I think you can prove something is just plain wrong. Medicine for example, always uses to test to ruleout disease.The point is genealogy is a relatively reliable scientific and historic resource to unravel human puzzles. The puzzle can trancend being only about a specific person and more about using scientific and historic skills to make sense out of a bigger picture. Thus why wikitree is superior to other genealogical programs.
In this case, I'm new to genealogy and planned to put in our family over the summer and get on with life. But genetic testing changed everything. Results from Elizabeth's (my daughter) autosomal tests came back, and it was truly remarkable. Unfortunately David is not Elizabeth's father, but Robert is his biological son. We did his Y-chromosome test through National Geographic 10 years ago. I don't know a lot about this, but I understand that some combination of his dna could connect him with the answer to his father's familial mystery.
History is useful, but not definitive. I have personally seen when facts don't fill in all the holes. Wolfgang Pauli, for example, was a physicist that saw the plausibility of the nutrino when all his professors said it wasn't realistic. Pauli ended up with a nobel prize.
Some new invention overturns all sorts of conclusions as apparently science has proven out. If we wanted to be connected to royal, trust me, we'd pick somebody less foolish than Frederick. There's reasons he wasn't popular as Helmut has made clear.
I know Augusta isn't in any of the Frederick's genealogy. She says she was disowned. I know churches have burned down destroying important genealogical material, so to me its entirely possible to erase someone's birth records. She had a passport, but I'm not so sure 19th century passports were as reliable for establishing a nationality.
So now I know we need to test Robert's dna raw data for mitchondria or the female chromosomes and that'll be a good beginning to build historic information?