Talk:Bush family

Arnold

George Bush is related to Benedict Arnold through John Lathrop [1], who has over 80,0000 descendants in America including other presidents.

Billy Bush

Is there a way we can work in Access Hollywood anchor Billy Bush [2]? His father, Jonathan, is the brother of George H. W. Bush.[3] [4] [5] Billy's also a notable Bush, but he's not political. Chris N. 22:55, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Shome mishatke, shurely

This article has to be wrong. It says that Richard Bush, who died in 1732, was the father of Timothy Bush, who was born in 1761. There is also a quote from the book "The Faith of George W. Bush" which must refer to Obadiah Bush but seems to refer to Richard Bush. Does anyone know the facts here?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

According to the current (31 October 2005) page, Richard Bush's son Timothy was born in 1735, not 1761. But that would still make it a looooooong pregnancy.

  See "http://www.wargs.com/political/bush.html#TimothyBush" for a summary of the facts, as
  currently known.

Successful Political Dynasty

Added the particular plaudit offered by The Economist. They were referring mainly to 1,000 days in the Presidential Office but they did discuss (and dismiss) the other main contenders, the Kennedys. Not sure if it should be in the title section, however. --MJW 81.154.201.45 13:30, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Did You Know

This article seems like a good contender for Did You Know? because of its connections to the royal family in Great Britain, the Pierces, and the Kerrys. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:23, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

How Bush and Kerry are related

Bush and Kerry are first cousins, seven times removed.

I seriously doubt that. My first cousin once removed is either the child of my first cousin or the first cousin of my parent. My first cousin twice removed is either the grandchild of my first cousin or the first cousin of my grandparent. In order for Bush and Kerry to be first cousins seven times removed they would have to be seven generations apart from each other, which seems highly unlikely. I suspect they are actually seventh cousins (i.e. Edmund Read and Elizabeth Cooke are the great⁶-grandparents of both men), or perhaps seventh cousins once removed (i.e. Edmund and Elizabeth are the great⁶-grandparents of one and either the great⁵- or the great⁷-grandparents of the other). Can someone doublecheck this, please? --Angr/_comhrá 12:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to make the same comment. Even 7th cousin seems too close, unless there was later intermarriage between the two families than mentioned in this article. Their common ancestor lived over 3 centuries ago. There'd be too many generations for them to only be 7th cousins, if that is indeed their most recent common ancestor - Nik42 19:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm double-checking this, but based on the Bush family tree I have, he and Kerry are actually 9th cousins three times removed. (For most people that's a population that tops 10 million. Only notable in that it's a recorded genealogy, which after a few generations most people are lucky to have at all.) --Dhartung | Talk 01:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Ancestors

The article says that the Bushes are the first Presidents descended from Indians, but several of President Coolidge's biographers said the same about him. Does anyone know which is correct? - Coemgenus 01:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coolidge himself reportedly acknowledged some Indian ancestry. Apart from that, the existence of Mary Hyanno (the Bushes' supposed Indian ancestor) is uncorroborated. And the article's flat assertion that no other U.S. president had any Indian ancestry is both impossible to know and highly unlikely. Squib 00:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The Chicago Tribune's Clarence Page wrote in his Nov. 16, 2005 column that Bill Clinton has publicly claimed Indian ancestry as well, thus edging out George W.:

"Later during [a public television panel] show, as if he had been listening to us, Clinton revealed to the world that his own family had 'some Indian blood' on his mother's side. 'Cherokee,' he announced, looking somewhat bemused."

Squib 18:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"The Bush family is sometimes said to have Native American ancestry. Robert Bolling Jr. (a 10th-generation ancestor of George W. Bush) is the son of Robert Bolling and Anne Stith, whom Bolling married after the death of his first wife, Jane Rolfe, a granddaughter of Pocahontas. [2]"

this should be removed, neither robert bolling nor anne stith were indians, so therefore none of the bush family are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.189.246.113 (talk • contribs) .

I kinda see your point, but it was mentioned in Salon and other places, so it's notable. I reworded a bit so it's clear that we're not just including direct ancestors in this section. Note that other common-ancestor relationships are included in the article. (P.S. Don't insert your comments inside others, and, please sign your comments using two hyphens and four tildes.) --Dhartung | Talk 12:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

um no, you can read it so deal with it.

the point is that none of the bush family is blood related to native "americans" so it should be removed, ancestry is blood. hypothetically, would you want your fathers original wifes'(aka not your mother) (who later died or was "removed") family mentioned in your family history?

salon is media, you should never use the media as a source. stick to reputable sources. "whoever controls the media, controls the mind" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.189.246.113 (talk • contribs) .

I'm sorry, you're removing material which is properly cited according to Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. You may not think much of Salon or "the media", but Wikipedia is a tertiary source of information, meaning we derive the content of article from what has been published in books or, yes, "the media". I don't deny that in some cases this is a weakness, but I'd sure be interested in what alternatives you propose. Unsourced edits? --Dhartung | Talk 09:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Connections to the bin Laden family

I see no mention of connections between the bin Laden family and the Bush family here or at George W. Bush. Shouldn't something this important be on this page? It's on the bin Laden family page & or the Carlyle Group. Also how does the Bin Laden Family seem to escape the Forbes list of Billionairs?[6] Cparker 00:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any individual in the bin Laden family is a billionaire. Even the Bushes are not billionaires. (Dick Cheney is richer than any of the individual Bushes, I'm pretty sure, and he isn't a billionaire.) As for the bin Laden connections, they apply only to some members of the family, and are best handled on those specific pages. Also, please do not edit comments unless they are yours. --Dhartung | Talk 22:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Bush problem

I had noticed the date myself and hoped to look into it further. For the time being I've rewritten the Richard/Timothy relationship explanations to conform to the document at wargs.com, which seems pretty reliable (calling a conjecture a conjecture). It's quite possibly a question that will never be resolved, of course.

As for Mans Andersson, it's interesting that there's a Swedish ancestor, but that's less than 1% of the current President's genetic make-up, so it doesn't belong in the intro (why not list all the Irish, German, and whatever else too). Some people view genealogy as a kind of panning for gold (look! a king!), others take a more jaded view like Mark Humphrys. [7] I'm well convinced of the latter, besides, very often the "minor" members of a family have just as interesting stories to tell (I recently beefed up James Smith Bush, for example -- wow). --Dhartung | Talk 23:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bush twins vote

Why does this page link to the Bush-twins vote. I hardly find it relevant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.64.83 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for pointing that out. It was linkspam we other editors failed to notice. --Dhartung | Talk 17:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Estimated net worth?

Anybody know? Amazing how these plutocrats manage to dodge the Forbes lists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.60.74 (talk • contribs)

Well, to be on Forbes you have to have at least US$1 billion. A recent WaPo article analyzed George W.'s personal wealth at $10-35M (Cheney is well over $100M), and his dad has been pegged previously in the low single-digit millions. Some of the banker siblings like Bucky may well be worth more than Dubya. This would be interesting information to get into the article in some way. --Dhartung | Talk 01:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Family history

This page is lacking a summary of the family history. Where does the Bush name originate from? J.J. 07:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, are you asking about the meaning of the name "Bush", or are you asking how the family rose to prominence? Regarding the latter, I'm working on several individuals' articles, and I agree an overview is needed, but I haven't gotten around to it yet. --Dhartung | Talk 09:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be blind. It's old European Nobility [8]. I like Burke's Peerage 09:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by such a cutesy response, but being listed in Burke's is not the same as being "old European nobility". Certainly not directly. Bush is more closely related to Churchill than to anyone in the British royal family. --Dhartung | Talk 17:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sort of glad you took the burden to mention the cousinship to Churchill too. But - of course - theres a remarkabel connexion with old European nobility too. Both facts I can't find in the article as yet. I like Burke's Peerage 08:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but if your argument is as it seems that the name Bush all by itself indicates pedigree, I'm afraid you're reaching. The earliest American Bush, Richard, was some kind of scoundrel and the (bastard?) son Timothy was just a blacksmith, which does not especially suggest a tony background. It's much more interesting to me that they came from such origins rather than with a silver ~~foot~~ spoon and all. --Dhartung | Talk 01:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be born with a silver spoon in the mouth shouldn't bee any problem; but a <kidding> reptilian bloodline should </kidding>, you can find the bloodline-thing in the david icke lemma, espcacially here [9] ;-) I like Burke's Peerage 15:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Louisa May Alcott?

Is it worth including her? She is the fourth cousin, 3 and 4 times removed, of the two Presidents, respectively, closer than the related Presidents mentioned.--Chuljin 18:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. My personal opinion is that notability requires some connection, e.g. similar profession or some kind of interaction. Related Presidents of a President is notable, a cousin he knew personally would be, but there are literally scores of notable individuals connected to the Bush family. This is not, however, notable, as it mainly reflects their extensive New England heritage. Most people do not have their Xth cousins Yth removed fully researched, but because of their notability, the Bush family does. I've placed information about Christie Todd Whitman (in-law) and Tom Kean (cousin) in their respective articles because the family connection is notable in light of their appointments to key positions. Ultimately, although Wikipedia could include such information, we're not an indiscriminate listing of trivia. We could list every relative here with a Wikipedia article, but that wouldn't be very useful to anyone, and it would create a false sense that the Bush family is uniquely blessed with famous relatives, just because we've gone to the trouble to list them all. --Dhartung | Talk 00:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now. I apologize for indiscriminately putting it in before. --Chuljin 01:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all! You've been perfectly polite, and that gets you far on Wikipedia. --Dhartung | Talk 01:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White House photo of entire family

The White House took a formal photo of the Bush family the gathered to celebrate George H.W. Bush and Barbara Bush's 60th anniversary. [10] Regardless of one's political allegiances, it seems fair to say it is a lovely photo and anyway complete and recent. Should or can it be included here? Minutiaman 19:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign before)[reply]

Actually, I'd been looking for some time for a higher-quality version of the one here, from the 2005 inauguration. It's probably the most "complete" one there is. Yours has the same low-resolution problem (although it's funny to see the President showing off his socks, maybe that's why!), but has a few more cousins. This one has most of the President's generation, but not his dad's siblings. Here's another from his dad's library from when he was President, again just the current batch of siblings. And in this one you can't even recognize them! --Dhartung | Talk 02:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still prefer the photograph I found because it seems to have everyone in what I call the immediate (first) extended family (meaning the president's mom, dad, brothers, sister, nieces, nephews...), basically everyone alive on the article and then some (those few youngins should be added to it). We don't need second cousins and so forth, and anyway the photo I found lists everyone so readers will actually know who's who. But I don't know how to upload photos so I publicized it here. Minutiaman 20:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vandals

Does anyone think that semi-protection might be needed on this page? Just rv the work of some vandals, and looking at the history page, I can see that I wasn't the only one who has. Opinions? -- benzo ? ♠♠ 23:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that the vandalism meets the policy threshold:

A page can be temporarily semi-protected by an administrator in response to serious vandalism, in which the page is getting a large number of vandalism edits from so many different anonymous or newly-created accounts that blocking them individually is not a solution.

It happens, we revert, life goes on.--Dhartung | Talk 04:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diagram?

We should get a diagram of the Bush family. --Johnston49er 20:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A diagram of the family? Or of the family tree? -- 12.116.162.162 19:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just added one! RHMI 22:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed?

Removed a "citation needed" comment about the Economist, on a given date, desribing the Bushes as the most successful political family in US history. The statement itself is surely a citation. Garbled my edit comment though. Oops. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cmsg (talk • contribs) .

Unfortunately, that is not a formal citation that meets the standards in WP:CITE, to which all articles should continually aspire (see the References section). I'm reinserting the template. The Economist has recently gone ad-supported, but the quote is not visible via search engines. It may be available on Nexis, though. It may be better to simply replace it with a citable description of a similar nature. --Dhartung | Talk 06:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Senate candidacy unimportant?

I think Prescott Bush Jr.'s 1982 senate candidacy merits a mention. The long term fallout probably led to Joe Lieberman's long term senate career as many Bush supporters against Weicker backed Joe in 1988 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.181.52.14 (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It's in the Prescott Bush, Jr. article. I don't see the relevance here, especially as the connection you are making is speculative. -- Dhartung | Talk 01:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry

Shouldn't this article mention that George W. Bush and John Kerry are distant cousins? See the John Kerry article under Trivia. Emperor001 21:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diversity

An old, old, wooden ship used during the Civil War era

is it true that bush is cousin with hitler?

http://www.tmdad.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.82.78.103 (talk) 05:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Garfield connection.

I have re-instated le Botelers as one of the Bush - Garfield connections. Yet I have been unable to work out how to reference it. The actual reference is here: http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/g/a/r/J-H-Garner/FILE/0141page.html. The le Botelers appear in generation 19. Pete 09:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article disproves the royal descent of Garfield ancestor William Arnold: http://www.ancestry.com/learn/library/article.aspx?article=6363 71.92.70.77 23:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- The le Boteler connection is not a royal connection, although the le Boteler/Butler family were minor aristocracy. Far from it ... the Butlers produced Wild Bill Hickok as well. It is, however, a clear connection between the Bush and Garfield families.Pete 10:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - But the article shows that the PARENTAGE of Garfield ancestor William Arnold is not known.131.215.108.211 23:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other notable relatives sectio

Can anyone source these, especially the Charlemagne claim? Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.79.144 (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The charlemagne claim is totally false and why is there a link to a conspiracy website: http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20070405.htm

What happened to the mention of his Native American ethnicity?

Who deleted this? When was it deleted? Why was it deleted?Pistolpierre (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do yuo know if it was true and it was probably unsourced.Darth Anzeruthi (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]