Back in March of this year,  I blogged about an article that appeared at that time in the Guardian (UK) regarding John McCain's possible relationship to the historic Robert Bruce, King of Scotland. The Guardian article referred to this possible relationship as "wonderful fiction" and "baloney". The other day I came across the website of Mark Humphrys, HumphrysFamilyTree.com.
Mark makes an excellant argument as to why the Guardian article is more "baloney" than the idea that Senator McCain might be a relative of Robert Bruce. As he points out the Guardian article is very skewed in its approach to debunking something that is fact really not worthy being debunked. In another blog Mark discusses a similar article that appeared in The Guardian in 2005 regarding George Bush.

In January 2005, The Guardian printed an article of genealogical nonsense about Republican US President George W. Bush's descent from Strongbow. They enjoyed associating Bush with the invader and villain Strongbow. They declined to print my letter of corrections.

In March 2008, The Guardian were back again, with another article of genealogical nonsense about the new Republican candidate for the US Presidency, John McCain. They attack claims by the McCain family to be connected to Robert the Bruce. They declined to print my letter of corrections.

In both articles they attempt to make the Republican look bad. Dare I suspect that they write this stuff because they don't like Republicans?

Please see The "John McCain and Robert the Bruce" controversy of 2008 by Mark Humphry