What 300-Year-Old Minutes Revealed About My Family

In my search to identify Mathieu D’Amours (x9 great-grandfather), the National Archives of Quebec were awfully helpful. I found a plethora of meeting minutes from the Conseil Souverain (Sovereign Council) of which D’Amours had been appointed to for over a decade. He is mentioned several times with interesting dialogue tags that really portray his personality. 

The following information was attained with the translation help of ChatGPT. I’m not sure how accurate some of this may be, as the writing of the 1670s-90s is tricky to read. So, I’m looking for an expert in 17th Century French.

Often, Mathieu opposed ordinances which went against what the crown wished. In June of 1694, Mathieu D’Amours “a persisté ledit sieur D’Amours en son avis, disant qu’il ne pouvoit autrement que suivre ce qui luy avoit été ordonné par Sa Majesté” (he persisted in his opinion that they couldn’t act otherwise). It should be noted that D’Amours was 76 at the time. I imagine some of that old age aided his stubbornness. However, most men did not serve so long in a post. 

D’Amours ensures his Majesty’s will is done from the beginning. He is adamant that nothing be done against the intentions of the king (“et que rien ne pouvoit être fait contre l’intention de Sa Majesté”). These quotes show a loyalty, which may be because King Louis XIV appointed D’Amours to this post. 

Moreover, these dissents in the presence of political powerhouses like Frontenac and the Intendant display D’Amours’ confidence and persistence. This is shown clearly when he’s quoted as saying “que M. d’Amours demeure en son advis,” which means that he remains firm in his opinion. 

 Members held D’Amours in high esteem, and even his opponents couldn’t ignore him. Frontenac, for example, eventually jailed D’Amours. Frontenac was often at odds with the Conseil, especially over the sale of alcohol to natives. Despite their differences, D’Amours is mentioned by name in the minutes, which showcases that his dissent was valued.

D’Amours persistence, loyalty, and commitment couldn’t have stopped during his council meetings. He took steps which provided his sons with large tracts of land. With a large family (15 kids), D’Amours needed these traits to succeed. I do wonder how his upbringing influenced his later decisions. To be expected, he must have wanted his family name to carry on. I can feel that urge too. But there must be more to it than just that. Every father’s role is to secure stability and legacy. 

Mathieu D’Amours did that to the best of his ability, striving to hold up his family so that they might rise to greater roles.