"Guardian" muddle?
Tony Hoskins
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.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/21/johnmccain.uselections2008
Many of us in the medieval genealogy discussion group
Gen-Medieval/soc.genealogy.medieval
http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~medieval/
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
AdrianBnjmBurke
way to go tony!!!!!! i wonder if she will reply???!!!
Tony Hoskins
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
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Leo van de Pas
Robert The Bruce still eludes me.
The Scottish kings I have found so far
William 'the Lion' 1143-1214
David 'the Saint' 1080-1153
Malcolm II Canmore 1031-1091
and many more earlier ones.
Can anyone find Robert The Bruce for John McCain?
With best wishes,
Leo van de Pas
> --
> 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
>
>
Tony Hoskins
which the Guardian failed to mention/cite.
Tony
>>> "Leo van de Pas" <leov...@netspeed.com.au> 03/22/08 04:04PM >>>
t...@clearwire.net
> 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."
taf
AdrianBnjmBurke
> 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...!!!
letiTi...@gmail.com
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
persiflage, persiflage, persiflage
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval
Nathaniel Taylor
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 --
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/wmccain.htm
-- she was born in Earleton, Florida in 1878 and died at Doylestown, PA
in 1942. [However passport applications show her birthdate as 25 May
1879.]
She also shows up in a list of deceased members of the "National Society
Magna Charta Dames" here:
http://www.magnacharta.org/Decd99/decddkm.htm
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.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://www.nltaylor.net/sketchbook/
t...@clearwire.net
> 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:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/graphic/0,,2267081,00.html
As I pointed out elsewhere, the early Earlys are rather dubious.
taf
Nathaniel Taylor
<5f012b26-1a22-44cb...@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
t...@clearwire.net wrote:
Thanks. Yes, these Earles are the stuff of legend for sure. And her
real ancestry is moot save as an example.
Nathaniel Taylor
<nltaylor-1EACDE...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Nathaniel Taylor <nlta...@nltaylor.net> wrote:
> In article
> <5f012b26-1a22-44cb...@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> 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:
> >
> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/graphic/0,,2267081,00.html
> >
> > 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'.
M.Sjostrom
Hi Nat.
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
They are linked in the current lowest fourth in the
archiver page
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2008-03
--
PS. when browsing recent archives, I observed that it
looks like Douggy has really been causing trouble -
again...
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
WJho...@aol.com
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.
See here
_http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Mary_Louise_Earle#Ascent_to
_Scotland_
(http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Mary_Louise_Earle#Ascent_to_Scotland)
where I show an apparent claim through the *Menteith* family which still
leads from Mary Earle to Robert the Bruce
Will Johnson
**************Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL
Home.
(http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15&ncid=aolhom00030000000001)
Dora Smith
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
tigge...@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'.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://www.nltaylor.net/sketchbook/
-----
--
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
Dora Smith
Running... LOL!
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
tigge...@yahoo.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "M.Sjostrom" <qs...@yahoo.com>
To: <GEN-ME...@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
>
us...@domain.invalid
> 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:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/graphic/0,,2267081,00.html
>
BUT ... John McCain is not shown as a descendant of this Early!
Doug McDonald
D. Spencer Hines
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" <vill...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1189.12067069...@rootsweb.com...
Nathaniel Taylor
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.
t...@clearwire.net
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?
taf
t...@clearwire.net
> 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:
>
> > >http://www.guardian.co.uk/graphic/0,,2267081,00.html
>
> > 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.
taf
Tony Hoskins
and genealogists were dismissing medieval genealogy due to prejudices
that are outdated or based on a lumping of scholarly genealogy in with
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.
M.Sjostrom
"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
M.Sjostrom
"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
Dora Smith
--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
tigge...@yahoo.com
"D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:eWaHj.268$7N1....@eagle.america.net...
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
letiTi...@gmail.com
well, well, well
you are perceived as tafty duck
yuck, yuck, yuck
of course John McCain can descend from Robert the Bruce
and ipso facto he descends from Charlemagne if his blood aunt
so descends, and you call yourself "we...medieval genealogists"?