The Saucier Family
Additional Items of Interest
During the early agitation for revision of the Dreyfus trial (in France), in 1897, frequent mention was made in public writings of “General Saussier”, Military Governor of Paris”. In the press dispatches from Paris there appears this paragraph: “Paris, January 16, 1898. One hundred and twenty-six patriotic and military Societies held a demonstration today in the Place Vendome in honor of General Felix Gustave Saussier, Commander-in-chief of the French Army, and Military Governor of Paris, who now retires under the age limit.
The announcement of his death, in 1905, was cabled to this country as follows:
PARIS, Dec 20. - General Felix Gustave Saussier, former commander-in-chief of the French Army, died today. He was one of the best known and bravest officers in France. In the battles around Metz a quarter of a century ago he distinguished himself most signally. The famous infantry charge at St. Privat, which practically barred the progress of the Germans on that side, was led by him. Saussier was one of the officers who signed the protest against the surrender of Metz. General Saussier also served in Italy, Mexico and the Crimean. He was a deputy for some time and in 1873 distinguished himself in the dissensions on the reorganization of the army.
It is not known how General Felix Gustave Saussier possibly fits in as a member of our Saucier family of Canada and the United States. The names Felix and Gustave can be found carried down in the lineage of our Saucier family for several generations. Some believe he was a relative of Louis Saucier who immigrated to Canada from France, but no one knows for sure.
One early publication on the Saucier family gives a Felix Xavier Saussier as the brother of Charles Saucier of Paris, France, the patriarch of our family. In that publication the writer states that Felix was an older brother of Charles and an officer in the Royal Guards at Versailles. Saussier was one of the french spellings of our surname. Since General Felix Gustave Saussier was born in 1823 and died in 1905 in Paris, it would be more likely that he was a descendant, possibly one of the great grandsons of Felix Xavier Saussier, brother of Charles Saucier of Paris, France, our family patriarch. We do know that General Felix Saussier was the son of Felix Savinien Saussier (1790-1857) and grandson of Jean Nicolas Saussier (1762-?) a merchant in early France, and its known that our paternal ancestors were also salt and spice merchants in early France. These two facts, both being from a family of merchants with the same surname, leaves us with the possibility that they are all part of the same family. So far no additional information has been found on General Felix Saussier’s family connection to our Charles Saucier of Paris, France and present day families residing in Canada and the United States.
The announcement of his death, in 1905, was cabled to this country as follows:
PARIS, Dec 20. - General Felix Gustave Saussier, former commander-in-chief of the French Army, died today. He was one of the best known and bravest officers in France. In the battles around Metz a quarter of a century ago he distinguished himself most signally. The famous infantry charge at St. Privat, which practically barred the progress of the Germans on that side, was led by him. Saussier was one of the officers who signed the protest against the surrender of Metz. General Saussier also served in Italy, Mexico and the Crimean. He was a deputy for some time and in 1873 distinguished himself in the dissensions on the reorganization of the army.
It is not known how General Felix Gustave Saussier possibly fits in as a member of our Saucier family of Canada and the United States. The names Felix and Gustave can be found carried down in the lineage of our Saucier family for several generations. Some believe he was a relative of Louis Saucier who immigrated to Canada from France, but no one knows for sure.
One early publication on the Saucier family gives a Felix Xavier Saussier as the brother of Charles Saucier of Paris, France, the patriarch of our family. In that publication the writer states that Felix was an older brother of Charles and an officer in the Royal Guards at Versailles. Saussier was one of the french spellings of our surname. Since General Felix Gustave Saussier was born in 1823 and died in 1905 in Paris, it would be more likely that he was a descendant, possibly one of the great grandsons of Felix Xavier Saussier, brother of Charles Saucier of Paris, France, our family patriarch. We do know that General Felix Saussier was the son of Felix Savinien Saussier (1790-1857) and grandson of Jean Nicolas Saussier (1762-?) a merchant in early France, and its known that our paternal ancestors were also salt and spice merchants in early France. These two facts, both being from a family of merchants with the same surname, leaves us with the possibility that they are all part of the same family. So far no additional information has been found on General Felix Saussier’s family connection to our Charles Saucier of Paris, France and present day families residing in Canada and the United States.
A widower named James La Sausaie, who was a native of Rochefort, France, and who was the son of Nicholas and Francisa Sausaie, was recorded as having married Maria Belugue of the Gulf Coast (Biloxi) on February 3, 1785. Whether these men are of the same family or whether either was related to the Saucier family or to Francois Saussie of Remes, France who arrived at Biloxi on the ship L’Union in 1719 is unknown. Francois Saucier, younger son of Jean Baptiste Saucier and Gabrielle Savary was a passenger on the L’Union when he returned from Paris to New Orleans (in 1730) upon completion of his studies there, disembarking at New Orleans. So there is the question of who the Francois Saussie that arrived in 1719 at Biloxi was. Saussie was one of the spelling of the Saucier name during that period of time. There are several Francois Saucier’s who are missing further information, so it is possible it could be one of them that was returning to the colony after a visit to France.
Misconceptions about the Engineer of the Colony
and the book "Captain Jean Baptiste Saucier at Fort Chartres in the Illinois, 1751-1763"
and the book "Captain Jean Baptiste Saucier at Fort Chartres in the Illinois, 1751-1763"
In many articles over a period of years the wrong information was given as to who was the engineer of the early French Colony. It was Francois Saucier, youngest son of Jean Baptiste Saucier and Gabrielle Savary, who was the colonial engineer, architect and builder of the new stone fort, Fort de Chartres, and not his brother Jean Baptiste Saucier. That it was Francois is definitely established by a letter signed "F. Saucier, engineer" he sent to colonial Governor Vaudreuil from Illinois on January 20, 1752. This credit has long been given to Francois' brother Jean Baptiste Saucier, and chiefly on the authority of Dr. John F. Snyder, MD, who in the 1919 book "Transactions of the Illinois State Historical Society" included a long article titled "Captain John Baptiste Saucier at Fort Chartres in the Illinois, 1751-1763." It was labeled as history, and supposedly based on documents destroyed in a fire a century before. The romantic tale of young Jean Baptiste Saucier is a pure figment of imagination as was stated in the article "Kaskaskia Under the French Regime" published by the University of Illinois Press in 1948. This incorrect information giving credit to Jean Baptiste Saucier as the Colonial Engineer is still in circulation today in many articles found online from numerous sources.
In 1920 another book was written by the title of “Captain John Baptiste Saucier” by John F. Snyder, MD, an actual descendant of Francois Saucier, the engineer of the Illinois colony. In this new book he expanded the story he had originally created on the fictional engineer, Captain John Baptiste Saucier, who was born in Orleans, France. According to Dr. Snyder in his book Jean Baptiste was born in France and fell in love there with his foster sister, Adel Lepage. After his arrival in New Orleans he was sent to the Illinois settlement where he fell in love with Eulalie, Commandant McCarty's daughter, but she died tragically of some lung disease; then Jean Baptiste, upon returning to New Orleans, learned that Adel, coming to Louisiana, had contracted the plague on board ship and died. But she was not dead, and sometime later, on the night before the Illinois convoy was due to set out under Jean Baptiste's supervision, he discovered her working as a poor seamstress in the mansion of her cousins, the Delormes of New Orleans. They were married the next morning at the Ursuline Chapel and spent their honeymoon on the Illinois-bound bateau.
The majority of the details within the book are completely fictional, although some factual historical family information is given at the conclusion of the book in the appendix. The information about the fictional Captain John Baptiste Saucier has been proven as being incorrect. This inaccuracy was covered in some length in the 1991 book “Gabrielle’s People” written by the late Walter Saucier, about the early history of the Saucier family. According to Walter Saucier, John Snyder had knowingly or unknowingly transcribed the names from the original documents from that era into his notes as “J. B. Saucier, engineer of the colony" instead of “Francois Saucier, engineer of the colony”. Snyder then built his fictional account from this transcription. The original documents he transcribed from are legible and can be clearly read as Francois Saucier and not Jean Baptiste Saucier, according to Walter Saucier. Walter went on to explain that Mathieu Saucier, grandson of Francois Saucier, the engineer of the colony, gave Snyder the correct information on his grandfather and the Saucier family as well as other historical information, but Snyder proceeded, contrary to the information given him by Mathieu and disregarded many other facts in the records at Prairie du Rocher and created the fictional story with engineer "Captain John Baptiste Saucier." Some people today still take the fictional story “Captain John Baptiste Saucier” by Snyder as historical fact, even though it is not a factual account, but purely fictional.
It does make good colorful reading as a "period fiction piece" and of possible life style in that era. The disturbing thing is that John F. Snyder, the author of the article and the book, was actually at one time the President of the Illinois State Historical Society.
In 1920 another book was written by the title of “Captain John Baptiste Saucier” by John F. Snyder, MD, an actual descendant of Francois Saucier, the engineer of the Illinois colony. In this new book he expanded the story he had originally created on the fictional engineer, Captain John Baptiste Saucier, who was born in Orleans, France. According to Dr. Snyder in his book Jean Baptiste was born in France and fell in love there with his foster sister, Adel Lepage. After his arrival in New Orleans he was sent to the Illinois settlement where he fell in love with Eulalie, Commandant McCarty's daughter, but she died tragically of some lung disease; then Jean Baptiste, upon returning to New Orleans, learned that Adel, coming to Louisiana, had contracted the plague on board ship and died. But she was not dead, and sometime later, on the night before the Illinois convoy was due to set out under Jean Baptiste's supervision, he discovered her working as a poor seamstress in the mansion of her cousins, the Delormes of New Orleans. They were married the next morning at the Ursuline Chapel and spent their honeymoon on the Illinois-bound bateau.
The majority of the details within the book are completely fictional, although some factual historical family information is given at the conclusion of the book in the appendix. The information about the fictional Captain John Baptiste Saucier has been proven as being incorrect. This inaccuracy was covered in some length in the 1991 book “Gabrielle’s People” written by the late Walter Saucier, about the early history of the Saucier family. According to Walter Saucier, John Snyder had knowingly or unknowingly transcribed the names from the original documents from that era into his notes as “J. B. Saucier, engineer of the colony" instead of “Francois Saucier, engineer of the colony”. Snyder then built his fictional account from this transcription. The original documents he transcribed from are legible and can be clearly read as Francois Saucier and not Jean Baptiste Saucier, according to Walter Saucier. Walter went on to explain that Mathieu Saucier, grandson of Francois Saucier, the engineer of the colony, gave Snyder the correct information on his grandfather and the Saucier family as well as other historical information, but Snyder proceeded, contrary to the information given him by Mathieu and disregarded many other facts in the records at Prairie du Rocher and created the fictional story with engineer "Captain John Baptiste Saucier." Some people today still take the fictional story “Captain John Baptiste Saucier” by Snyder as historical fact, even though it is not a factual account, but purely fictional.
It does make good colorful reading as a "period fiction piece" and of possible life style in that era. The disturbing thing is that John F. Snyder, the author of the article and the book, was actually at one time the President of the Illinois State Historical Society.
Jean Francois Saucier and the Cahokia Court House
In numerous articles circulating online today, the name of the owner of the old Cahokia Court House in Illinois is given as Captain Jean Baptiste Saucier, which is incorrect. The owner who had received the old home as part of his first wife's dowry and then sold it in 1793 to become the Cahokia Court House was Jean Francois Saucier, the son of Francois Saucier the engineer of the colony. Several of these sites are actually official State historical sites listing the incorrect information, presumably, taken from the text of the 1920 book by John Francois Snyder.
There are numerous documents on display in the Cahokia Court House Museum that show its owner and the family member that sold the old home was in fact Jean Francois Saucier and not Jean Baptiste Saucier.
There are numerous documents on display in the Cahokia Court House Museum that show its owner and the family member that sold the old home was in fact Jean Francois Saucier and not Jean Baptiste Saucier.
Question of Saucier's being Acadians
Over a period of years many of us have read articles and heard heard conversations between individuals on the subject of the deportation of the Acadians from Nova Scotia by the British in 1755, who settled in Louisiana, the Gulf Coast and East Coast areas. The question often arises on whether or not the Saucier family is Arcadian and was part of this deportation. The answer to this is "no" the Saucier family was not part of the British deportation of those of French descent from Nova Scotia. Our family roots are in Quebec and our ancestor Jean Baptiste Saucier arrived and settled in the Mobile Colony over 50 years before the deportation by the British of the french populace from Nova Scotia. The Saucier family is not part of the Arcadian population residing in the state of Louisiana, even though some mistakenly consider the family as being part of that group.
Question of Saucier's being Creole
The question of whether or not the Saucier family are included in the Creole population of Louisiana often arises and numerous comments have been made on the subject. Louisiana Creoles are the descendants of the original inhabitants of colonial Louisiana during its period of both French and Spanish rule. The term Creole was originally used by the French settlers to distinguish persons actually born in the Louisiana Territory from those that were born in France, Canada or Spain.
The Saucier Family is defiantly considered as Creole by the fact that they settled and raised large families in the Louisiana Territory almost 100 years before the area became part of the United States in 1803. Yet there are some that do not consider the family as Creole.
"Creole" can mean anything from individuals born in New Orleans with French and Spanish ancestry to those that are descended from African, Caribbean, French or Spanish heritage. The commonly accepted definition of Louisiana Creoles today is any person descended from ancestors that lived in the Louisiana Territories before the Louisiana Purchase by the United States in 1803. So, in my personal opinion the Saucier family would definitely be considered as Creole by these standards. Only those descendents of our Canadian Saucier family branch that eventually settled in the New England States would not be considered as Creole.
The Saucier Family is defiantly considered as Creole by the fact that they settled and raised large families in the Louisiana Territory almost 100 years before the area became part of the United States in 1803. Yet there are some that do not consider the family as Creole.
"Creole" can mean anything from individuals born in New Orleans with French and Spanish ancestry to those that are descended from African, Caribbean, French or Spanish heritage. The commonly accepted definition of Louisiana Creoles today is any person descended from ancestors that lived in the Louisiana Territories before the Louisiana Purchase by the United States in 1803. So, in my personal opinion the Saucier family would definitely be considered as Creole by these standards. Only those descendents of our Canadian Saucier family branch that eventually settled in the New England States would not be considered as Creole.
The Saucier's and the Royal Family
For well over 100 years and through many generations there has been a story concerning the Saucier family's relationship to British Royalty that has circulated within family circles. For as far back as I can remember, from time to time, there have been renewed discussions within the Gulf Coast Saucier family about the family being related to the British Royal Family. The authenticity of the old story has never been addressed by family members to any degree, until now.
In late 2015 there was another discussion on social media between several family members on whether or not the Saucier family of the Gulf Coast is related to Queen Elizabeth II and the present day British Royal Family. The person initiating the conversation, a young Saucier relative, was under the impression it was a reality, after hearing the old story from one of her elderly Saucier family members, and then reading some incorrect information on a genealogical website, purporting to show that the Saucier family was indeed related to Queen Elizabeth II and the present day royal family. This discussion was brought to my attention and then involved me and I gave the reply to the family member that "I first heard this story way over 65 years ago and that no connection has ever been found to connect the "general" Saucier family to them".
The link and information from the website was provided to me but after checking out the site and its information, it did not actually link the Saucier family to them as I had previously informed her. The subject is one that I have long been aware of, as I have researched it over the years.
The answer to the old discussions and question is a simple "No" the "general" Saucier family does not have a royal bloodline or lineage linking them to the British Royal Family. So, I guess the story ends here for the Saucier family being related to royalty. But no, as the old story goes, just wait a minute, here comes the rest of the story........
The story that our young relative, as well as members of the older and past generations were discussing had been passed down in our family as fact for so many years is partly true. It actually involves this writers immediate family and my grandmother, not the entire Saucier family as a whole. This writers very first remembrance of hearing the story was as a young boy growing up during the 1940's and early 1950's. I had been told on numerous occasions by close elderly family members, Bertha Saucier, her sisters and several other elderly family members, who personally knew my grandmother that "you and your father are related by blood to Queen Victoria of England". They told me that it was "through your grandmother" and on different occasions had said to me that "you have special ancestors", which was in reference to my grandmother's family. They seemed to take pride in my father and grandmother's supposed ties to the British royal family. At my young age I didn't understand what it was all about or who Queen Victoria even was. I really didn't know much about my grandmother's family at this time, other than she died following my father's birth, and that she and my grandfather Alfred were buried in the family cemetery behind the family church. Like most youngsters of my age would have done, I just moved it to the back of my mind as really being of no real importance or of any interest to me. I just considered it as "so what, no big deal" and never gave it any additional thought.
In later years, then in my early twenties, I became interested in Genealogy research and our family's History. I had never forgotten what Bertha told me on numerous occasions as I grew up about being related to the royal family of England and Queen Victoria, so I began to research any possible connection. I recalled her telling me my grandmother's father, Luke Ward Conerly, this writers great grandfather, had written a book detailing this relationship. In later years I located and was able to read the book with the assistance of the curator of the museum and library at Beauvoir which held the book left there by my great grandfather when he lived in the old soldier's home. It was the book that had been described to me as a young boy, but it was not about the Saucier family. I Remembered that Bertha Saucier and the other elderly family members had always said to me, “through your grandmother”. My grandmother’s maiden name was Conerly and many years ago while researching my Conerly family ancestors, I had discovered that it was my grandmother, Clara Conerly, her father Luke Ward Conerly and her siblings who were related to the British Royal Family, by actual bloodline, not my Saucier ancestors. This relationship would only involve the families of two descendants of Henri (Henry) Severin Saucier and his wife Elizabeth Tanner Saucier. It does not include the Saucier family in general as they would have no relationship to the British Royal Family. It only involves the children of grandfather Alfred Ellis Saucier, son of Henri (Henry) Severin Saucier, and grandmother Clara Conerly. This would mean that only she, their six Saucier children and the descendants of her six children would be related to the British Royal Family through a distant, but, direct bloodline to the British Royal Family. This relationship would also include all the ten children of Ethel Bush, who had married my Grandmother Clara's brother, Preston Conerly, and all of their descendants. Ethel Bush was a granddaughter of Henry Severin Saucier. Ethel's mother was Henry Severin Saucier's daughter, Louisa Adelaide Saucier that had married Benjamin Bush. This relationship would not include the four children from the second marriage of my grandfather as they would have no relationship to the royal family.
This distant relationship as it turns out is to King George III, who would have been the 3rd great Grandfather of this writers Grandmother Clara, her brother and my uncle Preston and their siblings, as well as the 4th great grandfather of this writer’s father. Queen Victoria, (Alexandrina Victoria) was the granddaughter of King George III, the daughter and the only child of his fourth son, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Strathearn who died in 1820, six days before the death of his father King George III, and before Victoria was a year old. Queen Victoria would have been a distant cousin of Grandmother Clara. So, this is why Bertha always said “you’re kin to Queen Victoria”. Like my grandmother Clara, Queen Elizabeth II was also a 3rd great granddaughter of King George III through his 7th son, Prince Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge. The Conerly family would have been descendants of King George III through his first marriage and Queen Victoria a descendant through his second marriage. This explains just what my relatives, Bertha and the others, were telling me all those years ago, my grandmother, my father, his siblings and I were the ones with those “special ancestors” as she had always put it, not the entire Saucier family.
I believe the incorrect information, that the entire Saucier family was related to the British Royal family evolved from family discussions of the facts concerning my grandmother, my father, his siblings and the children of Ethel and Preston Conerly. This information was then repeated over and over, again and again for 85 or more years by different family members. Over a period of time the story finally evolved to the point that it eventually included the entire Saucier family as being directly related by blood to the Royal family.
There has always been the lingering question, is this really true or just a Conerly or Saucier family legend that has been passed down through the generations since the late 1800's. This subject had been covered in the book written in 1909 by my great grandfather Luke Ward Conerly that I read at Beauvoir many years ago and was the book Bertha Saucier had read and described to me when I was a boy. In the book Luke Ward states his grandmother was the daughter of King George’s oldest son Buxton and a granddaughter of King George III of England. There has been a lot written about the ancestry of Luke's mother and his grandmother that has been passed down in the Conerly family for generations. Much has been written, both in Europe and the United States about the first marriage of King George III. In his book, written in 1909, Luke states “it's a curious circumstance how the grandchildren of the King of England strayed away from there and have become identified as they have been with Louisiana and Mississippi”.
In writings by Buxton Lawn in 1800, he lists his parents as John and Mary Lawn and makes no mention of his royal descent from George III. For him to have claimed to be the son of George III at that time in history would have meant an act of treason on his part, possibly even his execution, or a sentence to the tower. According to writer Lewis Melville the author of “The First Gentleman of Europe”, Buxton was raised in the home of the Duke and Duchess of York, which was a particularly strange occurrence in itself. This would have been a ideal place and situation for a royal foundling to be hidden and brought up. Buxton received his education at Eton College, one of the largest boarding schools in England.
According to family lore, Luke’s great grandfather Buxton who had become an advisor to his father, King George III, had hurriedly sailed to New York in early 1820, out of fear for his own life, following the death of his father King George III. He supposedly told his wife to follow immediately with their children and join him in New York. His wife and children quickly sailed for New York as instructed. Buxton who had arrived first was notified to return immediately to England shortly after arriving in New York. Buxton and his family missed each other at New York as he had already sailed back to England shortly before they arrived. The old story says that he returned to England and remained there until his death and he was never reunited with his family. His wife Mary remained in this country and did settled in New Orleans with their children.
According to British sources and records, the marriage ceremony of George III and his first wife was performed on April 17, 1759 by the Reverend James Wilmont at Kew Chapel. Reverend Wilmot signed the official marriage certificate and it was witnessed by William Pitt, Prime Minister of England, it was also witnessed by Ann Taylor and several others. At the time of his first marriage he was still Prince of Wales and had not yet ascended to the throne, which would not occur for about a year after his first marriage. Hannah vanished, not only from history, but from the face of the earth. Seven years later, after George remarried, she was supposedly still alive, but there is no record of where or when she died, merely that she was buried under an assumed name in the graveyard at Islington Church. George’s first wife was more or less kept in exile until her death. The marriage document and other certificates were impounded in the archives of Windsor Castle for the past 100 years and only released to the public in 1996. Their marriage was hidden and not recognized by the British Parliament, although the marriage document was officially recorded and to this day it still exists in the Public Records Office at Kew. One official document on the marriage reads:
"May 1759. This is to certify that the marriage of these parties, George, Prince of Wales, and Hannah Lightfoot, was duly solemnized this day, according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England."
One of the witnesses to the marriage as we know was William Pitt, the Prime Minister. A renowned handwriting expert declared under oath that the document and signatures were genuine. Another document states:
“This is to solemnly certify that I married George Prince of Wales to Hannah Lightfoot, his first consort, on April 17, 1759 and that the true princes and princess were the issue of that marriage”.
Reverend James Wilmot
Also in the Public Records Office at Kew is the will of Hannah Lightfoot, made at Hapstead on July 7, 1762, in which she commended her 2 sons and daughter to the protection of their father, King George III. This too had been impounded in the archives of Windsor Castle for 100 years before being released in 1996 with other papers. George’s first wife was exiled in order to allow him to marry Princess Sophia Charlotte of Germany, as his first wife was a commoner and not a member of a royal family and was not now considered “suitable” as the wife of the King. Three known children, two sons and a daughter were born to this first marriage. It was from a son born to this first marriage that the Conerly family would be descended from.
It was quite common for the British Royal Family members to marry into the royal families of other European nations, and vise versa, so they were all inter-connected by marriages. Many of these marriages to members of other royal families were actually marriages between two cousins, as was the case with Queen Victoria of England and her husband Prince Albert of Germany. The late Queen Elizabeth II and her husband Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, were both great great-grandchildren of Queen Victoria. Queen Elizabeth II was a direct descendant of Queen Victoria’s eldest son King Edward VII and her husband Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, was a direct descendant of Queen Victoria’s daughter Princess Alice.
Three portraits of his first wife were painted by famed British artist Sir Joshua Reynolds, one hangs in the gallery of Knole House in Sevenoaks, Kent, England, a property originally owned by Lord Thomas Sackville, titled "Portrait of a Lady", another entitled "The Fair Quaker Girl" supposedly hangs in the National Portrait Gallery in London and the whereabouts of the third, a full length portrait, is now unknown. Photographs exist today of these two known portraits, as well as the missing full length portrait.
Another book discussing the subject in further detail was written in the 1990's by a Conerly cousin with all indications pointing to it being an actuality, not just a family legend, with many still lingering questions.
The British Royal Family was involved in researching the possible connection, but put an abrupt stop to the DNA research it, "itself", had requested and funded on the subject in the 1990's. The testing went so far as to have the grave of a 4th great grandson in Texas opened, and bone samples were taken and then were sent to England for DNA testing as had been requested, soon afterwards, the research came to an abrupt halt when all funding was pulled and canceled without any explanation what-so-ever. The research and any results were just completely squashed, again leaving even more lingering unanswered questions than ever before.
In the year 2000 Archaeologists created even more questions when they discovered two hidden graves of George III’s secret granddaughter and her niece at St. Peters Parish Church in Carmarthen in West Wales. Buried in the chancel is Charlotte Augusta Catherine Dalton (died 1832 aged 27 years), granddaughter of King George III and his first wife, Hannah Lightfoot (married in 1759). Sharing her tomb is her niece, Margaret Augusta Prytherch (died 1839 aged 8 years), great grand-daughter of the king. The large brick vaulted underground tomb, with a domed roof, situated in the center of the chancel and directly in front of the altar, was found by archaeologists in September 2000 during restoration work. It was clearly marked with a stone memorial slab giving the family connections and dates. The black marble slab in front of the alter marks the location of the vault. It is not known whether the burial was a secret affair, but, certainly, no record was kept and knowledge of the burial was not handed down through the generations. The tomb and memorial had lay hidden under a tiled floor since the 1870s. Curiously, for some reason the burial was never recorded and the marker was hidden under the flooring. Could it have been that the royal family wanted it kept secret too? This information was included on the church’s official website along with a photo of the memorial slab and one of Hannah.
This relationship to the British Royal Family is by blood, but is distant, and we who are part of the descendants of the Conerly/Saucier families have never claimed any ties to the British Royal Family.
As we know, history can bring up many interesting stories, whither real or just family legends. There are some that question the relationship and will tell you the old story is not accurate or true, but most Conerly family members, including those who lived in the mid to late 1800’s and the 1900’s, did consider it true and accurate and have passed it down for many generations as part of the family history. Then in the 1990’s the subject became even more questionable with the research by the British Royal family and the manner in which it was squashed. The discovery in the year 2000 of the graves under the floor of St. Peters Church just adds more credibility to the family lore. This is a family legend or story that I normally do not discuss, but since it was recently brought up once again on social media, I decided it was time to finally speak out, explain and correct the inaccuracy of the old story that has circulated for so long within the Saucier family. So, taking into account the exception above, the answer to our young relative is, "no", the Saucier family does not have royal blood and is not related to the British Royal Family as far as we know, and not to the former French Royal families either....
As the news commentator, Paul Harvey, would always say at the end of his radio newscast "And now you know the rest of the story".
In late 2015 there was another discussion on social media between several family members on whether or not the Saucier family of the Gulf Coast is related to Queen Elizabeth II and the present day British Royal Family. The person initiating the conversation, a young Saucier relative, was under the impression it was a reality, after hearing the old story from one of her elderly Saucier family members, and then reading some incorrect information on a genealogical website, purporting to show that the Saucier family was indeed related to Queen Elizabeth II and the present day royal family. This discussion was brought to my attention and then involved me and I gave the reply to the family member that "I first heard this story way over 65 years ago and that no connection has ever been found to connect the "general" Saucier family to them".
The link and information from the website was provided to me but after checking out the site and its information, it did not actually link the Saucier family to them as I had previously informed her. The subject is one that I have long been aware of, as I have researched it over the years.
The answer to the old discussions and question is a simple "No" the "general" Saucier family does not have a royal bloodline or lineage linking them to the British Royal Family. So, I guess the story ends here for the Saucier family being related to royalty. But no, as the old story goes, just wait a minute, here comes the rest of the story........
The story that our young relative, as well as members of the older and past generations were discussing had been passed down in our family as fact for so many years is partly true. It actually involves this writers immediate family and my grandmother, not the entire Saucier family as a whole. This writers very first remembrance of hearing the story was as a young boy growing up during the 1940's and early 1950's. I had been told on numerous occasions by close elderly family members, Bertha Saucier, her sisters and several other elderly family members, who personally knew my grandmother that "you and your father are related by blood to Queen Victoria of England". They told me that it was "through your grandmother" and on different occasions had said to me that "you have special ancestors", which was in reference to my grandmother's family. They seemed to take pride in my father and grandmother's supposed ties to the British royal family. At my young age I didn't understand what it was all about or who Queen Victoria even was. I really didn't know much about my grandmother's family at this time, other than she died following my father's birth, and that she and my grandfather Alfred were buried in the family cemetery behind the family church. Like most youngsters of my age would have done, I just moved it to the back of my mind as really being of no real importance or of any interest to me. I just considered it as "so what, no big deal" and never gave it any additional thought.
In later years, then in my early twenties, I became interested in Genealogy research and our family's History. I had never forgotten what Bertha told me on numerous occasions as I grew up about being related to the royal family of England and Queen Victoria, so I began to research any possible connection. I recalled her telling me my grandmother's father, Luke Ward Conerly, this writers great grandfather, had written a book detailing this relationship. In later years I located and was able to read the book with the assistance of the curator of the museum and library at Beauvoir which held the book left there by my great grandfather when he lived in the old soldier's home. It was the book that had been described to me as a young boy, but it was not about the Saucier family. I Remembered that Bertha Saucier and the other elderly family members had always said to me, “through your grandmother”. My grandmother’s maiden name was Conerly and many years ago while researching my Conerly family ancestors, I had discovered that it was my grandmother, Clara Conerly, her father Luke Ward Conerly and her siblings who were related to the British Royal Family, by actual bloodline, not my Saucier ancestors. This relationship would only involve the families of two descendants of Henri (Henry) Severin Saucier and his wife Elizabeth Tanner Saucier. It does not include the Saucier family in general as they would have no relationship to the British Royal Family. It only involves the children of grandfather Alfred Ellis Saucier, son of Henri (Henry) Severin Saucier, and grandmother Clara Conerly. This would mean that only she, their six Saucier children and the descendants of her six children would be related to the British Royal Family through a distant, but, direct bloodline to the British Royal Family. This relationship would also include all the ten children of Ethel Bush, who had married my Grandmother Clara's brother, Preston Conerly, and all of their descendants. Ethel Bush was a granddaughter of Henry Severin Saucier. Ethel's mother was Henry Severin Saucier's daughter, Louisa Adelaide Saucier that had married Benjamin Bush. This relationship would not include the four children from the second marriage of my grandfather as they would have no relationship to the royal family.
This distant relationship as it turns out is to King George III, who would have been the 3rd great Grandfather of this writers Grandmother Clara, her brother and my uncle Preston and their siblings, as well as the 4th great grandfather of this writer’s father. Queen Victoria, (Alexandrina Victoria) was the granddaughter of King George III, the daughter and the only child of his fourth son, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Strathearn who died in 1820, six days before the death of his father King George III, and before Victoria was a year old. Queen Victoria would have been a distant cousin of Grandmother Clara. So, this is why Bertha always said “you’re kin to Queen Victoria”. Like my grandmother Clara, Queen Elizabeth II was also a 3rd great granddaughter of King George III through his 7th son, Prince Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge. The Conerly family would have been descendants of King George III through his first marriage and Queen Victoria a descendant through his second marriage. This explains just what my relatives, Bertha and the others, were telling me all those years ago, my grandmother, my father, his siblings and I were the ones with those “special ancestors” as she had always put it, not the entire Saucier family.
I believe the incorrect information, that the entire Saucier family was related to the British Royal family evolved from family discussions of the facts concerning my grandmother, my father, his siblings and the children of Ethel and Preston Conerly. This information was then repeated over and over, again and again for 85 or more years by different family members. Over a period of time the story finally evolved to the point that it eventually included the entire Saucier family as being directly related by blood to the Royal family.
There has always been the lingering question, is this really true or just a Conerly or Saucier family legend that has been passed down through the generations since the late 1800's. This subject had been covered in the book written in 1909 by my great grandfather Luke Ward Conerly that I read at Beauvoir many years ago and was the book Bertha Saucier had read and described to me when I was a boy. In the book Luke Ward states his grandmother was the daughter of King George’s oldest son Buxton and a granddaughter of King George III of England. There has been a lot written about the ancestry of Luke's mother and his grandmother that has been passed down in the Conerly family for generations. Much has been written, both in Europe and the United States about the first marriage of King George III. In his book, written in 1909, Luke states “it's a curious circumstance how the grandchildren of the King of England strayed away from there and have become identified as they have been with Louisiana and Mississippi”.
In writings by Buxton Lawn in 1800, he lists his parents as John and Mary Lawn and makes no mention of his royal descent from George III. For him to have claimed to be the son of George III at that time in history would have meant an act of treason on his part, possibly even his execution, or a sentence to the tower. According to writer Lewis Melville the author of “The First Gentleman of Europe”, Buxton was raised in the home of the Duke and Duchess of York, which was a particularly strange occurrence in itself. This would have been a ideal place and situation for a royal foundling to be hidden and brought up. Buxton received his education at Eton College, one of the largest boarding schools in England.
According to family lore, Luke’s great grandfather Buxton who had become an advisor to his father, King George III, had hurriedly sailed to New York in early 1820, out of fear for his own life, following the death of his father King George III. He supposedly told his wife to follow immediately with their children and join him in New York. His wife and children quickly sailed for New York as instructed. Buxton who had arrived first was notified to return immediately to England shortly after arriving in New York. Buxton and his family missed each other at New York as he had already sailed back to England shortly before they arrived. The old story says that he returned to England and remained there until his death and he was never reunited with his family. His wife Mary remained in this country and did settled in New Orleans with their children.
According to British sources and records, the marriage ceremony of George III and his first wife was performed on April 17, 1759 by the Reverend James Wilmont at Kew Chapel. Reverend Wilmot signed the official marriage certificate and it was witnessed by William Pitt, Prime Minister of England, it was also witnessed by Ann Taylor and several others. At the time of his first marriage he was still Prince of Wales and had not yet ascended to the throne, which would not occur for about a year after his first marriage. Hannah vanished, not only from history, but from the face of the earth. Seven years later, after George remarried, she was supposedly still alive, but there is no record of where or when she died, merely that she was buried under an assumed name in the graveyard at Islington Church. George’s first wife was more or less kept in exile until her death. The marriage document and other certificates were impounded in the archives of Windsor Castle for the past 100 years and only released to the public in 1996. Their marriage was hidden and not recognized by the British Parliament, although the marriage document was officially recorded and to this day it still exists in the Public Records Office at Kew. One official document on the marriage reads:
"May 1759. This is to certify that the marriage of these parties, George, Prince of Wales, and Hannah Lightfoot, was duly solemnized this day, according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England."
One of the witnesses to the marriage as we know was William Pitt, the Prime Minister. A renowned handwriting expert declared under oath that the document and signatures were genuine. Another document states:
“This is to solemnly certify that I married George Prince of Wales to Hannah Lightfoot, his first consort, on April 17, 1759 and that the true princes and princess were the issue of that marriage”.
Reverend James Wilmot
Also in the Public Records Office at Kew is the will of Hannah Lightfoot, made at Hapstead on July 7, 1762, in which she commended her 2 sons and daughter to the protection of their father, King George III. This too had been impounded in the archives of Windsor Castle for 100 years before being released in 1996 with other papers. George’s first wife was exiled in order to allow him to marry Princess Sophia Charlotte of Germany, as his first wife was a commoner and not a member of a royal family and was not now considered “suitable” as the wife of the King. Three known children, two sons and a daughter were born to this first marriage. It was from a son born to this first marriage that the Conerly family would be descended from.
It was quite common for the British Royal Family members to marry into the royal families of other European nations, and vise versa, so they were all inter-connected by marriages. Many of these marriages to members of other royal families were actually marriages between two cousins, as was the case with Queen Victoria of England and her husband Prince Albert of Germany. The late Queen Elizabeth II and her husband Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, were both great great-grandchildren of Queen Victoria. Queen Elizabeth II was a direct descendant of Queen Victoria’s eldest son King Edward VII and her husband Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, was a direct descendant of Queen Victoria’s daughter Princess Alice.
Three portraits of his first wife were painted by famed British artist Sir Joshua Reynolds, one hangs in the gallery of Knole House in Sevenoaks, Kent, England, a property originally owned by Lord Thomas Sackville, titled "Portrait of a Lady", another entitled "The Fair Quaker Girl" supposedly hangs in the National Portrait Gallery in London and the whereabouts of the third, a full length portrait, is now unknown. Photographs exist today of these two known portraits, as well as the missing full length portrait.
Another book discussing the subject in further detail was written in the 1990's by a Conerly cousin with all indications pointing to it being an actuality, not just a family legend, with many still lingering questions.
The British Royal Family was involved in researching the possible connection, but put an abrupt stop to the DNA research it, "itself", had requested and funded on the subject in the 1990's. The testing went so far as to have the grave of a 4th great grandson in Texas opened, and bone samples were taken and then were sent to England for DNA testing as had been requested, soon afterwards, the research came to an abrupt halt when all funding was pulled and canceled without any explanation what-so-ever. The research and any results were just completely squashed, again leaving even more lingering unanswered questions than ever before.
In the year 2000 Archaeologists created even more questions when they discovered two hidden graves of George III’s secret granddaughter and her niece at St. Peters Parish Church in Carmarthen in West Wales. Buried in the chancel is Charlotte Augusta Catherine Dalton (died 1832 aged 27 years), granddaughter of King George III and his first wife, Hannah Lightfoot (married in 1759). Sharing her tomb is her niece, Margaret Augusta Prytherch (died 1839 aged 8 years), great grand-daughter of the king. The large brick vaulted underground tomb, with a domed roof, situated in the center of the chancel and directly in front of the altar, was found by archaeologists in September 2000 during restoration work. It was clearly marked with a stone memorial slab giving the family connections and dates. The black marble slab in front of the alter marks the location of the vault. It is not known whether the burial was a secret affair, but, certainly, no record was kept and knowledge of the burial was not handed down through the generations. The tomb and memorial had lay hidden under a tiled floor since the 1870s. Curiously, for some reason the burial was never recorded and the marker was hidden under the flooring. Could it have been that the royal family wanted it kept secret too? This information was included on the church’s official website along with a photo of the memorial slab and one of Hannah.
This relationship to the British Royal Family is by blood, but is distant, and we who are part of the descendants of the Conerly/Saucier families have never claimed any ties to the British Royal Family.
As we know, history can bring up many interesting stories, whither real or just family legends. There are some that question the relationship and will tell you the old story is not accurate or true, but most Conerly family members, including those who lived in the mid to late 1800’s and the 1900’s, did consider it true and accurate and have passed it down for many generations as part of the family history. Then in the 1990’s the subject became even more questionable with the research by the British Royal family and the manner in which it was squashed. The discovery in the year 2000 of the graves under the floor of St. Peters Church just adds more credibility to the family lore. This is a family legend or story that I normally do not discuss, but since it was recently brought up once again on social media, I decided it was time to finally speak out, explain and correct the inaccuracy of the old story that has circulated for so long within the Saucier family. So, taking into account the exception above, the answer to our young relative is, "no", the Saucier family does not have royal blood and is not related to the British Royal Family as far as we know, and not to the former French Royal families either....
As the news commentator, Paul Harvey, would always say at the end of his radio newscast "And now you know the rest of the story".
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 by Wayne A. Saucier
All Rights Reserved
All Rights Reserved