1) Abernathy (line that migrated to Charleston from Scotland — related by marriage — a collateral line.)

2) Anderson (direct ancestral line)

3) Arnold (direct ancestral line)

4) Baugh (collateral line)

5) Bell/Ball (direct and collateral lines.)

6) Berry/Bury [DeBerry?] (direct and collateral lines.)

7) Best/Bost/Bess (direct and collateral lines.)

8) Bigby/Bigbee (direct and collateral lines.)

9) Boatman (direct and collateral lines.)

10) Bond/Bonds (direct and collateral lines.)

11) Boone [derived from Bohun] (collateral line.)

12) Boozer [derived from Bosier] (collateral line.)

13) Brasher/Brashier (collateral lines.)

14) Brewer (collateral line.)

15) Brown/Browne/Braun (direct and collateral lines.)

16) Browning (collateral line.)

17) Brownlee (collateral line.)

18) Bruce/DeBrus (direct and collateral lines.)

19) Bryant/Bryan/Brian (collateral line.)

20) Bunch/Bench/Benge (collateral line.)

21) Burleson (collateral line.)

22) Byrd/Bird (collateral line.)

23) Campbell (collateral line.)

24) Carpenter (translated/changed from Zimmerman, when family settled in the Carolinas — direct and collateral lines.)

25) Carter/McCarter (direct and collateral lines.)

26) Case/Cass (collateral lines.)

27) Cash [see CASE above](collateral line.)

28) Cave (direct and collateral lines.)

29) Champion (collateral line.)

30) Chandler/Chandelier/Chavalier (collateral line.)

31) Chastain/Chasteen (collateral line.)

32) Chitwood/Cheatwood (collateral line.)

33) Clement/Clements/Clemmens (collateral line.)

34) Clinkscale/Clinkscales (direct and collateral lines.)

35) Cloninger (collateral line.)

36) Collier/ (collateral line.)

37) Cook/Cox (collateral line.)

37) Cooper (collateral line.)

38) Cowan [possibly derived from Cohan?] (collateral line.)

39) Cox/Cocks/Cockson (direct ancestral line)

40) Crowe/Crow (collateral line.)

41) Daniel/Daniels (collateral line.)

43) Daugette/Doggett/Doggitt (collateral line.)

44) Davis/Davies (direct and collateral lines.)

45) Day (direct and collateral lines.)

46) Deberry [Derryberry? / De Bury] (collateral line.)

47) Dooley/Dula (collateral line.)

48) Dunlap/Dunlop (collateral line.)

49) Edwards (collateral line.)

50) Elliott (collateral line.)

51) Eller/Ehlart [derived from Ellis or Elliott?](collateral line.)

52) Ellis (collateral line.)

53) Falkner/Faulkner/Falconer (collateral line.)

54) Fields (collateral line.)

55) Forney (collateral line.)

56) Franklin/Frankham (direct and collateral lines.)

57) Frasher/Frazer/Frazier (collateral line.)

58) Fulmer/Vollmer (collateral line.)

59) Gambrell (direct and collateral lines.)

60) Garrett/Jarrett (collateral line.)

61) Garland (collateral line.)

62) Gentry (collateral line.)

63) Gibson/Gipson (collateral line.)

64) Gouch/Gouge/Gooch (collateral line.)

65) Grant (collateral line, and possible direct line.)

66) Griffin/Griffith/Griffon (direct and collateral lines.)

67) Guess/Guest (collateral line.)

68) Hagler/Haigler (collateral line.)

69) Haire/Hare/Hair/Eyer/Ayers/Ayres/Ears (collateral line.)

69) Hall (collateral line.)

70) Hannah/Hanna/Hanner (collateral line.)

71) Hardy/Hardee (collateral line.)

72) Harris (collateral line.)

73) Hawkins (collateral line.)

74) Hayne/Haynes/Haynie (direct and collateral lines.)

75) Hendrick/Hendricks/Hendrix (collateral line.)

76) Hester (collateral line.)

77) Hicks/Hix (collateral line.)

78) Hensley/Hinslee/Hinsley (collateral line.)

79) Hinton/Henton (collateral line.)

80) Hogan/Hogan (collateral line.)

81) Holley/Holly (collateral line.)

81) Honeycutt/Hunnicutt (direct and collateral lines.)

82) Hoover/Huber (collateral line.)

83) Hopper (collateral line.)

84) Housley/Owsley/Ousley (collateral line.)

85) Howard (collateral line.)

86) Howell/Harwell (direct and collateral line.)

87) Hughes (collateral line.)

88) Ingram/Ingraham (collateral line.)

89) Jackson (collateral line.)

90) Johnson/Johnston/Johansson (direct and collateral lines.)

91) Jones (direct and collateral lines.)

92) Jordan (collateral line.)

93) Justice/Justiss [one family line translated/changed from European name of "Gustoffsson"] (direct and collateral line.)

94) Kendrick/Kendrix (collateral line.)

95) Kay/Mc Kay/Mackey/Mc Key/Key (direct and collateral lines.)

96) Kelly/Kelley (collateral line.)

97) Kennedy (collateral line.)

98) Keown/Mc Kewin/McOwen/Kearns/Owen/Quearns (direct and collateral lines.)

99) Kiser/Kizer (collateral line.)

100) Law (collateral line.)

101) Lee/Lea (collateral line.)

102) Lehner/Liner/Lanier (collateral line.)

103) Leslie (direct and collateral line.)

104) Lewis (collateral line.)

105) Liles/Lyles/Lyle (collateral line.)

106) Little/Lyttle/Cline/Clyne [translated from European name of Klien/Kline when folks settled in the Carolinas] (direct and collateral lines.)

107) Love/Lowe (collateral line.)

108) Lucas/Lucius (direct and collateral lines.)

109) Lynch/Linch (collateral line.)

110) Mac Kay/Mackie/Mackey/Mc Key (direct and collateral lines.)

111) Martin (collateral line.)

112) Massey/Maxey (collateral line.)

113) Masters (collateral line.)

114) Mauney (collateral line.)

115) May/Mays/Maze (collateral line.)

116) McCoy (collateral line.)

117) McCary/McCrary (collateral line.)

118) McCuen/ Quearns (collateral line.)

119) McDaniel [sometimes shown as McDonald is older records/census data] (collateral line.)

120) McDonald (collateral line.)

121) McFall/McFaill/McPhail (collateral line.)

122) McGee/McGeeHee/McGhee [McKey?] (collateral line.)

123) McIntyre/McEntire (collateral line.)

124) McKee/ McKey Mcackey (collateral line.)

125) McKeown /Kearn/Quearns (collateral line.)

126) McPhail/McFall (collateral line.)

127) Meadors/Medders/Meadows (direct and collateral lines.)

128) Miller/Mueller/Miller/Muller (collateral line.)

129) Millsaps/Millsap (collateral line.)

130) Mitchell (collateral line.)

131) Montgomery (collateral line.)

132) Moon (collateral line.)

133) Moore/Moor (collateral line.)

134) Moorehead/Morehead/Moorhead/Muirhead (collateral line.)

135) Morgan (collateral line.)

136) Morrow (collateral line.)

137) Moseley/Mosley (collateral line.)

138) Mundy/Munday (collateral line.)

139) Muse (collateral line.)

140) Nance/Nantz (collateral line.)

141) Nelson (collateral line.)

142) Nichols (collateral line.)

143) Nixon/Nickson [Nix?] (collateral line.)

144) Nolan/Nolen (collateral line.)

145) Norris/Noreys (collateral line.)

146) Ogletree (collateral line.)

147) Orr (collateral line.)

148) Owen/Owens/McKewen/Kearns/Quearns (direct and collateral lines.)

149) Parker (collateral line.)

150) Park/Parks (collateral line.)

151) Parrott/Perot (collateral line.)

152) Payne/Paine (collateral line.)

153) Pettit/Petty/Pate//Patty/Pattey/Pait (collateral line.)

154) Phillips/Phipps (collateral line.)

155) Pickett/Puckett/Pickard/Piccard (direct and collateral lines.)

156) Posey (collateral line.)

157) Pratt (collateral line.)

158) Prenton (direct and collateral lines.)

159) Pruitt/Pruett (collateral line.)

160) Pyles/Pyle/Piles (collateral line.)

161) Queen/McQueen/McKewen/Quearns (collateral line.)

162) Rankin (collateral line.)

163) Redus (collateral line.)

164) Reese/Rice/Rhies (collateral line.)

165) Reeves [Reid/Reed?] (collateral line.)

166) Regan/Reagan/Riggins/Riggin (direct and collateral lines.)

167) Reynolds [Renault?] (collateral line.)

168) Rhyne/Rhine/Ryan (collateral line.)

169) Rice/Rhies (direct and collateral lines.)

170) Richardson (collateral line.)

171) Ridge [Rich/Ritch/Ritchey?](collateral line.)

172) Roberson/Robinson/Robertson (direct and collateral lines.)

173) Rogers/Rodgers (collateral line.)

174) Ross (collateral line.)

175) Rutledge (collateral line.)

176) Schmid/Schmidt/Smith (collateral line.)

177) Schnider/Schnieder/Snider/Snyder (collateral line.)

178) Scott (collateral line.)

179) Settles/Settle/Suttles/Subtle (direct and collateral lines.)

180) Shaw (collateral line.)

181) Sheppard/Shepherd (collateral line.)

182) Sherrill/Sherwell (direct and collateral lines.)

183) Sims (collateral line.)

184) Sizemore (collateral line.)

185) Smith/Schmid (collateral line.)

186) Speer/Spears/Speers/Spear/Spier/Spyer/Sperey (direct and collateral lines.)

187) Spruiell/Spruill/Sprewell (direct and collateral lines.)

188) Starr (collateral line.)

189) Stephens/Stevens (collateral line.)

190) Stevenson (collateral line.)

191) Stewart/Steward (direct and collateral lines.)

192) Strickland (collateral line.)

193) Stroupe/Stroop/Stroup (collateral line.)

194) Suber (collateral line.)

195) Suttles/Settles/Subtle (direct and collateral lines.)

196) Taylor (collateral line.)

197) Teague/Tigue (collateral line.)

198) Thomas (collateral line.)

199) Thompson (direct and collateral lines.)

200) Tillman/Tilghman (direct and collateral lines.)

201) Trotti (collateral line.)

202) Tucker (collateral line.)

203) Turner (collateral line.)

204) Tuten (collateral line.)

205) Usry/Ussery/Ussrey (collateral line.)

206) Vann [Vaughn/Vaughan?] (collateral line.)

207) Vaughn/Vaughan (collateral line.)

208) Wakefield (collateral line.)

209) Waldrop/Waldrep (collateral line.)

210) Walker (collateral line.)

211) Wallace/Wallis (collateral line.)

212) Ward/Word (collateral line.)

213) Warren [DeWarrene] (collateral line.)

214) Waters (collateral line.)

215) Watson (collateral line.)

216) Watt/Watts (collateral line.)

217) Weatherford (collateral line.)

218) Weaver/Webber (collateral line.)

219) Webb (collateral line.)

220) Welch/Welsh (collateral line.)

221) Welder/Wilder (collateral line.)

222) Weldon (collateral line.)

223) Wells (collateral line.)

224) West (direct and collateral lines.)

225) White/Wyatt (collateral line.)

226) Whitefield/Whitefield (collateral line.)

227) Wilcoxen/Wilcoxon (direct and collateral lines.)

228) Wilkerson (collateral line.)

229) Williams (collateral line.)

230) Willis (collateral line.)

231) Wilson (collateral line.)

232) Wood/Woods (collateral line.)

233) Woody/Wooddy/Woodby (direct and collateral lines.)

234) Word/Ward (collateral line.)

236) Wright (direct and collateral lines.)

237) Young/Jung [translated from the European name of Jun when folk settles in the Carolinas] (direct and collateral lines.)

238) Zimmerman/Timmerman/Timberman [translated to Carpenter when folks settled in the Carolinas] (direct and collateral lines.)

NOTE:
More Name will be added in the near future, as I become more familiar with the families/ancestors who passed through or lived in the Abbeville/96th District region(s) of South Carolina.

Thank you, for your interest.

– Cathy Ann Abernathy

http://stringcat.wordpress.com

On this day in 1590, the Battle of Ivry was fought at Ivry, France. The battle was fought during the French Wars of Religion. The battle was fought between the Huguenot troops under Henry de Navarre (future Henry IV of France) and the Catholic League (under Duc de Mayenne). The Huguenot forces won the battle.

For more, visit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ivry

For more on the French Wars of Religion, read the following books:
The French Wars of Religion, by Arthur Augustus Tilley
The French Wars of Religion – Their Political Aspects, by Edward Armstrong
Henry IV, by John S. C. Abbott

>>> The story starts in France, in Lyon where silk weaving was being done by a group of French people called Huguenot’s. All of the silk was at that time imported to England, where our Norwich weavers were only able to produce woollen cloths as we had not yet discovered the secrets of silk production.>>> In the late 17th Century the Catholic French King Louis IX revoked the Edict of Nantes which had granted Protestants the right to worship in specified areas. The Huguenots were Protestants and being so faced severe persecution, many had no other choice than to flee from France. In 1681 Charles II of England offered the Huguenots sanctuary in England and it is estimated between 40,000 to 50,000 Huguenots sought refuge in England.

>>> Many of them settled in Spitalfields, London where they had a huge impact on the area and the economy. The Huguenots brought with them all of their skills and knowledge of silk weaving and Spitalfields soon became known as ‘Weaver Town’. They produced beautiful silk damasks and jacquard designs which became a thriving industry for the area.

James Leman, Silk Design 1711 Watercolour on Paper

Anna Maria Garthwaite,1742 Silk brocade The Fashion Museum, Bath

>>> Early wallpapers imitated Jacquard silk damasks and the width of the design was set at ’3 spans of a mans hand’, it’s still of a similar width for todays wallpaper. However all the sucess of the Huguenot’s silk weaving was beginning to upset the English weavers and in the south east of the country the Norwich weavers could not compete. They tried to imitate the silk woven in Spitalfields by glazing their wool cloth and then invented the broad loom which could weave 4 spans of a mans hand wide, enabling them to produce much bigger designs.

>>> In the early 19th century some of the Huguenot weavers moved out of London to avoid taxation imposed on the London weavers by the various Spitalfields Acts of parliament. They relocated to towns such as Braintree, Halstead and Sudbury on the Essex and Suffolk border and is where Richard Humphries silk weaving business now stands.

>>> Richard started an apprenticeship in 1966 at Warners in Braintree when he was 15 years old. Warners was the leading silk weaving company in Britain at that time. The company believed that synthetic fibres would soon replace silk they only had 3 handweavers in the company, for 85 handlooms. Five years later the entire weaving department closed down altogether, threatening the future of 300 years of silk weaving tradition in Britain. RIchard seeing an opportunity to try and save some of the handlooms and weaving machinery, he raised finance to buy some of the handlooms, jacquard cards and jacquard card punching machine to create new designs. He set up a small business in premises in Sudbury where he created custom window blinds and interior fabrics.

>>> Over the following years Richard moved his business back to Essex and for a time was relocated in the newly restored Warner Mills in Braintree, operating from his old employers premises. This enabled him to expand the business and modernising the manufacture of the silk fabrics utilising modern looms. He returned to Sudbury in 2004 to Sudbury SIlk Mills where they are today. He has worked with a wide range of clients from Marian Stroud (1960′s – 70′s) on the Festival of Britain designs, fashion designers such as Matthew Williamson and Alexander McQueen and an infinite number of projects for stately homes, hotels, film productions, transportation and ceremonials. They offer a bespoke service which is what is giving them the edge in todays tough textile industry and the quality and heritage of their designs and fabrics hold them in good stead for the future.

>>> Below is a few photos showing the beautiful silk fabrics they make and if you are interested in finding out more please visit their website www.humphriesweaving.co.uk

.

D

Bellhouse’s book should however fascinate most academics in that, beside going with the uttermost detail into De Moivre’s contributions to probability, it uncovers the way (mathematical) research was done in the 17th and 18th century England: De Moivre never got an academic position (although he applied for several ones, incl. in Cambridge), in part because he was an emigrated French huguenot (after the revocation of the Édit de Nantes by Louis XIV), and he got a living by tutoring gentry and aristocracy sons in mathematics and accounting. He also was a consultant on annuities. His interactions with other mathematicians of the time was done through coffee-houses, the newly founded Royal Society, and letters. De Moivre published most of his work in the Philosophical Transactions and in self-edited books that he financed by subscriptions. (As a Frenchman, I personally[and so did Jacob Bernoulli!] found puzzling the fact that De Moivre never wrote anything in french but assimilated very quickly into English society.)

Another fascinating aspect of the book is the way English (incl. De Moivre) and Continental mathematicians fought and bickered on the priority of discoveries. Because their papers were rarely and slowly published, and even more slowly distributed throughout Western Europe, they had to rely on private letters for those priority claims. De Moivre’s main achievement is his book, The Doctrine of Chances, which contains among clever binomial derivations on various chance games an occurrence of the central limit theorem for binomial experiments. And the use of generating functions. De Moivre had a suprisingly long life since he died at 87 in London, still giving private lessons as old as 72. Besides being seen as a leading English mathematician, he eventually got recognised by the French Académie Royale des Sciences, if as a foreign member, a few months prior to his death (as well as by the Berlin Academy of Sciences). There is also a small section in the book on the connections between De Moivre and Thomas Bayes (pp. 200-203), although very little is known of their personal interactions. Bayes was close to one of De Moivre’s former students, Phillip Stanhope, and he worked on several of De Moivre’s papers to get entry to the Royal Society. Some open question is whether or not Bayes was ever tutored by De Moivre, although there is no material proof he did. The book also mentions Bayes’ theorem in connection with an comment on The Doctrine of Chances by Hartley (p.191), as if De Moivre had an hand in it or at least a knowledge of it, but this seems unlikely…

In conclusion, this is a highly pleasant and easily readable book on the career of a major mathematician and of one of the founding fathers of probability theory. David Bellhouse is to be congratulated on the scholarship exhibited by this book and on the painstaking pursuit of all historical documents related with De Moivre’s life.

model of Pariser Platz

“Berlin is a skeleton which aches in the cold: it is my own skeleton aching. I feel in my bones the sharp ache of the frost in the girders of the overhead railway, in the iron-work of balconies, in bridges, tramlines, lamp-standards, latrines. The iron throbs and shrinks, the stone and the bricks ache dully, the plaster is numb.”  

-from Goodbye to Berlin by Christopher Isherwood

For most of this week, I’ll be in Berlin. While I could wait till I was there, I’ve decided to introduce the city ahead of time. Te above quote is from Isherwood’s depiction of the city in the early thirties, when the National Socialists were in the process of coming to power. Curiously, the mood of the city has retained a bit of what he was talking about, which is a bit odd when you consider what many people say about Berlin these days.

You say you’re going there, and often the first thing out of a person’s mouth in response is, ’Can you believe how much Berlin has changed?’ It started years ago with friends who’d lived there while the city was still divided. One friend said, ‘Have you seen what they’ve done to the Alex?’ Yes, I understand Alexanderplatz looks different, but I never saw East Berlin before The Wall, so I really have nothing to compare.

Here’s my question: why do people swarm to Berlin? What is it about this city that draws not only Germans but people from all over the world to it? One of the most common things I hear people say is, ‘Oh, I love to visit Berlin, but I couldn’t live there.’ I understand that. It’s a lively, frenetic place.

Some go for the nightlife, some for the excellent theatre and opera. It’s not just the seat of the German government (along with Bonn, I believe), but it’s also the centre of a lot of media and art goings on. Compared to some other European capitals, it’s a relatively young city. And the history of who came here and when has some bearing on how the city eventually developed as a place of tolerance. Here’s how it’s described by Christian Härtel in Berlin – A Short History:

‘In 1671 the first sizeable group to be assimilated into…(Berlin)…were exiled Jews from Vienna. The Edict of Potsdam in 1685 facilitated the immigration of 20,000 Huguenots, who mainly settled in Berlin. The majority of the Huguenots, Protestant refugees from France, set themselves up in business and trade and the Jews in finance and credit. Thus the idea of tolerance, which was to become one of the pillars of the Prussian conception of a state, had its roots in entirely pragmatic considerations.’

So here are some of my favourite photos of Berlin:

angel blowing a trumpet on the back of a lion on the Gendarmenmarkt

The Gendarmenmarkt is near the centre of the city and has been important in the history of the city. Here’s Wikipedia’s take on it.

masonry at the Handwerkerverein

Sony Center on Potsdamer Platz

Heinrich Heine with the Fernsehturm in the background

Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church (Gedächtniskirche)

And a bit about the New Synagogue.

your sometimes humble blogger in the reflection

The title is what German football fans chant when their team reaches the German League Cup Final (Der Pokal)

• Feel free to use as much of this material as you choose for your own purposes (but not for profit).To avoid subsequent copyright problems some acknowledgment would be appreciated.  Although these sermons appear to be visited regularly, because the purpose of this site is to encourage thought, it would be helpful to others if you were to leave comments, suggestions of alternative illustrations, or corrections.

In the 16^th century, William the Silent, also known as William of Nassau and Prince of Orange, had succeeded in freeing the Netherlands from the grip of Catholic Spain. Over the years he and his descendants welcomed hundreds of thousands of Jews, new Christians, as they called themselves, and Huguenots, persecuted Protestants from France, to Amsterdam. Thanks to this influx of businessmen and financiers, Amsterdam became the trading capital of the world and the Dutch ruled the waves for much of the 17^th century. It’s a well-known fact that New Amsterdam—the city that was to become known as New York in 1667—was officially created by the Dutch East India Company in 1625, and that the Cape of Good Hope, which was also a Dutch East India Company outpost, was created in 1652. The Dutch had a very strong naval presence, both military and merchant, in Amsterdam, New Amsterdam and the Cape, and they controlled the Atlantic and Indian Oceans.

• Archibald Adams – died May 25, 1850, age 64 years
• Phebe Adams – March 19, 1789 – April 17, 1848, consort of Archibald
• Elizabeth Jane Adams – died 1840
• Martha A. Adams – July 5, 1816 – February 19, 1820, daughter of Archibald & Phebe
• David Adams – died January 19, 1825, age 69 years
• William Adams – November 15, 1790 – July 18, 1861
• Priscilla Adams – November 25, 1791 – November 9, 1856, wife of William
• Jane Adams – October 8, 1804 – August 16, 1864, wife of John W.
• John W. Adams – April 29, 1792 – September 15, 1865
• James Adams – July 18, 1798 – September 29, 1855
• Rebecca Adams – October 16, 1803 – October 16, 1881, wife of James
• Joshua Adams – September 7, 1843 – February 8, 1905
• Nannie Adams – October 7, 1844 – November 6, 1895, wife of Joshua
• Mary Adams – 1879 – 1880, daughter of D. T. and E. G.
• Jane Allen – February 13, 1825 – May 11, 1863, wife of W. J.
• Ann M. Boice – January 6, 1823 – September 1, 1883
• Harrison Boice – September 20, 1812 – November 28, 1870
• Jacob Boice – July 1, 1772 – April 13, 1823, one stone, with George
• George Boice – Mary 6, 1815 – ?, one stone, with Jacob
• Mary Boice – July 31, 1775 – December 27, 1851
• Mary Bonta – March 22, 1786 – October 31, 1871
• Peter G. Bonta – August 9, 1809 – July 25, 1857
• Lany Bonta – September 15, 1786 – June 10, 1853, one stone, with Garret
• Garret Bonta – November 4, 1789 – August 30, 1863, one stone, with Lany
• Peter Bonta – November 1, 1780 – October 18, 1827
• Rachel Bonta – November 4, 1784 – September 10, 1860, wife of Peter
• Elizabeth Bonta – August 28, 1802 – January 9, 1863
• Margaret W. Brown – July 9, 1848 – June 6, 1849, daughter of N.D. & M.J.
• James J. Brown – December 11, 1860 – December 11, 1860, son of N.D. & M.J.
• Charles A. Brown – May, 1820 – August 184?, son of J.D. & S. H.
• Mary A. Clark – May 20, 1823, August 5, 1857, wife of James M.
• Anna E. Cockrell – December 12, 1840 – August 11, 1871, wife of Gen. F. M.
• Sarah Comingo – died 1839
• John Comingo – died October 13, 1841, age 56 years
• Rachel Comingore – October 11, 1803 – October 26, 1820, daughter of A. & I.
• Jordan D. Cozatt - May 25, 1829 – May 1, 1861
• Elizabeth A. Cozatt - May 12, 1833 – October 7, 1860, wife of Jordan D.
• Frances Cozatt - May 2, 1859 – January 8, 1860, daughter of J.D. & E.A.
• Garret Cozine – March 20, 1802 – October 27, 1822
• Murla N. Cunningham – December 22, 1893 – June 29, 1894, daughter of J.T. & Mary R.
• Catherine  Cunningham – December 7, 1881 – August 11, 1892, daughter of J.T. & Mary R.

With the support of Cardinal Richelieu, Samuel de Champlain was appointed governor of New France.  Both Richelieu and de Champlain were ardent supporters of the Jesuits in colonial Canada.  The policy of the Jesuits was to identify the rule of the king with the power of the Church.  They also actively supported the notion that all the colonial inhabitants and native peoples were French subjects and, as such, de facto under and within the Roman Catholic Church.  To be French was to be Roman Catholic.  It was virtually impossible for people to separate French identity from Roman Catholicism.  However, within the Roman fold, there was some room for diversity as long as the authority of the clergy was recognized.

One of the prominent Roman Catholic clergy from this period was Paul Le Jeune, a Jesuit missionary and eventually superior of the order in New France.  He made efforts to infiltrate and co-opt the fur trade.  Beginning around 1638, Jesuits began training young Hurons.  They were being educated to become commercial agents who would cooperate with French interests in New France and beyond.

The Jesuits not only promoted education for First Nations, but also for the colonists.  Those living on the frontier without European-style orderly governments and laws were in danger of becoming “wild, barbarous, and disorderly peoples.”  In 1493, Pope Alexander VI issued a papal bull entitled Inter Caetera.  This bull mandated the education of both native peoples and colonists, so that all would be brought “to good morals.”  On this basis, the seventeenth-century Jesuits wanted Latin and Greek to be taught in their schools in New France – this would promote the cause of civilization.  This provoked a debate.  Richelieu argued that this kind of education was unnecessary for the inhabitants of New France.  The Jesuits, however, argued that unless someone leads an orderly life, receives written laws, and knows how to communicate in a civilized language, he will remain barbarous.  In their view, Inter Caetera had been clear enough on this point.

Around the same time, the idea developed among the French that the Hurons could only participate in the fur trade if they became “Christians.”  To be a trader one had to be a Christian, i.e. a baptized Roman Catholic.  The Hurons were amenable to this, but in return asked for soldiers to provide protection from the Iroquois.  Consequently, both soldiers and Jesuits began living in native villages.  The Jesuits taught the Hurons to pray and worship in the Roman manner.  Paul Le Jeune also helped the Hurons to become skilled labourers.  They became particularly adept at making copper kettles.  The Hurons became involved in all kinds of trade and were developing up to French standards.

After 1645, we find Jérôme Lalemant as the superior of the Jesuit order in New France.  He was a remarkable missionary strategist.  His thinking developed along the same lines as his predecessors.  He promoted a greater degree of discipline among the clergy.  He argued that the Jesuits should build their own villages next to the aboriginal villages.  This led to the establishment of settlements such as Sainte-Marie among the Hurons (near present-day Midland, ON) and Fort Ville-Marie (in present-day Montreal).  In such places, the Jesuits erected stone houses and wooden church buildings; they also planted large vegetable gardens and established cemeteries.  Lalemant also encouraged intermarriage between the French and First Nations as a means of bringing people into the Church.  He employed Hurons as church workers and that also advanced his missionary agenda.  Roman Catholicism was becoming deeply entrenched in the new world.  Prospects were growing dimmer for the establishment of the biblical gospel.

There were further developments around 1659 with the arrival of the first bishop for New France, François de Laval.  Laval was not a friend of the Jesuit agenda.  For their part, the Jesuits did not trust him.  However, in due time, through some adept political manoeuvring he gained the authority he wanted in Quebec.  He took a powerful role in the governance of the region and, as a result, any remaining Huguenot influence disappeared, whether in trade or in politics.  Under Laval, the colonial Quebec identity became even more intertwined with Roman Catholicism.

Back in Acadia, the Huguenots still had some room for trade and their tobacco plantations.  The governor of Acadia at this time was Charles de Saint-Étienne de la Tour, the son of a prominent Huguenot.  La Tour resisted the Roman Catholic clergy wherever he could.  He made it difficult for Jesuits and Capuchins to hold their masses and have people baptized.  La Tour was married three times.  His second wife was a remarkable Huguenot lady named Françoise-Marie Jacquelin – she aggressively supported her husband’s efforts.  She had no patience for the “prudent Huguenots.”  She became involved with the battle to control Acadia.  La Tour was in a power struggle with Charles de Menou d’Aulnay.  Jacquelin went back to France to muster Huguenot help, but many feared to join her.  D’Aulnay attacked Fort La Tour (near present-day Saint John, NB) while La Tour was away on business in 1645.  Jacquelin took command of the Fort while it was under siege.  Unfortunately, after four days the Fort was breached and all of its inhabitants captured.  All were executed in front of Jacquelin and she herself died three weeks later.  The Huguenot cause in Acadia suffered a loss with this defeat.  After d’Aulnay’s death in 1650, la Tour was able to again become the governor of Acadia until 1654.  However, the Huguenot presence never recovered.

Conclusion

During the seventeenth century, Huguenot merchants may have had the money to build and develop Reformed churches in Canada.  Yet they never did.  It is true that they took their religion with them over the Atlantic.  However, it had no lasting effect whatsoever in the St. Lawrence Valley or in Acadia.

This can be partly explained because of French royal policy and the notion that the Roman Catholics were the only representatives of Jesus Christ among the nations.  The Roman Catholic Church fostered an ecclesiastical colonialism.  Backed with military power, it introduced an aggressive (but nominal) form of politicized Christianity in Canada that lasted centuries.  As a result, Québécois identity would long be intrinsically tied up with Roman Catholicism.

The other part of the explanation rests with the Huguenots themselves and the politics of accommodation that prevailed among them.  They failed to establish Reformed Christianity in Canada due to their willingness to compromise on certain key points.  Because of French royal policy, they were content to enjoy informal worship services with simple Bible teaching and the singing of Psalms – the chanteries.  They even went so far as to utilize the sacraments in the Roman Catholic Church, just as French policy required.  Moreover, while they believed they were holding to the true Christian religion, they did not aggressively promote their beliefs either by missionary efforts or with the sword.  Instead, they took a merely defensive stance and even that was comparatively weak.  Given all of that, it is not surprising that the Reformed faith failed to prosper in Canada during this era.

In the previous instalment, we looked at developments in the St. Lawrence Valley.  Let us now briefly turn to what happened in Acadia (or Nova Scotia as we know it today) from about 1603 onwards.  Pierre Du Gua de Monts gathered about 120 people from France who were willing to migrate across the Atlantic.  Eventually they came to Acadia and in 1605 built Port Royal, at the site of present-day Annapolis Royal, Nova Scotia.   They also established a friendly relationship with the Micmac nation.  Following French policy, de Monts was accompanied by Roman Catholic priests.  However, he and his colonists were also served by some Huguenot pastors.

While travelling overseas, one of the priests constantly debated a Reformed pastor about the true scriptural religion.  Once they settled in Acadia, these debates dragged on.  Sometimes the two men would even get into physical fights.  When this happened, the victor would be supported by those who had been eagerly watching.  The natives applauded these conflicts as well and would cheer for the victor, especially when he made an ostentatious display at the end.    In the end, both church leaders died and colonists buried them in the same grave saying, “Let them have peace together now.”

De Monts went back to France in 1606.  He left Jean de Poutrincourt in command as governor of Port Royal.  De Poutrincourt made more progress in the fur trade.  In that same year, 1606, de Poutrincourt persuaded a notable Frenchmen, Marc Lescarbot, to visit Acadia.  Lescarbot was a well-educated lawyer, a politician, and appears to have been a Huguenot.  He was mandated to teach the colonists – men, women, and children – and also the local First Nations.  The idea was that Lescarbot would purposely and actively spread the gospel.  Every Sunday he conducted worship services at Port Royal.  He taught the Bible and gave a Christian education to all the colonists who wanted to be taught in the fear of the Lord God.  Lescarbot did not spend long in Acadia, however.  In 1607, together with most of the other colonists, he went back to France.

The efforts just outlined met with opposition from the Jesuits.  The governor of the Port Royal settlement was obligated to not merely tolerate, but also accommodate the Jesuits and their activities.  Here we must be aware of the situation back in France.  The Reformed churches were divided into two parties at this time, particularly among those holding leadership positions in society.  Some Huguenot noblemen argued that a Christian was to aggressively oppose the Roman Catholic government wherever and however possible, even by the sword if necessary.  They became known as a Reformed party endorsing a politicized religion similar to the Roman Catholics.  However, de Poutrincourt and other Huguenots in Canada belonged to what was known as the “prudent” party.  They were more pragmatic in their approach to these issues.  They were called “prudent Huguenots” because they rejected aggressive political opposition to the ruling authorities as being disobedience to the Fifth Commandment.

With that “prudence” in mind, the Huguenots allowed Jesuits to shape the religious culture of Acadia.  At the same time, Lescarbot and others were encouraged to conduct Huguenot meetings.  Huguenot chanteries (song-services) would be held with regular Bible preaching, the study of Scripture and, especially, the singing of Psalms.  Yet when someone needed to be baptized, the Huguenots were required to make use of and attend the Roman Catholic Church.  Their children had to be baptized by a priest.  Because of their moderate politics, the Acadian Huguenots recognized and accepted Roman Catholic baptism.  Something similar happened with the mass.  They received bread and wine out of the hands of the priests because they acknowledged them to be servants of Christ.  The Huguenots recognized that the Roman Catholics also believed in the person of the Lord Jesus, his crucifixion, death, and resurrection.  They argued that the strengthening of one’s faith did not depend on the person administering the sacraments, but on the gospel and the working of the Holy Spirit – so long as they personally used the sacraments in faith.  The Huguenots would go along with the Roman Catholics as long they could personally read the Bible and receive Bible teaching in their chanteries.  The Huguenot leaders in Acadia urged their people to accept the true teaching of the Bible and endorse the true religion (the Reformed faith) in their hearts.

So, from the outset the Reformed religion was spread in some limited way in Acadia.  Yet, churches were not instituted and church buildings were not raised.  Owing to a lack of pastors and to a conscious non-aggressive policy, the Huguenots laid a foundation for nominal Christianity in Canada both in the St. Lawrence Valley and in Acadia during the first period of 1598 to 1629.

A Remarkable Interim Period

In 1629 something remarkable happened.  The Huguenots gained some authority in Canada.  How did this come to pass?

Étienne Brûlé was a young Roman Catholic explorer in early Canada.  He had lived among the Hurons for quite a while.  This caused some consternation amongst the Jesuits and civil authorities in New France.  Consequently, in 1625, Samuel de Champlain had him expelled from Canada.  He went back to France and ended up among the Huguenots in the Reformed stronghold of La Rochelle.  The Scottish merchant family of Gervase Kirke had also settled in that area some years earlier.  In 1627-1628, La Rochelle was besieged by Cardinal Richelieu and French royal troops.  The siege was successful and La Rochelle fell to the Roman Catholic forces.  Along with many Huguenots and Brûlé, the Kirke family was forced to flee.  They went to England and there became involved with a plot to take Acadia and New France away from the French.  Gervase Kirke and some others sent out three small armed ships – they were commanded by the Kirke sons, David, Lewis, and Thomas.  They set sail with orders from the English king Charles I to take the French possessions in the name of England.  With the navigational assistance of the disaffected Étienne Brûlé, Quebec and Acadia were successfully invaded by the Kirke brothers.  David Kirke became the commander of Quebec.  He was able to pacify the French in the area so that they did not flee New France.  He arranged for a new Council in which Huguenots held the majority – his captain, Jacques Michel, became one of the councillors.

But then David Kirke became too friendly with the Roman Catholic clergy.  The ardent Huguenot captain Jacques Michel protested, but there was no stopping the chain of events.  Quebec was eventually lost due to conciliatory attitudes and actions.  Also, the English made peace with the French in 1632 and this led to the English pulling out of New France.  From that time forward, the star of Richelieu and de Champlain continued rising.  The Huguenots hardly had any more opportunity to continue and maintain their religious education in Canada – the exception being in Acadia.  This was a new era.

This era would continue until 1685.  That was the year King Louis XIV prohibited any Huguenots from practicing their Reformed religion.  As a result, a stream of refugees spread all over the world from France – many of them would eventually end up on the east coast of North America, especially in present day New York state and New Jersey.

In our last instalment, we’ll look at the end of the Huguenot experience in New France and Acadia.

The St. Lawrence Valley to 1629

Because of French royal and ecclesiastical policy, the Huguenots were also obliged to take Roman Catholic priests with them overseas.  The Romanist clergy were mandated to provide pastoral care for the colonists.  However, Pierre de Chauvin de Tonnetuit took along some Reformed pastors as well to support his plans and the Calvinist colonists.  Samuel de Champlain accompanied de Chauvin de Tonnetuit as his secretary – de Champlain had likely been born into a Calvinist family, but by this time he was a Roman Catholic.  From his reports we learn of the presence of Huguenot pastors in New France, although he did not record their names.

Pierre de Chauvin de Tonnetuit was to clear lands and establish a ‘seigneurie’ (county or district) along the same lines as what the French had in their own country.  He and Pierre Du Gua de Monts were to provide for each colonist in terms of labour and the costs of living.  These merchants were reluctant to engage in colonization, even to a modest extent.  Instead, commerce was begun with the native peoples and the fur-trade began in the valley.  Travelling along the St. Lawrence and Ottawa rivers, the armed agents of de Monts won the confidence and respect of the aboriginal population.  They played a major role in the fur trade in this region.  From 1609 to 1615, they were extremely successful in expanding trade into the interior and helped to draw the Hurons into the existing alliance with the Montagnais and Algonquian.

Consequently, the Huguenot settlers in New France focussed on commerce rather than agriculture.  This led to their familiarity with the ancient trails used by the Six Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy.  However, it was only later in this period that the Iroquois allowed Frenchmen to travel deeper into the interior.  Hurons gradually became the most important middlemen between the French and all other First Nations.  The goods began flowing; copper kettles, alcohol, and weaponry were exchanged for fur that the French could use for luxury clothing items.  The French regarded hunting and trapping as consistent with biblical principles, since human beings were supposed to wear clothes.  They also saw the exchange of goods with native peoples as a way to transmit Christian culture, since the native people would see the value that the French put on clothing.

In the meantime, a Political Council was appointed to govern the St. Lawrence seigneurie, as well as the seigneurie of Acadia.  As of 1612, they would be ruled as one region.  Henry of Bourbon, the prince of Condé, was appointed as governor.  He was charged to supervise New France on behalf of the French king, together with the Political Council in New France.  They would carry this out alongside the trade company and its board.  Samuel de Champlain became the lieutenant-governor.  In 1618 a leader from among the First Nations was also granted a seat on the Council.  He received a French hat – a peculiar gesture from our perspective, but an important mark of equality in that context.  The Dutch Reformed pastors in the New York area were known to wear hats with a silver band to give credibility to their authority.  In north-eastern Brazil around the same time, the Dutch colonists would also give hats to indigenous leaders such as Nhandui, a powerful Tapuya chief.  This allowed him to be perceived as being on the same level as the Dutch colonial leaders.  Similarly, the native leader in Quebec would take his seat in the Council by making a flamboyant French gesture with his hat.  Then he would be seated next to the other council members as a peer among equals.

Now all of that tells us something about the economic and social situation.  But did the Huguenots also introduce their Christian beliefs?

From the outset, the Huguenots had several strategies.  First, colonists began to meet every Sunday.  They organized open air worship services aboard ships and in the houses they built.  They did not endeavour to build churches because they were satisfied simply to have some place to gather.  Besides, the French government did not allow public meetings other than those conducted by the Roman Catholic priests.  Therefore, the Huguenots were prevented from building something.  They avoided conflict with the government in New France.

Nevertheless, they would have their gatherings for worship.  They would sing psalms – Psalm 68 and Psalm 79 were favourites.  There was preaching as well, but it was really the singing that stands out in the historical record.  Their gatherings became known as “chanteries.”  From the complaints of the Jesuits in this region we learn that the Genevan melodies of Clement Marot were sung loudly.

Furthermore, agents were sent with Huron interpreters to penetrate deeper into the interior.  Many young soldiers went into the woods and visited hidden villages.  They became familiar with native customs and won friendships with the Montagnais and Algonquians.  Gradually they even took over some of their lifestyle and culture.  Since these endeavours were oriented to the fur trade, the emphasis fell on transforming native people by setting an example of Christian behaviour.

Also, some young native people were sent to Paris to receive an education.  The French hoped that these native people would be overwhelmed with their immersion into French culture.  They envisioned that they would adopt the Christian culture and be willing to spread the message of change through Christianity.   However, this was an unrealized ideal since it met with fierce opposition from the French crown and government.  They required the promotion and expansion of the Roman Catholic Church overseas, including in the St. Lawrence Valley.  Additionally, the French regime promoted the development of agriculture instead of trade.

While the Protestants were making efforts to develop the fur trade, Samuel de Champlain was making plans to bring more Roman Catholics overseas.  He urged the French king to send plenty of Roman Catholic Frenchmen from the streets and all kinds of orphanages.  De Champlain wanted to spread the Roman Church through immigration, but his plans did not meet with any success until 1632.  In that year, de Champlain was appointed governor of New France and his plans began to fall into place.  In his mind colonists were to work the land and he also urged the Six Nations to become farmers.  Hence, repeatedly he overtured the French government to publicize the availability of free farmland.  He also encouraged the exploration and development of more farmland in the St. Lawrence Valley.  The Jesuits endorsed his plans, but the trade company did everything to resist.

Meanwhile, Pierre Du Gua de Monts died and Guillaume de Caen replaced him.  He was a Huguenot as well.  De Caen charged the trade company to follow the articles of the Edict of Nantes – that meant that there was to be a certain degree of toleration for the Reformed religion.  That is why “chanteries” continued along the St. Lawrence River at places such as Cap Tourmente (just downriver from present-day Quebec City).

Nevertheless, church buildings were not erected by the Huguenots.  Moderate church politics prevailed.  Because the Reformed people obeyed the Roman Catholic government, one does not find anywhere a Huguenot church building from the seventeenth century in the St. Lawrence Valley.  Yet, the Reformed believers did seriously worship our Lord God.

De Champlain was powerful and had some say in all sorts of developments.  Still, the trade company was able to push its trade and mild ecclesiastical politics forward until 1629.  Many people, especially aboriginals, detested de Champlain’s Roman Catholic politics, his policy of migration, and of agriculture.  As a consequence, the trade company worked together with First Nations to help English merchants and the English crown get a toehold in this area in 1629.  For a brief period, the French Roman Catholic authorities were driven out and the English took possession of the St. Lawrence Valley, including Quebec City.  Quebec had been established as the capital of New France through the efforts of the Jesuits.  Meanwhile, elsewhere the Scottish took Acadia and established the colony of Nova Scotia.  We’ll look at that history in our next instalment.

On the European continent scholars are continuously exploring past methods of colonization.  These days they are especially interested in researching the relationship of Europeans with aboriginals on the other side of the Atlantic.  It is now clear that colonization has never been a one-sided development.  Both sides, natives and Europeans alike, have experienced benefits and losses.  These investigations have implied a reassessment of what Christian culture was about and what kind of religion had been promoted in the transformation of the Americas.

There has been a surge of interest also in the historic relationships between Europe and what we today call Canada.  Europeans identified themselves as colonizers and migrants identified themselves as Christians when they met native inhabitants.  There are also the questions of what kind of Christianity was introduced into Canada, how it was introduced, and why.  The French Huguenots in Canada had a unique self-understanding with regard to being Calvinists and how they interacted with First Nations during the seventeenth century.  This was different from the Reformed Dutch in the new world.  Whereas the Dutch focussed on planting churches (for example, in today’s New York State), French Calvinists were engaged merely in spreading the gospel in Canada.  Consequently, we find no Protestant church buildings from the early period in either the area around the St. Lawrence River or in Nova Scotia.  Instead, there are only Roman Catholic buildings.  It may be instructive to explore the origin of Christianity in Canada in order to understand the way French Calvinists acted.

France and the Americas

During the sixteenth century, European nations were looking for a new western route to China.  This is why the other side of the Atlantic Ocean was explored.  French sailors thought they could discover a route to China and to the East Indies by travelling west.  They met the St. Lawrence River and the land which is nowadays called Canada.  When word of this reached the French king, he urged his people to begin colonizing whatever area could be taken from the indigenous nations.

This situation has to be understood in its Roman Catholic context.  The Roman pope deemed the whole world to be under his dominion.  Therefore, he thought he could claim all authority to distribute the lands and nations in the name of Christ to the governments of Roman Catholic kings as his papal representatives, whether in Italy, Spain, or Portugal.  This he did in the famous Treaty of Tordesillas of 1494 – the agreement which divided up the Americas between Spain and Portugal.

The Roman Catholic king of France also acted as one of the owners of the world on the other side of the Atlantic.  He did this wherever French fishermen and merchants operated and the peoples in those areas were regarded automatically as his French subjects.  He also promoted the expeditions of Jacques Cartier in 1532 and 1541 and Jean-François de La Rocque de Roberval in 1541-1543.  They were mandated to gain control over the St. Lawrence Valley and have it colonized.  However, these sixteenth century efforts ultimately failed due to conflicts between the colonists and the Iroquois.  The Iroquois did not think that the French behaved as those who owned the land.

During this period, the Wars of Religion were raging in France.  Consequently, persecuted Reformed people fled from France.  Slightly earlier, John Calvin and Admiral Gaspar de Coligny encouraged Reformed church members to spread the gospel across the Atlantic by means of colonization.  Nicolas Durand de Villegaignon gathered about 600 people and started a colony in South America in 1555.  He landed in present-day Brazil in the area of Rio de Janeiro.  Working together with the native inhabitants, they established a colony and a military fort (Fort Coligny).  They clearly showed a desire to be Reformed.  Unfortunately, the leader of the colony, Villegaignon, went back to the Roman Catholic Church and then turned on the Reformed colonists, even killing many.  This persecution led to the first Protestant martyrs in the new world and the first Reformed confession to be written in the Americas.  As they were waiting in prison for their date with the executioner, Reformed pastor Jean du Bordel wrote a confession with the help of his colleagues Matthieu Vermeuil, Pierre Bourdon, and André la Fon.  The Guanabara Confession contained sixteen articles and it was meant to be an outward-looking witness both to the Roman Catholics and to the pagan Brazilians.

Much further north, where the royal plans for colonization had come to nothing up till 1598, the French king Henry IV took a different tack.  He wanted to stimulate private enterprise.  That led to his allowing Huguenots to renew their efforts to build colonies in North America.  Let’s now turn to the beginnings of New France and consider how Reformed people introduced Calvinism into this new environment.

The Early Beginnings

The period of 1623 to 1629 is often remembered as the time in which the famous Roman Catholic Samuel de Champlain was married to a Calvinist lady.  However, this period should really be understood as the era of a fierce struggle between the Huguenots and Jesuits in Canada.  They were struggling on several fronts, including and especially with the planting of true Christian religion among colonists and First Nations.  What happened?

French, Spanish, and Basque fishermen became familiar with the coastal areas of the east and their peoples, especially in the area of Newfoundland.  They did not see any need to live in that area on a permanent basis.  They just built temporary settlements for whaling and fishing.  Meanwhile, they gradually became better acquainted with the Six Nations of the Iroquois, the Montagnais along the St. Lawrence, and the Huron peoples of the Georgian Bay region.  Only once the fur trade began was the need felt for establishing permanent settlements.  Colonization really began with economic interests in mind.  Colonists needed to ask permission and pay for the documents required from the French crown to settle down overseas.

The hat making industry in Paris led to increased demand for fur.  This is why merchants were urged by King Francis I to take control of territories and not just to trade with the natives.  He also endorsed private enterprises among the Huguenots.  Merchants were to provide themselves with personnel and materials so as to be able to live in New France.  This king also considered all inhabitants of New France to be his subjects whether they were colonists or aboriginals.  However, Huguenot merchants did not respond well to this imperialistic notion.  Their trade company was mandated to work overseas with the Six Nations in terms of a partnership or alliance, rather than as imperialistic colonizers.

Thereafter several wealthy merchants planted colonies overseas.  In 1598, Queen Catherine de Medici (wife of Henry IV and niece of a pope who favoured the Jesuits) granted a fur-trade contract to Troilus de Mesgouez.  She then named him lieutenant-general of New France.  Then there was an important Huguenot merchant, Pierre de Chauvin de Tonnetuit.  He was from Dieppe and he also obtained a royal monopoly for the fur trade and a charter to establish a colony overseas.  Having enlisted some 500 colonists and the required material, he sailed across the ocean and landed near Tadoussac, in the mouth of the St. Lawrence.  A third man, a renowned Huguenot from Saintonge, Pierre Du Gua de Monts, also started a commercial enterprise with a royal grant in 1603.   After his arrival, however, he realized that he did not like the climate of the St. Lawrence Valley.  Therefore, he eventually moved to the coastal area of Acadia (present-day Nova Scotia) and settled there.

In our next instalment, we’ll look at what happened in the St. Lawrence Valley from 1598 to 1629.  Then, later, we’ll look further at the developments among Calvinists in Acadia during this same period.

I have a soft spot for the Lloyd’s building. It’s the most photogenic building I know. Just point a camera at it and the results are at the very least good.

The Lloyds Building

It’s positively geriatric compared to its new neighbour, the Prawn, shown here on the left.

When the IRA bomb destroyed the old Baltic Exchange, we were promised it would be built exactly as it had been. Instead we got the Gherkin

The Gherkin

It has quickly become an iconic building on London’s skyline, though it does rather dwarf the nearby church of St Andrew Undershaft which has stood there since Tudor times.

St Andrew Undershaft

It’s not really a bikers’ church, though it does rather look like it.

Some parts of the City have a completely different feel. The arches that lead to Fenchurch Street railway station mean dry parking for push bikes.

Savage Gardens

This nearby building has, to me, a feeling of calm, despite being in the shadow of a new plush hotel.

Savage Gardens

The best thing about French Ordinary Court, where there was a cafe selling fixed price ordinary meals to French protestant refugees, including my ancestors maybe, is its name.

French Ordinary Court

Those of you who remember Glenn Close as Cruella De Ville in the later film version of 101 Dalmations may recognise these wonderful sculptures from outside Minster Court, which appeared as her HQ in the film.

Minster Court

In this instance, minster does not have a church connection, though the building makes me think of a cathedral designed by someone on mescaline. The name comes from combining the two adjoining street names; Mincing Lane and Dunster Court.

France is in turmoil after the murder of Henry III. Huguenots under Henry of Navarre battle the Catholic League led by the Duc Mayenne. After three years’ deliberation, the Duc of St. Quentin has decided to throw his weight behind Navarre, although his son Etienne is in love with the Lorance, ward of the head of the Catholic party.

When St. Quentin openly goes to Paris, which is controlled by the Catholic League, his page, Felix Broux, follows him to the city. His first night, Felix sees three men in a supposedly unoccupied haunted house. He gets in through an unlocked window and drops into a plot to have Etienne kill St. Quentin.

Runkle pulls out every cliché to keep the story going: mistaken identity, secret tunnels, stolen ciphers, and the obligatory disguised hero visiting his girlfriend in the enemy camp.

Runkle’s fast pace keeps readers from noticing the string of coincidences substituting for a plot is too thin to support scrutiny or that the characters are no more substantial than the plot. If readers notice how weak the novel is, that realization won’t come until after they’ve enjoyed swashbuckling entertainment.

Helmet of Navarre
by Bertha Runkle
Illus. by Andre Castaigne
Century, 1901
Project Gutenberg e-book #14219
My grade: B-

©2011 Linda Gorton Aragoni

Suellen Ocean is the author of Secret Genealogy available at Amazon, B&N and Ocean-Hose.

http://www.pacificsites.com/~oceanhose/