The Drouin Genealogical Institute yesterday announced a huge update to the family reconstructions in its Programme de recherche en démographie historique — PRDH (Research Programme in Historical Demography).
The collection is a reconstruction of the population of Quebec from the beginning of New France in the 17th century to 1849.
Once a genealogist finds an ancestor in this database, they will more than likely see the ancestor’s parents, spouse, children, their children’s spouses, and their grandchildren.
This latest update added the period from 1825 to 1849.
Each person in PRDH has their own individual file with links to their family members and links to their baptism, marriage, and burial information.
This project, created to build entire families, began in 1966 at the Université de Montréal. It has been built through exhaustive gathering of data from the parish registers of old Quebec.
PRDH is considered one of the top resources for genealogists researching their Quebec ancestry up to 1849. The vast majority of people in the database are French speaking, but genealogists whose ancestors from the British Isles or elsewhere, who were born, died, and married in Quebec by 1849, will likely find their people. In my case, my Scottish ancestors only came to Quebec in 1855, so they are not part of the family reconstructions.
More information about the update and images of individual files is in Genealogy Quebec’s latest newsletter.
Price increases this weekend
A subscription to PRDH is based on the number of hits. Until Friday, September 14, 150 hits will cost about $24 CDN plus taxes, and for 500 hits, you will pay about $44. Other price options are available.
After September 14, the price will increase to 100 hits for $20 and 500 hits for $50 plus taxes. This is the first price increase in 10 years.
Another way to save money on a PRDH subscription is to ask your local library if it provides free remote access. Or you can join the Quebec Genealogical eSociety for $45 for free remote access to PRDH and BMS2000 and other benefits.
I presume that you meant the United Kingdom and not United Kingston?
Ha ha! Thanks to you, I have now corrected. I had been reading a blog post about Kingston, so I guess it was still on my mind.