How does Wikitree deal with disputed information?

Question

There is no reliable evidence that Matilda Whitbread was born in England. It is highly likely that she was not Isaac Whitbread's daughter, as she was raised to believe. However there are some family members who are keen to sanitise their family history.

The original manifest for the "Charles Kerr" did not include anyone in steerage, including the Whitbreads. A copy may be viewed in the State Library of South Australia. The passenger list quoted as a reference here refers to a compilation by the late Diane Cummings from other sources. It listed the Whitbread children as Elizabeth, William Charles and Matilda. There is no primary record indicating that William had a second given name. There is a marriage record for Charles Whitbread in St Stephen's Church of England Marriage Register at Willunga, South Australia on 1 Feb 1856. His sister Sarah Ann was also married on that day. She was born on the voyage to Australia in May 1840, as per her baptism record on 10 Feb 1842 in Holy Trinity Church, Adelaide.

The Application for Assisted Passage to South Australia, dated 18 Feb 1840, is for a 31yo male, 33yo female, male children aged 6y and 2y, and a female child aged 11y. The baptism register for Tidcombe, Wiltshire indicates that Isaac and Emma/Amy Whitebread's son Charles was baptised on 9 Feb 1834 and William on 6 Aug 1837. Thus is can be concluded that William and Charles are different people.

Matilda was baptised in Holy Trinity Church, Adelaide on 7 Aug 1845, the same day as her mother remarried John Wilson. The baptism register has the notation "posthumous child" and a date of birth 2 Apr 1845. Her parents were stated as David Whitbread (no other record has been found of a person of that name) and Emma Whitbread. Her marriage took place on 11 Jul 1866, and the certificate indicates that her birthplace was Adelaide, South Australia and she was aged 22 years. Her death occurred on 27 Oct 1924. The death certificate states her age as 80y, birthplace Adelaide.

The owner of the record is aware of these facts and has chosen to ignore them.

Answer 1

Hi Leandra!  Welcome to WikiTree.com.  I guess that you have discussed this with the profile manager (we have no "owners" here).  When I have a question about the source for a bit of information, I usually post my question on the public bulletin board section of the profile.  The profile Manager will receive and email with the posting and hopefully provide additional documentation.

You can add a disputed origins or disputed parents section to the == Biography == (example:  https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Smith-40488) but be sure to add any supporting information for either side. 

For each conflict, it is really a matter of who has the strongest sources.  If Matilda herself believed that Isaac Whitbread was her father, I wonder if David was actually David Isaac Whitbread.  Just a possibility.  I would say that it sounds like her birthplace was Adelaide.

Anyway, try to collaborate with the profile manager and be prepared to give a little.  If the conflict continues, please  consult the problems with members section:  https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Problems_with_Members 

Comments

Hi Kitty. Thank you for providing an example. That is exactly what I would like to see on this profile; a statement that the father's identity is in doubt, with all of the known primary sources listed.

There is no record indicating that Isaac's first name was David. Isaac died on 18 June 1840, one day after the ship's arrival in South Australia. I'm aware of the source of the information quoted on the record, as the profile manager and I have communicated on multiple occasions.

---

Hi Leandra, I will add your suggested note of doubt. I don't have a primary source to add.

---

Yes, I think KItty has come up with the right answer here.

---

Thanks, Steve!

---

As a "disinterested party" I've reviewed the sources on offer, added more to the Sources list and organised the information to clarify the disputed parent issue.

---

I am currently compiling a discussion of the evidence, with references of an acceptable standard.

---

Good idea, Leandra. Maybe you could put it on a Free Space Page with a link from Matilda's Profile?

Answer 2

I love a mystery and I was lying awake early this morning pondering this one.

I think we've established that Isaac Whitbread was not Matilda's father, but can we be certain that Emma/Amy Whitbread was her mother, despite her being listed as such in the church register? Emma's daughter Eliza Mills would have been 16 years old when Matilda was born; could she have been the mother?

Matilda's birth date was given as only four months prior to the August date of her baptism and Emma's marriage to John Wilson. If Emma was the mother, the most liklely father would be John Wilson, so why was the baby not christened Wilson? On the very day of the marriage? If the baby wasn't Wilson's, and the story about Emma being recently widowed, and the baby being her dead husband's was intended to deceive Wilson,  that would involve all of Emma's four children lying to their stepfather indefinitely. So what was it's purpose?

I think the story of Matilda's parentage is more likely to "legitemise" Matilda.If she's legitemised, a number of problems disappear: John Wilson has not taken on some other man's illegitemate child: if Eliza is the mother, her reputation is now untarnished and she's free to work or marry.(There was a dire need for women for servants and wives at the time)

Of course, this is speculation, but it was not uncommon for people to lie when registering births, marriages and deaths, and it's worth keeping this possibility in mind. I've come across many such cases when researching people in the early years of the South Australian Colony.

So when the DNA results come out, I'm putting my money on neither Isaac Whitbread nor John Wilson being the father. Can't wait to find out! And if Eliza Mills is the mother, that will be a bonus.

Comments

Oh you're good, Anne! I assumed John Wilson wasn't Matilda's father. I also assumed Emma rarely went to church. Otherwise Sarah would have been baptised as a neonate and everyone would know that Emma had been widowed for 5 years before Matilda appeared. But I never thought about Matilda being Elizabeth's child. Elizabeth, and probably Charles too, would have been old enough to remember and, once they learned about the birds and the bees, would have realised the truth. Yet it appears Matilda was deceived her whole life. So Elizabeth at least was complicit in that. Elizabeth married on 11th January 1844, and gave birth on 31 Aug 1845, so she's not Matilda's mother, but it still begs the question, why did everyone go along with this story, and for what purpose? Was John Wilson deceived too?

---

I'm wondering if Matilda really thought her father was Isaac, or she simply went along with the deception? It's convenient to name someone as your father who has the same surname as yourself, even if you know it wasn't him.