A genealogical fairy tale

[Bob Spiers]

I know we hear about fanciful connections claimed to past Royalty and assorted aristocrats, but did not expect to find such being claimed by one of my Ancestry Contacts. To set the scene it is a contact via my wife's Tree which I manage. The connection sprang from my wife's DNA test, but the other researcher -a lady who I will just call C - did not take a test, but we exchanged messages in early 2019 regarding possible connections mainly in Northamptonshire where my wife was born and C likewise. These earlier messages were quite straight forward and settled on some obscure 5th-8th cousin connection. There has been no communication since, but as we have guest status we do receive automatic notifications when she adds new additions to her Tree.

These are emailed to my wife who passes them to me and you should have heard her comments when she received one such yesterday, telling me I might have to take note of her royal connection but need not bow in her presence. My curiosity around I was eager to see what she meant so below is an copy of what she received (I have x'd out the non-royals)


5 people have been added:
Mary I Queen Stewart Queen of Scots (8 December 1542 - 8 February 1587)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
James VI King of Scot & England/ King of Great Britian James I of England and VI of Scotland. James VI King of Scotland James I Charl (19 June 1566 - 27 March 1625)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

To date I have very politely asked 'C' to provide me with the evidence for making such a claim and eagerly await to hear what she has to say. In the past she has always responded and indeed I notice she states on her Tree page that 'she does respond to messages'. So hopefully will update in due course. Meanwhile I am sure my wife is enjoying every moment of her new found royal connections, and my damping down the fact that Mary was beheaded at Fotheringhay Castle (in Northamptonshire kindly note) had no effect. Of course her son James VI (later James I of England) fared better, particularly in Scotland, so will have to wait and see what C has to say, but somehow I doubt I will be convinced..but you never know

 

[canadianbeth]

And not to nitpick, but Mary was a Stuart, not Stewart.

 

[At home in NZ]

Mary was a Stuart, not Stewart

IF the tree entry is Stewart I would certainly doubt authenticity.

 

[Bob Spiers]

And not to nitpick, but Mary was a Stuart, not Stewart.

Well you are nit picking, but it is a correct 'nit pick' which I did not pick up and as I do have a passing interest in past Kings & Queens I perhaps should have. But to be fair the book I have on British Monarchy tells she was originally Mary Stewart and after spending time in the French Court and marrying Francis II of France she chose to call herself Mary Stuart. After her mother and later her husband died she left France to return to Scotland to claim her throne...as Mary Stuart. Also in the book I mentioned she is labelled as being part of the English 'Tudor & Stewart' dynasty.

 

[Bob Spiers]

True to her word to respond to messages, I have received a fairly short explanation of her claim which in essence tells me all I want to know. In short it is, I am afraid, a case of the much quoted music hall song lyric...I danced with a man who danced with a girl, who danced with the Prince of Wales.

She relates how her 'Staffordshire' line (no names) goes way back to Scotland and links to the Borthwick family. She has had contact with a Borthwick connection, who drew her attention to research undertaken by "Burke's" and how they in turn showed a Borthwick* connection to Scottish Royalty. Now this is interesting, very interesting, but whereas I and many others (especially in the Forum) would want to take this much, much further (and she admits she has not yet followed this through) she simply adds Royalty to her Tree (Why?) No wonder we encounter 'silliness' in Ancestry Trees of which this is prime example. It is I am afraid 'all smoke and mirrors'.

*A few minutes of online research shows that the Borthwick Clan was a long established noble clan and that William (son of John, Lord Borthwick) was a close friend and confidant of Mary, Queen of Scots. There is a wealth of information on how the Borthwicks supported James IV of Scotland at the Battle of Flodden and William Borthwick (4th Lord Borthwick) was charged with the safety of the infant James V of Scotland. All this is fascinating stuff, and worthy of deeper research. But a bloodline connection is by no means proven on such information.

 

[peter]

My mother used to buy Borthwick's baking powder. Do you think I might be related to Mary Queen of Scots?

 

[Pauline]

According to a tree at FamilySearch I am descended from James II of Scotland. This relies on the marriage of ancestor to an Elizabeth Steward (daughter of John) in Surrey around the mid 16th century, and ignoring the Steward/Stewart families living locally at the time, Elizabeth is deemed to be granddaughter of Sir John Stewart 3rd Earl of Lennox and thus descended from James II.

I wasn't planning to add this to my tree just yet.

 

[Bob Spiers]

My mother used to buy Borthwick's baking powder. Do you think I might be related to Mary Queen of Scots?

Funny you should say that because when I too mentioned 'Borthwick' to my wife, she said the same thing - ''my mother used to use their Baking Powder", so I told her that was the clincher.

What is more as I have learned that there were at least two notable 'Borthwick' Apothecary/ Surgeons (one of whom was one of four founding Fellows of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh in 1681), so if anyone recalls visiting a Doctor Borthwick, they too may well have a claim.

 

[jorghes]

I once followed one of my Scottish lines back to Robert the Bruce. I took it with a grain of salt, and left him off my tree!