What is the correct LNAB for François de Montmorency-Laval? [closed]

Question

I'd like to add project management and protection to this important profile.  Before I do this, though, I'd like to determine the proper LNAB using Euro Aristo standards.  Clearly, it shouldn't be de_Montmorency-Laval, but it isn't clear to me whether it should be Laval or Montmorency.  Guidance from the Euro Aristo project would be much appreciated.

Comments

Marie-Louise de Laval is a distant cousin of his and also needs a new LNAB, she is currently "DeLaval".

---

I am confused is the said profile traced and connected all the way down from the middle ages because obviously he was a Catholic high clergymen and was not married, so there are no descendants of his, or is it just purely for informing people that a lone profile is created for Bishop de Laval?

---

This profile was created in June 2016 and had been sitting there with little attention given to it since. I don't understand what is confusing about trying to get it right (which seemed to be the goal of this post).

Are you implying that because François de Laval was a bishop and has no descendance, his profile is unimportant and we should not try to improve it?

(Edited for clarity)

Answer 1

Technically they are from the Maison de Montmorency but they used the name de Laval or at least his father did see here page 408, no. 3137

So if we are using the name they would have used, from what we know the LNAB should be Laval with de Laval as the Current Last Name.  Montmorency as Other Last Name and/or a category?

Comments

I would prefer Laval to Montmorency too. The near-contemporary genealogists Du Chesne and Anselme both indicate that the name Laval was used by this branch starting with Guy, the son of Mathieu II de Montmorency and Emma de Laval. Per Duchesne, Guy took the name of Laval when he succeeded to the seigneurie "and started the family of Laval" (here) and Anselme follows him ("Laval, dont il prit le nom, lequel a passé à la postérité"). They don't give a source but it looks like a good indication?

---

I've actually never seen a contemporary document that named him Montmorency, he gets called François de Laval, évêque de Petrée, and later évêque de Québec.

This document shows his signature after he became bishop of Québec:

http://numerique.banq.qc.ca/patrimoine/archives/52327/3426627?docref=LYmVyXvRV5lq66hH_9WNEg

---

We should probably add Montmorency and/or Montmorency-Laval as an "Other Last Name" too, his Wikipedia pages in several languages (French among them) include the name Montmorency in their title, so it's likely some people would look him up under Montmorency-Laval.

---

he is from a cadet branch of the Montmorency family http://biographi.ca/fr/bio/laval_francois_de_2F.html

Please, no hyphenated Montmorency-Laval, that is modern usage and totally unwarranted.  He doesn't use Montmorency in any document I have been able to find,

Here's another signature of his, François, évêque de Petrée at the time: http://numerique.banq.qc.ca/patrimoine/archives/52327/3277824?docref=1OIjPKhFu8QgP4AMbuagMA

Add Montmorency in OLN by all means, for search function purposes, but the bio should make it clear he didn't use it, because he didn't.  Before being bishop he used Abbé de Montigny, per biographi.ca above.  (I pulled the French version URL but one can get to the English version with a single click)

---

Sorry, as an academic librarian by profession, who spends much of their time helping students search the huge numbers of databases available these days, I see many of the name and other fields available on WikiTree as different ways to add 'keywords' to assist people to find a profile and not create a duplicate.

This is particularly important with European Aristocrats who can be known by a range of names and/or titles.

So I completely agree that the Last Name at Birth (LNAB) and Current Last Name (CLN) should be what the person used, but the Other Last Names (OLN) is the field to enter names that they may not have used themselves, but are known by that name later.  Particularly as it is one of the few name fields where multiple names can be entered.

I agree with Isabelle that both Montmorency and Montmorency-Laval are appropriate name to add to OLN to try to avoid duplicates being created who have come across that name in Wikipedia.

---

not likely to have duplicates created, no descendants, he was a bishop.  And adding the name Montmorency is just a convenience for search functions.  Use their conventions seems to apply here, there is no evidence at all that he used the name in his time.

---

The point is this profile was once created, and with Montmorency-Laval as its name. There is no reason to be sure it would not happen again. Right now if I search François Montmorency-Laval using WikiTree's search tool (https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Special:SearchPerson) François's profile does not come up. In my opinion there is potential for a duplicate to be created, or a least for people to complain that the profile is hard to find. As manager of the House of Montmorency for the European Aristocrats project, I would much prefer to see Montmorency-Laval among the *other* last names.

I do not question that François himself did not use Montmorency, but on the other hand always thought that the OLN field, like the Nicknames field actually, was not restricted to names used at the time the person lived.

---

by that logic, ok, as long as the bio makes it clear he didn't use it, don't want to perpetuate the error, which is all over the map in this province now.

Answer 2

Son of Hughes de Laval

fichierorigine.com/recherche?numero=242346

Answer 3

Fichier origine gives a date and place of baptism for him, but don't include the baptism image, so you might want to go chase up the original document.  http://www.fichierorigine.com/recherche?numero=242346

30 April 1623 in Montigny-sur-Avre (St-Martin) (Eure-et-Loir) 28263

Comments

I looked for it, but the registers that would cover the year of his birth are missing, as well as several years afterwards.

The family is covered by Père Anselme and probably others so we have a lot of info about his ancestors but not primary.

---

hmm, now where did Fichier origine get that DOB then?  Wrote to them and asked.

---

He's a notable. His date of birth is in biographi.ca and Wikipedia (which may have copied it from biographi.ca). It is possible that the register exists but has not been numerized.

---

well, may get a copy from Fichier origine if that is so.  They're pretty good that way.

---

In fact, it does not look likely. Per this footnote to his Wikipedia article "son acte de baptême n'a pas été retrouvé" and then they go on to explain why they think they know what was in it....

---

lol, well, it would definitely be de Laval then, he gets listed as François de Laval, évêque de Petrée on multiple documents.  Here's a sample, one can see the original document also.  http://pistard.banq.qc.ca/unite_chercheurs/description_fonds?p_anqsid=201902131703463912&p_centre=03Q&p_classe=TP&p_fonds=1&p_numunide=811634

---

Various sources sent me by a cousin:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09045a.htm

https://www.ulaval.ca/notre-universite/a-propos-de-lul/lorigine-et-lhistoire.html

http://www.cursillos.ca/action/modeles/054m-saint-francois-de-laval.htm

http://www.patrimoine-culturel.gouv.qc.ca/rpcq/detail.do?methode=consulter&id=7686&type=pge#.XGhBmuj0nIV

http://lequebecunehistoiredefamille.com/capsule/morency-et-montmorency/genealogie

http://www.carrefourkairos.net/lav_bureau_fdl_france.htm

https://www.erudit.org/fr/revues/cd/1993-cd1040748/8257ac.pdf

https://www.ville.quebec.qc.ca/citoyens/patrimoine/toponymie/fiche.aspx?IdFiche=1011

Many of these are in French.  The last few do state that Montmorency is an error, he was not named that.