George Washington’s Will Exposes the Errors in UsefulCharts’ Royal Family Tree
Matt Baker miscounts Washington’s executors, misrepresents a major inheritance, and treats an unproven family connection as nearly certain. The original historical records tell a more complicated—and considerably more interesting—story.
George Washington left a remarkably detailed will. It identifies his relatives, distributes his property, explains several of his decisions, and names the people responsible for administering his estate.
More than two centuries later, that document is readily available to anyone willing to read it.
That makes the mistakes in Matt Baker’s updated UsefulCharts video, Who Would Be King of America if George Washington Had Been a Monarch?, particularly difficult to excuse.
Released in July 2026 to coincide with America's 250th anniversary, the video imagines who might occupy an American throne if Washington had established a hereditary monarchy.
Baker acknowledges that the exercise is speculative. His presentation is generally thoughtful, and he makes a genuine effort to include the descendants of enslaved people in Washington’s extended family history.
But the historical foundation of his imaginary monarchy contains errors that require no speculative genealogy to uncover.
The most serious are sitting in Washington’s own handwriting.
Washington Named Seven Executors. Baker Counts Six.
Baker introduces his revised family tree by announcing that Washington named six executors, each representing a major branch of his family.
The number conveniently matches his six proposed royal lines.
Unfortunately, Washington named seven.
His will, signed July 9, 1799, explicitly appoints Martha Washington, William Augustine Washington, Bushrod Washington, George Steptoe Washington, Samuel Washington, Lawrence Lewis, and George Washington Parke Custis.
The last appointment was conditional on Custis reaching the age of twenty.
There is no ambiguity about the number. All seven appear in the concluding appointment clause of the original document.
Baker omits George Washington Parke Custis from his list.
That omission is especially consequential because Custis is central to the video's most provocative succession scenario.
Custis was the grandson of Martha Washington and was raised by George and Martha after his father's death. His daughter, Mary, eventually married Confederate general Robert E. Lee.
Baker proposes that Lee's descendants could inherit the hypothetical American crown if Washington chose Custis as his successor.
But he also considers this scenario unlikely, arguing that Washington's will demonstrates greater confidence in his nephew Bushrod.
The appointment of Custis as an executor complicates that judgment.
It does not prove Washington would have named Custis his royal successor. Executorship and hereditary succession are entirely different matters.
It does, however, establish that Washington entrusted Custis with an important responsibility in the administration of his estate.
Baker's six-executor framework excludes precisely the individual whose standing he is attempting to assess.
The error is not a matter of obscure historical interpretation. The video presents a numerical claim that the primary document directly contradicts.
And the missing executor was hardly an insignificant figure.
Lawrence Lewis Inherited Mount Vernon Property. Baker Leaves That Out.
Baker's account of Lawrence Lewis provides another example of how the pursuit of a tidy succession story obscures the actual inheritance.
Lewis was Washington's nephew, personal secretary, and the husband of Eleanor “Nelly” Parke Custis, whom Washington had helped raise.
According to Baker, Lewis expected to inherit Mount Vernon but suffered considerable resentment when the property went to Bushrod Washington instead.
Baker then introduces a tantalizing possibility: Martha Washington reportedly said her husband had prepared two wills, one of which he instructed her to destroy.
Perhaps, Baker suggests, the discarded document would have awarded Mount Vernon to Lewis.
There is a problem with that story.
Lawrence Lewis and Nelly actually inherited approximately 2,000 acres of the Mount Vernon estate.
Washington's surviving will expressly grants them the remaining Mount Vernon property not assigned to Bushrod.
The inheritance included land around Dogue Run, a gristmill, a distillery, and associated buildings.
Bushrod received the mansion and approximately 4,000 acres, including the principal residential property.
Lewis did not receive the mansion, which explains the distinction Baker appears to be making. But the surviving will did not exclude him from Mount Vernon.
Far from it.
The Lewis family subsequently established Woodlawn on inherited land. Their house, completed in 1805, was designed by William Thornton, the architect associated with the United States Capitol.
This was no consolation prize of sentimental family possessions. It was a substantial landed inheritance that supported an independent household and plantation.
The distinction matters because Baker uses the inheritance to infer Washington's personal preferences.
Bushrod's receipt of the mansion certainly establishes that Washington entrusted him with the family's most recognizable property.
It does not establish that Washington regarded Lewis as an unsuccessful claimant who received nothing comparable.
Washington was distributing assets among several people to whom he had personal and family obligations.
Indeed, the will expressly states Washington's intention to treat Martha's grandchildren as members of his own family.
George Washington Parke Custis personally received approximately 1,200 acres near Alexandria and an entire square in the planned federal capital.
These bequests were not accidental gestures.
They were deliberate provisions for members of Washington's household.
Baker's account would have been stronger had he explained this distribution rather than presenting the inheritance principally as a contest between Bushrod and Lewis.
The imagined alternative will is an entertaining device. Its contents are unknowable.
The surviving will, however, already supplies the answer to a substantial part of the inheritance question.
Washington did not concentrate his Mount Vernon property in one universally favored successor. He divided it.
That is a rather significant fact to leave out of a discussion about his hypothetical heirs.
West Ford: A Plausible Family Connection Becomes an Unproven Certainty
The video's most delicate genealogical argument concerns West Ford.
Ford was born enslaved at Bushfield, the Virginia plantation belonging to George Washington's brother John Augustine Washington and his wife Hannah.
Ford's mother was an enslaved woman named Venus.
After Bushrod Washington inherited Mount Vernon in 1802, Ford moved there, eventually obtained his freedom, and spent decades working in a managerial position.
His treatment by the Washington family was unusual.
Baker considers several possible fathers, including George Washington, John Augustine Washington, and Bushrod himself.
He appropriately acknowledges that most historians reject the claim that George Washington fathered Ford.
The trouble comes when Baker moves from plausible family connections to near-certainty that Ford's father belonged to the Washington male line.
The surviving evidence does not justify that degree of confidence.
Mount Vernon's own historical research acknowledges that Ford's unusual treatment has led historians to suspect John Augustine Washington or one of his sons.
But its researchers have found no documentary evidence establishing the father's identity.
There is an additional complication that Baker's account fails to develop.
The woman who ordered Ford's freedom was Hannah Washington.
In her 1801 will, Hannah Bushrod Washington directed that Ford receive protection against smallpox, learn a trade, and become free when he reached twenty-one.
Bushrod subsequently carried out that provision.
The distinction is important.
Baker emphasizes Bushrod's favorable treatment of Ford, including his emancipation, and considers that treatment evidence of possible biological paternity.
Yet the instruction to free Ford originated with Bushrod's mother.
Hannah's will also disposed of other enslaved members of Ford's family. Venus, Ford's grandmother Jenny, and his younger sister Bettey were left to another Washington relative.
The document therefore reveals both an exceptional provision for Ford and the continued enslavement of his immediate family.
Why did Hannah single him out?
A concealed biological relationship is one possibility. So are other personal obligations or circumstances no longer recoverable from the surviving evidence.
The provision demonstrates exceptional treatment. It does not identify a father.
Bushrod's later generosity adds another clue, not a verdict.
In 1829, he left Ford 119 acres of land and requested that he continue working in his existing position.
That inheritance was substantial, particularly for a formerly enslaved Black man living in Virginia.
But an inheritance is not a paternity test.
Neither is a physical resemblance between two men.
The Washington family itself had multiple potential male candidates, and the available documents do not establish which, if any, fathered Ford.
Baker's stronger conclusion is therefore precisely the one he should have avoided.
West Ford's paternal connection to the Washington family is historically plausible, but it remains unproven.
The Ford Descendants Deserve More Than a Footnote
There is another side to this dispute that deserves care.
Ford's descendants have maintained an oral history identifying George Washington as his father.
This is not simply an internet rumor invented by amateur genealogists.
The family has preserved stories across generations, including accounts of Ford's unusually close relationship with the Washington household.
Linda Allen Hollis and other descendants have spent years gathering documents, family recollections, and historical references to establish his ancestry.
Their evidence includes nineteenth- and twentieth-century accounts, although none conclusively establishes paternity.
The family's position is documented on its own historical website and was investigated extensively by Jill Abramson for The New Yorker in 2022.
That oral history deserves serious examination.
It does not deserve automatic acceptance or casual dismissal.
The same standard applies to Mount Vernon, whose institutional researchers reject the George Washington paternity claim on documentary and chronological grounds.
The institution has considerable historical expertise, but its conclusions must still be assessed against the underlying records.
The strongest evidence against George Washington's paternity concerns his documented whereabouts.
Ford was born in the early 1780s, while Washington's military responsibilities kept him away from Virginia during much of the relevant period.
Mount Vernon argues that Washington's movements make the alleged encounter with Venus highly improbable.
The surviving records also provide no documentation that the two met.
Those findings are considerably stronger than speculation about Washington's possible infertility.
Baker mentions infertility as an important objection. Yet Washington's inability to have children with Martha does not, by itself, conclusively establish that he could never father a child.
The chronology and documentary evidence provide the more substantial challenge.
What emerges is a historically significant dispute with unresolved questions—not an excuse to declare the Washington male line established beyond reasonable doubt.
The 2024 DNA Discovery Is Real. Its Meaning Is Narrower Than the Video Implies.
One of Baker's most interesting additions concerns research published in 2024.
Scientists examined human remains associated with the Washington family at Harewood Cemetery in West Virginia.
They combined genetic evidence from historical remains with DNA from a living Washington descendant to reconstruct a paternal genetic profile associated with George Washington's family.
This was a legitimate scientific achievement.
The study, published in iScience, used Y-chromosome markers alongside mitochondrial and autosomal DNA to investigate family relationships and identify remains.
Baker reports the relevant Y-chromosome haplogroup as R-U152.
That is a genuine designation identified in the research, but it is not the study's most refined result.
The researchers used more extensive testing of a living descendant to identify the downstream haplogroup R-BY32422.
That distinction matters because broad haplogroups can contain numerous paternal lineages that diverged long before anyone named Washington existed.
A person who belongs to R-U152 does not thereby become a close biological relative of George Washington.
The shared ancestor could have lived thousands of years ago.
More importantly, the study did not establish West Ford's ancestry.
No genetic evidence connecting Ford to the reconstructed Washington paternal line was presented in that research.
A comparison involving documented, uninterrupted male-line descendants of Ford could potentially help determine whether his paternal ancestry matched the Washington family.
Even a convincing match would not automatically distinguish George Washington from his brother, nephew, or another male relative belonging to the same paternal line.
Mount Vernon's published explanation acknowledges this limitation.
The science presents a useful investigative opportunity.
It does not provide the missing verdict.
Baker is right to introduce the 2024 study. But the most interesting question is not which modern people happen to share an ancient European haplogroup.
It is whether genetic evidence could resolve the specific historical claims being made about the Washington family.
That is the distinction between an intriguing genetic fact and a meaningful genealogical conclusion.
A Surname Is Not a Genetic Test Either
Baker makes a related claim when discussing actor Denzel Washington.
He correctly cautions that the actor's proposed connection to the presidential family lacks reliable primary documentation.
He then explains that approximately 90% of Americans named Washington are Black and says they generally have no close biological connection to the first president.
The demographic proportion is broadly consistent with historical Census findings.
According to the Census Bureau's 2010 surname analysis, 87.5% of people reporting the surname Washington identified as non-Hispanic Black.
But the Census did not establish whether those individuals were genetically related to the president's family. It measured names and demographic characteristics, not ancestral connections.
Many people undoubtedly acquired the surname independently of the president's immediate family.
That historical explanation is reasonable.
It is not a substitute for identifying particular biological relationships.
Once again, a claim about family ancestry has been attached to evidence that answers a different question.
The Most Important West Ford Story Has Nothing to Do With a Throne
Baker's video recognizes Ford's descendants and highlights his grandson George William Ford, a Buffalo Soldier who later became a military officer and national cemetery administrator.
That material is valuable.
But West Ford's own greatest historical achievement receives far less attention than his potential royal ancestry.
In 1833, Ford purchased approximately 214 acres in Fairfax County, Virginia.
The property became the foundation of Gum Springs, a community established by free Black Americans near Mount Vernon.
The purchase followed Ford's sale of land inherited from Bushrod Washington.
By 1857, Ford had divided his Gum Springs property into four parcels for his children, each subject to an annual payment of twenty dollars.
Those transactions are documented in a historical resources survey prepared for the Virginia Department of Historic Resources and Fairfax County.
This achievement deserves perspective.
Ford established a substantial property-owning family in a society that systematically restricted the rights of free Black people.
Virginia required free Black residents to document their status, and the state's laws subjected them to forms of discrimination and control that white property owners did not face.
Gum Springs subsequently became a community where Black families could establish households, acquire property, and build institutions of their own.
Unlike the imaginary American monarchy, this history actually happened.
And its consequences remain visible.
Abramson's 2022 investigation documented residents' efforts to protect Gum Springs from road expansion, development pressures, and the gradual loss of its historic identity.
Residents were fighting over land, housing, and preservation—not an imaginary crown.
That is the extraordinary irony of Baker's treatment of Ford.
The video spends time imagining which descendant might theoretically inherit a monarchy that never existed.
Meanwhile, Ford's descendants have a documented connection to a community their ancestor helped create, one whose survival has been a matter of genuine public controversy.
The hypothetical royal family is entertaining.
The actual inheritance is more consequential.
The Verdict: An Entertaining Family Tree Is Not a Historical Finding
UsefulCharts deserves credit for making genealogical history accessible.
Baker also deserves credit for acknowledging slavery, discussing the coercion inherent in relationships between enslavers and enslaved women, and recognizing Black descendants whose histories have often been neglected.
Those strengths make the mistakes harder to overlook.
Washington's will names seven executors. The video says six.
Lawrence Lewis and Nelly inherited approximately 2,000 acres of Mount Vernon property. The video presents Bushrod's inheritance without adequately explaining that substantial parallel bequest.
George Washington Parke Custis received property and an appointment as executor. The video omits that appointment while using the will to assess his standing as a possible successor.
West Ford may have had a Washington father. The documentary record does not establish that conclusion, and the 2024 genetic research does not resolve it.
These are not complaints about Baker's decision to imagine an American monarchy.
Historical counterfactuals can be entertaining and intellectually worthwhile.
The problem arises when speculative storytelling begins to reorganize the underlying facts.
A fictional crown can be awarded to anyone.
An actual inheritance cannot.
The central failure of this video is that its imagined succession sometimes receives greater attention than the documented relationships that should determine the boundaries of the exercise.
The correction is straightforward: count the executors, read the property grants, distinguish evidence of family favoritism from proof of paternity, and explain what genetic research can establish.
George Washington never left instructions for an American monarchy. He did leave a will.
For a video built around discovering his heirs, reading that document accurately should have been the easiest part.
References
1. Who Would Be King of America if George Washington Had Been a Monarch? [Updated]
UsefulCharts, Matt Baker, July 3, 2026.
The original video under examination, including its executor count, hypothetical succession lines, and statements about West Ford.
2. George Washington's Last Will and Testament, July 9, 1799
George Washington; transcript published by George Washington's Mount Vernon.
The primary document identifies seven executors and records the property inherited by Bushrod Washington, Lawrence Lewis, Eleanor Parke Custis Lewis, and George Washington Parke Custis.
3. Eleanor “Nelly” Parke Custis (1779–1852)
Patricia Brady, Encyclopedia Virginia, date not specified on the retrieved entry.
Documents the Lewis family's substantial inheritance, the establishment of Woodlawn, and their departure from the Mount Vernon mansion after Martha Washington's death.
4. Paternity of West Ford
George Washington's Mount Vernon, undated institutional research statement.
Explains the institution's position on Ford's disputed ancestry, records Hannah Washington's emancipation instructions, and identifies the limitations of genetic paternity testing. Its conclusions about the disputed father are institutional assessments, not genetic proof.
5. Questions and Answers on the Paternity of West Ford
West Ford Legacy, material assembled by Linda Allen Hollis; webpage date not specified.
Presents the descendants' oral history, historical references, and arguments for George Washington's paternity. These claims establish the family's position but do not independently prove the relationship.
6. Unearthing Who and Y at Harewood Cemetery and Inference of George Washington's Y-Chromosomal Haplotype
Courtney Cavagnino and colleagues, iScience, March 28, 2024.
The peer-reviewed genetic investigation identifies the refined Washington paternal haplogroup R-BY32422 and demonstrates why the study cannot independently establish West Ford's paternity.
7. African American Historic Resources in Fairfax County
Hanbury Preservation Consulting and William & Mary Center for Archaeological Research, prepared for the Virginia Department of Historic Resources and Fairfax County; survey dated 2022, published online in 2024.
Documents Ford's land transactions, the establishment of Gum Springs, the division of property among his children, and the legal conditions affecting free Black Virginians.
8. Did George Washington Have an Enslaved Son?
Jill Abramson, The New Yorker, March 7, 2022.
Investigates competing accounts of Ford's ancestry, the descendants' efforts to obtain recognition, and Gum Springs residents' struggle to preserve their community. Its reporting predates the 2026 video.
9. Frequently Occurring Surnames in the 2010 Census
Joshua Comenetz, U.S. Census Bureau, October 2016.
Reports that 87.5% of people named Washington identified as non-Hispanic Black in 2010; the dataset does not establish biological relationships to George Washington.