The modern consensus is that the Claimant was Orton, who had used family information obtained from gullible or self-serving supporters. However, in his 1957 account of the case, Douglas Woodruff insists that at least some degree of doubt as to the Claimant's true identity must remain. Woodruff argues the sheer improbability of anyone conceiving such an imposture from scratch and at such a distance: "t was carrying effrontery beyond the bounds of sanity if Arthur Orton embarked with a wife and retinue and crossed the world, knowing that they would all be destitute if he did not succeed in convincing a woman he had never met and knew nothing about first-hand, that he was her son". Orton's cause continued to be upheld during the 20th century by his eldest daughter, one of four children borne him by his wife, who lived until 1926.