Changing MJ Everinghams parents.

Question

There is  baptism of a Mathew James  Everingham  in Govt. Documents,UK., London, England Baptisms,Marriages and Burials,15381812-178666165 , aphotcopy of baptismal register for Bloomsbury,Middlesex, UK available on Ancestry.com. It's about the time Matthew would have been born given his age when convicted and there has never been any real documentation proving that Matthew's parents belong to the peerage. Considering that  he was tried and convicted in London, not Yorkshire, I think this is a very real possibility to be his baptism. My question is can we change the Parents for Everingham-93 to the parents listed in the record.

Answer 1

There is no proof that this document is his either. I would add your theory and the source to the debate and ask any project members or profile managers what they think about the change before making it.

Answer 2

As Sandi answered, there really needs to be collaborating evidence to attach a different set of parents. However, as the parents, as presented, have no sources attached, and there are arguments about the validity of either set mentioned in the Biography, and considering the parents attached have no ancestors listed, I think it best that the existing parents shown be unlinked. Both should be dealt with as possibilities in the Biography section. The case for each should be outlined in the hope of others being able to add sources that can strengthen either case.

I will message the profile manager of the parents currently attached proposing the removal of those parents and ask for their feedback.

Perhaps, Jeanne, you can outline your case in the Biography section of Matthew's Profile?

Comments

I agree with both of you Sandi and Paul and more evidence should be found before MJ's parents are set in stone.I think unlinking the current parents would be the best option until we have more supporting records either way. Its just a little misleading for researchers in it's current state. Thank you both for your input.I will add my thoughts as you suggested ,Paul , to the Biography section.

---

I'm not sure there is an "either way".  All the indications scream that William and Alice are entirely fictitious.

---

Yes ,I have long felt that Earl whats-his-name  and Lady Alice are the fictitious imaginings arising from the "Everingham  Millions" debacle.

However there is only one baptismal record that may or may not be our MJ. and apart from being recorded around the time we suspect he was born we have no direct links between him and this record.Having said that there are few things that are in favour of this actually being his Birth/Baptism record, and in my mind is the most likely .

1.No Grandson or son(depending on the story) of an Earl would have been allowed to be prosecuted in this way and sent across the seas.(Oh! the scandal)

2. M.J. was tried in London for a crime in London, if he was born in Yarmouth, or Yorkshire , or Isle of White, and as Grandson or son of an Earl, what was he doing in London earning his living aged 14?

3.And if this was the case (being the Grandson or son of an Earl) why was he so impoverished as to have to steal to make ends meet?Could he not just have gone to his family?

4.The Baptismal record and the birth date matches the date we have estimated from the time of his conviction.

There are probably a few other considerations that I haven't thought of yet. This is only my opinion and have to respect that others have a different point of view.I think it would be hard to let go of a long held if unproven family belief.

 

 

 

 

 

---

I agree with Jeanne Pepper 100%.
No evidence of any sort has yet been shown that Matthew James Everingham descended from an Earl whoever and his Lady Alice in Yorkshire, Hampshire or Mars... but for some reason, an actual baptism in London in the correct time frame... isn't considered proof enough???
I ask, how many Matthew James EVERINGHAMS baptisms were registered in that time frame?
How many children were registered to Earl & Lady Everingham??
If, they actually existed... then why aren't there any records available for their marriage and the baptisms of their children, after all, they were, apparently of the landed gentry?
It is about time, this error was corrected, so that future researchers aren't  led down the garden path.
Where is the proof that his parents were Earl & Lady EVERINGHAM?.. yet to see anything to support that hogwash...but you are happy to accept that, without any sources to support it... but there are baptisms records to say that Matthew James EVERINGHAM was the son of Joseph & Mary EVERINGHAM, born in the right time frame.... but that is not good enough??
I have to question the credibility of this website.
If, you aren't happy to add Joseph and Mary as his parents, at least remove Earl & Lady Alice has his parents.

---

Your own words Paul Bech..  "there really needs to be collaborating evidence to attach a different set of parents."
Well, I have to ask, "Where is the collaborating evidence for the current attached parents?"

---

Earl & Lady Alice were removed as parents in January. Attaching of any other parents can be done by anyone who has supporting evidence. I have no interest in this line and have done no research as to the parents so I disqualify myself from any conclusions.

Collaboration is all about respectful discussion and providing evidence, in fact, it is part of the WikiTree honor code.

The Biography section is the place to document all the possibilities. Currently there does not appear to be any reference to the Baptism referred to by Jeanne (Jeanne would you like to add this?).

Barbara, your opinions will certainly be respected. If you have evidence or opinions to add please do so. The best place to do this would be as a member of the Australia Project where you can work with others for the best outcome; one determined by the evidence available and arrived at through the process of collaboration.

---

We seem to have crossed each other in responses. After the initial discussion in January the parents were removed. For more detail please see my other response. I leave much of the changes to those with an interest in this line. I only contribute general comments as part of the Australia Project and I try to facilitate discussion for the best outcomes.

---

I have added the reference to MJs profile along with the dates of both birth and baptism.The link is huge but I can include it  if needed.It is an Ancestry link and would exclude non-ancestry members from viewing it,and as I have a copy of the register page (which I bought from the Old Parochial Records website) I was wondering if  it would break copyright  to add it to the profile? Any advice?

---

If you have any doubts about publishing any documents then simply transcribe the information. Facts cant be copyrighted.

Add a description of the type of document and where it was obtained. Not everything is viewable as a link! The importance is in providing some way of people being able to check the source of the information. For our purposes free sites are definitely preferred (knowledge should be free), but if the only source that is available is a paid one, it should still be mentioned in a manner that someone else can then find.

---

Thanks Paul, have transcribed the info and where it came from, so hopefully it can be found by those who need to.Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a free source for this document.

---

Everingham family is very large.  I think they should be asked before any changes in Mathew's parentage.