Descent from Robert the Bruce
t...@clearwire.net
politician and Robert the Bruce and Charlemagne. While the claim
itself is inherently tenuous, involving the family of an uncle's wife,
I did find some curious comments by experts in a Guardian story
investigating it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/21/johnmccain.uselections2008
John McCain, veteran war hero: yes. But a descendant of Robert the
Bruce? Baloney
# Paul Lewis
# The Guardian,
# Friday March 21 2008
"For a veteran war hero staking his presidential campaign on military
credentials, an ancestral link to a warrior who overcame the English
to reclaim Scottish independence in 1314 has obvious appeal. But
according to experts, the story may be no more than that. Asked by the
Guardian to investigate McCain's family history, genealogists and
medieval historians described the link to Robert the Bruce as
"wonderful fiction" and "baloney".
. . . . .
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.
Not so, according to Dr Katie Stevenson, a lecturer in medieval
studies at the University of St Andrews. "What wonderful fiction," she
said. "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.
Charlemagne and Robert the Bruce were not connected - that's
ludicrous."
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."
Dr Bruce Durie, academic manager, genealogical studies at the
University of Strathclyde, said after initial research into Mary
Louise Earle's ancestry, that there was "no existing documented link"
to Robert the Bruce in terms of traced lineage. "If you're going to
track the direct lineage of Robert the Bruce, he is Andrew Bruce, Earl
of Elgin and Kincardine."
Durie pointed out that Robert I was believed to have had up to a dozen
children - several illegitimately. Basic calculations suggested there
could be as many as 200 million people distantly related to him. "In
that sense McCain probably is descended from Bruce. So am I. So are
you. So is everyone."
. . . . . . "
The statistical argument is a common one, and not very informative, as
Dr. Durie points out, but, "If you're going to track the direct
lineage of Robert the Bruce, he is Andrew Bruce, Earl of Elgin and
Kincardine." I only hope he was misquoted. On the other hand,
historian Dr. Stevenson was probably not misquoted, just uninformed.
The concept that a recent American could be descended from Robert the
Bruce without having a Scottish name seems inherently improbable to
her, while contrary to her statement, that an individual has descent
from both Robert the Bruce and Charlemagne need not imply, as she
seems to believe, that the former is connected to the latter - they
could be via entirely different lines. That being said, Robert the
Bruce (aka Robert de Brus) based his claim to the throne on descent
from the prior kings. This descent includes marriages to Carolingian
descendants, and not via iffy descents either, but through pretty
solid ones. I think this is reflective of how we medieval
genealogists are viewed by many historians, as credulous enthusiasts
chasing pie-in-the-sky made-up descents (ala Clonard).
taf
Douglas Richardson
<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
v<irtually impossible to prove ancestry through the middle ages."
> taf
Baloney yourself, taf. I trace ancestry through the middle ages all
the time.
Too bad you can't find someone to quote who actually knows what
they're talking about.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
AdrianBnjmBurke
LOL!!! Yes - I couldn't believe a supposed "Dr"?? I think was her
title - of medieval studies or whatever would actually say something
so stupid -- also - her statement "earle is not a scottish name"
therefore she couldn't descend from a scottish king --- such
nonesense! But - the sad thing is, John McCain's family probably
received a trumped-up genealogical report from some company or person
doing a scam - and they probably thought their "royal" descent to be
very real.....
t...@clearwire.net
> On Mar 21, 9:01 am, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
>
> <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
> v<irtually impossible to prove ancestry through the middle ages."
>
>
> the time.
>
> Too bad you can't find someone to quote who actually knows what
> they're talking about.
Mr. Richardson,
Do you have to put special effort into acting so mendaciously, or does
it come naturally? Given how much whining you do about other people
lying about you and your positions, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Was there some part of my statement that this historian (quoted by the
Guardian writer, not me) was ill-informed on several levels, that was
vague to you? Did I use too many big words? No, probably not. I was
just a target of opportunity, and you decided to 'make friends'. What
a pathetic little hypocrite you are.
taf
mhol...@mac.com
We could all email that professor and sent her straight:
Dr Katie Stevenson
B.A. (Hons) (Melb.), PhD (Edin.), FSA Scot, FRHistS
Lecturer in Late Mediaeval British History
Contact Details
E-mail - kc...@st-andrews.ac.uk
Telephone - +44 (0)1334 462908
Fax - +44 (0)1334 462927
M.Sjostrom
Lots of people can show a documented descent from
Robert the Bruce.
For example, it is commonly accepted that Robert II of
Scotland, (John) Robert III of Scotland, James I of
Scotland and James II of Scotland descended from
Robert the Bruce.
The first mentioned, as the only son of the Bruce's
daughter from first marriage. This grandpaternity has
several contemporary documents as its proofs. The next
three ones, each as documented son of the previous.
Also these filiations enjoy the benefit of several
contemporary documents.
This is so easy to prove - the throne of Scotland had
not descended to these individuals, were they not
recognized descendants of the predecessor, and
consequently of the Bruce.
And why did I list these four kings, and not some
other individuals of same eras, or later kings?
Because these four kings each had several daughters,
and some had also younger sons, from whom *lots* of
Scots nobility descends, in a way that critical
centuries (1300s-1500s) are nicely covered by
contemporary documentation.
And, the basic requirement of descent -that if one
descends provenly from a person's one proven
descendant, then that person also descends from the
ancestor of one's proven ancestor- helps then: if a
proven Robert the Bruce descendant (for example, in
America) happens to be one's ancestor, then one is
descended from Robert the Bruce too.
Of course the male line descent from Robert the Bruce
is probably extinct - and the best-proven such male
line, that of his only surviving legitimate son, king
David II, went extinct upon the death of the very same
son.
(some people seem to think that it is not a descent if
it is not a male-line descent - people thinking about
surnames give indications of such fallacy; and then
there are those who foray into counting collateral
relatives as descendants just because they may have
the same surname... sad, to think that an academic
steeps down into any surname fallacy.)
I am a bit wondering why that medievalist (or who it
then was) was looking into the Elgin Bruces. They were
not originally Robert the Bruce's descendants (they
claim an illegitimate male line descent from his
brother, which certainly is not the same) - although,
no doubt, today Bruces of Elgin are able to show a
cognatic descent from Robert himself, actually several
cognatic descents.
http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00029180&tree=LEO&displayoption=male&generations=6
--
Following displays perhaps help to gauge the vast
number of possibilities how one can descend from
Robert the Bruce:
* observe the number of daughters and younger sons of
Robert II, starting lineages among nobility:
http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00006037&tree=LEO&displayoption=all&generations=3
* Large number of daughters of Robert III, passing the
Bruce blood to lots of nobility:
http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00006038&tree=LEO
* particularly Joan Stewart, daughter of James I,
passed the Bruce blood to a Scots posterity:
http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00000500&tree=LEO
* James II's descendants: particularly his daughters
Mary and Margaret have descent among Scots nobility:
http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00000501&tree=LEO
---
British noble families are a source of 'social
decline' along centuries, therefore a relatively
modest immigrant in Northern America can descend from
a high noble who lived two centuries earlier.
Scottish 'gentry' males were practically habitually
seeking for greener pastures. One can find such among
mercenaries, merchants and so forth, for example, in
Germany, Scandinavia and America.
In 1600s, 1700s and 1800s, Scottish nobles and gentry
were in big quantities settling to London and southern
parts of England. There are countless possibilities
why a non-Scots surname can be present in a valid
genealogy traceable back to kings of Scots of 1400s
and/or 1300s.
---
I am of the opinion that a claim of descent should not
be disproved by such misguided and fallacious
arguments those Stevenson and Durie seemingly
presented.
(felt almost like they do not know what descent
means!)
A false family tree, in my view, can only win
undeserved support from such treatment, if its
falsification uses untenable arguments.
The genealogy now mentioned, should be checked by
usual method: checking each link along the lineage,
each generation.
Surname argument or mentioning a lineage descending
from Robert's brother, do not help in that at all.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
M.Sjostrom
It is fairly easy to find even several fairly
strongly-proven descents of Robert the Bruce from
Charlemagne.
I somewhat wonder why that individual (a doctor,
really?) tried to deny it.
For example, isn't there a really valid chain of
contemporary documentation to prove filiation in each
generation in the following:
Charlemagne - Louis the Pious - Charles the Bald -
Judith - Baldwin II of Flanders - Alnulf I of Flanders
- Baldwin III of Flanders - Arnulf II of Flanders -
Baldwin IV of Flanders - Baldwin V of Flanders - Maud
of Flanders - Henry I of England - Robert, earl of
Gloucester - William, earl of Gloucester - amicia of
Gloucester - Gilbert Clare, earl of Gloucester -
Isabella Clare - Robert Bruce of Annandale, jure
uxoris earl of Carrick - Robert the Bruce, king of
Scotland
Why to even bother to deny his descent?
Particularly as it looks like there are several
parallel lineages between Robert the Bruce and
Charlemagne...
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 3/21/2008 9:05:26 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, taf@clear
wire.net writes:
Not so, according to Dr Katie Stevenson, a lecturer in medieval
studies at the University of St Andrews. "What wonderful fiction," she
said. "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.
Charlemagne and Robert the Bruce were not connected - that's
ludicrous.">>
-------------------------------------------
If there really is such a person Katie Stevenson, and she said this, then
she is very misinformed about how family trees work. Earle does not need to be
a "Scottish name" in order for Mary Earle to *descend* from 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)
M.Sjostrom
On another tone, things can be approached from the
opposite direction too.
according to Wargs, John McCain's ancestry is as
follows:
http://www.wargs.com/political/mccain.html
Perhaps some of posters here could recognize some
roots, better than I.
American gateway ancestors are certainly not my
specialty, nor do I wish it to be so.
Particularly, a root or more back to Scots aristocracy
are sought after in this...
William A Reitwiesner has indicated that Anne Hampden
root (Anne Hampden must have flourished sometime in
1600s), reportedly going back to Edward I. (Edward I,
the Longshanks, was the guy who was in particularly
good relations with Robert the Bruce :) I think their
jovial relations were the reason why Eddie got called
'Hammer of the Scots'.
I tend to believe it unlikely that in particular the
Anne Hampden root would include Robert the Bruce
descent...
Particularly the chronology is not too promising,
there.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
wjhonson
> On another tone, things can be approached from the
> opposite direction too.
> according to Wargs, John McCain's ancestry is as
> follows:http://www.wargs.com/political/mccain.html
>
>
> root (Anne Hampden must have flourished sometime in
> 1600s),
----------------------
Thanks for that remark.
Leo does not seem to know that John McCain descends from here.
See
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00438983&tree=LEO
For what Leo has on the ancestry of this Anne (Hampden) Waller.
Meanwhile perhaps someone will post the proof that this other son, not
shown by Leo, this Robert Waller, really goes with this couple?
I will post some more details from my database on the Cave line. I
believe I can extend it back a bit.
Will Johnson
D. Spencer Hines
Well Past Ludicrous...
She has apparently never even heard of FEMALE LINES.
Further, she is bollixed on the issue of a CONNECTION between Charlemagne
and Robert The Bruce.
They ARE indeed reportedly genealogically CONNECTED...
Robert The Bruce is allegedly a 14th great-grandson of Charlemagne.
This "Katie Stevenson" seems to be yet another Air-Headed Academic poaching
out of field and taking pratfalls galore.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
<WJho...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.879.12061228...@rootsweb.com...
>
> In a message dated 3/21/2008 9:05:26 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
Leo van de Pas
As far as I can work it out, Robert I The Bruce is a descendant of
Charlemagne in at least 21 different ways.
If we take Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin (of marbleous tradition)
1766-1841 is a descendant of Robert the Bruce in at least 8 different ways,
in other words, ignoring all ancestry lines, he descends from Charlemagne in
at least 168 different ways.
Thomas Bruce 7th Earl of Elgin, in his ancestor list has Robert The Bruce as
numbers 32798, 34846, 35394, 70782 the last four numbers are to
timeconsuming to establish.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas,
Canberra, Australia
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Looking for last minute shopping deals?
> Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
>
> -------------------------------
> 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
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1336 - Release Date: 3/20/2008
> 9:48 AM
>
>
t...@clearwire.net
> opposite direction too.
> according to Wargs, John McCain's ancestry is as
> follows:http://www.wargs.com/political/mccain.html
> I tend to believe it unlikely that in particular the
> Anne Hampden root would include Robert the Bruce
> descent...
> Particularly the chronology is not too promising,
> there.
On the right of the cited Guardian page, there is a link summarizing
the pedigree. As I mentioned, the McCain claim is not descent, but
the more fuzzy indication that his great-uncle Wild Bill McCain
'brought Bruce's blood into the family' by marrying a descendant. All
I can say to this being the basis of an investigative report is that
it must have been a slow news day.
taf
taf
wjhonson
> Thanks for that remark.
> Leo does not seem to know that John McCain descends from here.
> Seehttp://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00438983&tree=LEO
>
---------------------
Now we see why, even well-meaning and seemingly well-researched lines
should be read with a grain of salt. Reviewing what W.A.R. has
posted, we see a dearth of documentation. Reviewing the evidence, we
find the will of Robert Waller, husband of Anne Hampden is here
http://books.google.com/books?id=oGMBAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA90
his will mentioning only four sons : Edmond heir, Griffith, Steven and
the newborn John added by codicil
"Robert Thomas Waller b 1609" is supposed to go here, but perhaps does
not. At least we should cast a jaundiced eye on this supposed
connection until some documentation is brought forth.
On another note, Leo is showing here
http://www.genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00438983&tree=LEO
that that Elizabeth Waller who m William Dormer of Ascott,
Oxfordshire, was a daughter of Mary Beaux. She was not.
Edmund Waller, the famous poet and almost-lost-his-head for treason
but sang-like-a-bird when arrested, was twice married. His first wife
was the much more well-known Anne Banks, "a famous heiress of
London". She was the only child of her father John Banks, mercer of
London. Edmund and Anne married 5 Jul 1631 at St Margaret's,
Westminster. She had one son who died y, and also this Elizabeth
Waller who later m William Dormer. Anne died in childbed, afterwhich
Edmund silly person that he was, proceeded to try to win a great lady
by poetry. She spurned him, so her turned to an easier catch.
After he was brought to questioning re his involvement in a plot, his
brother-in-law Nathaniel Tomkins, clerk of the Queen's Council was
executed 5 Jul 1643 "near his house in Holborn by hanging, for
treason". Edmund was "let off" in a way, and went to France where
daughter Margaret his "amanuensis" [spelling?] was born at Rouen.
By his second wife Mary "of the family of Breaux or Bresse" he had
five sons and eight daughters so-its-said, but Elizabeth was from the
first wife.
Will Johnson
jhigg...@yahoo.com
On Mar 21, 1:05 pm, wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Mar 21, 11:34 am, wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for that remark.
> > Leo does not seem to know that John McCain descends from here.
> > Seehttp://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00438983&tree=LEO
>
> ---------------------
> Now we see why, even well-meaning and seemingly well-researched lines
> should be read with a grain of salt. Reviewing what W.A.R. has
> posted, we see a dearth of documentation. Reviewing the evidence, we
> find the will of Robert Waller, husband of Anne Hampden is here
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=oGMBAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA90
> his will mentioning only four sons : Edmond heir, Griffith, Steven and
> the newborn John added by codicil
Actually, this is not the will itself of course, but simply a copy of
a transcription of the will. Based on other accepted pedigrees of the
family, the copy) and perhaps the transcription) may be inaccurate.
>
> "Robert Thomas Waller b 1609" is supposed to go here, but perhaps does
> not. At least we should cast a jaundiced eye on this supposed
> connection until some documentation is brought forth.
For documentation on Robert Thomas Waller, son of Robert Waller and
Anne Hampden, and the descent from him, see Burke's Irish family
Records (1976) or its predecessors the various editions of Burke's
Landed Gentry of Ireland. Prior to BLGI the family likely appears in
earlier editions of BLG (some of which are available on-line), but I
haven't checked this. This is admittedly not the best possible
documentation for Robert Thomas Waller, but at least it's
something....
>
> On another note, Leo is showing herehttp://www.genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00438983&tree=LEO
>
> that that Elizabeth Waller who m William Dormer of Ascott,
> Oxfordshire, was a daughter of Mary Beaux. She was not.
Oh? All of the information below is presented without any sources
specified - a sure target for the excoriation of the all-knowing
Douglas Richardson. But I guess you're not a sufficiently important
target for his attention. :-)
Other standard sources, however, reach a different conclusion. See
below.
>
> Edmund Waller, the famous poet and almost-lost-his-head for treason
> but sang-like-a-bird when arrested, was twice married. His first wife
> was the much more well-known Anne Banks, "a famous heiress of
> London". She was the only child of her father John Banks, mercer of
> London. Edmund and Anne married 5 Jul 1631 at St Margaret's,
> Westminster. She had one son who died y, and also this Elizabeth
> Waller who later m William Dormer. Anne died in childbed, afterwhich
> Edmund silly person that he was, proceeded to try to win a great lady
> by poetry. She spurned him, so her turned to an easier catch.
>
> After he was brought to questioning re his involvement in a plot, his
> brother-in-law Nathaniel Tomkins, clerk of the Queen's Council was
> executed 5 Jul 1643 "near his house in Holborn by hanging, for
> treason". Edmund was "let off" in a way, and went to France where
> daughter Margaret his "amanuensis" [spelling?] was born at Rouen.
>
> By his second wife Mary "of the family of Breaux or Bresse" he had
> five sons and eight daughters so-its-said, but Elizabeth was from the
> first wife.
>
> Will Johnson
The biographies of Edmund Waller the poet in ODNB and "The History of
Parliament 1660-1690" both say that he had one daughter by his first
wife and several daughters by his second wife, but they don't specify
which daughters were by which wife. One of the daughters is
identified in ODNB as Elizabeth, but her mother is unspecified.
OTOH, Lipscomb's Bucks, 3:182, cites a baptismal record (of 23 Oct
1634) indicating that the daughter of the first wife was named Anna
Maria. Lipscomb also says that one of the daughters of the second
wife was named Elizabeth and that she was the one who mar. William
Dormer.
To further confuse things, however, a 2007 book by Richard K. Evans.
"The Ancestry of Diana, Princess of Wales", says that William Dormer's
wife was Anna Maria (not Elizabeth), dau. of the first wife. Although
Evans offers sources for his entries (including Lipscomb), to the
extent that I've been able to check them out, I can't see that his
conclusion is supported by his sources. So for now I'm inclined to
accept Lipscomb - which is what Leo shows.
wjhonson
> Leo does not seem to know that John McCain descends from here.
> See http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00438983&tree=LEO
>
> believe I can extend it back a bit.
>
> Will Johnson
---------------
Getting back to this.
Leo shows this Anne Hampden as the daughter of Griffith Hampden of
Great Hampden by his wife Anne Cave.
In my database Anne Hampden has this chart
2 Griffith Hampden
3 Anne Cave, twin
4 John Hampden, esq
5 Elizabeth Ferrers
6 Anthony Cave, esq of Chiceley, Bucks
7 Elizabeth Lovett, holding a life interest in Chiceley
8 Edmund Hampden of Woodstocke
9 Elizabeth Hampden
10 Sir Edward Ferrers of Baddesley Clinton
11 Constance Brome
12 Richard Cave of Stanford
13 Margaret Saxby
14 Thomas Lovett, esq of South Newington
15 Anne Danvers of Dauntsey
Will Johnson
wjhonson
>
------------------
Here is one source stating that it was the daughter of the first wife
who married Mister Dormer
http://books.google.com/books?id=cK9IAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA222
Will Johnson
wjhonson
>
> To further confuse things, however, a 2007 book by Richard K. Evans.
> "The Ancestry of Diana, Princess of Wales", says that William Dormer's
> wife was Anna Maria (not Elizabeth), dau. of the first wife. Although
> Evans offers sources for his entries (including Lipscomb), to the
> extent that I've been able to check them out, I can't see that his
>
------------------------
That Mrs Dunch's mother was Anna Maria
http://books.google.com/books?id=5VoJAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA88&dq=dormer+of+ascott+waller&as_brr=1
D. Spencer Hines
RD 600, p. 270 -- as WAR points out.
The justly famous Parliamentary leader, John Hampden, ties in here too.
DSH
"wjhonson" <wjho...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:18d07e9a-6263-438d...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
jhigg...@yahoo.com
And this "source" got the name of the father of Edmund Waller's first
wife wrong.
Dir Samuel Johnson is certainly a well-respected writer - but a
genealogist?? I wonder....
wjhonson
> Anne Hampden, and the descent from him, see Burke's Irish family
> Records (1976) or its predecessors the various editions of Burke's
> Landed Gentry of Ireland. Prior to BLGI the family likely appears in
> earlier editions of BLG (some of which are available on-line), but I
> haven't checked this. This is admittedly not the best possible
> documentation for Robert Thomas Waller, but at least it's
> something....
>
Burke's Landed Gentry of Ireland 1899 edition is online here
http://books.google.com/books?id=Ha0EAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22landed+gentry+of+ireland%22#PPP9,M1
I'm not seeing anything on the Waller family.
Will Johnson
jhigg...@yahoo.com
> On Mar 21, 3:33 pm, jhiggins...@yahoo.com wrote:> For documentation on Robert Thomas Waller, son of Robert Waller and
> > Anne Hampden, and the descent from him, see Burke's Irish family
> > Records (1976) or its predecessors the various editions of Burke's
> > Landed Gentry of Ireland. Prior to BLGI the family likely appears in
> > earlier editions of BLG (some of which are available on-line), but I
> > haven't checked this. This is admittedly not the best possible
> > documentation for Robert Thomas Waller, but at least it's
> > something....
>
> -------------------
>
>
> I'm not seeing anything on the Waller family.
>
> Will Johnson
The Wallers do show up in the 1912 edition of BLGI (available at the
FHL, inter alia) and in BIFR (1976). There ARE sources for genealogy
that are not on-line - some of us still use libraries....
wjhonson
> > Burke's Landed Gentry of Ireland 1899 edition is online herehttp://books.google.com/books?id=Ha0EAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=...
>
> > I'm not seeing anything on the Waller family.
>
> > Will Johnson
>
> The Wallers do show up in the 1912 edition of BLGI (available at the
> FHL, inter alia) and in BIFR (1976). There ARE sources for genealogy
> that are not on-line - some of us still use libraries....
Yes Mister Smuggle-Pants.
The Wallers show up in the *earlier* edition of Burke's LG for GB and
Ireland (1855) but since then, *some* one has created the missing
link.
What the article *used* to say is only that the Wallers *claim*
descent from the Wallers of Groombridge. The Wallers of Groombridge
are two or more generations *behind* the Wallers of Beaconsfield which
is where W.A.R. places this fictitious "Robert Thomas Waller" born
1609
The article in Burke only starts with a Robert Waller of Kilmainham
Castle who died in 1715 "aged 79". For some reason Burke states he
was born in 1641 and doesn't address the discrepancy that causes, esp
as his supposed grandson is then given as born in 1672. At any rate
you can read what they say here
http://books.google.com/books?id=Ni4BAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA29-PA1597#PPA1597,M1
"A Genealogical and Heraldic Dictionary of the Landed Gentry...", pg
1597, "Waller"
"This family of Waller claims descent from a branch of the Wallers of
Groombridge, co Kent..."
and also on Page 1594
Will "Rejecting all notions of libraries" Johnson
Peter Stewart
<jhigg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ed22824c-d18a-43dc...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> And this "source" got the name of the father of Edmund Waller's first
> wife wrong.
>
> Dir Samuel Johnson is certainly a well-respected writer - but a
> genealogist?? I wonder....
Johnson did make mistakes, though rarely. He called her only "Mrs. Banks, a
great heiress in the city", that is correct (isn't it?) - the editor, Peter
Cunningham, added the footnote calling her father Edward instead of John.
Peter Stewart
jhigg...@yahoo.com
> <jhiggins...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
You're right - I should have noted that the editor, not Johnson,
misnamed the Banks father.
I still would be hesitant to use Johnson alone as deciding evidence
for a genealogical matter, especially when other sources more commonly
cited in genealogy disagree with him. I don't think the specific
issue is firmly resolved yet, but at present I tend to favor the
Lipscomb view - barring further evidence to the contrary.
[When I first read your comment that "Johnson did make mistakes,
though rarely", I somehow thought that you were speaking of our Will
and not the great Dr. Samuel!! I guess Will's not yet in such august
company.... :-)]
jhigg...@yahoo.com
The sequence of the Wallers given in BIFR 1976, which agrees with that
shown in WAR's ancestry of Sen McCain, is as follows:
Robert Waller, m. Anne Hampden
Robert Thomas Waller, bap. 1609, went to Ireland, mar. a niece of John
Bramhall, Archbishop of Armagh, k. "in the rebellion" 23 Oct. 1641
John Waller of Kilmainham Castle, b. 1641, d. 6 Feb 1715, mar. Hannah
Coddington
Robert Waller of Allenstown (1672-1732), mar. Ann Hughes
Hannah Waller, mar. Dixie Coddington of Athlumney Castel
The fact that this sequence does not appear in this form in earlier
editions of Burke's Landed Gentry should not be surprising and is
certainly not cause to assume that Robert Thomas Waller is
"fictitious" or that someone "created the missing link". It's well
known that the Burke's volumes of the mid-nineteenth century were far
from complete and often less than accurate. It's also well known that
they improved substantially by about the turn of the twentieth
century, due to better standards of research. There may possibly be
grounds for questioning this connection, but the grounds you've cited
so far don't stand up to scrutiny, since they're based simply on poor
information or lack of information.
John Foster
> ludicrous.">>
Sure he was...a direct descendant.
Pedigrees of some of the Emperor Charlemagne's Descendants by Aileen Lewers
Langston & J. Orton Buck Jr. (1974) Vol. II, Chapter XXIII DOUGLASS, page
114.
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJho...@aol.com>
To: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: Descent from Robert the Bruce
>
> In a message dated 3/21/2008 9:05:26 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> taf@clear
> wire.net writes:
>
> Not so, according to Dr Katie Stevenson, a lecturer in medieval
> studies at the University of St Andrews. "What wonderful fiction," she
> said. "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.
> Charlemagne and Robert the Bruce were not connected - that's
> ludicrous.">>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> If there really is such a person Katie Stevenson, and she said this, then
> she is very misinformed about how family trees work. Earle does not need
> to be
> a "Scottish name" in order for Mary Earle to *descend* from 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)
>
> -------------------------------
> 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
>
>
> --
> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1163 - Release Date:
> 12/1/2007 12:05 PM
>
>
Leo van de Pas
Leo van de Pas,
Canberra Australia
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.8/1338 - Release Date: 3/21/2008
> 5:52 PM
>
>
John Foster
which disproves the argument of zero, so I didn't look for more.
Nearly every time I import some old line of descent, I get another copy of
Charlemagne.
There's a similar observation about flying on Delta Airlines in the
southeastern U.S. You can fly anywhere you want, but you have to go through
Atlanta.
M.Sjostrom
Dr Katie Stevenson is attributed as having written,
sometime during the past 24 hours:
"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."
What does mean 'his book'. This is the first when I
hear that an entire book has been written on the
subject.
Written by whom? The sentence structure seemingly
refers to a book written by John McCain (because I am
not going suggest a book written by Robert the Bruce
and/or Charlemagne).
I am unaware of any book on genealogy written by that
McCain...
(And I am certainly not gonna enjoy reading a book on
politics written by a US Republican - to think about
worse fates than to be subjected to writings of a
politician... only 'mr dsh' writings come to mind, as
somehow on similar level of stupidity and borishness)
>From an academic, I would have expected better
carefulness in referring to books. The name and author
of the book are minimum requirements, even if only to
avoid misunderstandings.
But a similar vein of careless habit is visible in
that deplorably taken position, "...extremely unlikely
to be descended from Charlemagne and Robert the
Bruce..." - which seemingly means, 'not at all
descended'
Most of us are well aware how such a statement may
easily be incorrect.
(I am not claiming that McCain so descends - just that
he may easily have such a descent.)
All in all, sounds to me like a person who does not
care what she is writing, being too busy in admiring
how her own voice sounds in those writings...
(which is a tad politician-like characteristic)
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
John Foster
https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/staff/katiestevenson.html
If I am descended from Robert the Bruce, and hence Charlemagne, why can't
John McCain be similarly?
Dr. Stevenson forgets that many second and following sons that didn't
inherit went to America to carve out a new life. Heads were rolling, so they
didn't see the reason to stay around. Many, Many Americans are descended
from the early Edward III line, which naturally hooks into Robert the Bruce
and Charlemagne. Is Edward the III in dispute?
Tony Hoskins
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.
Tony
>>> "M.Sjostrom" <qs...@yahoo.com> 03/22/08 03:43PM >>>
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Foster" <ret...@austin.rr.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Subject: Re: Descent from Robert the Bruce
> Here's the Dr. Katie Stevenson page and e-mail.
>
> https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/staff/katiestevenson.html
>
> If I am descended from Robert the Bruce, and hence Charlemagne, why can't
> John McCain be similarly?
>
> Dr. Stevenson forgets that many second and following sons that didn't
> inherit went to America to carve out a new life. Heads were rolling, so
> they
> didn't see the reason to stay around. Many, Many Americans are descended
> from the early Edward III line, which naturally hooks into Robert the
> Bruce
> and Charlemagne. Is Edward the III in dispute?
>
========== I can find Edward I, but not Edward III as an ancestor of John
McCain.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "M.Sjostrom" <qs...@yahoo.com>
> To: <GEN-ME...@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 5:43 PM
> Subject: Descent from Robert the Bruce
>
>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1163 - Release Date:
>> 12/1/2007 12:05 PM
>>
>>
>
>
> -------------------------------
> 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
>
>
> --
> 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
>
D. Spencer Hines
OF FIELD....
<https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/staff/katiestevenson.html>
IF she actually has written what she is charged with having written.
DSH
"Tony Hoskins" <hos...@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote in message
news:mailman.933.12062272...@rootsweb.com...
M.Sjostrom
As an outcome of the Independence Wars of Scotland
(which were not entirely non-dependent on Bruce),
interaction between Scots and English noble families
shrinked to almost non-existent level.
Earlier, between them occurred several marriages.
But since 1300s, very rarely.
(And, like everyone should know, some sexual
interaction is a necessity for a descent. Children are
needed for it, basically. - Kids born of marriages are
easier to prove in medieval and soon after contexts.)
Interaction opened to much fuller only in 1600s, when
James VI got to hold thrones of both countries. His
nobles got slowly to marry 'across border'. In 1700s,
many of them just crossed a street in London, to cross
the earlier 'border' between English and Scottish
nobility.
Which means that between 1300s and 1500s, not many (if
practically any) provable descents passed from
Scotland to England. Such as, a descent from Robert
the Bruce himself.
It is easy to see that one cannot descend from Robert
the Bruce, if one descends only from 1200s (or
earlier) Scots nobility (incl Scots royalty).
For a provable Robert the Bruce descent, two
alternative backgrounds would be most promising:
- either, descent from a 1500s cadet of a suitable
scots noble family
- or, descent from a 1700s Brit, having suitable
(noble) blood both from England and Scotland...
It looks to me that the one or a few
medievally-traceable roots thus far found for McCain,
do not come from such backgrounds.
It appears that the thus-far found noble roots of
McCain are more English, than to do enough with
Scotland.
(Possibly McCain himself would hate the englishry fact
of his provable ancestry...)
This is not to say that it would be impossible for
such Scots root to exist for him. Just that we do not
(yet) know of such.
The Charlemagne statement of Dr Stevenson is seemingly
already proven as incorrect.
By the way, I do not longer greatly wonder why
Guardian's article was such a mishmash, with its less
than successful citations.
A reporter cannot be expected to get a quality
argumentation written, if the reporter's sources are
as careless in expressing statements as now should
have come to understand.
Newspaper writing: garbage in, garbage out...
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
M.Sjostrom
"perhaps we can find Robert The Bruce :-)"
--
"1.Anne Hampden died 9 April 1658"
--
Knowing the almost nonexistent marriage interaction
between Scotland and the English kingdoms until 1600s,
it *is* unlikely that Robert the Bruce descent can be
found via Anne Hampden.
Anne Hampden was married in early 1600s, and born in
late 1500s. Just at the time and earlier than James
VI's English accession started an increased
interaction. Anne Hampden's ancestry within a few
centuries - which can be sifted from Leo's list- was
chiefly or entirely English. Not Scottish.
Robert the Bruce and the coolness in cross-border
relations caused in no small part by him, are chief
reason why a Robert the Bruce descent would not be
likely to be found among ancestry of the Englishwoman
Anne Hampden.
Whereas Anne Hampden, reportedly, was a descendant of
king Edward I the 'Hammer of the Scots', if that
ancestor would help McCain's ambitions :)
I warmly recommend to find more about other roots of
McCain than that Anne Hampden, if a Scottish lineage
is aimed at.
----
McCain's original claim was that his uncle's wife
descends from the Bruce. Which question is not at all
addressed by any of this...
(A wife of an uncle of course is not an ancestor of
McCain, thus her ancestry is immaterial to ancestry of
McCain himself.)
M.Sjostrom
--
----
____________________________________________________________________________________
John Foster
but not this one at all.
I think he just finished the "C" in Cokayne, so it will take him a while to
finish up.
----- Original Message -----
From: "M.Sjostrom" <qs...@yahoo.com>
To: <GEN-ME...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 7:19 PM
Subject: Descent from Robert the Bruce
>
>
M.Sjostrom
The Guardian attributes Dr Katie Stevenson as having
stated:
'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." '
I got a feeling that good Dr Stevenson confused two
different genealogical maxims:
1. lineage *through* ALL the Middle Ages - which is
definitely really hard to prove. Practically
impossible. This, 'through all Middle Ages' equals
with a DFA - proven lineage to ancestors living
*before* medieval era.
The hardness is generally in the very earliest
medieval centuries. Latter parts of Middle Agers are
much more easier.
2. lineage from a noble or royal of late Middle Ages
is not 'through' Middle Ages, it is rather a lineage
through all modern centuries, starting from one of
last medieval centuries. That's provable and
relatively common, for a lot of today people.
The citation in The Guardian leaves me an impression
of careless understanding of historical facts and
their application.
If the latter was meant, then two eras, Middle Ages
and modern centuries, got confused with each other.
If the first, then there was a grave misconception
about when Robert the Bruce and Charlemagne lived.
Neither of them were persons of antiquity, both are
attested well in centuries commonly classified as
'Middle Ages'.
An academic, in my opinion, should not parrot concepts
she does not fully understand (like, 'virtually
impossible to prove ancestry through the middle
ages'). We see how it can (and has) lead to fallacious
argument in the public.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
letiTi...@gmail.com
> 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.
>
> Tony
>
O please, spare us,
she is not among the cognoscenti
a Ph.D. does not make an intelligent human being become a scholar
persiflage, persiflage, persiflage
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval
AaronPa...@gmail.com
Pres candidate John McCain shows six generations of Wrights,
6, 12, 24, 48, 96, 192....are these roots Scottish?
aaron
M.Sjostrom
An academic should not parrot concepts she does not
fully understand (like, 'virtually impossible to prove
ancestry through the middle ages'). We see how it can
(and has) lead to fallacious argument in the public.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Doug Laidlaw
I missed her original post, and her home page tells me nothing.
My wife's cousin believed the BERNIE surname (actually good Irish) was
descended from Robert the Bruce's affair described in the movie. Only
trouble: the affair was first mentioned 100 years later, and then it was
with the Queen of England. I can find nobody descended from him otherwise
than through his legitimate descendants. And even an illegitimate
connection would be better than none at all.
A researcher with an illegitimate link in his tree pointed out that it would
be to the lady's economic advantage to father the child on the lord rather
than the gardener.
Doug L.
zaw...@yahoo.com
> Apparently there are claims of a linkage between an American
> politician and Robert the Bruce and Charlemagne. While the claim
> itself is inherently tenuous, involving the family of an uncle's wife,
> I did find some curious comments by experts in a Guardian story
> investigating it.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/21/johnmccain.uselections2008
>
> John McCain, veteran war hero: yes. But a descendant of Robert the
> Bruce? Baloney
>
> # Paul Lewis
> # The Guardian,
> # Friday March 21 2008
>
> "For a veteran war hero staking his presidential campaign on military
> credentials, an ancestral link to a warrior who overcame the English
> to reclaim Scottish independence in 1314 has obvious appeal. But
> according to experts, the story may be no more than that. Asked by the
> Guardian to investigate McCain's family history, genealogists and
> medieval historians described the link to Robert the Bruce as
> "wonderful fiction" and "baloney".
>
> . . . . .
>
> 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.
> Not so, according to Dr Katie Stevenson, a lecturer in medieval
> studies at the University of St Andrews. "What wonderful fiction," she
> said. "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.
> Charlemagne and Robert the Bruce were not connected - that's
> ludicrous."
>
> 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."
>
> University of Strathclyde, said after initial research into Mary
> Louise Earle's ancestry, that there was "no existing documented link"
> to Robert the Bruce in terms of traced lineage. "If you're going to
> track the direct lineage of Robert the Bruce, he is Andrew Bruce, Earl
> of Elgin and Kincardine."
>
> Durie pointed out that Robert I was believed to have had up to a dozen
> children - several illegitimately. Basic calculations suggested there
> could be as many as 200 million people distantly related to him. "In
> that sense McCain probably is descended from Bruce. So am I. So are
> you. So is everyone."
>
> . . . . . . "
>
>
>
> The statistical argument is a common one, and not very informative, as
> Dr. Durie points out, but, "If you're going to track the direct
> lineage of Robert the Bruce, he is Andrew Bruce, Earl of Elgin and
> Kincardine." I only hope he was misquoted. On the other hand,
> historian Dr. Stevenson was probably not misquoted, just uninformed.
> The concept that a recent American could be descended from Robert the
> Bruce without having a Scottish name seems inherently improbable to
> her, while contrary to her statement, that an individual has descent
> from both Robert the Bruce and Charlemagne need not imply, as she
> seems to believe, that the former is connected to the latter - they
> could be via entirely different lines. That being said, Robert the
> Bruce (aka Robert de Brus) based his claim to the throne on descent
> from the prior kings. This descent includes marriages to Carolingian
> descendants, and not via iffy descents either, but through pretty
> solid ones. I think this is reflective of how we medieval
> genealogists are viewed by many historians, as credulous enthusiasts
> chasing pie-in-the-sky made-up descents (ala Clonard).
>
This is true if you count descendants only through the male line, as Robert the Bruce had no (legitimate) male children, but I can trace a straight line from my maternal grandfather through 23 generations to Robert Bruce.
D. Spencer Hines
https://famouskin.com/famous-kin-chart.php?name=55767+john+mccain&kin=3697+edward+i
DSH
wrote in message
news:bb9424b7-2190-4684...@googlegroups.com...