Click here to read "The deBrassier Nonsense" by Charles Brashear and Shirley McCoy.
then read my
Counterpoint to "The deBrassier Nonsense"
would first like to make it clear that my charts intentionally do not show the parentage of Robert Brasseur, Sr.,
as I agree with the authors that no substantiated evidence has been found to indicate the names of Robert Brasseur's parents.
Secondly, Charles Brashear (Professor Emeritus, San Diego State University) and Shirley McCoy have done a lot of very
commendable work and I bear neither of them ill will, even though I am going to challenge several of their comments.
I also agree for the most part with Brashear's and McCoy's refutation of a familial connection between Robert Brasseur and the deBrassier family of Pernes, France - there is ultimately no proof that has been found to link the families.
A few of the authors' statements are, however, misleading, inconsistent or simply inaccurate, and a few such statements are therefore unfair to Peter C. Brashear, who (now deceased) is not around to defend himself from the authors' rather harsh and sometimes equally conjectural remarks.
1) The authors state that it is extremely unlikely that the devoutly Catholic deBrassiers family would have tolerated a Huguenot family member.
This might well be true, but the statement might just as well be false. The authors have no factual basis for making such a claim for the deBrassier family. As you will read, the devout Catholic faith of one family member did not necessary translate to another. As the Encrata Encyclopedia states, "The Protestant Reformation divided families, neighbours, cities, and kingdoms."
Aside from incidents of mob violence incited against the Huguenot's in infamous incidents such as the St. Bartholomew Massacre (wherein the madness
steamrolled to a point where (source: the Catholic Encyclopedia) "the houses of the rich were pillaged regardless of the religious opinions of their owners,"
see Catholic Encyclopedia - St. Bartholomew Massacre -
the history of this period in France has not so much provided us with stories of families turning over "heretic" sons, daughters, spouses or neighbors to the Church
or to other authorities (such during the infamous Salem witch trials, or during the Holocaust), as rather has conveyed the political-religious power struggle of the period, which resulted in
a depiction of fierce persecution by the Catholic Church and specifically by the Catholic French monarchs, François I, Henri II, Charles IX, Henri III, Louis XIII and Louis XIV. Although there are certainly histories of French mobs hurling garbage and vile remarks at captured Huguenots as they were being processed through the streets, it is likewise possible to find recorded incidents of the Catholic populus being revolted by the extent of the authorities' excess in such persecutions:
In a letter to the Jesuit Albert de Seignalay, dated 21 April 1686, the Catholic priest François de Salignac de La Mothe-Fenelon tells of dragging a Huguenot onto the execution platform.
Fenelon describes how he thought the execution would, in time, produce "good effects,"
but noted that the example he made of the victim troubled and irritated the
people. He reported, "The actual, unfortunate, impression is regrettable;
it awakens a violent desire to get out of the kingdom. To avoid the
"voirie", everyone will receive the rites of the church in hypocrisy". The "voirie" was a practice of placing the rotting/mitilated bodies of executed Huguenots
on public display.
About the time of Robert Brasseur, Sr.'s birth, the Queen Mother of France - Catherine de Medici - and her son King Charles IX initially tried to establish peace between the
Catholics and Huguenots by granting certain privileges to the Huguenots by means of the EDICT OF ST GERMAIN (17th January, 1561).
The Queen gradually recognized that the leaders of the movement posed a significant and growing threat to the Catholic monarchy.
Catherine eventually capitulated to those advising the "removal" of six to seven of the key Huguenot leaders, and entreated her reluctant son Charles to have Huguenot leader Gaspard de Coligny killed.
The King eventually agreed. At that point, however, it was then King Charles who escalated the persecution (in order to eradicate the
problem completely, following the assassination of Coligny - his erstwhile friend and advisor - lest Coligny become a "martyr" whose surviving followers
might remain and intensify a threat to the Catholic monarchy). Until Catherine's Church-backed pressuring, King Charles had not only "tolerated"
the Huguenots, but admired Coligny greatly and relied heavily upon the Admiral's counsel. see
reference.
There are other notable instances (e.g. Henri de Navarre and his
mother Jeanne d'Albret, Catholic King James II of England and his first wife, Protestant Anne Hyde, by whom he had two Protestant daughters, etc.) where members
of the same family differed in the practice of their Christian faith.
Another documented example of such a divided house was François Hotman (1524-1590), a Huguenot barrister in France, who in 1573 wrote Franco-Gallia - a document which found favor with neither the Catholics or Huguenots, but which has since been compared to Rousseau's Contrat Social, and which presented an "Ideal of Protestant statesmanship," pleading for a representative government and an elective monarchy. Hotman's father, Pierre, was a zealous Catholic and counselor for the Parlement de Paris. (Source: Rodolphe-Madeleine Cleophas Dareste de la Chavanne's biography of François Hotman).
In another documented example, Henri, Duke of Montmorency (1536-1614) and governor of Languedoc was Catholic. Henri's aunt, Louise de Montmorency (sister of Catholic Duke Anne de Montmorency, who died leading a battle against the Huguenots) was married to the Huguenot leader Gaspard de Coligny. (Source: Coumbia Encyclopedia).
A final example should suffice to dicredit the "high degree of unlikeliness," put forth by the authors. In the Champange du Maine family, the elder branch (de Champagne de Parcé) were not only Catholic but leading persecutors of the Huguenots, such as Jean "Grand Grodet" de Champagne de Parcé. The cadet branch of the same family chose the Huguenot movement. Nicolas de Champagne de la Suze participated in the Huguenot takeover of Le Mans in 1562, and was killed in the battle of St. Denis in 1567. His wife, Francoise de Laval never left the Catholic Church. Their two sons were raised as Catholic, while a daughter Perronelle, was Huguenot and married a leading Huguenot military figure, Jacques de Montgomery, the Count of Lorges. One of Perronelle's Catholic brothers, Louis, married a Protestant, Madeleine de Melun, and the couple's four sons were raised as Huguenot, one (Louis, Jr.) later becoming a protestant general in the 30 Years War. (Source: Jean Marie Constant "Protestant Nobility in France during the Wars of Religion: A leaven of Innovation in a Traditional World," from REFORMATION, REVOLT AND CIVIL WAR IN FRANCE AND THE NETHERLANDS 1555-1585, edited by Philip Benedict, Guido Marnef, Henk Van Nierop and Marc Venard).
Whether or not a high degree of unlikeliness existed or not is extremely arguable, given historical records of other divided families, but regardless, even the proposed unlikeliness that devout Catholics such as the deBrassier family might produce from its ranks a devout Huguenot does not constitute irrefutable, or for that matter, ANY degree of proof, however, that Robert Brasseur, MUST therefore be unrelated, as the authors suggest. The first Huguenots, after all, were ALL born Catholic, and then left the Church in favor of the reformed Calvinist tradition. If the idea that a devout Catholic family of the mid 1500s might produce one or two devout Huguenots was so unlikely, the Huguenot movement would have never occurred.
Conjecture to contrary on the part of the authors - regardless of Charles Brashears' prestige as a professor emeritus of Creative Writing and his very diligent research and scrutiny of other details - does not stand up to evidence to the contrary showing that such division did indeed occur on other Catholic families of similar status.
Hundreds of thousands of French Catholics, from of every class of French society, including many members of the nobility,
converted from Catholic families to the Huguenot movement in great numbers, many of which may be presumed to have included Catholic clerics – since that was even more the custom in the 1500-1600s than today in Cathoic families. This was a period of civil war in France, one that as presented above, pitted father against son, brother against brother, and neighbor against neighbor.
Luther did not publish his 95 theses against the Catholic Church until October 31, 1517. Since the Huguenot movement really only began to take root in France
following the 1536 publication of John Calvin's Institutio Christianae Religionis, the Catholics who were becoming Huguenots (versus being born into a Huguenot family)
were choosing their reformation of faith right around the time of Robert Brasseur's lifetime. Not only would it be possible that Robert's parents were Catholic, it is
likely that if he were born circa 1570-1600, his parents - who we would extrapolate as born circa 1530-1570 - would have been more likely Catholic than Huguenot, especially if there did happen to be any relation to deBrassier family or another noble family, since the Huguenot movement began in the working classes in the 1530s-40s, and took a decade or two to gain appeal with the nobles.
Please feel free to validate this information by checking any encyclopedia or surfing the Internet for information on the origins and history of the Huguenots.
If, indeed, Robert were related to the deBrassier family…and if Robert was "disowned" by his family due his reformed faith, this would go far
to explain why Robert's name would have been left out of wills, included as witness or godparent for baptisms, and other family records.
REMINDER: I have absolutely no proof that this happened, nor do I wish to further the proposal that any such relationship existed,
(that would also just be conjecture).
In my opinion, the most accurate way to state this in a professional manner is to simply state that Peter's research linking the two families has been
largely discredited as unproven, and that Robert's parents are unknown.
My qualifications to interpret the mood of the time are no better, or worse that the authors, although as part of my initial degree in Modern Languages, the curriculum
included both the literature and history of France and Europe, including analysis of the 35-year Wars of Religion in France that resulted from the Huguenot-Catholic conflict.
A brief synopsis of the religious turmoil during relevant period may be viewed at Blake Reneau's page: Huguenot History
Other useful historical references may be viewed at the pages of the National Huguenot Society
In the pursuit of my French Canadian and Acadian roots, I should also point out that in 1627 the French crown formally forbade Huguenot entry into New France (although this was unenforceable and continued nonetheless), and it is possible to find without too much effort,
recorded instances of Huguenot pioneers renouncing their Protestant faith and affirming their allegiance to the Catholic Church. Althoug many Huguenots died for their faith, it is evident that many reversed thier conversion, when
convenient, prudent or for the sake of marriage. (Do an Internet search on "Huguenot abjuration Quebec", or for similar examples in America try "Abjuration Virginia" for numerous reputable sources on the occurence of Protestant-to-Catholic and vice-versa religion-switching during this timeframe in history).
2) The authors'observation that Robert would HAVE to have been born no later than 1598-1600 is also conjecture. Browse through my charts,
and you will see several other examples of a child born almost every year for 7, 8 or 10 years to the parents. Regardless, even if Charles and Shirley's estimate
is correct, then Robert, Sr. (if born around 1598-1600) would have been born well with the timeframe to have been a son of Allemand or several others of the
deBrassier males listed in the "de Brassier Nonsense" narrative, and in the Noblaire Universel Racueil General des Genealogies Historiques
et Veridiques des Maison Nobles de L'Europe. The deBrassier Nonsense authors' remark that "the dates make it impossible for any of this family to be involved with our
Robert and Benois Brasseur" is so clearly inaccurate as to make me wonder whether this was simply a typographical rather than arithmetical error on the
part of the authors.
3) In their book, Charles and Shirley point out that Robert's name was Brasseur, not deBrassier, and state that Brassier "is about as far a cry as you
can get from Bras-SEUR or Bra-SHEAR." Hmmm. We know that that Brashear (pronounced Bra-Sheer)
was derived from Brasseur (pronounced Bra-zeur). Which derivation seems more unlikey to you? Brassier to Brasseur (which is documented in two cases, whether due or spelling errors by officials, or other reason)?
...or Brasseur to Brashear which is known to have occurred? Surnames only came into common usage in France during the 16th century. Many, many surnames originated from place names
(such as de Dieppe, d'Aubigny, de Navarre, de Savoie, all of which can later be found as surnames without the "de"/of, or from trade names (like Barbier,
Charpentier, Brassier, Boucher). If you have spent a reasonable amount of time researching French surnames, etymolgy, and genealogy, you should recognize
that it is not that unreasonable to think that the name Brassier might be found recorded elsewhere by notary, priest, other official or by the individual himself
as Brasseur, especially since the word “brassier” does not appear in almost any French dictionary (please feel free to verify this), while "brasseur" is found in most, so might not an educated priest or notary record the name, even if in error, using a known French word? It is also dangerous to assume that the present day high French pronunciation of Brassier (bra-see-ay) was pronounced that way in all provences of France, and in the 16th-17th centuries.
Charles Brashear even notes that family members of
John Brasseur of Nansemond, Virginia, did occasionally spell their surname Brassier. There does appear to be other unrelated use of the "de Brassier" designation in
France, and the term "de brassier," although elusive, is most commonly found to have the meaning of one who works (someone else's land) using his arms - usually in conjunction with agriculture. Brasser (pronounced bra-say) translates "to brew," and the word brasseur has the definition "brewer."
In a posting at genforum, Charles also writes "When Benois was naturalized in 1662, his surname was misspelled as Brassieur and Brasseiur, and then
Anglicized to Brashear." Perhaps it was misspelled, or perhaps that's the way Benois spelled it or pronounced it on that particular occasion. No one can say, for a fact, can they? Here is an extract from that naturalization document showing the spelling used.
My Marcotte ancestor of the same period, a middle son of a Fecamp, Normandy butcher, with no inheritance, was still literate enough to sign his own name in 1667, albeit
sometimes with one spelling and other times another spelling. French archives are filled with such variations. Why should we not expect the same of Benois in 1662?
Along the same lines, if Benois Brasseur\Brasseiur pronounced his name in such a way to cause it to be written Brasseiur, then Brasseur is not such a far cry from the name Brassier. My great grandmother spelled her surname Mercier, but her father and preceding generations spelled it Messier. Such difference in French pronunciation are actually more subtle than a non-French-speaker would assume, especially if the person speaking has a noticeable provincial accent.
4) Finally, the suggestion that Peter C. Brashears had a "terrible craving to be connected to nobility, as if to validate his claim to superiority and
lodge him firmly in the Upper Class" seems to me to be unwarranted and mean-spirited. Peter Brashear's affinity for tracing his roots was such that he actually traveled to France and sought out members of the deBrassier family. Now deceased, Peter is not around to defend himself or to offer other clues\insights that might have led him and the deBrassier family to speculate that a family was "ineveitable."
Would it not would suffice to speculate on our own part that Peter's excitement at the prospect of establishing a familial link that counted several more generations into the
past might have clouded his judgment and caused him to jump to an unsubstantiated conclusion. This is an error that I can relate to, having earlier embraced the
"Francois Savoie - illegitimate son of Thomas Francois Savoie de Carignan" bandwagon, based upon the previously accepted research and publications of the once prominent Canadian genealogist Bona Arsenault and others - only to later recognize the lack of proof by the originators of that theory (I later added caveat statements noting the lack of
proof attached to that lineage and one or two others with "disputed" or dubious lines on my webpages).
Tracing one lineage to any minor member of nobility, or to a U.S. President, or as may be found at my website to a celebrity, is simply fun - not because of any personal need to attempt to elevate my own status or claim "blue" blood, but rather due to the extended number of generations of ancestry and such personages'
generally better-documented histories that open up when such a familial link (however distant) is found. It is simply an extension of the same motivation that lies behind
the work of millions of family or hobby genealogists such as Charles Brashear, or myself. In my case, there is also a personal fascination with how interconnected we all utimately are with one another. The mathematical probabilities are such that almost ALL of us could claim such
lineages, if we could trace a sufficient number of generation back through our heritage.
See Gary Robert’s essay on this subject at Ancestry Magazine, or my Odds of Being Related page. The cynical bashing of such hobby research as trying to "validate" some
sense of superiority ignites my ire, and (along with the other conjectural statements) is the underlying motivation for this page.
None of us are perfect in our research or our transference of the data into a chosen medium. Certainly neither me, nor the authors of “The deBrassier Nonsense”/extracted from their book
The First 200 Years of BRASHEAR(S) in America and some Descendants in Western Maryland.
I consider my pages to be a work-in progress. I try to be accurate and find reliable sources, but even reliable sources err in turn. I continue to find and correct such errors (and I have to imagine Brashears and McCoy do the same). I try to correct my mistakes as quickly as possible, but nothing very important (in the grand scheme of things) hinges upon my (or anyone else's) genealogy pages. They are a hobby - for my personal pleasure, my family's, and for whomever else wishes to peruse them.
I applaud the scrutiny that made the authors examine Peter C. Brashear's linkeage of the Brasseur and deBrassier families. I fully agree that the relationship is unproven. It is only the inaccurate
statements about why such a familial relationship could NOT have existed, and the unnecessary bashing of the late Peter C. Brashear - specifically the speculative remarks about vanity/need to link to nobility that roused my spirit. I trust that the authors will accept my comments as constructive and informative, rather than offensive.
I first formally began my family genealogy research in Paris, in the archives of the Bibliothèque National de Paris, in 1973, building upon another two decades of research by my parents, and various cousins. I have been designing databases and computer systems since 1981. With that in mind, and without wishing to sound pompous, I offer this piece of
unsolicited personal advice to visitors to my web pages: Neither books (regardless of the reputation of the author)
nor computerized databases should ever be construed a "substitute" for a mind of your own. Experts are proven wrong every day. Verify things for yourself. Genealogy is a hobby of recording the details of dead ancestors' lives. In most case those ancestors left us only a gene pool, not a birthright. When you begin taking your lineage too seriously, it's high time you find a life of your own.
-Michael Marcotte
Alphabetical Index of Names
Back to Preceding Genealogy Chart
Back to Marcotte Genealogy start page
Back to Michael Marcotte's HomePage