This blog was stimulated by the excellent work that our DNA and genealogical researchers carry out. Working silently in the background, they accurately advance our knowledge and understanding of our Family, its history and its links. A huge thank you to Steve, Gary, Dana and Laurie for their continued efforts.
I therefore, in preparation for a future family announcement, would like to try to show the difficulties that need to be surmounted by our research team before they ever consider making any claims of descendancy. I’ve done this by using Robert the Bruce. Someone well known to us all and with many claims of ancestry, which although easily made, are very difficult to prove without the support of accurate and tenacious research.
But does that support exist?
Carruthers and Bruce, in brief:
During their time as Lords of Annandale, Carruthers recognised Bruce as their feudal superiors. They held many posts for them and were named Stewards and Foresters of Annandale, keepers of the Trailtrow Preceptory and guardians of the ‘old kirk ford’ at Hoddam, to name a few. Even after attaining the Scottish Crown we were not forgotten by the Bruce. It was Robert the Bruce (King Robert I) himself who in 1320, gave Thomas the charter of lands of Mouswald for our services to his family. Thomas was the great grandson of William, the first recorded of our name in the reign of Alexander II.
Records further show that Robert’s son King David II was known to visit Mouswald as a guest of the Carruthers family, and did so on a number of occasions. Our links to Bruce are therefore well known and for years we were considered, wrongly may I add, a sept of that noble family, and wore their tartan. This changed on the confirmation of our Chief in 2019, 22nd of his line, and the adoption of the Carruthers tartan (STR11700), registered as such with the Scottish Register of Tartan in Edinburgh.
It is important to realise that borderers never had septs. These are of a highland construct and were simply utilised by commercial enterprises in the turn of the 20th century to maximise sales of Scottish products. Further, border families, and Bruce for 100’s of years has been recognised as a lowland family, had graynes, not septs. These were families or names associated and rode with a larger family. Of course, beside this, Carruthers had its own lineage and distinct line of Chiefs dating back to the 11th century and as such were a well recognised and highly respected border clan and family.
More information on our relationship with Bruce, which we are exceptionally proud of, can be found here.
But back to the matter at hand and claims of being a descendant of Robert the Bruce.
Robert the Bruce is my ‘n‘ th times, great grandfather – or is he?
The legitimate male line of King Robert I became extinct with the death of his son David II (reigned 1324-1371) who died without any issue/children.
David married twice, the first time to Joan of the Tower, daughter of the English king, Edward II. They had no children.
His second marriage was to Margaret Drummond, widow of John Logie and daughter of Sir Malcolm Drummond. They also had no children.
Records show that although he had mistresses, Margaret Drummond being one, he sired no childeren and the line of the Royal House of Bruce became extinct on his death. The crown then passed through the female line to his nephew Robert II, the son of David’s elder stepsister Marjorie Bruce and Walter Stewart. This was the start of the Royal Stewart dynasty.
But, returning to King Robert I, although his line died out with his legitimate son David II, what about his other children and there were many, depending on the sources.
Robert’s Legitimate children:
Children from his first marriage with Isabella of Mar
- Marjorie Bruce (c. 1296 – 1316/17)
- Married Walter Stewart, 6th High Steward of Scotland
- Mother of Robert II of Scotland, began the Steward Dynasty
Children from his second marriage with Elizabeth de Burgh
- David II of Scotland (1324 – 1371)
- Succeeded his father as King of Scots
- John Bruce
- Matilda Bruce – married Thomas Isaac, buried in Dunfermline Abbey
- Margaret Bruce – married William of Moravia, Earl of Sutherland
- Elizabeth Bruce – married Sir Walter Oliphant
Robert’s Illegitimate children:
- Robert Bruce, Lord of Liddesdale – killed at the battle of Dupplin Moor 1332
- Walter of Odiston – Predeceased his father
- Niall Bruce of Carrick – Died at the Battle of Nevilles Cross 1346 ( it is considered that he may not have been sired by Robert, as some authors suggest Robert was his uncle)
There is no doubt that Robert the Bruce’s lineage played a significant role in Scottish history, particularly through his legitimate son, David II, and his daughter, Marjorie, whose descendants became the House of Stewart. There is also no doubt that he had many children, with some authors suggesting others not listed here, so what about the legitimacy of those claims of descendancy outwith David II.
Descent
Well it seems that it is not quite as simple as that. This blog gets to the heart of the challenges in our attempts to link modern day people i.e. ourselves to medieval figures like Robert the Bruce, simply by using DNA or weak internet sites.
Using ‘The Bruce’ as an example, and he is not alone in this as it is the same all across the board, the problem is that direct DNA linking to people such as Robert the Bruce is extremely difficult and in many cases not available. As such any claims of any descendancy must be well researched and enhanced through a unified approach with robust documented genealogy, an approach our team follows. This offers a far more solid outcome, not just in the case of Robert the Bruce, but for any claimed ancestor and of course the evidence must come from as many reliable and verifiable sources as possible.
NB: Anyone can make a claim and do, usually by those outside of Scotland, but supporting it with proofs is by far the more difficult thing to achieve.
Robert the Bruce and the difficulty of descendancy claims.
1. His remains are not fully available for DNA testing
• Robert the Bruce died in 1329 and was buried at Dunfermline Abbey.
• His tomb was rediscovered in 1818, and his skeleton was reinterred, but no confirmed, preserved DNA samples from his body have been publicly verified or made available for genetic analysis.
• His heart, famously taken on crusade, was buried at Melrose Abbey—but it’s likely too degraded for useful DNA analysis.
2. The male-line descent (Y-DNA) is broken
• His only legitimate son, David II, died childless.
• This means there is no unbroken male line from Robert the Bruce that we can trace with Y-chromosome DNA, which passes from father to son.
• Illegitimate sons may have had children, but their lines are not well-documented or are not genetically confirmed.
3. No confirmed modern descendants
• While some noble families claim descent from Robert the Bruce (usually through his daughters or illegitimate children), these are not direct male-line descendants, and it’s hard to confirm those links without strong genealogical and genetic evidence. This has been supported by the work of Strathclyde University in 2022, who found genetic markers for descendants of the ‘Bruce clan’ ie close relatives of, but not of direct descent to Robert the Bruce.
To quote from their site:
The SNP FTB15831 appears to be the distinct marker for the family, having been formed by the early 14thcentury, and was very likely to have been carried by King Robert the Bruce himself. He did not leave any male line descendants and the Bruces of Clackmannan are his closest known male line relatives. This is confirmed by a charter of 1365 where King David II refers to Robert Bruce of Clackmannan as “our beloved and faithful kinsman”.
DNA tests taken by male line descendants of two of Robert of Clackmannan’s sons, Robert and Edward, show that they both carry the marker FTB15831. This discovery means that anyone living today who tests positive for the marker, is descended from the same family as the famous King (but not the king himself ed)
4. DNA degrades over time
• Even if we had access to his remains, DNA preservation from medieval skeletons depends on many factors: soil acidity, temperature, burial method, etc.
• Contamination from the 1818 exhumation could also make clean sampling difficult.
In summary:
Academics cannot currently find direct DNA links to Robert the Bruce because:
• His only legitimate male line ended.
• His remains haven’t yielded usable or verified DNA to date.
• Modern descendants are uncertain or can only trace through female or illegitimate lines.
If new evidence or confirmed remains were genetically analysed in the future, this could change—but for now, genetic links to Robert the Bruce remain unproven.
So, if the paternal line is extinct, how valid is the maternal line?
In genetics, it’s not that the female line is less “valid”— but it provides different information than that of the male line:
Male line (Y-DNA)
• Passed only from father to son.
• The Y chromosome changes very slowly, making it useful for tracing direct paternal ancestry over many generations.
• Example: If we had Robert the Bruce’s Y-DNA, we could compare it to living men who claim direct male descent.
Female line (mtDNA)
• Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is passed only from mothers to their children (both sons and daughters), but only daughters pass it on.
• It’s useful for tracing direct maternal ancestry, but it is not unique to one family line in the way Y-DNA, which is.
Even if the female line is genetically traceable, it just is far less specific to one tracable family line. Therefore to an individual like Robert the Bruce, unless there’s a confirmed mitochondrial line from his mother’s side—something rarely preserved in medieval records and which does not exist, it struggles with accuracy.
So, what if any, is the historical and social difference between the information taken from the male and female lines?
Historically, especially in medieval Europe:
• Royal succession and titles followed the male line (patrilineal descent) for a reason.
• Female descendants were often married into other dynasties, making their children part of other houses, with different names.
• Illegitimate children of male royals were often still politically significant, but illegitimate daughters’ children were rarely traced.
As a result, genealogical records and social structures focused on male-line descent, making it easier to follow for claims of inheritance, power, and identity.
However, in modern genetics:
Some may argue that there’s nothing inherently more valid about the male line, however:
• Y-DNA is far easier to match with a specific historical figure along the male line (like a king),
• and even in cases like Robert the Bruce, we only have a ‘chance’ at male-line confirmation because female-line documentation is often incomplete.
• mtDNA is therefore less unique to individuals, making identification harder and far less specific to one line.
• Historical records focus on male descent, making documentation easier and therefore those of female lines far more difficult to evaluate.
• Because of this, Y-DNA is more often used for identity confirmation in historical figures, especially male monarchs.
Are these claims valid of descent from ‘The Bruce’ valid?
We know the male line is extinct, this is fully accepted and based on current research, if we had well-documented and unbroken evidence of maternal lines from Robert the Bruce’s mother or more importantly his daughters, we could better trace mitochondrial DNA, but as far as we are aware, that information has been lost to time.
As such and without solid evidence, the claims of being descended from such historically important characters as Robert the Bruce must struggle without any solid validity and therefore should be discounted until further and stronger evidence is discovered, reported and evaluated.
Good research, is good research and equals good outcomes.
An excellent reminder of how combining historical research with DNA evidence strengthens our understanding of ancestral claims. The dual approach brings clarity where records alone may fall short.