptions that do not hold.

That the woman was identified and convicted as a prostitute. Hence the use of the expression "known prostitute".

That there was no use of false identification and that the subjects were being 100% truthful. Not a safe assumption at the best of times when dealing with street people of any era.

 

[Elvis]

Ah, now it becomes clear. You have a personal stake in the matter, and are fraught with traditional Roman-Catholic mores. Merlot is offended because I implied that his ancestor might have been a prostitute

Merlot (and me as well) is simply offended by your ignorance and also because you are not able to substantiate your arguments (which are really more simple pieces of gossips than facts) from true and credible historical sources and that you do not accept the facts when they are shown to you.
The topic of LFDR has been extensively studied for decades in Quebec, several monographies have been published and it is all well known and we know what we are talking about.

Personally, I don't give a damn to know if Les Filles du Roy were prostitutes, indians, jews or martians, all that I know and need to know is that they were heroic women as well as women of courage and that we owe them a lot.

Les héros ne sont pas toujours ceux ou (ou celles) qui gagnent les grandes batailles militaires.

l I'm saying is that there appears to be some historical revisionism*, and there does appear to be some reasonable possibility that among LFDR, there were some prostitutes.

Mais t'es bouché ou quoi?? Il n'y a pas de possibilités. On t'a expliqué, on t'a même fait un dessin pour t'expliquer que les Filles du Roy n'étaient pas des prostituées.

* Quebecois have done this before. Look at the white-wash people try to apply to the vile racist Lionel Groulx, or the denial of institutionalized anti-Semitism here viz. the evisceration of Esther Delisle.

Those comments are plain stupid and racist. You are making generalizations on "Québécois" from things that you barely know and certainly cannot understand.

Écoute, le bouffon: You come from a society that is 10 times fore racist and more anti-semite than mine, ok? Examples abound. So, start by looking and cleaning your own backyard before spitting on your neighbours turf.

 

[Mod 8]

Hello everyone!

This is supposed to be the happiest season of the year. So let's all calm down and keep the personal comments to a minimum. I really do not want to end the year by banning anyone over this.

Let's try to discuss the subject peacefully and respectfully or I will simply close the thread.

M8

 

[Elvis]

Based on two assumptions that do not hold.

That the woman was identified and convicted as a prostitute. Hence the use of the expression "known prostitute".

That there was no use of false identification and that the subjects were being 100% truthful. Not a safe assumption at the best of times when dealing with street people of any era.

It is easy rhetoric to assume anything in order to foul a debate. Of course, we can assume they could have been using false identification and, of course, maybe we can also assume that they were not saying the truth. But that take us nowhere and it is better to start the discussion on proven historical facts.

Beside that, in those days, prostitution in those days was viewed as a serious crime and if the official documents say that they were orphans not prostitutes, that mean that they were orphans, Also, les Filles du Roy, for most of them, were very young women and, also for most of them, orphelines, though a few of them were from the "petite noblesse"; donc, a priori, pas nécessairement des femmes qui ont le profil de femmes qui pratiquent le plus vieux métier du mondeé

 

[Lilly Lombard]

I think I saw somewhere a list of women who were arrested for prostitution (in those times) and in many cases, they were denounced and identified as prostitutes by members of their own families.









There comes a time where one has to say "who cares!" and give up! Now is mine...

 

[Elvis]

The evisceration of Esther Delisle

Hello everyone!
Let's try to discuss the subject peacefully and respectfully or I will simply close the thread.M8

I just hope for you that you will not get eviscerated confused: ) one day by some big bad québécois ...or big bad québécoises

* Quebecois have done this before :... the evisceration of Esther Delisle.

_________

Elvis "The Eviscerator"

 

[Merlot]

It is easy rhetoric to assume anything in order to foul a debate. Of course, we can assume they could have been using false identification and, of course, maybe we can also assume that they were not saying the truth. But that take us nowhere and it is better to start the discussion on proven historical facts.

Beside that, in those days, prostitution in those days was viewed as a serious crime and if the official documents say that they were orphans not prostitutes, that mean that they were orphans, Also, les Filles du Roy, for most of them, were very young women and, also for most of them, orphelines, though a few of them were from the "petite noblesse"; donc, a priori, pas nécessairement des femmes qui ont le profil de femmes qui pratiquent le plus vieux métier du mondeé

Hello Elvis,

It's so tiring to go over this point again and again. As you said, anything can be assumed to distort truth if you leave the discussion open to pure supposition. But in all of these posts there is not one trace of proof offered that any of les filles du roi were prostitutes. If one wants to suppose we could say all the soldiers and/or coureurs de bois were thieves, rapists, and murderers trying to escape punishment by going to the Nouvelle Monde where no one would know them. In the realm of "possibility" that could be as true as any other possible supposition. But in the realm of "reality" it's just plain nonsense. What is clear is that some will indulge in totally unproven possibility just for the sport of it...if not for some salacious fetish. Yeah, possibility is entertaining. But when opposed to all known facts it's also a failure to deal with reality.

Cheers,

merlot

 

[eastender]

Facts......................

It is easy rhetoric to assume anything in order to foul a debate. Of course, we can assume they could have been using false identification and, of course, maybe we can also assume that they were not saying the truth. But that take us nowhere and it is better to start the discussion on proven historical facts.

Beside that, in those days, prostitution in those days was viewed as a serious crime and if the official documents say that they were orphans not prostitutes, that mean that they were orphans, Also, les Filles du Roy, for most of them, were very young women and, also for most of them, orphelines, though a few of them were from the "petite noblesse"; donc, a priori, pas nécessairement des femmes qui ont le profil de femmes qui pratiquent le plus vieux métier du mondeé

Quoting from one of your supporters - Merlot. Earlier post in this thread.

According to author Peter Gagné, there is no record of any of those women having gone to Canada, and that out of nearly 800 filles du roi, only one, Catherine Guichelin, was actually charged with prostitution while living in Canada; whether or not she was actually convicted is unknown.[/I]

Your point is disputed by a fact that you cannot avoid. So at least one in 800
was a "known prostitute" to use the language of the day. It would be up to you and your defenders or proponents to trace her history back to France and also to do the statistical comparisons - what was the ratio of "known prostitutes" in the genera population in France or Paris of the era.

As for your "orphans" or "petite noblesse" position. You might have something IF you can prove beyond doubt that female orphans from the era NEVER became "known prostitutes" or that women of "petite noblesse" of the era were NEVER "known prostitutes". Simply they were "orphans" or of "petite noblesse" or perhaps both.

 

[Elvis]

Quoting from one of your supporters - Merlot. Earlier post in this thread.

According to author Peter Gagné, there is no record of any of those women having gone to Canada, and that out of nearly 800 filles du roi, only one, Catherine Guichelin, was actually charged with prostitution while living in Canada; whether or not she was actually convicted is unknown.[/I]

Your point is disputed by a fact that you cannot avoid. So at least one in 800
was a "known prostitute" to use the language of the day..

Your point is pointless Eastender.

First we are talking about the characteristics of sociological group here and, as a group, none of them could have been officially a "known prostitute" before boarding to Canada. These young orphans women had the status of the "Pupilles du Roi" and, as such, were considered like a "fille du roy". It was the king's charity business, in those days. The point that 2 or 3 of them could have been transexuals or porn stars is not statistically significant. You will always find exceptions. But,on top of that, the fact and the matter is that no historical records could be found that prove or even mention that these young orphans were known prostitutes.

What they became or did later in their life is not relevant for the present discussion. Actually, I do believe that a few of them did some prostitution in hteir later years but in a very limited and hidden way.

The problem is that the expression "Filles du roy" sounds quite close to "Fille de joie" and I think that fact only could confound a few misinformed minds.

 

[Merlot]

Your point is pointless Eastender.

First we are talking about the characteristics of sociological group here and, as a group, none of them could have been officially a "known prostitute" before boarding to Canada. These young orphans women had the status of the "Pupilles du Roi" and, as such, were considered like a "fille du roy". It was the king's charity business, in those days. The point that 2 or 3 of them could have been transexuals or porn stars is not statistically significant. You will always find exceptions. But,on top of that, the fact and the matter is that no historical records could be found that prove or even mention that these young orphans were known prostitutes.

What they became or did later in their life is not relevant for the present discussion. Actually, I do believe that a few of them did some prostitution in hteir later years but in a very limited and hidden way.

The problem is that the expression "Filles du roy" sounds quite close to "Fille de joie" and I think that fact only could confound a few misinformed minds.

Hello Elvis,

A lawyer's trick at best. Impugn the whole through the act of one. You are perfectly correct. If one or a few became something considered low in society it's as likely as one or a few becoming very high. Not only does the case cited prove nothing about her life before elle est arrivee dans Nouvelle France, the citation clearly points out there is no record of a verdict. So guilt is in question and she could have been just as innocent. So what is the function of reposting the citation...again, to use possibility and supposition which have nothing to do with accuracy or fact. It's using possibility to smear when the facts do not verify the accusation. And so, for anyone to label this woman this way is in effect false. Since the poster is fully capable of understanding that the lack of a final verdict means innocence is just as possible, ("whether or not she was actually convicted is unknown") he must realize that to label the woman as a "known prostitute" is beyond known information. Therefor the labeling is tantamount to a deception. Such inappropriate and false projections indicate the problem with the myth of les filles du roi having some prostitutes. Too many people make leaps that the evidence does not support. Either they don't know how to stay within the boundaries of the facts, they have an impulse to make unjust leaps, or there is something deliberate about their intentions. Such is what cherished and imprinted falsehoods are made of.

Vraiment,

Merlot

 

[eastender]

Legal Concepts

Hello Elvis,

A lawyer's trick at best. Impugn the whole through the act of one. You are perfectly correct. If one or a few became something considered low in society it's as likely as one or a few becoming very high. Not only does the case cited prove nothing about her life before elle est arrivee dans Nouvelle France, the citation clearly points out there is no record of a verdict. So guilt is in question and she could have been just as innocent. So what is the function of reposting the citation...again, to use possibility and supposition which have nothing to do with accuracy or fact. It's using possibility to smear when the facts do not verify the accusation. And so, for anyone to label this woman this way is in effect false. Since the poster is fully capable of understanding that the lack of a final verdict means innocence is just as possible, ("whether or not she was actually convicted is unknown") he must realize that to label the woman as a "known prostitute" is beyond known information. Therefor the labeling is tantamount to a deception. Such inappropriate and false projections indicate the problem with the myth of les filles du roi having some prostitutes. Too many people make leaps that the evidence does not support. Either they don't know how to stay within the boundaries of the facts, they have an impulse to make unjust leaps, or there is something deliberate about their intentions. Such is what cherished and imprinted falsehoods are made of.

Vraiment,

Merlot

Actually you are trying to absolve the whole by a lack of a conclusive verdict about the one.

More important point is that you are combining different concepts of law and trying to pick the scenario that favours your position.

Specifically 17th century France, pre Napolionic Code had different concepts of guilt and innocence than we do today in Canada, Quebec or the USA. The idea of innocent until proven guilty came somewhat latter and is far from universal. The same point can be made about New France and the laws that were in effect. Taking 20 or 21st century concepts and trying to apply them to the 17th century is frankly very inappropriate. Since you conveniently did not post the date of the prostitution arrest we have no way of knowing what the criteria was. Did she have to prove her innocence?

Again your lame ad hominem efforts are very transparent.

 

[Merlot]

Actually you are trying to absolve the whole by a lack of a conclusive verdict about the one.

More important point is that you are combining different concepts of law and trying to pick the scenario that favours your position.

Specifically 17th century France, pre Napolionic Code had different concepts of guilt and innocence than we do today in Canada, Quebec or the USA. The idea of innocent until proven guilty came somewhat latter and is far from universal. The same point can be made about New France and the laws that were in effect. Taking 20 or 21st century concepts and trying to apply them to the 17th century is frankly very inappropriate. Since you conveniently did not post the date of the prostitution arrest we have no way of knowing what the criteria was. Did she have to prove her innocence?

Again your lame ad hominem efforts are very transparent.

Dear sir,

There was no date on the arrest. I posted what was available and provided the link for anyone to check. I preferred not to make anything up such as a date or presume a guilty verdict like you, so I pasted the information as is. Your inference that I did something underhanded on purpose shows your deficiency in checking the link available and the character of your manners. Unfortunately, you were not very ethical by making a conclusion...so at least one in 800 was a "known prostitute"...putting in quotes a phrase that in effect presents a falsehood as a fact. No one has shown any evidence of a "known prostitute" in Nouvelle France as a result of the arrival of les filles du roi bewteen 1663-1673. While innocent until proven guilty was not the standard, the fact is there was no guilty verdict ni the case of this woman, which still leaves the reality that innocent or guilty were equally possible and presuming guilty is an unwarranted leap and a deception. For anyone to assert that the phrase "whether or not she was actually convicted is unknown" means she was a prostitute is beyond the boundaries of the facts and a wrongful assessment of the English language.

Oh...you have always had the most persistent if not habitual reputation for being..."ad hominem". So, you aren't fooling anyone.

Cheers...ombudsman,

Merlot

PS

Though I have avoided you, your spite has not changed.