The whole Customer Smythe debacle

[SmittyInTheSky]

Folks,

I'm trying to find an uncensored forum where I can share my findings.

Many Smith researchers will find that, on the internet, te Smythe line of Sir Thomas Customer Smythe is linked to the family of Maj. Lawrence Smith of Gloucester Co, VA.

I wish to state that this is a fabricated connection made by a genealogical author back in 1907.

Unfortunately, this associate persists due to over eager and inexperienced genealogists simply repeating a claim that was never verified.

Futher, many trees on the internet show that Maj. Lawrence Smith is associated with the family of Ambrose Joshua Smith. I can prove, definitively, with coats of arms, that Ambrose and Lawrence _were not related at all_.

Ambrose's line belongs to that of SmithsWorldWide.org Group R-M269-8. This line contains a descendant of John Snelson Smith. This Smith line had a family crest that was "a nag's head and bridle". Further, a yDNA analysis via ySearch.org for this line shows that they are of deep South Irish origins. This fits with their crest as it is closely associated with a number of Irish families with names such as O'Shaunessey.

Further, I have a 67/67 yDNA match with the line of James H. Smith who married, secondly, Susannah Chapman. SmithsWorldWide.org Group R-M269-8 claims this line but has been unable to show definitive proof (as it doesn't exist). I have an undisputable paper trail to James H. Smith and Susannah Chapman but I am literally being censored by SmithsWorldWide.org admin Wally Smith. The two people in charge of linking Group 8's yDNA to the tree of James H. Smith and Susannah Chapman are not the most versed researchers of that line and counter my findings with condescension and swearing. They are highly unprofessional in every way.

I might add that because Linda G. (Smith) Cheek is one of th e two people doing the research for that group (8) I am being stifled as she is cited dozens, if not hundreds of times, regarding her Smith research across the internet. She is wrong about Maj. Lawrence Smith's family, about Customer Smythe, and about a bunch of other Smith families, and I can prove it.

I hope this posting gets the press it deserves among the Smith research community. Linda G. Cheek's works are incorrect and a source of confusion for dozens of Smith groups. There are also very poorly vetted websites that are accepted as canon that cite her works. It's all in such a terrible state.

Please feel free to contact me at [email protected] if you wish to review my research. It is all independently verifiable and available, for free, to anyone who wishes to review it.

Thank you,

Chris Smith

[John McCoy]

I sympathize! This sort of thing happens all the time, but I think especially for Smith families, if for no other reason than that they are so frustrating. My own has suffered a similar fate, though so far without the ad hominem diatribes you have encountered. My solution is to publish my own genealogy on the internet (where anybody can find it through Google), with sufficient notes to explain why the bogus parentage of my Reuben Smith can't be true. Not placing blame, just laying out the facts and contrasting them with the ancestries proposed by "other genealogists".

Bogus genealogies are legion. You will live longer, and therefore have time for more research, if you don't try to stamp out all of them. It's a losing battle. However, you will gain friends along the way by making sure the evidence is available for serious genealogists to see. The serious ones do appreciate it and will build on it.

[Hema-Neto]

Something I've noticed about the Smith surname is that it's extremely hard to find the family crest unless you have a lot of details. That's the peril of having such a common surname.

A quick look in any place that has crests for certain surnames shows you that there are so many possibilities!

[John McCoy]

As Smith is a surname based on a fairly humble, but essential occupation, it is very likely that most of them NEVER had a "family crest". Only a small minority of English families are legitimately armigerous.