Some thoughts regarding Cohennet-Faulcon

There is an interesting page Accueil de la famille Biron-Rivet which shows the genealogy of de Faulcon Cohennet de Faucon (hereafter B-R). Unfortunately the page does not give any reference to primary sources, yet the page is so interesting that I reviewed my findings to make brief discussion.
Here my objectives are: 1) to correct the errors of the authors, 2) to raise questions and at the same time make some, at least, possible and convincing assumption for them, 4) draw up a family history as much as possible. I am not going to show any final conclusion, also I will not try to draw a family tree which is almost impossible for me. Even within one particular generation it is difficult to find out, who is the eldest, second born, etc. In the following disucssion, I will discuss generation by generation, and I first put the questions for the particular generation, and make a general discussion to answer the question. After that I will try to describe personal profiles of the persons who belong to the generation.

Remarks

 When I mention these names of Faulcon, Aymé, Aymon, La Thoy in my text, I always spell their names as given here. When I cite the names in the sources, the spelling in the original is kept. For Aymé/Aymon de Cohennet/Faulcon, since I am not sure which one is the correct name, I always call them Aymé (i.e., Aymé I and II).
Counting of the generation is somewhat arbitrary. My counting is: Jean I : 1; Jean II : 2; Jean III : 3; Pierre and Philibert : 4. In the following discussion I suppose there is one more generation between Jean I and Jean II, yet when I mention the generations, the second generation always means Jean II's generation.

Sources

 Main primary source of substantial volume is the Registres du Conseil de Genève. From Savoyan side also there should be sizable materials such as fiscal/payment accounts and other records preserved in the Archives in Chambéry and Turin which are for me available partially, on an as-fa-as-I-found basis.
There have been modern local historians from Saint-Julien and all of those listed below mention Faulcon as an anicient and noble family:

0th generation

 Question: Was Faulcon a heraldic title?

B-R mentions François Faulcon, chanoine du chapitre de Genève en 1367 whom the page also refers as François Cohennet (he is probably identical with the Messire François Faucon, chanoine, who occurred in 1375 [Galiffe, Matériaux, t1, p.508, Gautier, vol.1, p.268, n.1]); also Jean Cohennier alias Ternier surnommés Faucon reconnaît un vidomnat en 1433. In my understanding, Faucon or Faulcon is, or at least started as, a heraldic title. The first occurrences of Jean Cohennet-Faulcon in 1470-80s, Johanni Cohennet dict Faulcon heyraldo, 24 Jan. 1475, Johanne Coenneti dicto Faulcon, herauldo ducali, 18 Dec. 1482 and Johanne Coyenet dictis ... faulcon poursuyvans, 17 Mar 1486 (see entries in my list of Savoyan heralds) confirm this understanding (especially the last of these occurrence mentions nyce poursuivant also). From this, the occurrences of 1367 and 1433 were almost impossible to be associated with our heraldic family. That Jean Cohennier was surnamed Faucon is curious, but this single fact cannot make strong connection to build a genalogy. Did these two clerics hold any heraldic office? It is most unlikely. Were their fathers Faulcon herald and the sons (François and Jean) took the name as cognomen? This is theoretically possible; I do not have anything which confirms or denies this, however. (That is why we need primary sources to verify.) Also as we see in next generation, in the 1st generation also we do not have explicit evidence which proves any of Cohennet-Faulcon had connection with the country of Genevois. (I will point out that there was some Faulcon or Cohennet in next generation mentioned in RCG, but I am not sure they were connected with our Cohennet-Faulcon.)
I found, however, several persons having the name Cohennet (see Cohennets elsewhere). Although I have no idea how these are related our Cohennet, yet it is remarkable, if we plot these occurrences, there is a strong locality that most of them are found in the regions surrounding lake Léman. Then it is possible to think our Cohennet also came from somewhere in those regions.

1st generation (as heraldic dynasty) — Jean I

General discussion

 Question: Had the family been already anicient and noble?

There was one Johannes Cohenneti who was present at the Council of the city of Genève, 17 Mar 1488 [RCG, t4, p.105] who was or was not identical with our herald; and otherise there is no indication, as far as I find, that Jean I was connected to Genevois (Genève, Ternier, and St-Julien). The Ja. [Jehan?] Cohennet who occurred 26 Sept 1488 [RCG, t4, p.152] is likely the same person as the one who occurred 17 Mar. There were also other persons surnamed Cohennet: Julien Cohennet (U1); Giraldus Chenoz alias Cohennet who occurred between 1488-95 and 1512 (see Giraldus Chenoz alias Cohennet occurrences). From these we can say, at least there was one to three (or four) Cohennet who was/were connected to Genève around 1490s. Nevertheless these occurrences are sporadic in contrast to another Cohennet — Cohennet of Sallanches (see Cohennet de Sallanches; I do not mean the Cohennet of Sallanches were related to our Cohennet-Faulcon). We cannot say there was a well established Cohennet family in those days nor can we say Julien (U1) and other Cohennet occurrences in Genevois were related to our Cohennet-Faulcon family. (Here I also note that they are all Cohennet, not Faulcon, and it is consistent with the understanding that Faulcon was a heraldic title. For now, however, this cannot be supportive nor deny anything.) Contrary to our expectation, we should not forget that the only evidence which indicates the connection between Jean Cohennet who was Faulcon pursuivant and Jean Faulcon who was Chablais herald, is Jean II's occurrences in around 1529 only [I will discuss this later, see Jean II — his identity (Q.9)]. We can even suppose, there was a family Cohennet who held the heraldic title Faulcon and there was another family Faulcon, which held the heraldic title Chablais. We should be always careful not to hastely relate any Faucon / Faulcon occurences since, as a family name Faulcon is quite easy to be found (see Faulcons elsewhere). However, for now I assume that there was one Cohennet-Faulcon family. Considering the occurreces and events during Jean II's time, it is most reasonable to think like that.
Back into the social status of Jean I, as we will see, from 1520s on, Cohennet-Faulcon became an important family in Genevois, but it is not clear, the family had settled long before Jean I's days, or it had risen recently. As far as I find, unlike his (supposed) decendents he was never called noble or excellent. The first such occurrence is in 1518 which should not be himself (O2). We shall also consider that the status of heralds seems to have been modest and humble in the fifteenth century. They were then mostly messengers only. These suggest the family prospered only in next generation. This may be related to the promotin of status of heralds in the early sixteenth century.

Jean I

B-R says Jean I died before 1518 (then O2 should be another person which I agree). It is reasonable if the Jean who occurred from 1475 is the same person, after 43 years he must have been well aged. (Again, I need primary source.) The first mention to Jean I occurred on 1475, but there was one Faulcon occured on 1470 who may be possibly Jean I. The last mention to Faulcon in the fifteenth century is 1491 (assuming Faulicii meant Faulcon). After that there is a long blank and next occurrence is 1510. The 1510 occurrence can be either Jean I or someone in next generation, or it is even possible totally unrelated person (since as I mentioned, Faulcon is a common family name). For now, the Savoyan heralds' occurrences I can find in the beginning of the sixteenth century are quite sparse. From what I found, that there were mentions to other heralds, such as Romont, Rivolles, Nice yet there was no mention to Faulcon meant Jean I had died toward the end of the fifteenth century. Still there is possibilty that this is simply because of the unavailability — or lack — of record only.
For Jean III's generation we have more biographical information and I will consider the birth and death dates of the family members retrospectively.

2nd generation — Jean II

General discussion

 Before starting the question. This is the generation where we find most of the events which mark turning points from heraldic perspective and genealogical perspective also:
  1. Faulcon as a heraldic title ceased to exist. It is likely it ceased to exist before 1536 occupation.
  2. Faulcon family first appeared as noble and became an important family in Saint-Julien.
  3. Faulcon family members were involeved to both Savoyan state and Genevoise local affairs.
  4. Faulcon family became Faulcon and they stopped using Cohennet. (However, this is as-far-as-I-know understanding.)
If the Bernoise-French occupation did not take place in 1536, the fortune of the family may be different from as we know. In next generation, as we see later, the family seems to became a Romandie family, looking mostly toward the north rather than Annecy or Chambéry. Possibly because the connection to the ducal court had lost during the occupation years; possibly because the ducal seat moved to the other side of the Alpes and Savoy proper became more autonomous region; possibly because the decay of Saint-Julien (see Bouverat 2014, p.12, right col.) The last one may not be applicable. However I am concluding things too hastely and these questions first need to be answered.
Questions: 1) When did the Faulcon family rise to a noble status? 2) How did the family come to Saint-Julien-en-Genevois? 3) Did Jean II belong to the second generation or third generation? 4) Who was the eldest son? 5) Was Faulcon a heraldic title in the early sixteenth century? (Since there were more than one Faulcon at the same time.) 6) When did the heraldic office Faulcon cease to exist? (If the answer to previous question is "yes".) 7) Why did Faulcon herald not perform any duty other than diplomatic one? 8) Why did they (apparently) change the family name from Cohennet to Faulcon? 9) Were Jean Cohennet dit Faulcon and Jean Faulcon dit Chablais identical? 10) Who was châtelain de Ternier? 11) Was Claude the vicar identical with Claude the châtelain? 12) Claude or Tandi? 13) Aymé and/or Aymon? 14) When did Aymé die?

Questions 9-14 are more personal ones. Q.9 is however a critical one because we have only one single event to connect the two. The change of the family name may have related to the cease of the office of Faulcon. First of all as a disclaimer, there is no explicit mention to the connection between generation 1 and 2 (or 3). I could find such records only for last two to three generations. In RCG, t10, p.105, there is an occurrence egregiis Johanne et Aymone Cohennet, dictis Faulcon (O4, E2) and in the RCG, index, p.657 of the same volume, the compiler gives the index Faulcon, Faucon, Fauconz, heyraldus ducalis, a reference to Johanne Coenneti dicto Faulcon, herauldo ducali, 18 Dec. 1482. Also in t.13, p.260 (O13) the compiler gives reference to t11, p.595, Johanne Cohenneti dicto Faulcon (O6) (more correctly the compiler just asked to please refer the index). From these it is most likely the compiler connected the occurrences of Cohennet-Faulcon during 1470-80s with that of 1520-30s both belonging to the same family, even if in a particular occurrence, only Faulcon was mentioned. As I already raised question, there could be two families and there was no mention to something like Jean Cohennet, dit Faulcon, héraut Chablais. However for now, for the following discussion, I assume that two Jean Cohennet were straightly connected, either as father and son, or as grandfather and grandson.
That being said, for now the following is my assumed story for this generation: Jean I was succeeded by Aymé (Q.4) towards the end of the fifteenth century. It is unclear how Aymé succeeded the office of Faulcon, either he was created as an apprentice as a herald aftrer his father's death or, promoted from a pursuivant (Q.5). (In the former case what was Aymé's profession before becoming a herald remains as an open question.) Thus he belonged to the old heraldic generation where the officers of arms were expected as messengers only (Q.7). His son Jean II (Q.3), Jean de Provana, Jean de Tournay, Jean de Collombieres (all Jean, just for coincidence...) formed a new generation where officers of arms had other functions, that is, armorial and ceremonial. The early sixteenth century saw the disappearance of pursuivants also. We have only one such occurrence, in 1517. The three Jean were also the last heraldic generation prior to 1536. It was this generation heralds' status rose to nobility [Brero 2008, p.305 says, the rennovation of the order in 1518 has taken model after Toison d'Or. However the change of trends in recruiting the herald started earlier, as Jean de Provana had been active since 1504. Then where did this new tide come from?] and Faulcon family members also got the title of Noble. I shall mention Jean I had one more son, Claude I (Q.11).
Aymé had, here again my assumption, two sons, Jean II and Claude II. By this time Faulcon family settled at Saint-Julien-en-Genevois. The elder son, Jean II was created Chablais and by virtue of the seniority of the office, he had more precedence than his father when they were mentioned dictis Faulcon (Q.3, Q.4). It is not clear, because the office pre-required noble status, and the family reached there through their contribution to the dukes and he was appointed to the herald as a qualified candidate, or, by being appointed to a herald that gave him noble status. However when Jean II first appeared he was already called Noble, and we know also Jean de Provana was of noble origin (gentilhomme [Bonivard, vol.1, p.345]). Then the former is more likly. The younger son, Claude II (need to dicuss), stayed Genevois and was finally appointed châtelain of Ternier. The sons survived, anyway, the occupation of 1536, and the family lost their house but still they prospered. Why both of the two died at the same time or at least on very close date we are not sure, but by 1542 both passed away.

Are we talking about second generation or third generation? (Q.3, Q.4)

B&R mentiones Jean, Claude and Aymé in this order while Jacquet 1978, p.93 mentions Aymon, Jean, and Claude in this order. The primary source egregiis Johanne et Aymone Cohennet, dictis Faulcon (O4, E2) suggests Jean is senior and which is aligned with B&R (but not Jacquet). We should discuss i) how many Claude were there, and also ii) Aymé and Aymon were same person or not, but as I will conclude in Q.11 How many Claude?, the answers are i) there were two Claude, and ii) Aymé and Aymon are likely to be the references to the same person. That being said, for now my assumption is, that Aymé (call him Aymé I, since there is another Aymé in the subsequent genreration) is father to Jean II and Claude II (it is almost ceratin Jean II is elder since in most cases his name is first mentioned), Claude I is Aymé I's younger brother and the three occupied these offices:
As I said, I assume that Aymé I and Claude I belong to the generation between Jean I and Jean II. There is no explicit evidence to support this view, but I have several reasons to think like this.
Regarding Aymé: first, as I alrday mentioned, only Faulcon remained as a messenger during the reign of Duke Charles III, because — this is my assumption — he belonged to previous generation (Q.7, see above, General discussion). There is, though, a question if he remained as a messenger, then how he came to the state of being called noble and excellent? For this I do not have any clear answer.
Second, Jean II and Claude II were often mentioned together. Aymé I was not. Particulary, why only Jean and Claude (here I suppose Claude II) mentioned in 1542? If the three were brothers, why was Aymé not mentioned?
Third, rise in only one generation makes the contrast between Jean I and AJC too sharp. For me Jean I appears as very humble and modest figure, while during the time of Jean II and Claude II, the Faulcon family appeared as one of great families in Genevois. Of course, we have to consider if it is possible to put three generation in between around 1490 to 1540s. In conclusion it is possible to put two generations and three generations as well. For these three men we know only when were the first mentions and the fact Jean and Claude had died by 1542. However we have much more information about next generations (we will see this later). In a retrospective way, we can build up a more convincing genealogy.
What we know are, 1) Jean II and Claude II had died by 1542 (O19, C17), 2) Jean III died in 1573 (O21), 3) Jeanne married for the second time in 1546, 4) Claudine who was Jeanne's daughter got married in 1564. From 3 and 4 we should assume Jeanne gave birth to Claudine in 1547 and even the latter was born in that year, by 1564 Claudine was only 17. And from the assumption that Jeanne gave birth to her daugher in 1547 by her second marriage, she must be then at oldest around 40 years old. In addition to these, what we need to consider also is, we should assume, that in 1542 by which time both Jean and Claude had died, at least one person in the next generation should come of age. Because otherwise it should have been difficult for the family to keep its status. For that I already mentioned Jeanne gave birth to her daughter in 1547 and although we do not know she was elder or younger child in her generation, still it is reasonable to think one of her brother come of majority by 1542 (Yes it is possible that they were under someone's guardianship, but as far as I found there is no good reason to think so).
To support this, there is one more clue: Clément who was Jeanne's brother had one son Philibert. In 1578, his uncle François Goumoëns designated him as the heir. There is no indicatoin that Phlibert was then minority. Then we can assume, Philibert was born before c. 1558, and then his father Clément was born before c. 1538. These are aligned with those dates given above.
Of course, one can die at the age of 50 or 80, and thirty years time space is more than one generation. Also man (not woman) can have his child at the age of 30 or 60, this is also more than one generation. The constraints I mentioned still give wide allowance of fluctuations. For now, I put the age of any man's having first baby to around 25 to 30 and the death of each person to around 50 to 60.
As I concluded both two generations and three generations are possible. The tables given in the appendix are possible hypothetical genealogical charts for both. Please be sure these show possibility only and my purpoe is to show the same only. For the two generations plan I suggested two options. The first one is an alternative to the idea that Aymé I comprises his own generaion, instead he was much older than Jean II and Claude II (because Jean I married twice or some other reason) that's why his career was different from his (much) younger brothers. Three generations plan cannot allow so much fluctuation.
For now, on the other hand, I cannot conclude from these tables themselves, which is the best one. If I need to say anything, i) according to the three generations plan, Jean II died at 49 and that means Claude II died at even younger age. Which may be a little bit young to die, but still it was possible in those days, and we have some years to adjust so as to make their birth date earlier. ii) In the case of two generations plan, it becomes difficult to find place for Claude I. But still it is possible. See Q.11 How many Claude?.

Q.2 How did they come to Saint-Julien-en-Genevois?

 My assumption is they got seigneurie [Jean II was called seigneur several times] there either by purchase or concession (this is answer to Q.1 also). An evidence to support this is Inventaire d'archives collectées par l'académie chablaisienne - Armorial de Savoie (Cote : 43 J 2321 ; Analyse : Cinquanthod à Covette ; Date : Sans date) which mentions COHENNET (de), dits FAUCON, coseigneurs du Bois, de Ternier et Saint-Julien. This is so far the only explicit evidence and I am not sure how much this statement is reliable. I feel anyway I need to make some study on Savoyan nobility, i.e., does the acquisition of seigneurie automatically gives noble status or not. However, to live in a noble style in the sixteenth century, they surely needed to get a large estate by any means which they found at Saint-Julien. For now, for me there is no reason to object this (yes at the same time there is no positive reason to support this), except slight doubt that if Faulcon was a new comer in Saint-Julien, why did they choose to stay there after 1536? They could move to other location [see Gillard 1934, p.176, la plupart du reste avaient quitté le pays à l'approche de l'armée victorieuse].

Toward the end of Aymé I's life (Q.5, Q.6, Q.8, Q.14)

 We never come to exactly know which of the mentions to Faulcon were to the heraldic office and which were the to the family name. However some of Faulcon occurrences until Aymé I's death must be him. I am assuming that sometimes Faulcon was a heraldic title (Q.5), because both Aymé I and Jean II were mentioned as Herald explicitly, and we know Jean II held the title Chablais, then Aymé I's title should have been Faulcon.
It is not clear when Aymé I died but my assumption is he was possibly living till around 1530, though there is no clear evidence to think so (Q.14). As we see in Jean II — his identity (Q.9), during the events before and after Sire de Pontvoyre's murder, there were several Faulcon occurrences, Jean was clearly there, and his brother mentioned seems to be Claude II, but also possibly it was Aymé I who was at the family's house and told the news of Sire de Pontvoyre's death to Claude Mareste. He was anyway the last person to hold the heraldic title Faulcon (Q.6; after that all the mentions to Falucon were to the family name).
The family name Cohennet finally disappeared during 1530s, except the mention of 1536 (X15) and possible mention of 1541 (X16). The latter occurrence is somewhat unclear, but it is likely the compiler found the name Cohennet in the primary source. It is possible to think Jean II and Claude II's generation was the last generation to use Cohennet, since last occurrence of Cohennet seems to be 1541 and the two died by 1542. Is it a mere coincidence, that after the last office holder died, Faulcon survived solely as a family name? (Q.8) However we should be careful that this kind of asumption can be totally reverted once we find any new evidence.

Q.13 Aymé and/or Aymon?

 Can Aymone (E2) and Amedeo (M1) be the same person? Yes I agree that Aymon and Amadeus (or Amédée, Aymé) are etymologically not related at all, yet sometimes confusion seems to occur: compare E3 and M4. Here it is evident both Mottier and Megard are looking into same folios in the manuscript. Since we have M2, 3, 5, 6 instances, it seems most likely all of these refer to the same person and also most likely Aymon should read Aymé. Also there is this remark: Pour le prénom Ayme, qui est écrit tantôt Aymoz ou Emoz tantôt Ayme, nous avons jugé que, malgre une influence toujours possible du prénom Aimé... [Santschi, Catherine, "La chronique lausannoise de Jean Vullyamoz", in Revue historique vaudoise, vol.78, 1970, pp.15ff., p.23]. If there were both Aymone and Aymé, which of the two was Faulcon, and also which title did the other bear? Actually, there seems to have been no available office. The Dukes once had heraldic offices such as Nice or Genève but in the early sixteenth century we do not have any occurrences of offices which were annonymously held. For all the known offices, we know who were their holders during Aymone/Aymé's days. If we take all of these things into account, it is fairly reasonable a conclusion that Aymone and Aymé were same person. There is one question, that this confusion was caused by the people of the days, or authors and compilers of the books and materials I refer. Both are possible and anyway it does not affect my conclusion for now. There is an example of the former: Son successeur Amé, ou comme l'appelaient les Fribourgeois Aymon de Gingins [Daguet, Alexandre, "47. L'abbé de Bonmont Aymon ou Amé de Gingins, candidat des Fribourgeois, à l'Evêché de Genève (1513)", in Anzeiger für schweizerische Geschichte, Band 4, 1883, Heft 2, pp.135-136, p.135. (Pierre Faulcon ou Falk mentioned here should be Pierre Falck. See Faulcons elsewhere also.)].

Jean II — his identity (Q.9)

 As I already mentioned, we have no instance like Jean Cohennet, dit Faulcon, héraut Chablais which connects Cohennet and Faulcon and Chablais all together to one single person who was a herald. We yet understand there was one (presumably one) Jean Cohennet who was called Faulcon, who lived in Ternier / Saint-Julien, who was at least some kind of messeage-bearer sent by the Duke of Savoy to Genève (O2, O4, O6) and also we know there was Jean Faulcon who was Chablais herald (O11). We have alreay seen that Aymé I is the Faulcon herald during Jean II's time, then the appellation Faulcon for Jean Cohennet was a cognomen, not as his heraldic (or any) title. We do not have explicit evidence which show Jean Cohennet was a herald. Yet from the accounts of the event in Jan. 1529, I come to my conclusion for now:
On 2 Jan. 1529 Sire de Pontvoyre [or Pontverre, and note that he was known as François de Ternier, see Duval 1879, p.72] was killed at Genève and Jean Cohennet dit Faulcon was involved this event. It seems in the morning he and Sire de P. were at Nyon (X10 — his first name is not given here; letter of François Noel; O6) [see Bonivard, vol.2, p.367ff. also], then he parted at the bridge of Rhône from Sire de P. to go to St-Julien (where the Faulcon's house was) at 9:00-10:00 (O6), after that 17:00, Sire de P. was killed [RCG, t11, p.587]. On the same day at night, 20:00 le juge de Gex was in Saint-Julien and wrote to the Duke, that seigr Jehan Faulcon writes him this news (O7). At 21:00, Chablex ducal herald was in, again, Saint-Julien and wrote the duke of the news (O8). Was this Chablex identical with Jean (O6)? If yes, then on 8 Jan, Claude de Marestre had been at St-Julien and heard the news at the house of Faulcon (Mentions to maison de Faulcon, no.3 hereafter N3) and after that they (who? any of Faulcon?) found Chablex and his brother (O9). Here it is possible that Aymé I was there to tell the news, but probably we should rather think N3 is no more than a mention to the house and someone stayed there told Claude de Marestre the news. Here again we cannot connect O6 and O7-O8, however it is very unlikely there were two persons involved the event, one Jean Cohennet dit Faulcon (here Faulcon as a cognomen, by virtue of his father's office) and Jean Faulcon dit Chablais, and both living in same Saint-Julien.

Jean II — châtelain or not? (Q.10)

 B-R does not mention that Jean II was also the châtelain de Ternier, while the compiler of RCG says Le châtelain de Ternier was [Jean - by the references he cited it is obvious] Cohennet de Faulcon, dit Chablays and he was the ducal herald [this is also obvious by the references t13, p.260]. I am not fully convinced with this because of these two questions:
i) There are explicit mentions to one noble Tandi Cohennet de Faulcon who was châtelain de Ternier (T1, T2). While I am quite not sure Tandi/Tandis can be a given name, these give clear explanations to who was Jean's brother and who was châtelain de Ternier. I will discuss this Tandi in Q.12 Claude — or Tandi?. Apart from Tandi, O12 says Jean Faulcon was châtelain de Ternier on 26 Sept. 1534 (the day he was with Claude), and O14 says Iean Faulcon was herald to the Duke of Savoy and has a brother who was at that time a châtelain. Yes it is true that O14 does not say the châtellenie which Jean's brother held was that of Ternier and it is possible it was another one. However, we know Claude (and Jean also) lived at Saint-Julien (C3, C9 — I need to disucss there seems to have been two Claude but here we are concerned with Claude the châtelain; O2, O6, O14), that is why, when any châtellenie is mentioned in relation with any of Cohennet/Faulcon, it is always no office but that of Ternier. Then if Claude occupied any châtellenie, we have (again) no choice but that of Ternier [I should point out Claude's name was never explicitly mentioned with any of châtelain de Ternier occurrences; here I am just following B-R]. (Yet yes O12 explicity states that Jean was the châtelain de Ternier and O13 also states Chablays was the châtelain de Ternier. I am slightly doubtful RCG on those pages does not explicitly cite the exact word from the primary source. The compiler cites Duval yet he ignores the latter says it was Tandi who was Jean's brother.)
ii) Is it really possible to perform the two duties of a herald and a châtelain concurrently? The former office was not so much a sinecure one in his days. The latter one, the château de Ternier situtated on an important route [see the mention to Clément's house] during the troublesome years. Moreover, as the list shows if he was really appointed to châtelain, it must have been after 1531 that means he held two offices when the tension reached the peak. Was there any good reason for the Duke to make him have two offices concurrently, and also not choose his younger brother so as to dedicate one person to one office with close communication available each other. From this also it is more convincing that the office of herald and châtelain were not held by the same person.

Q.11 How many Claude?

 Claude Cohennet aliàs Faucon (C15) should be one of the key evidence to connect Cohennet occurrence in previous generation and Faulcon in this generation. This Claude was, however, a chanoine. He must have been identical with Claude the vicar who occurred in 1529 (C5, C6). It is evident that there was one Claude who was Jean II's brother (C12) and he was identical with the one who was of Saint-Julien (C3, C8, C9) since Jean II was also from there, irrespective of this Claude was châtelain de Ternier or not. In next section I shall conclude it was Claude who was the châtelain de Ternier and there was no such person as Tandi. Then Claude the châtelain, was he identical with Claude the vicar? It is curious both of the two appeared almost same time which supports thiw view. While I cannot conclude it was impossible for clergy to hold a châtellenie, as far as I checked Rabut, François, "Liste des Chatelains de Bresse, Bugey, Valromet et Gex, sous la Maison de Savoie", in MDSS, tome 37, 1893, pp.117ff. (unfortunately Ternier is not included in this list), in the sixteenth century there was no such instance. Also yes they appeared almost same time, but, how the same person could sometimes called noble (C9) and sometimes vicar or chanoine? Then the conclusion for now is, there were two Claude, one was châtelain de Ternier and the other was vicar and chanoine. Also both of whom belonged to our Cohennet-Faulcon family. Then, next, who was Claude the vicar? I am not so much confident, but for now, I suppose he was brother of Aymé. Of course, there are other possibilities. We do not know how many sons Jean I had, and it is possible that there was an unknown son and Claude the vicar could be his son (in this case Claude the vicar was Jean I's grandson). Or, if we think Aymé I did not form its own generation, if it is the case, Claude the vicar could be Aymé I's son (then Claude the châtelain was his uncle.) We are not sure when Claude the vicar died and that makes some question, if both of the two Claude died same time, then they were, in fact, same person...?

Q.12 Claude — or Tandi?

 Now, even if I can justify my assumption that there were two Claude, it does not mean the other Claude (call him Claude II) was châtelain de Ternier. Although he was mentioned several times, i) yes he was definitely Jean's brother, yet there was as discussed, no explicit mention to him as châtelain de Ternier. Contrary to our expectation, there is, as again already told, one obscure Tandis Cohennet de Faulcon (T1, T2) [see Duval 1879, p.81, n2 also]. This Tandis is otherwise unknown and both the authors did not cite any primary source. As again already mentioned, can Tandi / Tandis be a given name? Why did both Duval and Dullin not say anything about this unusual name?
ii) I collected all the mentions to Calude Faulcon / Cohennet as much as I could find. Among them, except possible C3 in 1526 (this is, however a retrospective mention after 20 years), the first explicit mention to Claude II is C8. C2 mentions for a grant of annual pension which possibliy indicates he had been already aged, then this is again another person (if it is the case was he a member of our Cohennet-Faulcon?). C6, Glaude is somewhat obscure. If we exclude these, we do not have so much explicit mention to him. However, we had mentions to Jean's brother several times. Apart from C11 which explicitly mentions Claude as Jean's brother, we have O9 and C15. In these two instances his name is not mentioned but we still have C1 and C17 which most likely indicate Jean II and Claude II were brothers. Then my open question for now is, as the List of châtelain de Ternier, late 1520s to the beginning of 1530s shows, Claude II could be châtelain only after c. 1531. Before that in what capacity he acted especially on O8 occasion? Was he just a local landlord who was busy in maintaining his estates? For me this is an open question.

Other things to discuss or mention

3rd generation — Jean III

 Questions: Heraldic career ceased to exist. Adding "de" (Faulcon to de Faulcon). More connection to Switzerland, less connection to Annecy and Chambéry.

General discussion

 If Jean II and Claude II achieved the most successful career among the pre-1536 generations, during their children's generation the family again saw its highest prosperity. After that toward the end of the sixteenth century to the early seventeenth century, evidences give a negative impression. Pierre II and Phlibert are the last male members I could find. I made a list of more Faulcons in later period even down to the eighteenth century as Dubious Faulcons since I have no evidence to show if those persons were from our Faulcon or not. It is possible to think they just did not hold any office, just remained as landlord that is why their records are sparse. However it is more likely, that in contrast to Jean III's generation which had four or five men, in next generation we have only two and we are uncertain at all for the latter's sons — does it simply mean male line became extinct? However again, if Dubious Faulcons were acutually decendants of our Faulcon then everything will be different. This is an open question for now.
After c. 1540, I could not find only one evidence of a Cohennet: one Gonet or Gunet Coennet was there at Saint-Julien, 1598 [Gonthier, Jean-François, La mission de saint François de Sales dans les bailliages de Chablais et Ternier-Gaillard : d'après des documents nouveaux, Annecy: F. Abry, 1891, p.233, left col. and Noms, par paroisses, des chefs de famille du diocèse de Genève ramenés au catholicisme en 1598, in MDAS, tome 2, 1880, pp.246ff., p.260, left col.] Also the "Fichier généalogique" in Le Benon, tome 3, pp.4ff., p.4 clearly mentions Cohennet St Julien 1550/1630. Curiously, both the 1598 list and Fichier généalogique did not mention to Faulcon (the subsequent lists of Fichier are: tome 4, tome 6. The first part of the list can be found in tome 2.) Also LE TRAITÉ DE SAINT-JULIEN (1603). 2. LES NÉGOCIATIONS DU TRAITÉ DE SAINT-JULIEN (by Laurent Perrillat) mentions les Cohennet (again not Faulcon) as the possible house where the ambassadors negotiated. 1598 list seems to have included only commoners which we can understand as the reason of absence of Faulcon. Anyway it suggests there was another Cohennet in Saint-Julien that implies, contrary to my assumption Cohennet in Saint-Julien can be, theoretically, traced long back. However how about the description of Fichier which says 1550/1630? Yet, even if there was a Cohennet family whose members were commoners, that does not affect that our Faulcon family did no more use Cohennet.
While it seems they declined to use Cohennet, I notice that they started use De Faulcon instead of simple Faulcon. For me this is an evidence Faulcon was by that time no more a dit name.
In this generation, Duke Emmanuel-Philibert recovered his duchy in 1559. Unlike England which experienced the Civil War, in Savoy the heraldic officers' tradition seems to have discontinued during the occupation years (King of France appointed his Piedmont herald [Wages to French royal heralds for the year 1553, etc. (In French.)], but French heralds had, by this time, nothing to do with the country to which he owed the title). In England there are three ranks because of that there are always junior officers, and some officers such as George Owen (Rouge Croix 1626, York 1633), William Ryley (Bluemantle 1633, Lancaster 1641), Edward Walker (Blanch Lyon 1635, Rouge Croix 1637, Chester 1638, Norroy 1644, Garter 1645), William Dugdale (Blanch Lyon 1638, Rouge Croix 1639, Chester 1644) survived till the Restoration [of course English officers of arms had other advantages: more number of offices; appointment continued during the years of exile; the Nobility in both side needed them; they had their corporation etc., in short in England, it was more a profession]. In the State of Savoy, not just none of the pre-1536 officers survived, the institution seems to have been to some degree re-constructed. If the State had not gone collapse in 1536, Jean III (or anyone form his generation) would have possibly succeeded his father (and in that case the family's fortune might have been different). However in reality after more than 20 years of discontinuaton, the Faulcons were, I suppose, no more than one of the local nobilities. Also Duke Emmanuel-Philibert had to wait The treaty of Lausanne, 1564 to recover the northern territories occupied by Bern, and Ternier came back to him only in 1567 [Jacquet 1978, p.117] which delay could have impacted. Anyway in Savoy proper it was Gaspard Masier, bourgeois of Chambéry and a painter, who was appointed the Herald of the Duchy of Savoy. Faulcon family was loyal to the House of Savoy [Mottier 2008, p.277], yet they no more had so much connection to the ducal court, as it appears, instead, they established connection with families in Genève, Lausanne and elsewhere (especially Clément). Looking backward from the twenty-first century, we know Dukes Emmanuel-Philibert and Charles-Emmanuel I, despite their efforts, lost territories and powers in the north one by one, but we do not know how the family understood the circumstance. May be I need to understand, the family's activity as châtelain which made some connection to the Dukes and also how much Genevois was connected to Annecy, Chambéry, and Turin in those days. It is possible to think it was really at their house where the representatives concluded the Treaty of Saint-Julien in 1603, but if it is yes, it must be simply because their house was sizable, in contrast to the event of 1519, at that time the Duke must have personally known Jean II.
Anyway it seems because of this connection to Switzerland where more genealogical researches are available (for me at least), for this and next generation we knew some women from the family and also several marriages.

Jean III

 Questions: Who was his father? Only Jean III held both châtellenie and juge-mage.
I assumed a straight line of Jean I - II - III (regardless there was Aymé between them). If I need to review this idea, there are only two poissibilities for Jean's father: Jean II or Claude II. We know there was a common heritier for both of the two, then one of them supposed to be childless. It is, then, a striking contrast that the other had at least five sons and one daughter. The fact that he named his (presumabuly) eldest son Jean and one of his daugher Jeanne and that there seems to have been no Claude — does it mean Jean II was their father? Or Jean is too common a name to think like this? Duval 1879, p.106 says Aymé's and his brother's (presumably Pierre's) father was a châtelain of Ternier, which means he thought they (including Jean III) were Claude's sons. B&R seems to have not so much information on this generation.
As the List of châtelain de Ternier and juge de Chapitre et Saint-Victor after 1536 shows, Jean was the first of four (or three &mdash I will discuss this in Pierre I) successive Faulcon châtelains and that surely mean he was the eldest, at least of these three. Mottier does not mention him which I do not know why [Mottier 2008, p.277 n9 mentions Aymé, François, Clément, Pierre].
At the very end of his life, he got appointments and occupied two offices of châtelain and juge-mage concurrently. This seems to have been applied to him only. This was possibly an award bestowed to him in person.

Aymé II

 Qestions: Doctor was a prerequisite to be juge-mage? Where did he study?
As I already told in Q.13 Aymé and/or Aymon?, Aymé (M2-6) and Aymon (E3) are identical. This Aymé II received the highest education among the family members concerned in this disucssion. Two questions there. Where did he get the doctoral degree? The most near-by one is that of Genève. I need to confirm, however, although it had a course of law [Les étudiants sont formés avant tout pour devenir pasteurs, mais des cours de médecine, de droit et de scolastique y sont aussi dispensés, Survol historique - 450e anniversaire - UNIGE], if the Académie had the authority to give doctoral degree in law. Also in any case, we have serious doubt that he chose to go to the center of Calvinism. Then is it Turin, or Basel? The city of Basel had coverted to protestant, but how about the University? (Or less likely Avignon, or Montpellier?) It is a good point to confirm where he felt more connection.
The other question is, was it a prerequisite to be a juge-mage? His immediate predecessor and his (presumably) elder brother Jean III seems to have not got any doctorate. I need to check Aymé's successors as juge-mage. It is evident, however, from the names of Aymé's successors [see List of châtelain de Ternier and juge de Chapitre et Saint-Victor after 1536 where I gave references to such names], the post of juge-mage could not be a familial affair. Aymé was the last incumbent from Faulcon family [see the list I refered just before]. At least some expertise was the requirement. If it was the office of a herald, may be it was possible to make it quasi-hereditary, but the knowledge and skill which the office of juge-mage required were much more accessible to the public, and also probably the office had such an importance that could not make it nepotistic.
It is not certain if M7 is a mention to Aymé II, although by 1598 he surely had died.

Pierre I

 Question: How many Pierre were there?
After Jean III, we do not know who succeeded him as châtelain. Jacquet 1978, p.132 says Pierre de Faulcon, fils de Tandi Cohennet de Faulcon held the office during 1589-1601. We have P4 and we know at least he held the office since some year before 1584. We do not know when he died. Yet we have P6 and P8. The Pierre who occurred in 1584 was most likely, at least, identical with the Pierre who occurred in c. 1577 (P3). Then it is almost impossible he was still living in 1611. Also P6 mentions him as capitaine du fort de Sainte-Catherine. My assumption here is, the first Pierre died in 1590s. P6 is another and younger Pierre and who was appointed châtelain de Ternier between c. 1601 and 1611. Between these two Pierre, there must be an incumbent.

Clément

 Unlike his elder (again presumably) brothers, he seems to have not held any office. Instead I have found many legal affairs — mostly selling of lands (I included him in the Other members or relatives of the family, since there is no need to list up his occurrences). What do these mean? Despite these income and connection with such brilliant families as Goumoëns or Saussure, by the time of his son Philibert, the family apparently had fallen into difficulties.

Other things to discuss or mention

4th generation — Philibert and others

The seventeenth century

 This generation comprises, at least, Philibert (Clément's son), Pierre II, and Jaquemine (Jean III's daughter). Jacquet 1978, p.118, n.25 says, Clément was Pierre II's father [note: He did not know there were two Pierre, so he could not distinguish the two]. However we know Clément had Philibert and there was no record which mentions Pierre II in relation to Clément. He did not even know there was another Pierre (i.e., Pierre I) who was Aymé and Clément's brother. It should be either Aymé or Pierre I who was Pierre II's father. This is for now an open question. Pierre II must have been already aged when he resigned the office in 1611 (P8), and when the family asked Antoine Favre for support in previous year (X18 and X19), it was Philibert who represented the family. It is curious to find Clément, Philibert and Jaquemine were mostly connected with famlies in Genève, Lausanne and elsewhere, yet at the last moment it was Antoine Favre, president of the Sénat de Savoie whom they sought final recourse. What is more important is, however, the family needed to seek such support. Why could the family not rescue, at least, Jaquemine by themselves? It indicates the family was in decline, doesn't it?
After 1611 we know virtually nothing of the family. Jaquemine was living till around 1617, and one Nicoline de Faulcon, dite de Pomier (see her entry in Dubious Faulcons) was possibly related to Pierre II, dit de Domier (assuming one of which is an clerical error). Jacquet 1978, p.165 says châtelains no more had importance as previous because of the creation of the office of juge-mage. After Pierre, however, there was even no appointment for châtellenie to any of the Faulcon family. For now we have to conclude all male members died out.

Faucon de Copponex

 There was a discussion by Emile Vuarnet who associated the noble Faucon in Copponex with our Faulcon [MDAC, tome 40, 1933, p.XXXIV; MDAC, tome 41, 1934, p.VI; which the former refers MDAC, tome 38, 1930, p.62 and p.99; see also Dubious Faulcons where I gave some occurrences of Faulcons in Copponex]. I do not say it is never possible to associate these two families. At least there was one François whom I mentioned in the 3rd generation, and it is possible to imagine his decendants survived. I shall yet point out that Faulcon was a common family name (see Faulcons elsewhere) and the single fact both share the same family name of Faucon or Faulcon does not necessarily mean they are related. For me for now, I started in the late fifteenth century and reached early seventeenth century which is more than enough.

Appendix

 Tables and lists

Related materials

Recueil de généalogies vaudoises mentioned in Cercle Vaudois de Généalogie: Généalogies vaudoises
Compesières dans la campagne genevoise. Sources administratives de la période bernoise 1536-1567 (pdf.)
Archives cantonales vaudoises. Section C : Parchemins et papiers. Cote : C II. Intitulé : Comtes et ducs de Savoie. (pdf.) There is another, previous? version: Archives cantonales vaudoises. Section C : Parchemins et papiers. Cote : C II. Intitulé : Comtes et ducs de Savoie. (pdf.)
NEYDENS AU FIL DU TEMPS (pdf.)
Bellevaux, Eugène de, Nécrologe et annales biographiques des FF. Mineurs Capucins de la Province de Savoie, 1611-1902, Chambéry: Louis Pavy, Paris: Œuvre Saint François d'Assise, 1902. (Internet Archive.)
Bois-Melley, Charles, La seigneurie de Genève et ses relations extérieures, 1720-1749, Genève et Bale: H. Georg, 1880. (pdf.)
Bruschi, Christian, "Le diocèse de Genève-annecy confronté à différentes souverainetés au temps de François de Sales", in Pouvoirs et territoires dans les États de Savoie. Actes du colloque international de Nice. 29 novembre — 1er décembre 2007, Serre, 2010, pp.301ff. (pdf.)
Castelnuovo, Guido, "Quels offices, quels officiers? L'administration en Savoie au milieu du XVe siècle", [A stampa in “Études Savoisiennes”, II (1993), pp. 3-43 — Distribuito in formato digitale da “Reti Medievali”] (pdf.)
Castelnuovo, Guido, Mattéoni, Olivier (eds.), « De part et d'autre des Alpes » : Les châtelains des princes à la fin du Moyen Âge, Éditions de la Sorbonne, 2006.
Dullin, Etienne, Les châtelains dans les Domaines de la Maison de Savoie en deçà des Alpes, Thèse pour le doctorat Sciences Juridiques, Chambéry et Grenoble: Chambaz, 1911.
Duval, César, Les terres de Saint-Victor et Chapitre dans l'ancien bailliage de Ternier : communication faite au congrès des sociétés savantes savoisiennes tenu à Annecy, le 25 août 1879, Genève: H. Georg, Saint-Julien: S. Maria, 1880. (Gallica.)
Français, J., L'Église et la sorcellerie, Paris: Émile Nourry, 1910. (pdf.)
Galiffe, —, "Poëme sur les événements genevois de 1538 à 1540", in MDG, tome 19, 1877, pp.259ff. (pdf.)
Gaullieur, E.-H., "Petite chronique de Genève, par Pierre Millet, régent du collége en cette ville. (1553-1585)", in Étrennes nationales, faisant suite au Conservateur suisse, Lausanne: Georges Bridel, 1845, pp.167ff. (Google Books.)
Longchamp, Jacques, "L'organisation générale (politique et religieuse) du Pays de Vaud sous les Bernois (système féodal, bailliage, consistoires)", 2004. (pdf.)
Mottier, Cédric, "Le procès des Dumonthay, usurpateurs de noblesse (1580-1582), ou la plume contre la robe. Vers la formation d'une noblesse d'Ancien Régime dans les États de Savoie".
Perrillat, Laurent, "Les institutions du Genevois du XVe au début du XV IIIe siècle : élements d'étude", Diplô de conservateur de bibliothèque, 2000. (pdf.)
Perrillat, Laurent, "Une tentative de remise en cause du traité de Saint-Julien en 1669 par le duc de Savoie", 2006.
Perrillat, Laurent, "Les offices dans le duché de Savoie au XVIIe siècle : vénalité, propriété, hérédité, 2012.
Roth-Lochner, Barbara, De la banche à l'étude une histoire institutionnelle, professionnelle et sociale du notariat genevois sous l'Ancien Régime, Genève: Droz, 1997. (Google Books.)
Serand, E., "Vieux chateaux et noblesse du Genevois en 1732 d'après le sommaire des titres des fiefs avec juridiction", in Revue savoisienne, 22me année, 1881, pp.111-113. (gallica.)
Serand, E., "État des maison fortes possédées par différents seigneurs dans la province de Genevois et le baillage de Ternier. 1772", in Revue savoisienne, 25me année, 1884, pp.3ff. and p.14. (gallica.)
Sulpice d'Ayent, P., Les capucins en Valais, St-Maurice: Rhodanique, 19392. (pdf.)
La salévienne. Bibliographie.

back