I'm wondering about the parentage for Howard-1691

+4 votes

Hi Everyone-I am wondering about the Howard-1691 profile.  There are research notes added to the biography that indicate a possible different father (Howard-9402) than the one attached to the profile (Howard-1688). The thing that stands out the most is the very first line that states the currently listed father is incorrect (Howard-1688). Yet the persons who own the profile have conducted research that obviously affirms the decision to have the father that is actually attached to the profile. I was working my way through this line and found this situation intriguing. My question is what is the best practice in this situation? 

WikiTree profile: Francis Howard
asked in Policy and Style by Cheryl Aselin G2G4 (4.2k points)

I have a dna match up to James Obediah Howard and his kids then it stops and there was a lot of others too but when it goes to Francis it stops.

That don’t look right to me I think he is the wrong father.

4 Answers

+10 votes
Best answer
The current father is obviously incorrect and needs to be detached.

The second hypothesis is an unconvincing guess - the evidence is not strong enough to attach any parents.  Leave the research notes on the profile, and Francis Howard with no parents until better evidence is found.
answered by Joe Cochoit G2G6 Pilot (168k points)
selected by Darlene Athey-Hill
The evidence seems to be non-existent - the whole idea is just the sort of thing that used to be concocted for family amusement only.

I suspect he was never called Edward, that's just the relic of another scheme to slot him into a titled family.  His wife's LNAB also seems to be unsourced.
I have removed him as father.
Thank you for the response!
+6 votes
I agree with Joe

As a general comment, I can never understand why there is a belief that disinheriting a child would somehow mean that there are no records anymore attaching that child to the family.

I don't really know myself, but I imagine that formally disinheriting a child, particularly an eldest son, would be a legal process that would create more records not fewer, particularly in this time period.
answered by John Atkinson G2G6 Pilot (331k points)
Good point! Thank you.
+3 votes

Hi Cheryl.

For me it is a case of carefully checking the sources. The profile you listed does not belong.

1) Looking at the father's source material on Wikipedia; it states that Henry had a total of 13 children (9 male, 4 female). But only 1 Edward is listed not an Edward Francis/ Francis. Having said that Daryl Lundy on his The Peerage site only lists 7 children, but bearing in mind his interest is recording the succession of peerage titles and not the full family data (ie core dates of birth etc). 

2) There is a mix up between the Howards whom belong to Effingham peerages and those of whom to the Arundel peerage. If this Francis Howard is the 5th Baron Howard and was a governor of Virginia - his dates are incorrect. It doesn't help the biography is untidy

answered by Richard Shelley G2G6 Pilot (109k points)
I think this Francis is supposed to be the unknown brother of the other Francis.  Obviously there are no sources - if he were in the sources, he wouldn't be unknown.
Excellent point there! These are one of the cases where a note needs to be made about brick genealogy and that all information needs to be carefully sourced.

If it is the case that Francis is the listed unknown, but there are sources which confirm him with concrete core stats (I mean his DOB and DOD here and in addition to the marriage, then work can be made on confirming the parents.

I am concerned also that the spouse is basically unsourced and of the number of profile merges over the last couple of years. But the big thing is the lack of structure of the profile
Let's be realistic.  John Howard was summoned to Parliament in 1470, so becoming Lord Howard.  All the titled Howards are descended from him.

But the surname had been hereditary for centuries already.  So John had 1st cousins, 2nd cousins, 5th and 6th cousins, all called Howard, scattered across the landscape.  They didn't have money and they didn't get titles.

By the 17th century, the cousins had multiplied.  They were yeomen, husbandmen, indentured servants, casual laborers, vagrants.  All called Howard, but not called Mr, let alone Lord.  Some of them emigrated, but not the posh ones, unless they were sent as Governors.

But the research tends to be along the lines of "the Howards were aristos, so let's look at the aristos and squeeze in the immigrant."
I love that you used the word untidy. Great way to describe something. Thank you for your thoughtful response.
+1 vote
Because I research Howard families in Maryland, I've adopted this family.  The Arundel-Howard legend has been well documented.  The Effingham Howard family, which contributed a Virginia governor, left no descendants in Virginia that I can find.  

In the next generation, there are documented Howards in North Carolina, but I haven't found documentation to bring them back a generation.  

I've marked Francis Howard questionable, but there needs to be more research before he can be marked Disproven Existence.  Certainly, until we can establish whether he himself ever actually existed, it is premature to ponder who his parents might have been.
answered by Jack Day G2G6 Pilot (251k points)

Related questions

+2 votes
2 answers
+4 votes
1 answer
+1 vote
1 answer
113 views asked Jun 29, 2013 in Genealogy Help by Linda Plummer G2G6 (9.1k points)
+8 votes
6 answers
+6 votes
0 answers
153 views asked Sep 17, 2015 in Genealogy Help by Unknown Unknown G2G6 Mach 2 (29.4k points)
+10 votes
2 answers
+9 votes
6 answers

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

disclaimer - terms - copyright