In this, my third article on “finding Godfrey” I’ll update you on two aspects of my recent research: his recorded profession as “cordwainer” and what clues that might yield; and my exploration of the other Nismes - the town in Belgium - as a possible point of origin.

To recap, I’m still exploring the theory that Godfrey was one of “…36 young men sent America with the English” by Henry Brunet, from La Rochelle in 1661 - an act for which Brunet was charged and convicted. All I’ve found so far is a record of the original judgement and the failed appeal to Paris of 1662, but the search continues. Godfrey would have been around 11 years old at the time and possibly already on a path to developing a trade or skill. I remain focused on a European origin for Godfrey and assume that he himself was the immigrant to America.

While awaiting updates from various archives and libraries in France concerning the Brunet affair, I’ve been exploring Godfrey’s recorded “profession”.  The term “cordwainer” - or shoemaker - derives from the French word cordonnier, also “shoemaker”. This term in turn derives from cordova, a fine leather made in Cordoba Spain. The cordwainer trade was viewed as separate and distinct from that of “cobbler” whose skill was repairing shoes, not making them. Let’s hold on to these thoughts for the moment.

While exploring events in La Rochelle that may have influenced Brunet and his accomplices to send a shipload of young men to America as “…servants and the like” - I keep running across reference to the 300-plus Huguenot families that were ordered out La Rochelle in 1661/1662. These were protestant families that could not prove they had moved into the region before 1625 (the date when the English invaded La Rochelle) and were thus being expelled under threat of heavy penalty. The records of who these people were, still exist.

Repeatedly pouring over the lists I could find no “Godfreys” or “Nims” or anything remotely close. So, I started looking for other clues. I did note that very few boys or young men are on these lists: there are a couple of references to “daughters” but only one or two “fils” - sons. Spouses, if present, are specifically mentioned. So, among the 300+ persons expelled, sons or male children seem to be absent. That’s curious. They are either implied, or they were engaged elsewhere, perhaps as apprentices or general labour. Besides, the church at the time may have viewed protestant children as still “salvageable” and might have sought ways to keep and convert them. I don’t know the answers, but would like to better understand their absence from the lists.

But, two other observations are particularly interesting. First, on the 1661 expulsion list is one Etienne Billeu, an “embaucheur de garcons cordonniers” – “employer of boy cordwainers”!

Really.

This begs the questions – if Etienne Billeu was ordered out, what happened to the young men in his employ? Were some, or all of them Huguenots? Were they expected to leave too? An obvious deduction is that Henry Brunet may have capitalized on the opportunity to take some of these young men off Etienne Billeu’s hands and “sell” them as labour in America: both giving the youngsters a way out of a tough situation while making money in the process. Speculation, I know, but one rich in plausibility. The fact remains that somehow, somewhere Brunet found 36 young men to export. I suspect that some of Etienne Billeu’s young employees were in that shipment, whether Godfrey was one of them or not.

A second observation on the 1661/1662 expulsion lists is the mention of “les Pompées Flandrins” who seem to have managed to avoid expulsion. Their profession is recorded as “serruriers” (locksmiths). The term “les pompées flandrins” itself is odd: “les” is the article “the” while “pompées flandrins” is ambiguous: researching the terms in contemporary dictionaries and literature the only plausible definitions I could find are that “pompées” may have meant something akin to “servants” or “lackeys” and “flandrins” may have meant “from Flanders”. So, “servants from Flanders”. That’s interesting. I’m still trying to nail down who these “pompées flandrins” were. They may point to a connection between Flanders (Belgium) and La Rochelle. Maybe.

The possible reference to Flanders led me to look at the Belgian Nismes as the point of origin more carefully, especially as my research into Nismes France and the surrounding areas (like Xaintrailles) has largely dried up. I’ve discovered a couple of tantalising clues.

First, I recall speaking to someone at the Nismes City Hall a few months ago, who took pains to point out that the Belgian Nismes was spelled with an “s”. Nîmes France has no “s”, although in some 17th century references it did. This may be nothing to note, but I find the detail interesting. Its relevance really boils down to (a) how much faith we put in the family history which reports the original settler’s name as “Godefroi de Nismes” and (b) determining when exactly Nismes (France) became Nîmes.  If the family history is accurate, and if Nismes France became Nîmes in his lifetime or thereabout, it could be an important clue favouring a Belgian origin.

A related clue is that “Godefroi” is not a common name in Southern France. It is, on the contrary, fairly common in Northern France and Belgium - probably because Godefroi de Bouillon, the celebrated 12th century Crusader and King of Jerusalem originally came from the region. In these areas we find numerous “Godefroi’s” in both first, and last name. This fact alone tends to suggest looking at Belgium and Northern France more carefully.

Nismes Belgium is smaller and less conspicuous than Nîmes France. Church records from the main parish, Saint Lambert are available, but no “Nismes” are in it (I have yet to locate Huguenot records for the area). If we assume Godefroi was “from” Nismes (as opposed to having a family name Nismes) then maybe I should be looking for a family name “Godefroy”. Sure enough, there are baptismal records of Godefroy’s in the area throughout the 17th century and beyond.  Still, not enough evidence to link our Godefroy with any of those people, yet.

I then looked into Nismes Belgium, and what it was known for. The entire Viroinval area, in which Nismes is situated, is heavily forested.  One of the region’s main products is lumber. Because of the ready supply of wood, Nismes became known as an important center for the manufacture of “sabots” – yup, wooden shoes!

Sabots aren’t necessarily just clunky old wooden shoes. Some have heavily crafted leather uppers for which leather-working skills are required. People who make sabots are “sobotiers”. There is record of at least one sabotier having migrated to Quebec in the 17th century. Another lead to follow up. Importantly, they too seem to have gotten around. The question remains as to whether a young apprentice making sabots would be considered a “cordonnier” elsewhere. Plus, how would a sabotier apprentice from Nismes make his way to La Rochelle at the tender age of 10, or under?  Questions that as yet can’t be answered.

I know all this sounds somewhat tenuous, but I looked into all known 17th century professions and “cordonnier” is but one of hundreds recorded for that time. It seems rather coincidental that Nismes Belgium had a thriving wooden shoe industry as far back as the 17th century.  Maybe they exported the “skills” as well as the “product”: a master and apprentice may have found their way to La Rochelle for reasons of religion, or opportunity. But that’s pure guesswork.

I think the most important clue remains the fact that an employer of boy cordonniers was ordered out of La Rochelle in 1661, the very year I believe an 11 year-old “boy cordonnier” was likely shipped to America, probably to save him from a worse fate and because someone could profit from it. An excellent article I read analyzing the migrations from La Rochelle to the New World specifically mentions the speculative nature of shipping out poor, disadvantaged or often anonymous unskilled labour hoping that someone in the New World could make use of them.

The fact that Godfrey went to dangerous lengths (and endured a public flogging) to obtain means to “…run away to the ffrench” in 1667, at approximately 17 years of age, speaks volumes.  Picture a “boy cordwainer” approximately 11 years old in 1661, ordered out of La Rochelle for reasons he can barely comprehend, landing in America likely against his will and billeted or sold to a settler family as general labour - all the while not speaking the local language, practicing a different religion and trying to make sense of a completely new and strange environment. How many years of that could a young man take before trying to take his destiny into his own hands?

So, where does all that leave us?

The Henry Brunet theory has yet to be proven. However, it has yet to be disproved. On balance, I believe that it has more going for it than against it. The search for the French court records is all too critical in the hopes that finding a list of the 36 you men Brunet shipped to America might prove, once and for all, who they were and possibly where they came from. The new clue that an “employer of boy cordwainers” was expelled from La Rochelle in 1661 opens another, I think important, avenue to explore.  Maybe a ship’s manifest, or a notary’s ledgers recorded them.

Because some of the files from 1661 have yet to be digitized and only exist in their original form, the only way to continue this line of inquiry is on-site at the Archives in La Rochelle.

And, that’s where I intend to look next…