Found several questionable Edwards profiles - does anyone have sources?

+7 votes
299 views

Hi! I recently found a line on Wikitree that might not be accurate. They used to be connected to my ancestor Matthew Leach (Leach-8255) but the connection was chronologically impossible. 

There are many red flags in these profiles, including:

  • locations that don’t seem to exist ("IIdoori (Bangor), North Wales", "Kildermond(Carlow) Ireland") or are mashups of two places ("Carlo Kilkenny, Ireland")
  • a connection to nobility through a second marriage of Jane Seymour (Seymour-124) that isn’t documented anywhere and conflicts with her recorded marriage (I removed this)
  • a knight (Sir Francis Edwards, Edwards-10004) who doesn’t seem to be mentioned in any actual record
  • middle names in 1600s Wales and 1700s Ireland
  • exact birth and death dates in 1600s Wales and 1700s Ireland
  • no sources at all, besides Gedcoms, Familysearch (which also doesn’t have sources for most people), and unsourced forum posts (example: https://www.genealogy.com/forum/surnames/topics/edwards/6524/ ) I haven’t found any records that would support any of the relationships, or even anything showing that these people existed.

I’m worried that this may be another iteration of the Edwards Heirs hoax (https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/973133/edwards-heirs-hoax-estate-fraud-and-spurious-pedigrees). There is a lot of misinformation about the (disproved) "Edwards Fortune" on the Find a Grave pages for this family (https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/210097199/thomas-m-edwards).


The profiles in question: Matthew J. Leach (Leach-5169), Elizabeth Edwards (Edwards-23008), Thomas M. Edwards (Edwards-5066), Anne Shirley (Shirley-665), Sir Francis Edwards (Edwards-10004), and their immediate relatives. 

Does anyone have any reliable sources that prove that these people existed? If not, is it OK if I add the uncertain existence sticker, and is there anything else that should be done?

WikiTree profile: Thomas Edwards
in Genealogy Help by Harry Crerar G2G Crew (940 points)

1 Answer

+4 votes
Hi Harry,

I am also from an Edwards line that is different that yours. What has really helped, and probably the only real way to get the truth, is to get a legitimate male descendant to do YDNA, like Big Y 700 from Family Tree DNA . You need a roboast YDNA test from somewhere. Why? You have already  stated it? It is hard to trust the written materials about Edwards lines, especially from 1680-1780. Family Bible records, church and even cathedral records may be corrupted. I’ve had that in my line. I am positive back to 1752.  The the next generation is iffy at best. I know through YDNA through my mothers last surviving brother who submitted DNA, that there is a surname problem 50-100 years before 1752. My Edwards ancestor born 1752 has common ancestor at 950 according to my Uncles YDNA results with others which is before surnames.

I know you look at all those who took DNA attached to the ones you are looking at, those folks took autosomal DNA test. I am NOT a DNA expert, I am not sure if you are, however I do know autosomal is good for 3 generations, then the accuracy begins to decay. Most companies suggest that you go back 5 to 6 generations. I have found that to be a slippery slope. That is the DNA test results they posted going back that far are not very accurate.

With my line and allied lines , people are pretty much just letting things stay at the moment because the hoax plays such a big part. That’s why I am doing the scientific approach to move the needle.

Your line does not seem to intersect with mine.

My suggestion is that doing due diligence through traditional research methods is a wast due to the hoax. Do a roboast YDNA test using a Edwards male descendant with Family Tree DNA or another company. It may set you back $300-600 dollars. However, you will get a real, scientific direction.

Good Luck,

Jeff
by Jeff Blume G2G1 (1.1k points)
Thanks Jeff! It's frustrating how so many families have this kind of inaccurate information. I've thought about Big-Y, and it would definitely be very helpful for this family in general.

Things are a bit more confusing for my branch of the family. My ancestor seems to have fallen for an early version of the Edwards scam in 1895 so there may have been Edwards in the family at some point. But the version of the genealogy found on Familysearch (Catherine Leach b. 1794 -> Matthew Leech b. 1773 -> Elizabeth Edwards b. 1758) doesn't work, since Matthew Leech (Leach-8255) was born around 1765. So without a specific male Edwards ancestor, the Y-DNA is less helpful.

My immediate family and I match several descendants of Matthew (b. 1765) with atDNA but I haven't found anyone related to other Leach/Edwards families, although as you said, they would be at the very limits of atDNA.

Harry
Hi Harry,

Great to hear from you.

Any YDNA test will only work father to son, that’s the design. Unless I misunderstood ( then I apologize for stating this) using YDNA will only work IF you have an Edwards you strongly believe is connected to your Edwards ancestor, father to son.

For example, I am not a male
Edwards. My YDNA would not do anything to help me figure out the my Edwards brick wall.

I know that Morgan Edwards, 1752, is as far as I go for sure without making possible guesses, so I needed a male I know goes back to Morgan, father to son. I do have cousins that would have worked, but my Uncle is a generation closer to Morgan, so I thought that wise.

So I knew without a doubt that my Uncle’s line is:

Morgan>Daniel>Nicholas Stone>Bolivar Eugene>Clarence Earl> my uncle.

No doubt.

So if you don’t know an Edwards that you know is Truly an a paternal ancestor, no doubt, to your Edwards, YDNA to answer the Edwards question is a waste. The Big Y 700 is great and they do run sales. But only will help a male’s paternal line.

In regards to atDNA, as science gets better, maybe that can get this better as well. But I would not put a lot of faith in doing relying on if even if you added in GedMatch( and there are those who are going be up set with me stating this, but here is an example).

As you see, my Uncle’s Grandfather ( my Great Grandfather) was Bolivar Eugene. He married Mary Etta Barron. Through classical research 20 years ago, I found her back to Waterford, Ireland. It continues on to French nobility a thousand years earlier before they came to I Ireland. I was able to verify as far back as 5 generations with atDNA with Ancestry.

When I transferred the atDNA to the Barron Group in Family DNA, the administrators, very kind and helpful  ( one a classical researcher and one a DNA expert) told me I had the wrong Barron Clan. I thought I was Clan 8 and I am Clan 2. Clan 2 were Ulster-Scots taken from their land in the 1600s and in this Clans case, moved to County Down. Exactly where from Scotland is still unknown. However, they had over 500 pages of DNA testing and history to back it up. I had atDNA and they had YDNA. My info was no match against theirs and that is fine because I want the truth.

I am connected to nobility, saints, knights, etc… legitimately verified through DNA. I just want the truth because the truth might be more interesting that what you currently see in a line.

So, YDNA would help if you had a legitimate male Edwards in your line. Again, I apologize if you already knew this. Otherwise, there are pitfalls using atDNA. It’s helpful if not going to far back, like 3 generations, Even with Gedmatch, you’re getting into algorithms how good. Is the information from research of others.

You could do YDNA for Crerar

It’s fun but can be very frustrating, especially if dealing Edwards 1690-1780

Cheers, Jeff

Related questions

+5 votes
1 answer
176 views asked Oct 26, 2020 in Genealogy Help by Hart Wallace G2G6 Mach 3 (33.5k points)
+6 votes
2 answers
445 views asked Sep 11, 2020 in The Tree House by Hart Wallace G2G6 Mach 3 (33.5k points)
+4 votes
3 answers
+4 votes
2 answers

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...