I have consulted my copy of "Madame de Bonneuil" by Olivier Blanc and he says they stayed at Saint-Leu- Taverny. Bouvet de Lozier was with them. Seemingly. Regnaud de Saint-Jean-d'Angely holidayed close by and this puts him in the frame as the informant as much as Madame de Bonneuil who was a Bouvet family friend. Blanc gives Henri Gaubert, "Conspirateurs au temps de Napoleon 1er", Flammarion, 1962 as a good reference.
I have just read "Napoleon and his parents" by Carrington because it was recommended in a post on this forum about a month ago. It is absolutely beyond me how anyone could like this book. It is the most irritating book on Napoleonic history I have ever read. You would love it. She spends the whole book proving everybody wrong.
Just as an example, Lucien says something about his father when Lucien was nine. She "proves" it could not have happened because his father was elsewhere at the time and Lucien is a proven liar anyway. The poor guy is only quoting family stories. He would not know whether it was true or not. What's the big deal? All the book tells us, having destroyed all the available evidence we have, is that Letizia whom we all know as an old vixen was a young vixen, too. Surprise. Surprise. I hate this book. She even goes to the length of giving more weight to modern references than contemporary ones.
I can give you an example why this is wrong headed. In another thread, you have placed a post about Macdonald at Hanau. Macdonald says a shell burst and Napoleon retreated into the woods and they could not get him to come out thereafter. I think if you look at your post you say Macdonald says what he only implies regards Napoleon's courage under fire.. There could have been a number of reasons why Napoleon did not want to move. He seems to have been very depressed, understandably so, and he may have needed the time to get his thoughts together. Going back to the original is always best in my opinion.