Who Would Be King of America?
My head hurts, and it has every right to. I’ve just come up for air after trying to determine the king or queen of America. Yes, I know we have no monarchy. But for the purpose of my exercise, that’s really just a technicality.
Here’s why: George Washington, our first president, was once encouraged to become America’s first king instead. Responding to Colonel Lewis Nicola, a Frenchman who served on the American side during the Revolutionary War and suggested Washington assume the crown, Washington retorted:
Let me conjure for you, then, if you have any regard for your Country, concern for yourself or for posterity, or respect for me, to banish these thoughts from your mind and never communicate, as from yourself or any one else, a sentiment of the like nature.
In short, Washington wasn’t so keen on the idea. But for those among us who like to play historical what-ifs, this is a biggie. Who would be sitting on America’s throne today if Washington had been king?
The Request
I wasn’t fully aware of the nuances of royal succession and words like agnatic until a week or so ago, but then the challenge was posed: would I be able to determine who would sit on the American throne today if Washington had elected to take the crown? It wasn’t a simple task—Washington had no children, which meant I’d be going through other family lines—but I’d certainly give it a try.
I started by scouting online lineages. Not surprisingly, there are countless family trees that include George Washington: if he’s any sort of relative of yours, you’re going to make sure he’s included, even if the connection is distant.
But while I found numerous trees, I also discovered that there’s no truly comprehensive George Washington family history anywhere online.
I knew this would be an issue since I would probably have to explore multiple branches of Washington’s family tree to identify—and almost more importantly, eliminate—potential king or queen candidates. But before venturing further into the Washington forest, it seemed to make sense to address my ignorance regarding the rules of royal succession.
Agnatic vs. Cognatic
How do you get the throne? I was so new to the topic that I didn’t even know what to google to learn more. I experimented with phrases like rules of royal descent, which led to terms like hereditary monarchy, and eventually I landed on agnatic and cognatic—words that were completely foreign to me.
Here’s my interpretation and oversimplification of the two with apologies to readers who grasp all the nuances of royal succession. With agnatic primogeniture (the right of the first-born son to inherit the throne), the succession is all male, all the time, and birth order plays an important role. With cognatic primogeniture, females get to play, provided all the usual male suspects have died out. There’s also agnatic-cognatic succession (I’m not making this up), which also allows females in the picture after all the eligible males are gone, but stresses how closely related the female is to the last reigning monarch.
I figured that even though the United States had won its freedom from England, we would most likely have patterned ourselves after the model of the United Kingdom—and with Queen Elizabeth on the throne, it seemed apparent that the UK allows females in the queue under at least some circumstances. But just when I began to hope that I might be able to wade through all the branches of the Washington tree using a single approach, the next stage of my research indicated that I wasn’t going to get off that easy.
Why Reinvent the Wheel?
It occurred to me that someone else must have pondered this question before, so I thought I’d see what their conclusions were. Somewhat to my surprise, I located only three thoughtful considerations of the matter. The most recent, “Stubborn Washington Spurned Kingdom,” had appeared in the Washington Times in July 2000. I discovered that Life had featured an article titled “If Washington Had Become King” in February 1951. And finally, a search of Google Books revealed a May 1908 piece called “If Washington Had Been Crowned” in the Scrap Book.
I found copies of all three, hoping against hope that they would all reach the same conclusion. I wanted a neon sign pointing to one person, but what I found—through no fault of any of the able writers—was additional confusion.
Each article crowned an individual but in some way included a back-up king—I’ve dubbed these the “safety monarch.” It’s similar to the heir-and-a-spare concept, only in these situations, the spare is attributable to differing succession interpretations and, consequently, can come from a far-flung branch of the family tree.
This left me appreciative and befuddled. I was grateful that I had a running start but confused by the multiple monarchs. The connection between the Craigs (see chart below) was easy enough to see—they were father and son—but even with the sketchy Washington family tree I had started to assemble, the links among the rest of the choices were far from obvious.
Email This Post
[...] research problem, and Megan has a fun (?) time of it in the latest Ancestry Magazine cover story, The Man (or Woman) Who Would Be King. I learned a lot about royal succession. I’m not sure I understand it all, but now [...]
Absolutely amazing article. A lot of fun to contemplate this hypothetical.
Is his name Paul Emery Washington or Paul Emerson Washington? The San Antonio paper uses Emerson.
Nice article. I was wondering why the adopted son of George Washington was not considered. Have not some crowns been passed to adopted children? He was Mrs. Washingtons grandson, I think. The Washingtons adopted him when his parents died. He was the child of her son from a previous marriage, if I read that right. Any thoughts on this?
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/gwpcusti.htm
I found your article very interesting. I have been doing my tree for about the last month, and found that George Washington and I share the same Grandfather. Augustine Warner. I am still researching things, but it looks like when the Warners of Warner Hall married into the Lewis family, they truly became royal. These people truly went back to the kings and queens of England, Scotland, France Portugal etc. My Grandfather Lewis Barrett was out of both of them. They married into the Davey Crockett family, and one of them married one of President Jefferson’s daughters, and they also married into the Washington family 3 times. Then, a little later on, Lewis Toombs Barrett went back to Robert Augustus Toombs. Secretary of War, that ran against Jefferson for the presidency of the confederacy among other things. This has been a fascinating book that I can’t put down. I am starting my mothers side now, and it is proving to be fascinating as well. I wish I had known when I was growing up just how interesting my family was. My Grandchildren will know early what they have to live up to. Thanks for all of the help and information that has been available to me.
Sincerely,
Wanda Barrett
6408 Val Dosta Dr.
Tucson AZ 85718
520-751-7884
Yes, these would seem the most likely four possible lines for a Washingtonian monarchy to follow; but let me present several other options. My sources are primarily Burke’s (as above), supplemented with data available on ancestry.com (such as the good old social security death index!)
First off, it would only seem fair to look at the line that President Washington seems to have regarded as his own succession: the owners of Mount Vernon. George Washington left as the executors of his will five of his nephews, each the child of a different sibling: William Augustine (son of half-brother Augustine), Bushrod (elder son of brother John Augustine), George Steptoe (younger son of brother Samuel), Samuel (son of brother Charles), and Lawrence Lewis (a younger son of sister Betty, and also the husband of Eleanor Parke Custis, Martha’s granddaughter whom the Washingtons reared at Mount Vernon). However, the majority of his estate, including Mount Vernon itself, he left to Bushrod Washington, who “had kindly undertaken to superintend [his] Estate during [his] Military Services”. Bushrod’s father, John Augustine Washington (1736-1787), was not George Washington’s next older brother, but he was his favorite brother according to all accounts. It was this Bushrod Washington who was by then already an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, appointed by Adams in 1798. Bushrod died without children in 1829, and was succeeded by his nephew John Augustine Washington II (or King John I) (1789-1832). John I was the son of Corbin Washington, Bushrod’s younger brother, and his wife, Hannah Lee, daughter of Richard Henry Lee (a signer of the Declaration of Independence ). His son John Augustine Washington III (1821-1861), who would have been King John II, was a colonel in the Confederate Army who was killed at Cheat Mountain, (West) Virginia in the Civil War, but he had previously sold Mount Vernon to the Ladies Association in 1858. John II was succeeded by his son Lawrence I (1854-1920), his son John (Augustine) III (1878-1962), his son John (Augustine) IV (1913-1976), and his son John (Augustine) V (born 1952).
Second, it seems we should consider the line of George Washington’s wards, his stepchildren. Martha Washington had four children from her first marriage, two of whom died in infancy, and two of whom were raised at Mount Vernon by George and Martha, a son John Parke Custis and a daughter Martha, who died unmarried at age 17. John died in 1781 at age 27, but had married (interestingly enough to Eleanor Calvert, a descendant of the Lords Baltimore and possibly a descendant of an illegitimate daughter of King George I of England!) They had three daughters and one son, George Washington Parke Custis (1781-1857) (whom George Washington referred to in his will as his ward), who would have succeeded his step-grandfather as George II in 1799. George II’s wife, Mary Lee Fitzhugh, had a pedigree that reads like a “Who’s Who” of old Virginia families - Fitzhugh, Lee, Carter, Randolph, and Bolling families. They had two daughters and a son, but only one daughter, Mary Anna Randolph Custis, or Mary I (1807-1873), survived infancy. Mary married her third cousin, the famous Robert E. Lee, whom I assume would likely have been made King Robert I in a joint reign. They were succeeded by their son George III (1832-1913), his nephew Robert II (1869-1922), his brother George IV (1872-1948), and his son Robert III (born 1924). The heir apparent is his son, the future Robert IV (born 1964). It should be noted that this descent works along either a cognatic succession of Martha Washington, or as an agnatic succession of the male members of the Custis family, and then the Lee family upon its extinction.
Finally, I propose that, with the death of George I in 1799 with no clear heirs, that a new monarch would have been elected, most likely Thomas I of the House of Jefferson. However, as his succession is also unclear, not having had sons of his own, it is uncertain in which direction the monarchy would have taken upon his death in 1826, possibly a new monarch being elected upon the death of each subsequent monarch.
at the time the commom thought was that prince charles edward stuart was the best choice, this was because the majority accepted his right, over the “windsors” or as they were known at the time the “saxe-coburg-gothe”.
as their ancestor wiliam of orange was nothing but a thief and their bloodline was russian peasents,wheras charles edward was the true king of britain as he was of noble stock being connected to the stuarts and tudors.
as far as i have read there was some support for him in america as somewhere in the region there was upto 100,000 scots had been sold into slavery in the americas and their ancestors were true to the faith and as the “windsors were the usurpers they blamed them for the sale of their families, and wanted a stuart kink.
The whole point about Washington was that he was not a king, not part of a royal family. This concept is really not understandable to people living in a republic
Here in England, we tried a republic in Oliver Cromwell’s time, but it didn’t work out for us.
Megan has made me sit up, eyes wide open, with her article and research. Bravo! and many thanks. I seem to have stumbled on a person with the out-of-the-way attitude, with her curiosity. And the writing is colorful, so the reading was delightful.
Nick
This topic has come up three times recently. When I was doing one of my no objective searches on Yahoo, I ran across Plantagenets ( their hiers ) They had their hiers in USA and colonies listed. While running down the list to see if I recognized any names, I ran into Washington. I remembered that there was a search to determine who George Washington’s hier is in 2008. A man in Texas was named. So I followed that site and found one line to be hier to George Washington. They followed it out to a male hier living in Texas. This site includes all the hier of Plantangenets. The family name that I remember back in the 1563 in England was Reade. This was an ancestor of Washington. Then recently I saw two George Bush and Kerry’s lineages both descenting from an Edmund Reade. I think it is curious that they are all related to the Reade and Plantagents. In a search of Edmund Reade 1563 on Ancestry.com, I stopped noting at 440 family tree sites with him included. This is all very interesting. I am surprised that you could not say conclusively who is the hier to George Washington, father of our country. I saw there was no descent on the Plantangenets family tree web site, but Samuel did have descent. I would conclude, but I would have to take notes to back it up, that the Washington Famiy is related to the Plantangets and Edward III, King of England. George is just one member along the line who may have decided to claim his Royal descent. Since the U.S.A. does not recognized a nobleman class, then it is all History and an interesting bit of knowledge. Yes, I agree anyone who is interested in Genealogy would like to have George Washington in their Family History, no matter how remote a cousin. Cheers!
The article was excellent, but I must admit that in the 21st century, no-one would get away with choosing only male descendants. In other countries around the world, we are seeing that the first child of a monarch, whether it be male or female, are being recognised as heir-apparent. It can only be a matter of time until the question is raised, and considered, by Parliament, here in England.
I often wonder where the monarchy would have gone if the firstborn, or eldest child-in-line, had inherited the throne. If we start with Edward ‘The Confessor’, and then slowly work our way down the ladder to present-time - I wonder ‘who’ would be ruling England now?
Care to give it a try?
Well, nobody will get very far trying to trace Edward The Confessor descendants as he did’nt have any! Sorry, people! How about we try from William the Conquerer, instead?