Erroneous Research

Who Wrote That Blog Page?

The Carruthers organization identified their research group as several people around the world, with the team lead being Dana Caruthers Norton.  What does she know about the JFC research?  Well, I put it on the Carothers-Carruthers.com website, sent her ancestry charts, and tried to help her with her research.  Ms. Norton is trying to get her own coat of arms and therefore, needs copies of proof of all relationships.  When she last contacted me, quite some time ago, she was trying to find the ancestor of James Carruthers, born 1713, who married Lydia Roberts in 1733 in New Jersey.  I did not have definitive proof who his father or grandfather was.

Uses of Genealogy

• Links to Famous People, Nobility, Family Honors

  There are people who are extremely interested in boosting their self-esteem by proving connections to famous people, important people, historical people, etc.  To get recognition from the Lord Lyon in Scotland, definitive proof must be provided, e.g., marrige certificates, wills, baptismal records, tax records, and more.  This is difficult to do, especially prior to the 1850's, for quite a few reasons, e.g., loss of records - church, tax, land - government changes, spelling changes of names and the beginnings of a more mobile society with people relocating large distances away.  Much time and money is spent searching for needed documentation.

• Interest in Ancestors

  On the other hand, there are many people who just want to know more about who their ancestors were, where they came from, what affected their lives throughout history, who their neighbors were, what Aunt whomever remembers about these people, etc.  Is a marriage certificate needed to know who an aunt was?  Is a will needed to know a great-grandfather had 5 children, or is a statement from your grandmother proof for you?

  I am not belittling genealogists.  Obviously, the best way to know that your grandmother was correct about the 5 children of your great-grandfather, is to have the proving documents.  But, should your grandmothers recapping of history be ignored, especially lacking any other information about your ancestors?  I say "no".

Now, How Does This Relate to the Defamatory Blog?

Specific Statements From the Blog and Our Considered Responses

1.

• "Strongly suggests again that John Franklin Carothers' genealogy and research was totally corrupted"
• WOW!!!   What a blanket statement!!!  And, for a group of people who want definitive proof, how can they logically make a statement of "suggests"?  No one researching genealogy would follow a path that "suggests" x is the father of y.  Suggestions and probability do not belong in genealogy.
  
  And, "totally corrupted"?  How ridiculous!!  Where is that attitude coming from??  Years of research and file cabinets of documentation and it's "totally corrupted"???  This inflammatory wording leads me to believe that at least one of the authors of this blog post has an agenda to do a "hatchet job"  on Carothers researchers.  I am surprised that this Carruthers organization let this low-road hatchet job be published on their blog. 
  
  Additionally, this statement was predicated on several specific items. So let's now look at those specific items.

2.

• "the forgeries and frauds committed by Gustave Anjou (1863 - 1942)"
• Anjou is well known now in the professional genealogy world as the king of fake genealogies.  It has been documented that Josiah V. Thompson paid Anjou for genealogy research.  And, as stated on the About Us page of this website, John Franklin Carothers received "some" information on the Carothers family from Josiah V. Thompson, whose mother was Elizabeth Carruthers, born 1821.
  
  My question is, rather than saying "John Franklin Carothers' genealogy and research was totally corrupted", wouldn't it be more appropriate to determine which part was wrong?  Otherwise, we would be "throwing out the baby with the bath water", to use an old expression.  Which is not smart and a waste of much fine research.  Logically, that just makes sense to me.

3.

• "We contacted and consulted with the American Society of Genealogists with our findings and received this response.   Many statements in the Compendium of American Genealogy - First Families of America indeed have been proven unsubstantiated and false."
• What has this to do with the research of John Franklin Carothers???  The Compendium was published originally in 1925, with seven volumes in all going until 1942.  Only in Volume V, published in 1933 in the biography of professional genealogist Elizabeth Carothers, born 1871, is there any mention that goes earlier than Robert Carruthers, d. 1694.  Note that this Elizabeth Carothers was also a genealogist and librarian for the Daughters of the American Revolution.  Was Anjou's reputation as a fraud known in 1933?  Was any of Anjou's material used in Elizabeth Carothers' research?  Addionally, neither John Franklin Carothers nor his research is in the Compendium!!!
  
  Yes, there is a lot of wrong information on the internet.  Two recent comments on WikiTree are "Loads of people  have put out questionable info.  WikiTree has circulated far more questionable info to far more people than Anjou ever did."  and, "Some 55% of published lines are tainted".

4.

• "the frauds of Gustave Anjou ... found at the Family History Library in Salt Lake City, Utah ... Caruthers family catalog number 929.273 C2372a".
• As noted elsewhere on this website, while not 100% definitively correct, it is "directionally" correct, leading researchers to look in a specific direction, to note that the two most frequent spellings of the family name relate to where the family first settled in the America.  While the Carruthers spelling is pre-dominant in Scotland, the Carothers spelling generally denotes families originally settling in the northern states, e.g., Pennsylvania, New Jersery, New York, etc.  The Caruthers spelling generally denotes families who originally settled in the southern states, e.g., Virginia, the Carolinas, etc.  There are exceptions, of course, and as families moved west, things did change.
  
  The point here is, John Franklin Carothers did not research the Caruthers branch of the family.  The Caruthers research in the Family History Library, includes the research of John Franklin Carothers, but has appended to it research by Samuel McKnight Carothers and others.  It was submitted by Ralph E. Carothers and was a gift to the Dallas Public Library by Manville Carothers.  
  
  All this research fleshes out the Carothers/Caruthers settling in America.  With copies of much of this correspondence in the Carothers-Carruthers.com library, it is our considered opinion that any Anjou contribution was limited to connections to overseas migration, most likely before Robert Carruthers, born 1690, buried in Silvers Spring cemetery in Pennsylvania.  Does this mean that the ancestry of Robert Carruthers, born 1690, is fake?  No, it just means that we do not have the proof, so it is suspect.  The research in the United States of family bibles, wills, letters of administration, deeds, state archives, war records, orphans court records, marriage records, etc., should not be suspect and should not be slandered by unknowledgeable authors of defamatory blog posts.
  
  

5.

• "there was no John Carruthers, 1st of Rammerscales".
• Of course there wasn't.  Most Carruthers are aware of the Record of the Carruthers Family and, in it, the history of Rammerscales.  Fewer are familiar with the 12 pages of additions and changes issued in 1958.  And, as explained on the page of terminology helpful to researchers, the word "of" before property expresses ownership of the property.
  
  However, it doesn't always imply ownership.  When one sees "James of Aberdeen" or "John of Carlisle", people realize that the "of" there means "resides" there.  The blog post words of "blatant error", "obviously untrue", and "completely duped" are out of line.  It is obviously untrue.  So, why think this is an intentional "connecting the dots" to a Carruthers heriditary line?  Only if one is blindly pursuing defaming someone, would they jump to that conclusion.
  
  One would think this group would be familiar with how wills were written in the period being questioned.  The will below for a different Joannis Carruthers states "I, John Carruthers, now residing at the house of Mr. Robert Carruthers ...".  Easy to see how some genealogist shortened that to John Carruthers of ...  Not John Franklin Carothers, though.  The National Archives Public Record Office did not have documents available to online researchers in the 1930's.
  

6.

• "Butterquhat Connection".
• John Franklin Carothers did not connect to Butterquhat.  That connection is attributed to A. Stanley Carruthers in the book "Records of the Carruthers Family".  He made that connection with the word "probably" which, as presented before, should not be in genealogy research.  Is this blog group "picking and choosing" when they accept "probably" and when they need definitive documentation?  And the Addenda to "Records of the Carruthers Family", issued in 1958, contain several "possiblies", more "probablies", and some "almost certainlies".  Should we throw out and ignore this herculean, seminal work?  I think not.
  
  
  

7.

• "cannot find a single source document".
• Well, how do we handle this?  A well known logical principle is "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".  In other words, just because we, collectively in 2019, cannot find evidence does not mean that this isn't true.  Someone in the last 300 years thought it was true, unless that someone was the previously mentioned fraud, Gustave Anjou.
  
  I know if you are trying to get your own coat of arms, the lack of source documents is a problem for you.  But, if you are trying to find when, who, where, why your ancestors came to America, The Robert Carruthers and Sarah Sproul line should be suspect, but also may provide worthwhile information for you.  Let's call that "suspect", not "totally corrupted" as the blog post blared.  If someone can show that this Sarah Sproul relationship came from Gustave Anjou, I will gladly modify the "suspect" wording.
  
  While not a source document, Sarah Sproul and Robert Carruthers are accepted by others.  See the Moffat genealogy as one example. 
  
  
  

8.

• "no records of John Henderson of Bandrum... no such place in Annandale".
• The very next sentence in the blog post admits that there is a place in Fife known as Bandrum.  Bandrum is not that far from Edinburgh.  Is it inconceivable that a Carruthers from Annandale could marry someone from Fife?
  
  
  

9.

• "evidence shows that this John remains a fraudulent person created by Gustave Anjou".
• There has been absolutely no evidence presented here as to what Anjou created.  If I have missed it, please email copies of it to me.  That is the crux of the matter - "What did Anjou create versus what came from other sources?".  You cannot logically assume that not finding a source document translates directly to Anjou fraud.  That is a "leap of faith" that you cannot logically follow.  Please present that proof.
  
  

10.  In Conclusion

• Based on this blog post's information on Gustave Anjou, we now consider that any ancestry on this website between Robert Carruthers, died 1735 and John Carruthers, born 1485 to be "suspect" due to Anjou's assumed fraud.  And, at this time, no link of this line is proven to Holmains, Rammerscales, Butterquhat, or any other ancient Carruthers estate.  Changes will be made to this site, as time is available.
• Anjou's contribution to Josiah V. Thompson's research, and therefore John Franklin Carothers' research, was limited to research of events outside of America.  Therefore, research of events in the states is not tainted and not "totally corrupted" as the blog defamation states.
  
• I think I have made it absolutely clear in my responses, that extreme, hurtful language and illogical conclusions in order to make a derogatory point in multiple places in this blog post, were totally uncalled for.  There are many ways that the message could have been restructured to avoid inflammatory communication.  Why would 9 people on the committee have gone along with this?  Didn't the whole group edit and approve this message before it was posted? 
• And why was no opportunity to respond to the post provided before it was sent to the world?
• And, lastly, the Carruthers family just got a new chief, recognized by the Lord Lyon.  Now, at what should be a great time of coming together for the Carruthers world, is this type of mean-language behavior going to be the norm from the assistants of the new chief?  I certainly hope not.  Because I think an apology is due to anyone using the John Franklin Carothers research, for not knowing in the 1930's, the 1950's and even now, about the fraud of Anjou.  Changes will be made.  But, I am asking the family leadership to please go about their activities in a respectful way.  This defamatory blog post deliverd the message about Anjou, but it failed in many ways to be effective, appropriate communication.