Talk:King's Daughters

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)[reply]

Leaving two references for people to see

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Mango juice^talk 14:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Mango juice^talk 14:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Mango juice^talk 22:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)