Meghan Markle is a distant relative of Scottish warlord Robert the Bruce

[Olivier]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5951650/meghan-markle-robert-the-bruce-links/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5568299/Meghan-Markle-descended-Scottish-hero-Robert-Bruce.html

https://www.scotsman.com/news/meghan-markle-a-direct-descendant-of-robert-the-bruce-1-4717268

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/940424/meghan-markle-royal-wedding-robert-the-bruce-prince-harry-andrew-morton

Is it the news of the day, but is it true, or are we still inventing the royal ascendants to Prince Harry's fiancée?

[taf]

On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 1:29:24 PM UTC-7, Olivier wrote:
>
> Is it the news of the day, but is it true, or are we still inventing the royal ascendants to Prince Harry's fiancée?

To save people from being bombarded by all of the adds and pointless images on those pages, here is the crux:

“Through her ancestor Roger Shaw, Meghan’s trickle of blue blood was transported to America. The son of a wine merchant in the City of London, Shaw sailed from Plymouth to Massachusetts around 1637. Through Shaw’s family, who originated from Yorkshire, we find the link to royalty. It was the marriage in 1490 of James Shaw to Christina Bruce, the daughter of Sir David Bruce, 6th Baron of Clackmannan, a direct descendant of Robert the Bruce, that sealed the royal connection.”

The descent from Roger is likely legit, but I know nothing about this immigrant - whether he is correctly identified with the son of the London wine merchant, or if the London wine merchant is correctly linked to the Yorkshire family that descended from the 1490 James Shaw, or that this Shaw/Bruce marriage is authentic and not just a wild claim in a visitation pedigree. Those would seem to be the critical steps.

taf

[Gawin]

Many sources claim that Roger Shaw was baptized at St. Peter's Cornhill, London on 1 September 1594, the son of Ralph Shaw, vintner. Unbeknownst to Andrew Morton this theory was disproved by Edgar Joseph Shaw whose research shows that Roger Shaw was identical to the Roger Shaw of Gawsworth, Cheshire whose children was baptized there from 1626-35.

See Edgar Joseph Shaw, "The English Origin of Roger and Ann Shaw of Cambridge, Massachusetts and Hampton, New Hampshire," The New England Historical and Genealogical Register, vol. 158 (October 2004), pp. 309-18.

[riemorese...@gmail.com]

Garbage, of the sort that one associates with 19th pseudo-genealogists. Christina Bruce of Clackmannan, daugher of Sir David Bruce of Clackmannan, married Sir James Shaw (or Schaw) of Sauchie (Gordon MacGregor, The Red Book of Scotland, I, p. 489. I hardly need add that the affiliation of the Bruces of Clackmannan is, unfortunately, somewhat unclear. That they are related to King Robert I (warlord? really?) is clear, but whether by illegitimate descent from his brother Edward or from one of his other brothers is not certain. Sir David was descended from King Robert I in other lines, which can be easily traced.
MacGregor (op. cit, V, pp. 9-15) has an outline account of the Schaws of Sauchie; I did not observe a London wine merchant (or colonial settler) among them, but that is not impossible.
Ms. Markle does have a descent from King Edward III, according to Gary Boyd Roberts. I refer my colleagues to the link at:
https://www.americanancestors.org/Royal-Ancestry-of-Meghan-Markle.aspx
I have not attempted to verify Mr. Roberts' line.

[HWinnSadler]

There is so much fabrication in these mass produced news articles. They don't care for accuracy, it's to sell a story.

[Peter Stewart]

On Tuesday, April 3, 2018 at 8:58:34 AM UTC+10, taf wrote:
> On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 1:29:24 PM UTC-7, Olivier wrote:
> >
> > Is it the news of the day, but is it true, or are we still inventing the royal ascendants to Prince Harry's fiancée?
>
> To save people from being bombarded by all of the adds and pointless images on those pages, here is the crux:
>
> “Through her ancestor Roger Shaw, Meghan’s trickle of blue blood was transported to America.

Since Prince Harry has more than a trickle of working-class blood, from much more recently than the medieval era, why must they always look for this tiresome "marrying up" angle? It seems to me they are lucky to have each other, even if one or (most probably) both has a trickle of blood from a leper, a criminal or a king. I can't think how anything could be of less interest.

Peter Stewart

[ned...@gmail.com]

There is zero evidence he was a leper.