Sir Richard Armiger Travers - Possible source?

Unless I'm mistaken, I believe you are looking for John Travers

who definitely was not a "Rev.", so should not be confused with Reverend John Travers (their dates don't match either).

The latter was the rector of Farringdon in Devon, and there is nothing to show he was ever in Ireland. But that's neither here nor there because again, the dates don't match up.

https://photos.geni.com/p13/13/1e/ae/cc/5344485e5ed70969/pedigree_w...

https://archive.org/details/pedigreewithbiog00trav/page/6/mode/1up?...

However, currently my 9th g-grandfather's first wife (mother of my half-uncle) is erroneously showing up as the 1st cousin Sir Richard Armiger Travers through a faulty and inconsistent line created by improper merges ignoring the source provided.

This merge is problematic because the maiden name of Walter Travers' wife is unknown, as is her ancestry. It also now oddly portrays her with both a husband and a father with the exact same surname. Her husband is proven; the father shown here is not.

https://www.geni.com/merge/view?revision_id=81825008130

(Just a heads up, since the Travers surname was so common in England in those times and the different branches might be easily confused. And to be clear, I don't believe my family's Travers connections are in any proven way related to the ones listed in your source pedigree.)

I meant to point out that the merge of my ancestor's mother which created the false connections with this apparently unrelated branch of Travers -- also introduced unproven half-siblings for her mother who was merged: Anne (Unknown aka "Butler") Travers, in addition to the faulty ancestry. Her husband (Walter) and all of her children are correct.

It should have raised immediate doubt regardless, for the introduced maiden name of Butler to mismatch her alleged father's Travers surname. The merge is riddled with errors.

Furthermore, I find serious issues with the 'fact' that William Arminger Travers, Sr. fathered children who inherited their mother's maiden name (Preston). In historical genealogy that almost never happens with children of a married couple, unless there is a compelling reason for it.

I guess that is enough to work on for the time being. It's easy enough to find and point out obvious problems, but much more difficult and time-consuming to know how to fix them. I am only confident enough about the Travers branch with whom I am most familiar, and which I have already invested a great deal of time and effort.

(I started to create a separate discussion about the questionable merge, but being very tired I accidentally lost my rather lengthy data form. So I guess it is just as well, since the faulty connection(s) created by the merge make it relevant to both branches though they be unrelated -- and, it may be more efficient to address all of it at the same time.)