Maison Deman

Maison Deman · Land & families

Family story · 1 November 2026

The great farms of the Semal and Wauthy families

From Hulencourt and Pierpont to Houtain and Rèves: farming families, women who ran farms, and a memory handed down to the Demans.

Hulencourt, the farm within its landscape
Hulencourt, the farm within its landscapeAerial view supplied by Johnny as “hulencourt-arial goed.jpeg”. Buildings and golf course in their present-day setting; photographer and date unspecified. This is not a reconstruction of the fifteenth-century holding.Photographe non identifié · File supplied by Johnny · Public reproduction rights to be established

Listen to the story

Synthetic narration · KAST / MiniMax · “Henri Guillemin” voice profile.

Places to look at, names to recover, a history to pass on.

Working tree: the biological connection of 1658 remains disputed. 1658 ↓

1. Farms bring names closer

A name in a family tree may occupy a single line. A farm invites us to look longer. Behind the word “censier” lies a holding, land to cultivate, a lease to fulfil and a household whose relationships sometimes survive in contracts. Around Nivelles, the Semal and Wauthy families open a path between several places: Hulencourt, Monstreux, Grand Pierpont, Houtain and Rèves. We follow that path to the maternal branch of the Deman family. R1

The opening photograph shows Hulencourt’s buildings from the air, within their present-day landscape. Supplied by Johnny, it brings the farm and the land now used as a golf course into one view; its photographer and date remain to be established. The distance between what we can see and what we seek lies at the heart of the investigation. A place may survive while its buildings, boundaries and uses change. Finding an estate does not necessarily identify a particular person’s home. M4

The title describes families without certifying a complete biological descent. The connection between Pierre-Philippe Wauthy and Armand, around 1658, remains disputed. The early families and farms belong to the working tree; their connection to Armand’s descendants still depends on this link. That qualification accompanies our journey without diminishing the interest of the places themselves. R2

Orientation map

Orientation mapHulencourt: present estate · Monstreux: village · Houtain-le-Val: locality · Rèves: village · Frasnes-lez-Gosselies: Grand Pierpont area. N 1Hulencourt2Monstreux3Houtain-le-Val4Rèves5Frasnes-lez-Gosselies≈ 4 km
Approximate modern reference points, without property boundaries or a family travel route. Frasnes and Houtain-le-Val mark localities, not unidentified holdings. Houtain-le-Mont remains distinct from Houtain-le-Val. [G1]
  1. Hulencourt
  2. Monstreux
  3. Houtain-le-Val
  4. Rèves
  5. Frasnes-lez-Gosselies

2. The Semals: from Hulencourt to Grand Pierpont

The family research dossier, drawing on a 2025 Patronomia edition, describes Phillipart Semal de Pécron, born around 1470, as a tenant farmer at Hulencourt and the Grande Cense of Monstreux. It identifies Denys Marcel Semal de Pécron as his son and also associates Denys with Monstreux in 1534. These references suggest an early sequence, but remain compilation data: no original lease has been obtained to establish these occupations. R1

At Hulencourt, the heritage notice records a gateway dated 1680, later than the first generations discussed here. The dossier connects the estate with Affligem Abbey, which also appears in the history of Pierpont. Such places must be understood as complexes transformed over centuries. Their surviving walls cannot all be made to speak for a single period. R1 S04

Monstreux requires a different qualification. The Ferme de l’Abbaye is known in local history, but its identification with Phillipart’s “Grande Cense” has not been demonstrated. The village name offers a reference point rather than a certain address. A lease describing the land, neighbouring holdings or boundaries might help resolve that question. R1

With Étienne Semal and then André, also called Adrien, the story reaches Grand Pierpont at Frasnes-lez-Gosselies. The Meurs study refers to a marriage contract from January 1597; the original remains to be obtained. It offers a lead towards the transfers and alliances surrounding the holding. Research here acquires a concrete objective: recover the document, its archival reference and its precise wording. R1 S03

Estimated births and varying first names prevent us from treating this sequence as a set of verified records. The reported dates for André or Adrien, in particular, do not fully agree. Keeping those variations is preferable to choosing an attractive precision. The first family diagram therefore presents a working chain, rather than a certificate of descent. R1

Monstreux, a place to rediscover
Monstreux, a place to rediscoverSaint-Michel Church at Monstreux, 6 March 2019. A village landmark; this image identifies neither the Grande Cense nor the Ferme de l’Abbaye.Louis Vanvilthoven · Source · CC0

3. A farm was more than a house

A “cense” is an agricultural holding. Its “censier” or “censière” operated the farm without necessarily owning the land. Within the assembled material, farms, fields, rights and the holders of those rights must be followed separately. A family name associated with a farm does not mean that the whole estate belonged to that family or passed uninterrupted from one generation to the next. R1

The lease is therefore essential. We would want to read it to establish the tenant, obligations, duration and property concerned. A genealogical notice may give an occupation; a contract could help explain what that occupation meant in a particular place and year. Accounts, inventories and estate papers might then complete the picture. These documents are not all available to us yet. R1

Large acreages require equal care. The dossier uses bonniers, an old unit of area whose value varied with local practice. We retain that unit without automatically converting it into hectares. Figures recorded at different dates may concern different estate boundaries. On their own, they cannot establish a household’s wealth. R1

A local office needs the same attention. A “mayeur” was a local official whose powers depended on the period and jurisdiction; the term cannot simply be equated with a modern mayor. Being described as a farmer and mayeur places someone within a world of local responsibilities. It does not establish hereditary nobility or permanent prosperity. Every office must remain attached to its individual holder and supporting source. R1 R2

This way of reading makes the history more tangible. We seek the conditions in which families worked land, formed alliances and transferred rights. Missing documents become specific questions: who held the lease? What passed at a marriage? Which assets belonged to the couple, and which did they merely operate?

Hulencourt’s landscape in 2015
Hulencourt’s landscape in 2015Hulencourt golf course, 4 June 2015. A present-day landscape, not a depiction of a fifteenth-century farm.GdML · Source · CC BY-SA 4.0

4. Women within the transfers

Isabeau Malréchauffé, Charlotte Semal and Marie Nopère should not disappear behind their husbands’ first names. The corpus associates them with the holdings and describes them as women who farmed. The documentation is uneven, but these references give them a place in the economic and family investigation. Their role extends beyond connecting two boxes in a tree. R1

Isabeau is presented as André or Adrien Semal’s wife in the Pierpont dossier. Wills dated 1643 and 1645 are among its documentary leads. Reading them could establish the people named, the property and the provisions made. We do not yet infer a precise division of the holding or a biography that the available documents cannot supply. R1

Charlotte Semal is associated in the tree with Double Escot and Jean II Wauthy. Marie Nopère appears as a “censière” at Houtain-le-Mont in 1639 in the compilation cited by the dossier. For each woman, the first task is to recover the full reference, then the leases, contracts or estate papers that might clarify her activity. A shared occupational term does not guarantee identical circumstances. R1

Their names and reported roles allow these women into the narrative without invented scenes. We do not know what conversations accompanied family decisions or how they imagined their futures. We can, however, keep looking for their signatures, property and choices whenever a document makes them visible.

Tree A · Two family lines meet

Solid lines follow the working tree and do not mean that a record was consulted. Early dates retain the dossier’s qualifications. Sources: R1–R3.

Semal de Pécron

  1. Phillipart Semal de Pécron≈ 1470 · Hulencourt · MonstreuxC
  2. Denys Marcel Semal de Pécron1534 · MonstreuxC
  3. Étienne Semal≈ 1535 – < 1597 · Grand PierpontC
  4. André / Adrien Semal≈ 1565/1569 – > 13.03.1645 · Grand PierpontC

Waultier / Wauthy

  1. Bertrand / Bertran Waultier≈ 1470 · WitterzéeC
  2. Henri le Vieil Waultier≈ 1500 · WitterzéeC
  3. Henri le Jeune Waultier≈ 1545 · Liberchies · La HoussièreC
  4. Jean Ier Waultier / Wauthy≈ 1570 · Houtain-le-MontC

Proposed meeting around 1630 · B/C

Charlotte / Charlotte Marie SemalDouble EscotC
Jean II Wauthy / Wautier≈ 1605 – 1660 · Houtain · RèvesC

Charlotte in the working tree; Jeanne-Marie variant in Braive, awaiting records.

↓ Proposed descent · C

Pierre-Philippe Wauthy≈ 1632 – 1715C
Disputed paternity · minute and baptism still to be found
Armand Wauthi≈ 1658 – 1694C

Isabeau Malréchauffé + André / Adrien Semal · Marie Marguerite Nopère + Jean Ier Waultier / Wauthy — Couple reported in the corpus.

Relationships in text

Phillipart Semal de Pécron → Denys Marcel Semal de Pécron → Étienne Semal → André / Adrien Semal → Charlotte Semal ; Bertrand / Bertran Waultier → Henri le Vieil Waultier → Henri le Jeune Waultier → Jean Ier Waultier / Wauthy → Jean II Wauthy. Charlotte + Jean II → Pierre-Philippe. Pierre-Philippe ⇢ Armand : Disputed paternity · minute and baptism still to be found.

5. Houtain and Rèves: keeping names distinct

The proposed meeting of the two lines falls around 1630, with Charlotte Semal and Jean II Wauthy. This couple brings the story towards Houtain and Rèves. But “Houtain” alone is not always sufficient: Houtain-le-Mont and Houtain-le-Val must remain distinct, as must Jean Ier, Jean II and Jean III. An office or holding attributed to one must not automatically be transferred to another. R1 R2

Following Gaston Braive, the master dossier associates Jean II with the Basse-Cour at Houtain-le-Mont, Luthéal at Rèves and Double Escot. It reports his activity at Luthéal from 1642 and his office as mayeur of Rèves between 1652 and 1660. These details come from a secondary source. The leases themselves remain to be found to document the tenures directly. R2

The Semal name also presents a difficulty. Charlotte remains the name used in the working diagram, while the dictionary contains conflicting formulations concerning Jeanne-Marie and Charlotte. We neither silently correct them nor create two certain identities to solve the problem. Records must establish whether this reflects an editorial error, confusion or different people. R2

The photograph of Houtain-le-Val Castle gives the territory a recognisable face. It does not show Double Escot or prove that the Wauthys lived in the castle. Likewise, Luthéal remains a holding name awaiting precise location: a photograph of Rèves would not place its lease on a particular plot. Images support the reading; they do not replace the documents. R1 M3

The entrance to Houtain-le-Val Castle
The entrance to Houtain-le-Val CastleCastle entrance, 17 July 2012. Territorial context; not identified as Double Escot and no family residence inferred.Jean Housen · Source · CC BY-SA 3.0

6. The 1658 link: a question left open

To reach the present family, the tree passes through Pierre-Philippe Wauthy and then Armand Wauthi, born around 1658. At this point the line must become dashed. The paternity attributed to Pierre-Philippe is disputed in a secondary account. The notarial minute and Armand’s baptism have not yet been recovered in the dossier. This biological relationship cannot therefore be presented as established. R2

The surviving summary reports that two women present at the birth allegedly said Marie Jacquet named her brother-in-law as the father. It does not identify that man, establish another certain father or settle biological paternity. Nor does it prove a marriage or an annulment. These remain separate questions, even when a tradition brings them together in a single story. R2

Marie Jacquet’s maternity is retained in the tree and in Johnny’s family confirmation. The baptism is still needed to support that relationship directly with a record. The distinction between the family reference and archival proof must remain visible. It respects the transmitted memory without pretending that an absent document has already been obtained. R2

The qualification concerns a specific connection. It does not erase the early Semals and Wauthys or the interest of their farms. It does prevent them from being described through this route as demonstrated biological ancestors of Armand’s descendants. Both diagrams express that limit in words as well as with a dashed line.

Tree B · From Armand to the Deman family

Solid lines follow the working tree and do not mean that a record was consulted. Early dates retain the dossier’s qualifications. Sources: R1–R3.

Pierre-Philippe Wauthy≈ 1632 – 1715C

Alleged union with Marie Jacquet; marriage unproven.

Disputed paternity · minute and baptism still to be found

Each generation below follows the previous one in the working chain; records still to be referenced.

  1. Armand Wauthi≈ 1658 – 1694C
  2. François Wauthiez1692 – 1779C
  3. François Joseph Wauthy1730 – 1814C
  4. Nicolas Joseph Wauthiez1762 – 1820C
  5. Armand Joseph Wauthy1805 – 1885C
  6. Hubert Joseph Wauthy1844 – 1902C
  7. Amand / Armand Joseph Wauthy1887 – 1955C
  8. Paula Wauthy1919 – 2008C
+
Joseph LebonT

↓

Annie LebonT
Jean-Marie Michel DemanT

↓

Their two parents: Annie Lebon and Jean-Marie Michel Deman.

Carole DemanT
Johnny DemanT
Sandrine DemanT
Relationships in text

Pierre-Philippe ⇢ Armand : Disputed paternity · minute and baptism still to be found. Marie Jacquet → Armand : Maternity retained through family confirmation · baptism not yet read. Armand Wauthi → François Wauthiez → François Joseph Wauthy → Nicolas Joseph Wauthiez → Armand Joseph Wauthy → Hubert Joseph Wauthy → Amand / Armand Joseph Wauthy → Paula Wauthy ; Paula Wauthy + Joseph Lebon → Annie Lebon ; Annie Lebon + Jean-Marie Michel Deman → Carole, Johnny, Sandrine Deman.

7. To Paula, Annie and the Deman family

From Armand, the family dossier follows François Wauthiez, François Joseph Wauthy, Nicolas Joseph Wauthiez, Armand Joseph Wauthy, Hubert Joseph Wauthy and Amand Joseph Wauthy. It reaches Paula Wauthy, born in 1919 and deceased in 2008. Every generation appears in the second diagram. The spellings Wauthi, Wauthiez and Wauthy are preserved without turning a similar surname into proof of kinship. R2

Paula and Joseph Lebon are Annie Lebon’s parents. Annie and Jean-Marie Michel Deman are the parents of Carole, Johnny and Sandrine. The route presented here therefore runs through Annie and Paula. Jean-Marie keeps his place as spouse and father; the diagram does not assign him a Semal ancestry. Joseph’s birth date is unnecessary for this narrative, since conflicting versions remain tracked in the master dossier. R2 R3

The route gives old places a role within a continuing memory. A child may begin with a photograph, an adult with a familiar name, before either works back through the generations. The diagrams do not close the investigation. They show where to return to registers and contracts. The early chain remains a working reconstruction, with records still to be referenced generation by generation.

The next documents have a concrete shape: the January 1597 contract, the wills of 1643 and 1645, the farm leases and then Armand’s baptism and the reported minute of 1658. A Monstreux lease dated 1676, located in an inventory, is later than the earliest Semals and does not prove their tenure. No fabricated facsimile fills the place of these documents. R1 R2

Passing on this history means more than listing names. It means leaving places to look at, people to distinguish and sources that future generations can find again. Hulencourt, Monstreux, Pierpont, Houtain and Rèves become entrances into the story: behind each one, part of the history is readable, while another part still awaits its document.

B: secondary support · C: compilation and tree · T: family confirmation. No early relationship is promoted here to primary evidence A.