Documentary file — municipal civil-status records

Civil-status registers held by Rochemaure Town Hall

Comparison of the municipal and departmental copies, court decisions, and questions that remain open.

The central fact: the site holds 20 photographs of civil-status records or pages from Rochemaure’s municipal registers. Comparison with the copies now available from the Departmental Archives reveals discrepancies involving names, dates, given names, occupations, places of residence, and parentage.

These 20 documents do not form a homogeneous set: the corpus inventory distinguishes 16 false or divergent copies, 2 matching copies, and 2 incomplete or inconsistent cases.

The judgment of 2 June 2021 refers to a letter sent to the public prosecutor in Privas on 24 May 2018, in which the mayor of Rochemaure reported “21 forged records and 3 altered records.” These figures must not be confused with the 20 photographs currently held by the site.

Contents

1. Two copies to compare [Contents]

The civil-status records concerned were drawn up in duplicate: one copy remained at the Town Hall, while the other was deposited with the court registry before being transferred to the Departmental Archives. This arrangement now makes it possible to compare the documents photographed in the municipal registers with the copies held in the departmental collections.

Municipal corpus

20 photographs held

The documents photographed in Rochemaure cover births, marriages, and deaths between 1795 and 1898.

Reference source

The Departmental Archives

The digitized registers make it possible to verify the dates, identities, and content of the corresponding records.

Limitation

Author and date of the alterations

The comparison establishes the documentary discrepancies, but does not, by itself, identify who made each alteration or when it was made.

The method used: separately present what appears in the departmental copy and what appears in the document photographed at the Town Hall, without automatically attributing each alteration to a particular person.

2. Three representative comparisons [Contents]

The following three examples illustrate the nature and extent of the discrepancies. The complete summary presents all the records studied.

Municipal document dating the birth of Jean André Cheynet to 31 December 1816
Divergent municipal copyBirth of Jean André Cheynet. The departmental copy gives the date as 22 July 1814 and describes his father as a farmer; the municipal document gives the date as 31 December 1816 and adds given names, a nobiliary particle, the occupation of lawyer, and a signature. View the departmental copy.
Municipal document recording the marriage of Jean André Cheynet on 9 January 1838
Divergent municipal copyMarriage of 9 January 1838. The departmental copy records Jean Cheynet, aged 23, a farmer; the municipal document gives him additional given names, a nobiliary particle, a different age and occupation, as well as other discrepancies concerning parentage and witnesses. View the departmental copy.
Municipal document recording the death of Antoine Cheynet on 1 March 1836
Divergent municipal copyDeath of Antoine Cheynet. The departmental copy describes him as a landowner in Rochemaure; the municipal document adds, among other details, a nobiliary particle, the status of former lawyer at the Parliament of Toulouse, and different parentage and a different witness. View the departmental copy.

Scope of the comparison. These examples show that the discrepancies extend beyond the addition of “de Beaupré.” They also concern the chronology, given names, social status, places, parents, and witnesses.

3. The 1985 name change and the 2021 judgment [Contents]

A change from the surname Cheynet to Cheynet de Beaupré was granted by the public prosecutor on 5 November 1985. The civil-status records submitted in support of this application therefore had a concrete administrative effect.

The court notes that this change was “clearly granted with the help of falsified civil-status records.”

Paris Judicial Court, judgment of 2 June 2021

This judicial decision establishes that falsified records were used to obtain the 1985 change. It does not, however, remove the need to examine each municipal record separately in order to describe its discrepancies precisely.

4. The mayor’s report in 2018 [Contents]

The judgment of 2 June 2021 refers to a letter sent on 24 May 2018 by Olivier Faure, mayor of Rochemaure, to the public prosecutor in Privas. The letter reports the presence of “21 forged records and 3 altered records” in the municipal registers.

A note of caution about the figures: the two categories may overlap. The letter does not state that they correspond to 24 separate records.

Documented

The report of 24 May 2018

The 2021 judgment confirms that the matter was referred to the public prosecutor’s office and records the figures used in the municipal letter.

Document not found

The bailiff’s report

A bailiff’s report dated 29 March 2018 is mentioned by the site and by the press, but the original is not part of the corpus currently available.

Unverified

A separate complaint

No copy has been found of a complaint separate from the report sent to the public prosecutor. It is therefore not possible to specify its date, reference, or outcome.

Precise wording: the judicial document supports referring to a report to the public prosecutor. In the absence of the corresponding document, this page does not present the existence of a separate complaint against persons unknown as established.

5. The separate case of the 1907 register [Contents]

An earlier file documents a separate instance of damage to Rochemaure’s registers. It must be distinguished from the 2018 report and from the records compared in the preceding sections.

Town Hall compiled a list of 22 death records drawn up in 1907. An annotation beside the first states that it is “the only one remaining in our possession”: 21 of the 22 municipal records listed were therefore missing.

The public prosecutor in Privas replied under reference 26/91-E02. He noted that records nos. 10 and 11 were also missing from the copy deposited with the court registry and wrote that the records in this register “appear to have been torn.”

List compiled by Rochemaure Town Hall on 4 February 1991 of missing death records from 1907
Municipal document4 February 1991. The list records 22 deaths in 1907 and states that only one record remains in the municipality’s possession.
Letter from the public prosecutor in Privas dated 12 March 1991
Judicial document12 March 1991. Records nos. 10 and 11 are missing from the court registry, and the records in the register appear to have been torn.

Two different situations: at the Town Hall, 21 of the 22 records listed were reported missing; in the court registry’s copy, records nos. 10 and 11 were found to be missing.

6. Questions that remain open [Contents]

  • What is the precise physical condition of the municipal registers concerned today?
  • Which documents correspond exactly to the “21 forged records” and “3 altered records” mentioned in the municipal letter?
  • Have the municipal copies been officially corrected or annotated since 2018?
  • What administrative or judicial action followed the report sent to the public prosecutor’s office in Privas?
  • Can the reported bailiff’s report and any separate complaint be consulted?
  • Have the 1907 death records missing from the Town Hall or the court registry been found or reconstructed from other archival collections?

7. Sources [Contents]

  1. Corpus of 20 photographs of civil-status records and pages from the registers held by Rochemaure Town Hall.
  2. Ardèche Departmental Archives, digitized civil-status registers for Rochemaure, including the records dated 22 July 1814, 9 January 1838, and 1 March 1836.
  3. Paris Judicial Court, 17th Chamber, judgment of 2 June 2021.
  4. Mayor of Rochemaure, report sent to the public prosecutor in Privas, 24 May 2018, cited in the judgment of 2 June 2021.
  5. Rochemaure Town Hall, “État civil 1907 (décès) — actes manquants,” 4 February 1991.
  6. Public prosecutor’s office at the Privas Tribunal de grande instance, letter no. 26/91-E02, 12 March 1991.
  7. Revue française de généalogie, “Affaire des falsifications de l’état civil de Rochemaure (suite),” 27 November 2021.