Posted on 03/20/2008 4:45:23 PM PDT by Aristotelian
Of all the claims in support of John McCain's bid for the White House, perhaps none is quite as grand as this. As he arrived in London today, the publishers of his new book insisted the Republican senator's family was descended from the Scottish king, Robert the Bruce.
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 past, genealogists and medieval historians described the link to Robert the Bruce as "wonderful fiction" and "baloney".
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
To whom, Arlen Spector?
If the lead traitor ever had a pair of balls he has long , long lost them .
Durie also found other inaccuracies in extracts from the McCain memoir.
How suprised am I ?
Sounds like a McCain to me ...
’ Ya killin me -) Good job ...
Errors in genealogy are very common. Much of the research depends on the memory of the oldest members of a family. I’m no McCain fan, but this is a little silly.
Geez, Louise! How many times does McCain have to be shot down!
Like shootin' fish in a barrel.
I dunno... I think they are related.
Maybe it was Bruce the Robert.
well here is one way he might be able to find out - DNA project.
http://www.brucefamily.com/gene.htm
Who cares about who your relatives were 400 years ago? What a pile of crap.
sratch that last post. I believe DNA tests work only work on paternal lines and not if it passes through a female (McCain’s great-aunt or whoever it was).
Probably not, since he returned to his wife and young son in England 2 or 4 years later, depending on which records you read, and left no trace of what became of them after that.
I have been into genealogy since about 1998 and if I could have a nickel for every mistake I have found, I would be wealthy. There are records out there that someone with a very good imagination put together. It is very easy to spot them if you do a little more research. Someone can start with someone famous and try to find some kind of link to their ancestors. It does not have to be real. The same thing is true of people trying to become members of the DAR. That is why they started requiring proof which I do not want to take the time to do. I know it and that is enough.
Hell. He claims to be a conservative, so why shouldn't he claim to be descended from Robert the Bruce?
There are some very practical reasons to know who your ancestors were ~ even 400 years ago ~ hereditary disorders.
Well, if switching sides for personal advantage was a Robert the Bruce trait then I would say we have a genetic match with McCain.
Back in 1700-10 the Brits hauled Scots off to America like so many cattle.
That trip was not considered a vacation.
There's holy ground generally unappreciated down at Smuggler's Creek in Alexandria VA. That's where the boats pulled up and Scots patriots transported in chains were tossed off to fend for themselves.
Many of them started the long-march to Alexander County in the Carolinas at this point ~ naked, cold, with no resources, and barefoot ~ a trail of tears.
Scots didn't travel in style to America until the Brits recruited them during the American Revolution to serve as tory militia in South Carolina (See: "The Patriot" with Mel Gibson)
I’d rather lay claim to being related to William Wallace — or even Mel Gibson. Who knows? I may be.
There are about a gazillion of these guys in the records ~ most of them were relatives of some sort to William Alexander, Lord Stirling. Colonel William Alexander, CO of the Maryland 400 "The Wild Geese" (the American Revolution's equivalent of the 300 Spartans) was the heir of Lord Stirling who arranged for almost the total evacuation of all remaining Alexanders from the Scottish Highlands.
That lineage by itself will get you into Robert the Bruce' line as well as that of MacBeth and Lady MacBeth, and she into the rolls of the Viking Kings from the earliest times.
It is a pure warriors' road all the way back if you descend from any of those guys.
Yes, plenty of honest mistakes, and old family myths. Plenty of deliberate mistakes, too, handed down from earlier times.
Shakespeare’s father bought himself a coat of arms, after he had made some money. That was not uncommon among up-and-coming Brits in those days. The beer barons in the time of Queen Victoria are another famous instance.
Napoleon's father also made a ton of money somewhere other than Corsica ~ I suspect that was in the fur trade in the then Western frontier of New York colony ~ after the Napoleonic wars, virtually all of Napoleon's relatives ended up in Upstate right where the furtrade activities took place. Many of their descendants continue to live in the area. (Otsego_.
“sratch that last post. I believe DNA tests work only work on paternal lines and not if it passes through a female (McCain’s great-aunt or whoever it was).”
I think MTDNA is what you can use it to check the ancestors on your mothers side.
Yes, it’s not uncommon. Upward mobility in England was easier than it was in France and Germany, where buying into the aristocracy was more difficult. It must have been a good, expensive forgery.
On the whole, such fakery was a good thing. It refreshed the aristocracy. I think that’s one reason why the agricultural, scientific, and industrial revolutions took place first in England—because they welcomed talent into the ruling classes much more readily than the stiffer societies on the Continent.
According to my Italian grandmother, her branch of my family went back to Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, the author of “On the Dignity of Man.” Pico in turn traced his ancestry back to Julius Caesar, I am told. Ergo . . . .
I haven’t really researched this, partly because it’s too much trouble, and partly because I’d hate to spoil the story.
Isn’t that North Carolina — as with the Battle of Moore’s Creek Bridge.
Doesn't mean the Brits didn't give away land in North Carolina, but South Carolina was less developed at the time ~
South Carolina had what amounted to a civil war in the midst of the Revolution.
“Pico in turn traced his ancestry back to Julius Caesar, I am told.”
And Julius (”Ilius”) traced his family back to Troy, and to Aeneas and Priam. . . :-)
(Can Scotts petition the crown for reparations because their ancestors were brought to America in chains 250 years ago?)
An off topic question.
My grandfather ^5 (Iam 6th gen) and his brother from Scotland fought with Cornwallis up to Yorktown.
How is it that they were left here? Abandoned? AWOL? TDY?
The family legend has it that Lord Cornwallis told them to write if they found any work, as he sailed.
Anyone ever heard of Beech Green Scotland? Circa 1759.
As one who actually IS related to Robert the Bruce, I’d say you’ve got your history right. More is the pity, but those are the facts. Personally I aim to do better, and so far so good.
Scots got their “reparations”. We’re living in it. A free America ~ not like the still enslaved Canada colony.
Now, why would Cornwalis leave troops on shore ~ several reasons ~ their term of service was up so he paid them mustering out pay and they simply stayed. Or, maybe he had a shortage of lift capacity back to the Old Country. Recall, Lafayette's cousin, Admiral Bouille (both those guys were Louis XVI's cousin too) had been using a large piece of the French navy to keep the Brits from resupplying Cornwallis, and they sank a few British ships.
Another reason for those guys staying is they had relatives in South Carolina~!
America wasn't necessarily all that good for rich people, but it was, in its day, the best poor man's land in the whole world. Land was cheap. The war was over. The Scots ran half the place. What's there to ask?
I still have my own personal "turning point" and that's Brooklyn where the Maryland 400 show the Brits that there are some mighty serious folks here.
It seems to me,the English,could easily trash McCain,seeing how their frame of mind,or mindset,would rather see Hillery of Obama win the Election.
BTW I wanted Duncan Hunter or Thompson for President.
It seems to me,the English,could easily trash McCain,seeing how their frame of mind,or mindset,would rather see Hillery or Obama win the Election.
BTW I wanted Duncan Hunter or Thompson for President.
Some members of my grandmother’s family have been members of the DAR since the fifties. We had pretty clear information about the service of two of the ancestors, less about others. We are even having trouble verifying some information from headstones.
The old guy did go to South Carolina, and IIRC was married there. The brother went to Canada and my guy went to SW Ohio.And they both did very well.
As to Beech Green Scotland all I ever find is a school in England and my kin asking the same question? Thanks
>>Errors in genealogy are very common.<<
You can go to the souvenir shop in Edinburgh castle, for example, and they will match your family name to families that have pretty tartans on the flimsiest evidence, e. g. somebody with your last name used to live near the other family. Then you can buy your pretty tartan tie and wear it proudly.
Britain (and Brits) does not mean England. Nor does UK/United Kingdom etc.
Scotland joined Great Britain (which was a phrase coined by a SCOT,btw, King James VI/I in 1604) in 1707. So before then Scotland was independent.
So there would have no ‘English’ hauling of Scots at that time. The last ‘English hauling’ would have been the Parliamentarian hauling of Scots Royalists to America as indentured slaves between 1651 and 1660, after the English Civil War.
Any hauling between 1660 and 1707 would have been Scots hauling their own to their minor American colonies, or Scots and English working together to despatch unwanted religious men and women to the colonies, as Scotland and England though independent, had the same monarchs, between 1603 and 1649 and 1660 and 1707(the Stuarts).
The Scots were quite happy to persecute their own, such as the Covenantors of the 1670’s and 1680’s, or recalcitrant Highland tribes (Glencoe anyone?)...
Hardly ‘English persecution’.
Given that Scotland was a part of Britain/UK/United Kingdom at the time, and has joined by choice in 1707, this is hardly English oppression on Scots.
So no would be the answer.Or at least many English, Irish (Cath & Prot) and Welsh could also claim.
I’d rather be related to William Wallace than Robert the Bruce. I don’t recall George Wallace claiming any relation to William.
I would, too. But, MacCain makes so many claims that if he one day appears at a press conference in late 18th century French finery, wearing a powdered wig and make-up and claiming to be the rightful heir to the throne of France, I won't even bat an eye.
English persecution ~ condoned and encouraged by the King himself, then the Queen. THe first decade of the 18th century was a humdinger. Thoughts of an independent Scotland were smothered ~
Remember that the 1715 and 1745 Jacobite rebellions were NOT supported by the Scots people en masse.
The 1715 rebellion barely started, and was supported only by a minority of Highlanders. And the more famous ‘Bonnie Prince Charlie’ rebellion of 1745-1746 is probably the most distorted part of Scottish history.
Modern myth has it as a Scots vs English conflict, whereas the truth is completely the opposite.MORE Scots OPPOSED and fought against the Jacobite Highlanders that fought for Charlie.
At Culloden, there were more Scots troops on the Redcoat Govt side than in the Jacobite army (who were themselves partly composed of French and Catholic Irish Jacobites, as well as English and Welsh jacobites) and even then, only HALF the Highland clans supported Charlie!.
In central and lowland Scotland (inc my own region of Ayrshire), there was great hostility to the Jacobites and great support for the Govt forces. In Ayrshire alone, we hung six Jacobites...
So the idea that ‘the English’ smothered Scottish(Jacobite) independence is nonsense. Scotland JOINED the UK in 1707, unlike the conquered Welsh and Irish, and in 1715 and 1745-45, as I have stated, the majority of Scots OPPOSED the Jacobite attempts at rebellion, which btw would have meant them ruling the whole of Britain if they were successful
If you are referring to persecution of Scots in late 17th and early 18th century, then to suggest ‘English’ persecution is also nonsense.
The notorious persecutions of Scots in that time, both Lowland (the Covenanters of the 1670’s and 1680’s) and Highland (such as the McDonalds at Glencoe) were done by fellow Scots first and foremost...
If anything, you are half-right, it was Scottish persecution condoned by the English and encouraged by Kings (James VII/II and William III).Both of whom, btw, were Stuart kings of Scottish descent, James being Anglo-Scots and William being the husband of Queen Mary, another Anglo-Scots monarch.
The only ‘English persecution’ of the Scots between 1603 and 1707 as a nation would be the deliberate attempt to sabotage the Darian scheme, where Scotland famously attempted to set up a colony in Darien, Panama.
Sorry, mate, but I am a Scot who has a knowledge, fascination and passion for his nation’s history, and is a history graduate. I know my Scottish history, and your history is somewhat simplistic and skewed.
I DONT mean that personally, and I would be delighted to discuss Scottish history or any history with you here at FR.
They wee slow!
To believe in 1707 or 2008 that Scotland is best served by being a powerful and willing part of a powerful state (Britain)is hardly being a traitor.
The vast majority of Scots want Scotland to remain in the UK for the reasons given above, and you will find no more proud patriotic people than the Scots...
And neither were those who opposed the romantic, reductive tosh of Jacobitism in 1715 or 1745-46.Most of Scotland opposed Charlie and his father’s earlier attempt, as they did not wish a return to the chaos of the 1600’s, with a civil war and numerous conflicts and oppressions by the Catholic Stuart monarchs.
As one Scots historian has correctly said, “the sound of the last shot at Culloden was that of Scotland and the rest of Britain finally entering the modern age”.
And a’ the romantic nonsense aboot Charlie and a’ tha Jacobites willnae change that, ma friend...
That's gotta' have a reason ya' know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.