The Man Who Would Be King

Truth in this article is that GW had no children and as such no "actual" blood ascenders. However, through his marriage to Martha Custis, he did have "step children" The Ancestry.com folks should have explored this lineage, to whit they would have found the connections to Robert E. Lee who married into the Custiss Washington's and then there is the Lewis family connection Col. Fielding Lewis a contemporary of "Light Horse" Harry Lee (Robert E's father and one of GW's favorite soldiers). Lewis married into the Custis Washington clan. (Col F Lewis is one of my ancestors) so I might have been in line for the throne.

Interesting. Though George Washington was not the only figure in history to have turned down such a monarchical title. Ataturk also turned down such a position which was offered to him by the Turkish Parliament after the war of independence.

The article does explain that these people are descendants of George Washington's immediate relatives, they are NOT "direct" descendants of George Washington himself. Since he had no children, he could NOT possibly have any "direct" descendants. Maybe YOU should "actually read it", bbmcwidget.

The new Democratic platform paradigm; make unsubstantiated claims that sound 'really good' but are not supported by fact.

Ulster1 - the story acknowledges that George didn't have any children. It's explained if you actually read it

How could this man be a "direct descendant" when Washington didn't have any biological children? Maybe someone should have done a bit more research.

Did someone forget to do his research? George Washington didn't have any biological children of his own.

Enjoyable storyline. There are direct descendants of US "monarchs", they are Native Hawaiians, a story on them might be interesting to readers

If George Washington did not have any biological children, why did Kurt Soller and Newsweek come up with the idea about this article in the first place?

posted by Marguerita19787

These man may be descendants of Washington's family, but you can't be descendants of someone who did not have children (as the article mentioned, Washington did not). Also, even if Washington had been given the title of "King" there is no reason to believe that an American monarchy would have followed traditonal hereditery succession. By this that time England's Parliament had already established a say over the succession of the monarchy there, and there is no reason to believe that Congress would not have here. Also, if George was king, he could have had congress declare Martha's children as his heirs.

There is no direct descendant from George Washington. George Washington had no children other than those from his wife Mary Custis which were children from her previous marriage before George.

There is no direct descendant from George Washington. George Washington had no children other than those from his wife Mary Custis which were children from her previous marriage before George.

It's very hard to be directly descended from a man who had no natural children. I'm fairly sure you don't have to be a geneticist to know that.
Newsweek, you dropped the ball on this article, aren't you supposed to be informed?

funny.....but it is sure that washtington had no children...

funny......but it is sure that .washington had no children.....

How can you be directly descended from a man who had no natural children? The children of George Washington were his stepchildren. You don't have to be a geneticist to understand that.

Impossible. George Washington had no children.

I'm sorry but he isn't a "direct descendent" of George Washington because Washington didn't have any
children. That's the definition of the term-childen of children of children. Directly. If you are descended from brothers or sisters then you are a "collateral descendent." It wouldn't matter because obviously, sucession is determined by collateral descendents when there are no direct descendents, but I wish the writer had used the term correctly.