Talk:King's Daughters

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2021 and 20 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Barberla13.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Warning

To whoever keeps trolling on this page, if this continues, I will block the entire range you edit from. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Leaving two references for people to see

• http://www.fillesduroi.org/Daughters/daughters.html
• http://users.adelphia.net/~frenchcx/filleroi.htm

Looking at the talk page history there seems to have been an edit war which has at this point led to an empty talk page even though it dates back to October 2005; which is about 2 years. To avoid such things take a look at it and learn from the past. YoSoyGuapo 00:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The "edit war" you describe has simply been a random series of troll posts that added nothing to the discussion of the article and in many cases were simply vandalism. They were removed for that reason.

The first link you listed is already part of the "External links" section. I will add the second one. -- Couillaud 13:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

French prostitutes

If there is at least one prostitute among these fine young ladies then we are no longer speaking of "Rumors and urban legends." The article claims only one was "charged"; that hardly aquits these pure-woolly "women." -- previous unsigned remark was left by 132.211.195.143 19:04 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a bogus and racist troll. You have been leaving such unwarrented remarks on the Talk page for a long time, and have been warned before about leaving such. Unless you wish to identify yourself and actually produce documentation that there were French prostitutes who were shipped to Canada, please stop with your irrelevant vandalism.

Here is the first troll you started:

These "women" were prostitutes; so much for the fwench "pure wool" garbage; nothing pure here. When your ancestors were prostitutes, as is the case of the fwench Canadians, it is curious how the decedants describe themselves as pure! -- previous unsigned remark was left by 132.211.195.73 17:55 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This edit kept being removed, as it was irrelevant, unproven (not even vaguely supported by any documentation), and racist. You kept putting it back until an Admin warned that he would block your entire range if you continued. I have notified WKnight94 that you've returned with the same trolls as before.

Your edits are being reverted as vandalism. I have clarified the "Rumors" section to show from which of the three already-cited books the story of Catherine Guichelin derives, and have made it absolutely clear that it has no relevance to your incredible and unprovable theory.

-- Couillaud 14:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You know. All you have to do is google King's Daughters and Prostitutes. There you will see that articles do come up. For example. [1] . There is though another group in nambia that are prostitutes that call themselves kings daughters [2] YoSoyGuapo 02:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

And you're both a couple of trolls who know nothing about the King's Daughters of French Canada. You can google a neo-Nazi site and use it as a source to dispute anyone who argues about racial equality, or who believes the Holocaust happened. That's what you're doing right now, YSG, and I'm not playing this game. --Couillaud 03:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not troll and there is no need for the name calling or personal attacks If you look at this article you'll see that there is a group of prostitutes that do call themselves the King's Daughters [3] . YoSoyGuapo 03:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You are STILL trolling, and you're still stalking me. You're arguing that your cited article about a recent event in Africa supports racist remarks made about French women of the 17th century. Do it again, and I'll file the complaint against you.

The Discussion page is meant to discuss merits of the article, and all you do argue "issues" irrelevant to it.

---Couillaud 04:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually you have stalked me. [4] . This edit proves it! I don't know any racist remarks about French women in the 17th century, nor do I care. You made a comment that something was unproven. I replied on the talk page that all someone has to do is google king's daughters and prostitutes and they can find a source. The same way I found a source that stated that there were a group of prostitutes in Namibea that referred to themselves as King's Daughters. So how is that trolling? It is simply helping others learn about references. YoSoyGuapo 04:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok: all the links provided so far continue to confirm that the King's Daughters this article refers to were not prostitutes. The Namibian group calling themselves "King's Daughters" doesn't in any way support that these women were prostitutes, but it does support that some think or thought that they were, which is what the article says. So anyone wanting to change the article, the burden is on you to find reliable sources for that claim. Even then, the notion that the women were not prostitutes will have to be at least included, possibly as the dominant viewpoint, given the souces that exist for that claim. Mangojuice^talk 14:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I never said that the King's Daughters were prostitutes. Someone else did. I suggested that someone find reliable sources. I actually created another article that deals with another group known as the King's Daughters, but they are in Namibea. YoSoyGuapo 19:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice try. For all who read this, YoSoyGuapo has already once had one indefinite ban for disruptive behavior, and I already have an ANI complaint against him for this and two other actions of his in the last day. And I wish to point out one more time, THIS page is where we are supposed to discuss the merits of the article, NOT your personal opinions. That is the reason I deleted your first comments anyway: they were irrelevant to the merits of the article itself. -- Couillaud 20:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Request made to Admin

I have asked an admin to step in and clear all comments to this page and freeze it afterward, since all comments currently being made are irrelevant to the article itself, and are just a continuation of the trolling remarks that led to the first warning by an admin. --Couillaud 05:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

In response to your request, I have restored the section and left a response. Although there may be an ongoing pattern of raising this issue over and over, the issue is not irrelevant to the article, and it is generally considered poor form to remove the comments of others. Really, this problem is easily handled by demanding reliable sources and following Wikipedia policy. Troublesome users can be handed blocks. Mangojuice^talk 14:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Inline Citations

Greetings,

Not having access to the sources, could the person with the sources inline cite this article. Some of this really needs to have that. spryde | talk 16:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with the term "inline sources". Could you elaborate? The facts of the article in its original form (which I did not write) were drawn from three definitive books on the subject, one of which I own, and two of which are in a nearby public library. I used the Gagne book as a reference to my additions. All are cited at the end rather than clutter the article with 18 references to the same sources. Is it preferable to footnote the same source multiple times?

As for the reference to Namibian prostitutes (an unrelated and obscure topic that no one considered worthy of discussion before), there is one googled article cited by another editor.

-- Couillaud 16:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Noted about the Nambians. A great example of inline citations would be Htdig. Note the use of the ref tag and the references tag down at the bottom. spryde | talk 16:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I added one inline citation, to show how it's done. Inline citations do not have to be given for every sentence, so they won't ultimately be too repetitive. Mangojuice^talk 22:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Page name

I have never heard the filles du roi referred to as anything but "filles du roi" even in English; sometimes a parenthetical translation is provided but the French phrase is the accepted term. It seems very strange to see it translated here. --Saforrest (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There are two books cited here as sources information with the words "The King's Daughters" in their titles. The first time I heard of them, it was as King's Daughters. While I prefer les filles du roi myself, the English is more common for English writers, just as the Carignan-Salières Regiment is more common than le Régiment de Carignan-Salières. -- Couillaud (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

As a direct descendant of a listed fille du roi, I personally prefer the French version, however, seeing as this is English Wikipedia we'll have to stick with King Daughters--jeanne (talk) 14:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Lineage from filles du roi

We just had a fact (or factoid) added by Jeanne, listing the lineage of a Hall of Fame pro hockey player from one of the Daughters. There are surely many more prominent individuals descended from this group. Should we create a section for lineages of such individuals? The placement of the fact in the "Integration into New France society" section seems a bit gratuitous, and while I know Jeanne is rightfully proud of her ancestors (as I am of the seven in my line), and I have no problem with the lineages, I believe we need more of them and a separate section for them. -- Couillaud (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, Bernard and I are directly descended from the same son of fille du roi Marie Priault, who was named Jean Joffrion and a voyageur. Your idea of a separate section is good. I have read that Celine Dion descends from a fille du roi as well.--jeanne (talk) 06:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the famous persons should be dropped. Nearly anyone of French-Canadian descent can easily trace to multiple king's daughters if they do their genealogy homework. I am 50% F-C and I have identified 28 Filles to date, and I have probably explored only 1/3 of my ancestry. So the fact that some hockey player can trace to one is nothing, these are the mothers of the nation, nearly everyone will find them in their ancestry.Skates61 (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with talk. --Thorwald (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree - few, except well educated French Canadians, will understand the profound impact these women had on populating current Quebec (and Canada for that matter). Modern references will drive the point home for the average reader. My vote is to leave the section in, hoping that someone has done more homework on current iconic figures that descend from Filles' BTW I recently found the transcript of the Sovereign Council trial of Catherine Guichelin where she was convicted of prostitution and banashed from the walls (translated from middle French) - it's interesting reading but I'm not sure if it has a place here somewhere. Ian Furst (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Is the title correct?

Begging pardon if I come back on material long gone by but that I didn't see. But the title "king's' daughters" seems dubious to me, since the word "fille" is pretty ambiguous in French, in that it mainly means "girl" as well as "daughter", and has often been used to designate any unmarried females, who for any reason was deemed not honorable enough to be titled "women or "ladies"... and even women of bad life, though I have no reason to believe that the latter meaning of "fille" be applicable to the king's. Thus I wonder about the accuracy of the translation, and would like to know if the term is a well established and traditional expression in English, or merely an approximation that could be improved on. --Svartalf (talk) 23:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The phrase Fille du roi was not used contemporaneously; it is a designation retroactively coined by historians, IIRC in the late 19th or early 20th century. It literally means 'Daughters of the King, with no ambiguity to the term, as they were primarily orphans (having lost at least one parent) who were recruited to be colonists for New France, which at the time had an incredible imbalance between single men and wormen. The term most commonly used in the 17th century was filles à marier, or "marriageable girls", meaning young unmarried women of child-bearing age; our later term refers to those who received the official patronage of the King of France, whereas the first group either paid their own way or accepted contracts to be domestic servants for x number of years to wealthy seigneurs.

You are a French speaker; do you know if the word fille was commonly used to describe a prostitute in the 17th century? I know of a few terms that were used, but I've never seen fille among them.

-- Couillaud (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the term has been in use since the middle ages to designate women, of whatever age and marital status who were in low social positions... servants, employees who were not in their husband's business, all kinds of menials. Some equivalents might be "maid" of "wench" If you never noticed the word being used to designate prostitutes, it may be because you noticed the slang or vulgar terms, while "fille" was a pretty common but more euphemistic designation, with a much broader spectrum to boot.

As for the term "filles du roi" not being contemporary, I did not know that, not being any expert in the history of the colonies. I'm conscious that the "daughter" option is not completely wrong, in so far as the king acted as tutor and provided a dowry, but wondered if the translation was really optimal. --Svartalf (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it's translated at all. I've always heard "filles du roi" in English (in Canada). I've never heard "King's Daughters" before. So what's the common usage? Nfitz (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Missing Urban Legend

Living in Quebec, I was surprised that this article left out the biggest urban legend of all: that the reason Quebec women are regarded as exceptionally attractive to tourists (don't ask me, ask a Boston Bruins fan why he can't help but drive up here for a hockey game rather dirve the same distance to NYC) has something to do with the fact that the original "Filles du Roi" were chosen for their exceptional beauty. 65.92.135.210 (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Please Remove Redirect

Currently, a search for "Daughters of the King" redirects to this page. This is a misleading redirection. The Daughters of the King is a religious order of the Episcopal Church of the USA (see http://www.doknational.com/). The search terms "Daughters of the King", "The Order of the Daughters of the King", and "DOK" should all direct to a page about this religious order. I have done a search for the latter 2 and apparently no such page yet exists. As the president of a chapter of this order, I would be honored to create a page for our order, but I'd like this redirect corrected in the meantime. Thank you. Prtwhitley (talk) 06:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Has been done. -- Couillaud (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You may wish to add internal links to the Wiki article on the ship "Pelican" and it's "Pelican Girls" (Daughters of the King) that arrived Mobile, Alabama, 1704. There are a few external websites on same, also. Etienne Burel, second husband of Marguerite Roussel, both of Canada, but to Mobile from France. By her earlier marriage a Canadian soldier, Mathurin Duchiron dit Deslauris, 1673; she was a Canadian King's Daughter. She and Burel had three Pelican Girl daughters. I descend the one who wed Canadian marine Maj. Francois Trudeau who in 1702 build old up-river Mobile's first fort. Somewhere I've seen the name of the French ship that took allegedly, Paris prostitutes to New Orleans for marriages. This website has Pelican Girl descendants of Maj. Trudeau via Maj. de Juzan. http://www.nchgs.org/html/juzan_family.html One of Maj. Trudeau's descendants was Spanish cavalry service LtCol Zenon Trudeau, who's New Orleans French Quarter home still stands. He was later Lt. Gov. of Upper Louisiana at St. Louis. He is a DAR ally "Patriot" of the American Revolution, because Zenon ran Spanish service agents amongst the Indians for Gov. Galvez, against British agents amongst the Indians. ∞ focusoninfinity 23:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Focusoninfinity (talk • contribs)

St. Joseph Missouri and a Fille

The man who founded St. Joseph Missouri was a descendant of a filles du roi. His name was Joseph Robideaux and he was a descendant of Jeanne Denote who was a filles du roi. Did not want to add it without asking, but thought it would be an interesting thing to add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.127.106 (talk) 19:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Filles à Marier

Since we mention the distinction between the Government-sponsored Filles du Roi and the privately-sponsored women, I am going to add a sentence about LandryPeter Gagné's use of the term Filles à Marier (Marriageable Daughters) for the earlier non-Filles du Roi. Does anyone know if LandryGagné coined the phrase "Filles à Marier" for these women for his book on them (published a few years after his book on the Filles du Roi)? I have seen a reference to the term being used in a 1986 French journal to denote all of the marriageable New France women from 1632 to 1685, but I'm not aware of anyone else using LandryGagné's specific connotation before him. Meters (talk) 22:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. It was Peter J. Gagné I was thinking of, not Yves Landry. The book is Before the King's Daughters: The Filles à Marier, 1634-1662, 2002. Meters (talk) 00:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It is my recollection that the term was contemporaneous with the Marriageable Girls themselves and was applied to both sets of women. As I recall, the term Filles du Roi was coined later by historians in the 19th or 20th century.

I have both of Gagné's works, and I'll check to see whether he discusses either term's etymology. -- Couillaud 04:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, if you search the term quoted term "filles du roi" in goolge books there are many references in 17th century literature. I haven't found a true one (many other hits come up but don't seem to be in context) from 16th century books. My French is not strong enough to study the context of the references and determine if they are referring to the same marriageable girls. --Ian Furst (talk) 13:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you cite something specific as to "references in 17th century literature"? I've looked through several sources in Google Books, but I can find none that cite any 17th century reference to the term Fille du roi. I plan to keep looking, but I have found no discussion of the origin of the term in Gagné's book. Joy Reisinger's book is locally available, and I believe I've read Landry's work as well. I will have to find them again, but at the moment I believe we have no definitive word as to when the term "Filles du Roi" originated. -- Couillaud 02:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Oeuvres de Messire 1689, Continuation des Annales ecclésiastiques du cardinal Baronius 1654, Trois livres du domaine de la couronne de France 1634. The term seems to be used in the context of an english bride in the first two cases (again, my French and worse my middle French has never been good) "Filles du roi d'Angleterre". This may have nothing to do with French women in New France but it may explain the etymology. These same books also discuss Nouvelle-France --Ian Furst (talk) 12:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

All 3 of these refs are discussing the daughters of various Kings (in the literal sense). For now I'll just add mention of the "Filles à Marier" term without commenting on its etemology. Meters (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Rumors and Legends section question.

This sentence starts one paragraph in Rumors and legends

According to the author Peter Gagné, there is no record of any of the Caribbean women having gone to Canada.

Caribbean women are not mentioned elsewhere in the article, unless I really missed it. How does that sentence add to the points being made in the section? Is there a wiki link about some group of Caribbean woman to make the sentence add to the point? Thanks. This is a great article, by the way, thanks to all who have worked on it. Prairieplant (talk) 09:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

There is some "discussion" that was deleted several years back. We for a while had a troll who kept putting culturally insulting statements just to provoke people, making various unfounded claims of prostitution. That individual's comments were deleted; I believe that this may just be a remnant of one of the arguments he started, when he tried to falsely equate France sending women to a Caribbean island as criminals with girls recruited to help populate a new colony.

I almost hate to retell this incident, as I'm afraid we'd draw another troll. -- Couillaud 17:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I hope the trolls have disappeared. I deleted the uninformative sentence. Some of the troll history is evident on this talk page; I understand wanting it never to begin again. I started a section in the New France entry, about settlers, and have tried to make what is says consistent with this page, on that part of the discussion. -- Prairieplant (talk) 09:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Human traffic ???

The introduction section of this article currently reads : « ... young French girls who were human trafficked to New France ... ». I am not a native speaker of English so I might be confused by the term, but I had not previously read anything anywhere that made me believe that these women were brought to Canada for what Wikipédia calls « human traffic, » i.e. as sex slaves or for activities in the sex trade. So, it was a bit of a surprise to me. (I thought the women were sent to Canada merely to be brides.) Since I am certain thousands of people look at this article and review it often, the term must be correct. Maybe someone should at least Wikify « human traffic » so it is clearer, and add a few more words about the sex commerce aspects to add to understanding. Citing a source would be good for this term, too. (I am not going to touch the article.) Charvex (talk) 10:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I deleted that phrase as it does not apply to this article, and is certainly not appropriate in the first paragraph. There are other phrases trying to say that the women were prostitutes, opposite to the points made in the Rumors section. Sometimes statements are given references, but it seems the reference is pulled from elsewhere in the article. One citation is called a Libertarian view -- I could not see the full text on line, and wonder about its validity at all. --Prairieplant (talk) 11:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Change in tone of article away from main topic

This tone of this article seems changed with so much discussion reliant on recent texts or journal articles that seem to address the philosophy of family size in France, the role of women, and not simply this program, the King's Daughters. That is the topic, who was involved, how it was structured, and what success it had. I deleted sections of text that relied wholly on one of those sources or espoused the entire program as being pro-natalist, which seems to be a strong point of view, not balanced by other logical views (economics, settlers by definition wanting families). The intent of the source, from what I read, was not to document the King's Daughters or the shift of the role of government in orderly development of a settlement (rather than resource extraction from the New World). The topic of fur hunting is covered in the New France article and does not belong here.

If others are more knowledgeable of the sources from journals (listed in the References and not always available on line, could you help sort out the wayward text? Some of the References are notated as on line, but there is no URL leading to them, as are some of the footnotes, another problem needing correction. --Prairieplant (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I figured out the problem of the off-topic edits, and I rebuilt the article from an older version. I forgot to post here the day I rebuilt the article. --Prairieplant (talk) 06:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Marriageable Girls / Filles à Marier

Surprised we don't have an article on the Marriageable Girls aka Filles à Marier. Figured this would be the group to take up the task of creating an article or maybe a section.  :) Morphh ^(talk) 17:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

If you have actual data and valid references on the women who came to New France to settle, paying their own passage in the 17th century, then try adding it in the New France#Royal takeover and attempts to settle section. That section is specifically about the settlers, the families, and the growth of the settlement (as opposed to fur trading and explorers) in New France. I do not think it belongs in this article, which is specifically about the King's Daughters, a defined program about a specific group of women. --Prairieplant (talk) 06:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I've put a request there for someone with some expertise in the topic to expand the content. Morphh ^(talk) 14:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Peter Gagné, author of the 2-volume Kings Daughters and Founding Mothers (listed under "Further Reading") is also the author of Before the King's Daughters: The Filles à Marier, 1634-1662, an excellent work on that group. Gagné's book has biographical sketches on 262 women (as opposed to the 768 bios in his earlier work); I picked it up because twelve of my ancestors were in it, as opposed to only eight filles du Roi.

Truth be told, the term filles du Roi is a post hoc term that historians came up with. It was not a commonly used term until at least the 19th century; both groups were called filles à marier in their own times, if a term was applied at all; it's possible that only Marguerite Bourgeoys ever contemporaneously called them filles du Roi. I think this article is a bit historically deficient for not addressing that issue. Whatever my disagreement with the article, I do agree with Morphh that there should be a separate article for the Filles à marier. -- Couillaud 15:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Couillaud, do you think it must be a free-standing article? Would my idea of including it in the New France article, settlement section, work for your thinking? That book you mention sounds like a good starting source. The settlement was so small before the King's Daughters arrived -- I had the notion there were not very many women who arrived before them, but clearly important if they are in your family tree. Would Filles á marier include the women who arrived after the King's Daughters program ended? Is there a book to cover them as well? Just curious as to how you see this shaping up. --Prairieplant (talk) 10:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that the topics appear to be too closely related to have a separate article on "Filles a marier"; that will make it difficult to differentiate them and to keep the articles up to date in two places.Parkwells (talk) 14:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Users Prairieplant and Parkwells, I'm of at least two minds (a painful state, I assure you) on this matter. As suggested by Prairieplant, I believe that this should be a part of the New France article (or the Canada (New France) article), but it is an important enough subject to rate its own article. The problem, as Parkwells points out, is that the two topics of Marriageable Girls and King's Daughters are exceptionally closely related. There are some historians who consider the distinction to be simply an excuse to sell extra books.

My recollection (I am going back through the books I have to be certain) is that in the 17th century, they were all called filles à marier (marriageable girls), and that while some did contemporaneously note that paying a girl's dowry to entice her to emigrate to Canada was a new idea, they didn't consider them any different than the girls who had come in the previous 30 years of their own accord and by their own expense. While the term fille du Roi was coined by Marguerite Bourgeoys in the 17th century, it wasn't used in any general sense until French Canadian historians began writing of them.

The primary difference between the two groups is that an average of fewer than 9 unmarried girls (excluding those who traveled with their parents) crossed the Atlantic for the purpose of colonizing Canada in the first 30 years, and about 70 per year did over the next 11, once the Crown took an active role in recruiting marriage-aged girls during those years.

Prairieplant, I don't know if anyone has fully researched immigration to New France after the end of the filles du Roi program. We'd probably be treading into a swamp of "Original Research" if we were to do so.

After all that rambling, I guess I'd be in favor of adding information about the filles à marier into this article.

-- Couillaud 02:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

That is a lot of hard thinking, Couillaud. This article, King's Daughters is so compact and well-defined. One way I could see adding that topic of 9 women per year for 30 years is a section placed before Origins, perhaps titled Marriageable women arriving prior to 1663. Then the situation of the tiny settlement and few women arriving on their own funds, the practice of dowry, perhaps some of their names, their challenges of life in New France could be described. This would lead directly into the Origins section of King's Daughters. I would want to keep the article titled King's Daughters. Maybe in the end section of Rumours and legends, the result of a search of sources on the use of the terms filles à marier and filles du roi could be added. I thought someone said there are contemporary references beside Marguerite Bourgeoys using the term filles du roi, but my fallible memory is only a guide not fact.

I had liked putting it in New France, which article needs more on settlement. But it could draw from this one once again. Really not much written about new settlers after the King's Daughters? Only books of battles, I take it. If that is the case, the article is thus limited. But still interesting. Is this beginning to be a plan? Someday written words? --Prairieplant (talk) 10:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Putting information about the filles à marier and filles du Roi in the New France article could just be a summary with a link to this article for more detail. I also think that the filles à marier information could be included in part of the "Origins" section, as the filles du Roi recruitment was a direct response to the realization that expecting single girls to emigrate at their own expense and risk was not working. There is already mention in the first paragraph of "Origins"; I believe that we could expand it.

Followup: I pulled my books by Peter Gagné off the shelf and looked at them last night. In his introduction to Before the King's Daughters (published 2002 by Quentin Publications), Gagné states in his introduction that as far as he knew, his book was the only one for which the filles à marier were its sole or primary subject. This may be our only source for specific information.

Couillaud, this is sounding better. Yes, there is a good sentence in Origins that might be stretched to a paragraph or two, using Peter Gagné's book as the source to start, and adding good substance to this article, keeping the topic well-defined. Finding authors who had this as not their primary topic, and did not use Gagné as their source, sounds like a challenge. As you have the book, can you write a few sentences from Gagné? I need to find that book from my (local public) library. Well, I did suggest a list of points possibly worth making, especially a sentence with that amazingly low number of women who came on their own, with a citation as to the number. How does one explain the differing amounts of attraction to a continent requiring a risky sailing voyage, yet rich with resources and the chance to strike out on one's own with at least a few of the limits of society at home (in Europe that is) removed? Each nation sent out a different amount of people, and the people settled in both the cold-winter places and the hot tropical places. Merry Christmas! --Prairieplant (talk) 06:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

16th century?

From the "Rumors and Legends" section:

While there were two campaigns in the mid-16th century that involved the immigration of French criminals to Canada in exchange for their records being expunged, they were both short-lived. These programs resulted in little more than setting a precedent for viewing Canada as a place where those "of questionable morality" could be sent for one reason or another.

I assume that should be the 17th century? Or did it refer to one of France's unsuccessful colonies of the 1500s? 108.254.160.23 (talk) 05:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

gif with age distribution of the women is not showing up, here or in Wikimedia.

Perhaps this is a temporary problem? The chart showing the age distribution of the women who came to Canada does not show up in this article (in Origins section) or in Wikimedia if I link there via a google search. The file is

Graphique sur la répartition des "Filles du Roi" selon l'âge (vers 1663-1673).gif and only the caption is showing, today. Is any step needed for it to show again? --Prairieplant (talk) 07:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Must have been a temporary problem as the pie chart in the gif file now appears. Bit of a mystery, but it is okay now. --Prairieplant (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on King's Daughters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090428051704/http://municipalite.yamachiche.qc.ca:80/toponymie/genealogie/section3.html to http://municipalite.yamachiche.qc.ca/toponymie/genealogie/section3.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120823161939/http://fchsm.org:80/pdf/Clinton.pdf to http://fchsm.org/pdf/Clinton.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Link works, brings one to the genealogy of H R Clinton as published, so I changed from false to true above. --Prairieplant (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Usage: "immigrate" vs "emigrate"

Something that struck me when I first read this article was the incorrect uses of "immigrate" and "emigrate." One does not immigrate from France; one emigrates. There were too many such errors for me to correct, so I left them. Heads up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.174.36.29 (talk) 08:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I see no errors. There are exactly ten instances of "immigra..."in the article and none of them are obviously wrong. Almost all of them involve immigration to and thus are definitely correct. A few could be written as either way (emigrant/immigrant for example). Meters (talk) 08:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)