Having witnessed first-hand journalistic slipups, misunderstandings, I rather think this must have occurred with reference to the Guardian article in which you and Dr Durie are quoted.
are mystified by it all. One example of many astonishing statements in this article:
"Mary Louise Earle's claims to descent from Robert the Bruce are likely to be fantasy. Earle is not a Scottish name."
Therefore (for instance) because my name is Hoskins (English) I couldn't descend from the Komnenos family of Byzantium (which I do)? An astonishing failure of logic here. A pronouncement such as this one attributed to you in the article I can only suspect was misquoted or drastically taken out of context.
There are so many errors of fact, but more staggeringly errors of logic, in this article that my negative prognostications for journalism's future or reinforced. I am confident you must be as chagrined by this article as are the many other medieval scholars and genealogists who have read it with dismay.
Best wishes,
Anthony Hoskins History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian Sonoma County Archivist Sonoma County History and Genealogy Library 3rd and E Streets Santa Rosa, California 95404
> Having witnessed first-hand journalistic slipups, misunderstandings, I > rather think this must have occurred with reference to the Guardian > article in which you and Dr Durie are quoted.
> are mystified by it all. One example of many astonishing statements in > this article:
> "Mary Louise Earle's claims to descent from Robert the Bruce are likely > to be fantasy. Earle is not a Scottish name."
> Therefore (for instance) because my name is Hoskins (English) I > couldn't descend from the Komnenos family of Byzantium (which I do)? An > astonishing failure of logic here. A pronouncement such as this one > attributed to you in the article I can only suspect was misquoted or > drastically taken out of context.
> There are so many errors of fact, but more staggeringly errors of > logic, in this article that my negative prognostications for > journalism's future or reinforced. I am confident you must be as > chagrined by this article as are the many other medieval scholars and > genealogists who have read it with dismay.
> Best wishes,
> Anthony Hoskins > History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian > Sonoma County Archivist > Sonoma County History and Genealogy Library > 3rd and E Streets > Santa Rosa, California 95404
> 707/545-0831, ext. 562
way to go tony!!!!!! i wonder if she will reply???!!!
Many thanks for your email. I agree with you entirely that the name Earle does not need be Scottish to be connected to a line of another name. I think that is fairly evident to all intelligent people.
However, I stand by the basic premise that it is extremely unlikely that John McCain is descended from Charlemagne and Robert the Bruce. Perhaps you may enjoy reading his book on the subject, which would outrage you more than a short article conveying in a few words the sentiments of several lengthy conversations with all professionals consulted.
Kind regards Katie Stevenson ---
Dear Katie (if I may),
Thanks so much for your e-mail. I knew the Guardian must have neglected to make some salient points! I now gather you were referring to statements made in particular book, which you found unlikely, insupportable. I will try to find this book myself, and think it likely I will be in agreement with you.
Still, though, if I might comment - to say as you did in your e-mail to me,
"I stand by the basic premise that it is extremely unlikely that John McCain is descended from Charlemagne and Robert the Bruce."
seems to me unnecessarily categorical. If instead one might say, "*Through the lineage presented in this book* it is extremely unlikely that John McCain is descended from Charlemagne and Robert the Bruce", I think one would be on safer ground. It is just far too common for people to actually be able to prove descents from Robert the Bruce and Charlemagne - I have many such descents, and am not at all unusual in this regard. Most genealogists working on their lines with some success often find these lines - sometimes many of them. In my work I am increasingly amazed how widespread such lines are.
Again, many thanks for your response.
Best wishes,
Tony Hoskins
Anthony Hoskins History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian Sonoma County Archivist Sonoma County History and Genealogy Library 3rd and E Streets Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Hoskins" <hosk...@sonoma.lib.ca.us> To: <adrianbenjaminbu...@gmail.com>; <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 9:21 AM Subject: Re: "Guardian" muddle?
> "i wonder if she will reply???!!!"
> She did. Here it is, and my response:
> Dear Mr Hoskins,
> Many thanks for your email. I agree with you entirely that the name > Earle does not need be Scottish to be connected to a line of another > name. I think that is fairly evident to all intelligent people.
> However, I stand by the basic premise that it is extremely unlikely > that John McCain is descended from Charlemagne and Robert the Bruce. > Perhaps you may enjoy reading his book on the subject, which would > outrage you more than a short article conveying in a few words the > sentiments of several lengthy conversations with all professionals > consulted.
> Kind regards > Katie Stevenson > ---
> Dear Katie (if I may),
> Thanks so much for your e-mail. I knew the Guardian must have neglected > to make some salient points! I now gather you were referring to > statements made in particular book, which you found unlikely, > insupportable. I will try to find this book myself, and think it likely > I will be in agreement with you.
> Still, though, if I might comment - to say as you did in your e-mail to > me,
> "I stand by the basic premise that it is extremely unlikely that John > McCain is descended from Charlemagne and Robert the Bruce."
> seems to me unnecessarily categorical. If instead one might say, > "*Through the lineage presented in this book* it is extremely unlikely > that John McCain is descended from Charlemagne and Robert the Bruce", I > think one would be on safer ground. It is just far too common for people > to actually be able to prove descents from Robert the Bruce and > Charlemagne - I have many such descents, and am not at all unusual in > this regard. Most genealogists working on their lines with some success > often find these lines - sometimes many of them. In my work I am > increasingly amazed how widespread such lines are.
> Again, many thanks for your response.
> Best wishes,
> Tony Hoskins
> Anthony Hoskins > History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian > Sonoma County Archivist > Sonoma County History and Genealogy Library > 3rd and E Streets > Santa Rosa, California 95404
> 707/545-0831, ext. 562
> ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
> ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message
> -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.8/1339 - Release Date: 3/22/2008 > 4:43 PM
----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Hoskins" <hosk...@sonoma.lib.ca.us> To: <adrianbenjaminbu...@gmail.com>; <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 9:21 AM Subject: Re: "Guardian" muddle?
> "i wonder if she will reply???!!!"
> She did. Here it is, and my response:
> Dear Mr Hoskins,
> Many thanks for your email. I agree with you entirely that the name > Earle does not need be Scottish to be connected to a line of another > name. I think that is fairly evident to all intelligent people.
> However, I stand by the basic premise that it is extremely unlikely > that John McCain is descended from Charlemagne and Robert the Bruce. > Perhaps you may enjoy reading his book on the subject, which would > outrage you more than a short article conveying in a few words the > sentiments of several lengthy conversations with all professionals > consulted.
> Kind regards > Katie Stevenson > ---
> Dear Katie (if I may),
> Thanks so much for your e-mail. I knew the Guardian must have neglected > to make some salient points! I now gather you were referring to > statements made in particular book, which you found unlikely, > insupportable. I will try to find this book myself, and think it likely > I will be in agreement with you.
> Still, though, if I might comment - to say as you did in your e-mail to > me,
> "I stand by the basic premise that it is extremely unlikely that John > McCain is descended from Charlemagne and Robert the Bruce."
> seems to me unnecessarily categorical. If instead one might say, > "*Through the lineage presented in this book* it is extremely unlikely > that John McCain is descended from Charlemagne and Robert the Bruce", I > think one would be on safer ground. It is just far too common for people > to actually be able to prove descents from Robert the Bruce and > Charlemagne - I have many such descents, and am not at all unusual in > this regard. Most genealogists working on their lines with some success > often find these lines - sometimes many of them. In my work I am > increasingly amazed how widespread such lines are.
> Again, many thanks for your response.
> Best wishes,
> Tony Hoskins
> Anthony Hoskins > History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian > Sonoma County Archivist > Sonoma County History and Genealogy Library > 3rd and E Streets > Santa Rosa, California 95404
> 707/545-0831, ext. 562
> ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
> ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message
> -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.8/1339 - Release Date: 3/22/2008 > 4:43 PM
On Mar 22, 4:07 pm, "Tony Hoskins" <hosk...@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote:
> We apparently need to know "the book" Katie apparently referred to, > which the Guardian failed to mention/cite.
From the original Guardian article:
"The firm said the claim was sourced from the US presidential candidate's official website. But the ancestral link appears to originate from a 1999 family memoir, Faith of My Fathers. In it the senator said his great-grandparents "gave life to two renowned fighters, my great-uncle Wild Bill and my grandfather Sid McCain."
Wild Bill, he wrote, "joined the McCain name to an even more distinguished warrior family. His wife, Mary Louise Earle, was descended from royalty. She claimed as ancestors Scottish kings back to Robert the Bruce." The passage goes on to say that Mary Louise Earle was also "in direct descent" from Emperor Charlemagne."
> Many thanks for your email. I agree with you entirely that the name > Earle does not need be Scottish to be connected to a line of another > name. I think that is fairly evident to all intelligent people.
> However, I stand by the basic premise that it is extremely unlikely > that John McCain is descended from Charlemagne and Robert the Bruce. > Perhaps you may enjoy reading his book on the subject, which would > outrage you more than a short article conveying in a few words the > sentiments of several lengthy conversations with all professionals > consulted.
> Kind regards > Katie Stevenson > ---
> Dear Katie (if I may),
> Thanks so much for your e-mail. I knew the Guardian must have neglected > to make some salient points! I now gather you were referring to > statements made in particular book, which you found unlikely, > insupportable. I will try to find this book myself, and think it likely > I will be in agreement with you.
> Still, though, if I might comment - to say as you did in your e-mail to > me,
> "I stand by the basic premise that it is extremely unlikely that John > McCain is descended from Charlemagne and Robert the Bruce."
> seems to me unnecessarily categorical. If instead one might say, > "*Through the lineage presented in this book* it is extremely unlikely > that John McCain is descended from Charlemagne and Robert the Bruce", I > think one would be on safer ground. It is just far too common for people > to actually be able to prove descents from Robert the Bruce and > Charlemagne - I have many such descents, and am not at all unusual in > this regard. Most genealogists working on their lines with some success > often find these lines - sometimes many of them. In my work I am > increasingly amazed how widespread such lines are.
> Again, many thanks for your response.
> Best wishes,
> Tony Hoskins
> Anthony Hoskins > History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian > Sonoma County Archivist > Sonoma County History and Genealogy Library > 3rd and E Streets > Santa Rosa, California 95404
> 707/545-0831, ext. 562
> ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Tony - it seems the good doctor still doesn't "get it" - that most people, especially of UK descent are in fact descended from charlemagne...proving it is another matter of course...!!!
On Mar 24, 10:15 am, AdrianBnjmBurke <adrianbenjaminbu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 22, 6:21 pm, "Tony Hoskins" <hosk...@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote: > > Katie Stevenson wrote: > > "I stand by the basic premise that it is extremely unlikely that John > > McCain is descended from Charlemagne and Robert the Bruce."
Good Lord, what does the lazy lady mean by "basic premise"?
a premise is not a premise unless it is factual and how can she have a clue about the facts when she has not show any knowledge of genealogy nor any knowledge of the genealogy of the fact Robert the Bruce is direct descent from Charlemagne
I've been away and missed the interesting episode of McCain's claimed connection to Robert the Bruce, and what the _Guardian_ made of it.
Katie Stevenson's misunderstanding of the genealogical terrain may be pinpointed by juxtaposing two sentences. In the article she was quoted as saying:
"Mary Louise Earle's claims to descent from Robert the Bruce are likely to be fantasy."
Later she wrote to you:
"I stand by the basic premise that it is extremely unlikely that John McCain is descended from Charlemagne and Robert the Bruce."
The problem lies in a naive assumption of link between the two statements (leaving aside the fact that McCain does not descend from this Mary Louise Earle). We all know that any given claim of a specific descent from a medieval figure *is* more likely than not to be a fantasy. But on the other hand the probability that a given person of British - American descent has some descent (traced or not) from Charlemagne or Robert the Bruce is very high--far better than 'extremely unlikely'. Even the likelihood of documenting such a descent is actually quite good whatever the modern social class one is searching in--it's dependent on accidents of geography more than class or even apparent recent national origin (English versus Scottish-sounding surnames, etc.). So just because Mary Louise Earle's specific claims might be suspect (especially if they came from the mid 20th-century era of American royal-descent claims--the era of Wurts), does not mean we should reject the likelihood that she (or John McCain himself) might have such a descent.
The persistence of bad genealogy in print prevents academics like Ms. Stevenson from realizing the current ubiquity of critically demonstrable descents of exactly this type. Bad genealogy will always remain in print; trends in 'good' genealogy (particularly the trends in the public eye) need to be better recognized by academic historians, especially people like Katie Stevenson who cross over into heraldry and aristocratic prosopography.
Can anyone supply data on this great-aunt Mary Louise Earle, her family and her claims to royal descent?
According to her tombstone, shown on a page on her husband at a website of Arlington National Cemetery burials --
This shows concretely that she was belonged firmly to the Wurts universe of American royal descent believers in the 1930s - 40s. Her lineage can probably be found in a Wurts or a Browning volume.
> > As I pointed out elsewhere, the early Earlys are rather dubious.
> Thanks. Yes, these Earles are the stuff of legend for sure. And her > real ancestry is moot save as an example.
I should add: If that's what she was shown no wonder Stevenson was so dismissive of this particular claim. But the weakness of this particular claim is irrelevant to her other statement, that any type of royal descent for such a figure (i.e. a modern middle-class Anglo-American) is 'extremely unlikely'.
I think you will benefit from reading all those related discussions (perhaps a hundred messages, or so). They are under a variety of rubrics, and as at least four different message clusterings, threads or whatever it is which glues them together in the archives.
Rubrics used IIRC (within the last week): ancestry, or something.. of McCain; ...descents of/ from Robert the Bruce Erleigh
I'm not sure the guardian article accurately represents the claim that McCain was putting forward. It could just be that someone *took* his claim and ran with it, creating another claim for the early Earle's.
It would be nice to see a direct quote from someone in McCain's extended family who could clarify where *they* think their Charlemagne-descent claim lies.
And even at that, within the family it would be easy to see how a claim cited by a genealogist could get confused by other non-genealogists to some other claim.
Well, now, of the seven or so royal lineages I've supposedly got, one of them turned out to be for real. A Protestant clergyman hid in an aristocrat's house and married her daughter.
There were actual aristocrats who came to New England and became part of its new aristocracy. Most aren't my ancestors.
Yours, Dora Smith Austin, TX tiggernu...@yahoo.com
Quote -
I should add: If that's what she was shown no wonder Stevenson was so dismissive of this particular claim. But the weakness of this particular claim is irrelevant to her other statement, that any type of royal descent for such a figure (i.e. a modern middle-class Anglo-American) is 'extremely unlikely'.
I've been completely ignoring this argument for the past week, but, now, I've just got to ask. Not I want the DETAILED answer - the way only this list can provide it. :)
Is McCain really descended from Robert the Bruce, or is he making that up?
I do know that he comes from a family of naval admirals or something, and he seems quite as pugnacious as Robert the Bruce. Maybe he's a descendant by adoption? It would be too much of Robert the Bruce's descendant by 30 generations happened to look somewhat like him!
Yours, Dora Smith Austin, TX tiggernu...@yahoo.com
----- Original Message ----- From: "M.Sjostrom" <q...@yahoo.com> To: <GEN-MEDIE...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 11:41 PM Subject: "Guardian" muddle? > Rubrics used IIRC (within the last week): > ancestry, or something.. of McCain; > ...descents of/ from Robert the Bruce > Erleigh
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1347 - Release Date: 3/27/2008 7:15 PM
No one here has said that Senator McCain has claimed to be descended from Robert The Bruce -- except YOU.
Why don't you READ the thread first -- instead of just charging in like the very silly, air-headed woman you are -- without getting your facts straight?
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas ---------------------------------------
"Dora Smith" <villan...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> I've been completely ignoring this argument for the past week, but, now, > I've just got to ask. Not I want the DETAILED answer - the way only this > list can provide it. :)
> Is McCain really descended from Robert the Bruce, or is he making that up?
> I do know that he comes from a family of naval admirals or something, and > he seems quite as pugnacious as Robert the Bruce. Maybe he's a > descendant by adoption? It would be too much of Robert the Bruce's > descendant by 30 generations happened to look somewhat like him!
> Yours, > Dora Smith > Austin, TX > tiggernu...@yahoo.com
> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "M.Sjostrom" <q...@yahoo.com> > To: <GEN-MEDIE...@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 11:41 PM > Subject: "Guardian" muddle? >> Rubrics used IIRC (within the last week): >> ancestry, or something.. of McCain; >> ...descents of/ from Robert the Bruce >> Erleigh
In article <fsj9mv$fq...@news.acm.uiuc.edu>, u...@domain.invalid wrote: > t...@clearwire.net wrote: > > On Mar 27, 8:12 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:
> >> Can anyone supply data on this great-aunt Mary Louise Earle, her family > >> and her claims to royal descent?
> > The Charlemagne link was on a page linked to the original Guardian > > article:
> BUT ... John McCain is not shown as a descendant of this Early!
> Doug McDonald
Of course. But the 'expert' rejection of the descent was based on fallacies other than this particular (and of course fatal) point. It is the academic historian's lack of perspective on demographic realities of medieval descents that was at issue here, not McCain's ancestry.
> BUT ... John McCain is not shown as a descendant of this Early!
Yes, I know. That is why I said it must have been a slow news day - an entire article discussing whether a presidential candidate's aunt might descend from Robert Bruce?
> > BUT ... John McCain is not shown as a descendant of this Early!
> > Doug McDonald
> Of course. But the 'expert' rejection of the descent was based on > fallacies other than this particular (and of course fatal) point. It is > the academic historian's lack of perspective on demographic realities of > medieval descents that was at issue here, not McCain's ancestry.
I am responding so everyone reads this last again. Whether or not John McCain has such a descent is, at best, peripheral to the focus of this group (and whether a late-20th century US President was son of his father is even less relevant). What was relevant about the article is that these credentialed historians and genealogists were dismissing medieval genealogy due to prejudices that are outdated or based on a lumping of scholarly genealogy in with ancestor collecting (which deserves such skepticism in spades). The point of my original post was not McCain (the article could have been about anyone), it was about how we, as medieval genealogists, continued to be viewed by our peers across the isle on the historical side.
"What was relevant about the articles that these credentialed historians and genealogists were dismissing medieval genealogy due to prejudices that are outdated or based on a lumping of scholarly genealogy in with ancestor collecting."
Quite right. And, the point has been well made to us (the choir has heard the sermon). Would that the historian(s) in question would hear it too.
However, some of the material discussed - demographic, social, etc. - is at least tangentially interesting to medieval genealogists. Not central necessarily, but interesting.
"BUT ... John McCain is not shown as a descendant of this Early!"
Exactly. The Guardian got a couple of doctors to shoot down the Bruce ancestry "claim", and none of them bothered to mention this very point. They just galloped around, shooting down the "lineage" and surnames and whatnot, using imo fallacious reasons; seemingly taking in earnest that they have to make a case of shooting down the lineage, whatever it is, and whomever it belongs to.
at a stage, I started to think that no doubt, they will try shoot down all claims of Elizabeth II of any descent from Robert the Bruce. (You know, Windsor is not a Scots surname, and so forth... and Charlemagne descent must be impossible to prove through Middle Ages and anyway, Bruce and Charlemagne cannot be connected...)
___________________________________________________________________________ _________ OMG, Sweet deal for Yahoo! users/friends:Get A Month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. W00t http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text2.com
"BUT ... John McCain is not shown as a descendant of this Early!"
Exactly. The Guardian got a couple of doctors to shoot down the Bruce ancestry "claim", and none of them bothered to mention this very point. They just galloped around, shooting down the "lineage" and surnames and whatnot, using imo fallacious reasons; seemingly taking in earnest that they have to make a case of shooting down the lineage, whatever it is, and whomever it belongs to.
at a stage, I started to think that no doubt, they will try shoot down all claims of Elizabeth II of any descent from Robert the Bruce. (You know, Windsor is not a Scots surname, and so forth... and Charlemagne descent must be impossible to prove through Middle Ages and anyway, Bruce and Charlemagne cannot be not connected...)
___________________________________________________________________________ _________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
> No one here has said that Senator McCain has claimed to be descended from > Robert The Bruce -- except YOU.
> Why don't you READ the thread first -- instead of just charging in like > the very silly, air-headed woman you are -- without getting your facts > straight?
> DSH
> Lux et Veritas et Libertas > ---------------------------------------
>> I've been completely ignoring this argument for the past week, but, now, >> I've just got to ask. Not I want the DETAILED answer - the way only >> this list can provide it. :)
>> Is McCain really descended from Robert the Bruce, or is he making that >> up?
>> I do know that he comes from a family of naval admirals or something, and >> he seems quite as pugnacious as Robert the Bruce. Maybe he's a >> descendant by adoption? It would be too much of Robert the Bruce's >> descendant by 30 generations happened to look somewhat like him!
>> Yours, >> Dora Smith >> Austin, TX >> tiggernu...@yahoo.com
>> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "M.Sjostrom" <q...@yahoo.com> >> To: <GEN-MEDIE...@rootsweb.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 11:41 PM >> Subject: "Guardian" muddle? >>> Rubrics used IIRC (within the last week): >>> ancestry, or something.. of McCain; >>> ...descents of/ from Robert the Bruce >>> Erleigh
> ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message
