The "John McCain and Robert the Bruce" controversy of 2008 
by Mark Humphrys
In January 2005, The Guardian
printed an article of genealogical nonsense about
Republican US President 
    George W. Bush's     descent from Strongbow.
They enjoyed associating Bush with the invader and villain Strongbow.
They declined  to print my letter of corrections.
In March 2008,   The Guardian  were back again,
with another article of genealogical nonsense about the new Republican candidate
for the US Presidency, John McCain.
They attack claims by the McCain family to be connected to Robert the Bruce.
They declined  to print my letter of corrections.
In both articles they attempt to make the Republican look bad.
Dare I suspect that they write   this stuff because  
they don't like   Republicans?
 
 

Grave of  
 Robert the Bruce.
My points in reply
-  First, the claim by the McCain  family  is not  
that John McCain descends from Robert the Bruce!
The claim is that his grand-uncle Bill McCain
married a woman,
 Mary Louise Earle,
 who   descends from
  Robert the Bruce 
and  also from
 Charlemagne.
(The latter claim is in fact  redundant, since Robert the Bruce himself
  descends from Charlemagne.)
 So even if this claim is true, it means nothing to John McCain!
These are  not his ancestors!
 -  I don't know about
 Mary Louise Earle's ancestry,
 but
the article ignores the fact that
John McCain  himself descends from 
Edward I, King of England
and hence from
Malcolm III, King of Scotland.
See
Ancestry of Sen. John McCain 
by William Addams Reitwiesner. 
 
In fact, the most recent Scottish monarch
John McCain descends from is
 William I, King of Scotland.
He also obviously descends (many times) from Charlemagne.
 -  They ask
   Katie Stevenson,
  lecturer in medieval studies at the University of St Andrews, to comment.
She  may know the period,
but that doesn't mean she understands the remarkable 
chains of descent
 discovered by   genealogists over the last 200 years.
-  She says:
 "Mary Louise Earle's claims to descent from Robert the Bruce are likely to be fantasy.
 Earle is not a Scottish name.
 I think it is incredibly unlikely that name would be related to Robert the Bruce."
But of course the descent could be through a female line.
 Millions of ordinary people with non-Scottish names provably descend from Robert the Bruce
(for example, my own children).
 -  In any case, would you not ask for details  of the claimed descent before
confidently rubbishing it?
Here is the
claimed descent of Mary Louise Earle from Robert the Bruce
(also here)
by professional genealogist
Will Johnson
(also here).
As I expected, the descent
 goes through many female lines - Earle, Robinson, Monteith, Drummond, Bruce, Montgomerie,
Kennedy and finally back to Stewart.
 -  In fact, we can see that even the claim that Mary Louise Earle 
descends from Robert the Bruce is the wrong way to state it!
The claim is that Mary Louise Earle descends from
Robert III, King of Scotland,
who descends from Robert the Bruce.
 - 
Stevenson says:
"Charlemagne and Robert the Bruce were not connected - that's ludicrous."
No,
it is her statement that is ludicrous.
  Robert the Bruce 
descends (through many different lines) from
 Charlemagne. 
If she thinks otherwise, please show me where these descents
(laid out on my site) are wrong.
 -  The article further quotes her:
"Claims of Scottish medieval ancestry, she said, are virtually impossible to prove unless traced through rare documentation. 'There are no records of that nature. Any historian will tell you that it's virtually impossible to prove ancestry through the middle ages.' "
But in fact, any genealogist for the last 200 years will tell you
there are millions of proven, step-by-step descents of 
ordinary modern people
from medieval   Scottish
(and other western) nobility and royalty.
She is basically arguing here that all the works of the last 200 years of the genealogy of 
British nobility and royalty is false.
I think I would like to see some evidence  of errors
before dismissing the entire works of, say,
    The Scots Peerage
and
    The Complete Peerage.
 - 
She could start by showing me where my wife's multiple descents from
  Robert the Bruce 
go wrong.
To see these descents, follow the lines marked:
 
on my site.
Seriously, I would love to know where the error is.
 
 -  The article says:
"Of all the claims in support of John McCain's bid for the White House, perhaps none is quite as grand as this"
(that his grand-aunt by marriage has Royal ancestry).
Well there is a much grander claim - that McCain himself  has Royal ancestry.
And this   is true.
 -  Finally,  
  
 many other US Presidential candidates have Royal ancestry:
  -  John McCain descends from 
Edward I.
  
 -  Barack Obama  descends from 
Edward III.
 
  
 -  George W. Bush  descends from 
Edward III.
  
 -  Dick Cheney  descends from 
Edward I.
 - John Kerry  descends from 
Edward III.
 - Howard Dean  descends from 
Edward III.
 - Mike Huckabee  descends from 
Henry I.
  
 -  Mitt Romney  descends from 
Edward I.
  
 -  Bill Richardson  descends from 
Edward I.
  
 
 
 
 Other people's criticisms 
The article provoked an explosion of ill-informed comment
on blogs and in the media,
much of it politically-motivated
(people hostile to McCain
who were enjoying the chance to sneer at him).
Most people  
who report   the Guardian's claims are simply credulous.
Only the   genealogists 
realise what is wrong with the article.
- 
Justin Webb of the BBC reports this credulously.
 -  Genealogist 
Randy Seaver 
finds
Mary Louise Earle's descent online
and notes:
"Whether that line of descent from Robert the Bruce to Mary Earle is correct or not, it is at least available for researchers to verify or dispute. The so-called "experts" could have opined on something concrete."
 - Dick Eastman's blog
has a mix of informed and uninformed comments.
  -  Dr. Bruce Durie of the
University of Strathclyde appears in the comments
and says:
"Half of Europe (literally) is descended from Charlemagne. Again unremarkable. But in very few families is there any actual documentary proof."
 - 
This is simply incorrect.
Millions of people
 have such proof.
If he thinks otherwise, could he suggest, for example,
where my wife's hundreds of descents from Charlemagne
go wrong?
 
 -  The professional genealogists on
  soc.genealogy.medieval
sort it out.
-  Thread:
Descent from Robert the Bruce.
-  The prominent genealogist
  Leo van de Pas 
notes:
"Robert The Bruce descends from Charlemagne in at least 27 different ways." 
 -  Genealogist 
 Tony Hoskins:
"Katie Stevenson is I think unaware of certain genealogical realities, 
among them: 
1) Medieval lineages to living persons can be proven conclusively. 
2) They are not uncommon. 
She is not to be faulted for not knowing this, though greater caution 
in avoiding offhand, authoritatively-voiced and categorical statements 
is (I have found myself!) helpful."
 
 -  Thread:
"Guardian" muddle?
- 
    Tony Hoskins writes   to Katie Stevenson:
"There are so many errors of fact, but more staggeringly errors of 
logic, in this article that my negative prognostications for 
journalism's future are reinforced."
 -  Stevenson replies, but doesn't   understand why she is wrong.
 -   
Leo van de Pas reports that he cannot find a descent of John McCain from Robert the Bruce
(note again that one was never claimed).
The most recent Scots monarch he can find is
William I, King of Scotland.
 
 -  Thread:
John McCain.
-  Leo van de Pas gives a larger list of McCain's medieval Royal ancestors.
 
 -  Thread:
McCain
 
 
 - Early life and military career of John McCain
 
 
 My letter to The Guardian  
I sent the following letter to 
The Guardian  on 27 Mar 2008:
| 
Dear Sir
 
Your article of March 21
cast doubt on the story of 
John McCain's family connection to   Robert the Bruce.
In fact (contrary to the "experts" you quoted),
 provable descents of modern people from medieval Royalty are common.
Thousands of such descents  have been published, and
since 1995 I have been collecting them
at my    "Royal Descents of famous people" website.
This shows, for example, how people as diverse as
David Hume, 
Bertrand Russell, 
Marie Antoinette,
Valery Giscard d'Estaing, 
  Anthony Eden,
Lewis Carroll, 
 John Kerry,
 Howard Dean, 
Ralph Fiennes, 
Johnny Dumfries
and
 David Cameron
all   descend from Robert the Bruce.
 
As for McCain's   family, the article needs the following corrections:
 
  -  The claimed descent is for McCain's grand-aunt  Mary Louise Earle, not for him.
No claim was ever  made that McCain  descends from Robert the Bruce.
 -    Mary Louise Earle
  has a documented descent   from
Robert III, King of Scotland.
Your experts never showed us what is wrong with this.
 -  Robert III, King of Scotland, descends from Robert the Bruce.
 -  Robert the Bruce descends (many times) from Charlemagne
(contrary to your expert who claimed they have no relationship).
 -    
 McCain himself   has a documented descent   from
Edward I, King of England (and hence from
Malcolm III, King of Scotland).
Your experts never showed us what is wrong with this.
 -  The most recent Scottish monarch McCain   descends from is 
   William I, King of Scotland. 
  
Finally, the reader may be surprised to hear that
Barack Obama also descends from Edward I,
as do
George W. Bush,
Mitt Romney   
and
Bill Richardson.
  John Kerry and 
Howard Dean descend from Edward III. 
Mike Huckabee descends from Henry I. 
And Dick Cheney descends from Ethelred II the Unready. 
 Professional genealogists have been discovering these kind of descents for years,
but it seems that word of how normal  this is
has not yet reached the world outside genealogy.
All    this is   documented   at my site   (humphrysfamilytree.com).
 
Yours
 
Dr. Mark Humphrys 
  | 
I should have added that McCain also descends from Charlemagne.
 
Also I have since found that Cheney has a descent from
Edward I,
and Bush and Obama have  descents from
Edward III. 
They did not publish this letter.
Shame  on the Guardian.
They published an
article of genealogical   nonsense,
written by people who are not expert on the topic.
An expert  
in the topic writes to them to correct the article,
and they do not publish it.
The genealogical   nonsense stands uncorrected.
 
 
 
Return to  	Royal Descents of famous people.