George's maternal grandmother is given as Mary Montague, but the line stops there.
Washington was from wealthy and prominent Virginia families, so the idea we wouldn't know who his great grandparents were in his mother's line is preposterous.
Do you really think George's mother didn't know who her own grandmother was?
As you will see below, Martha Washington's genealogy goes back to the time of Joan of Arc (1400s).
So how could George's stop at this grandmother?
Also preposterous is the misdirection surrounding this Mary Montague.
At Geni, her dates are 1672-1721, born in West Chester, Cheshire, England
But how can she be the mother of Joseph Ball if she never married anyone named Ball?
Beyond that, the lines at Wikitree are poorly scrubbed.
On the page for Mary Montague, we are told Peter Montague, Sr.'s wife is unknown, but if we click on him, we find the wife's name is known— Cicely Parker.
We even know her previous husband, Thomas Bailey, Jr.
This is three generations before Mary Montague.
She was also apparently married to a Farrar and a Jordan, unless those were middle names.
Let's look at Joseph Ball, to see if we can shed any light on this mystery.
He was supposed to be the son of Col. William Ball, and the father by Mary Bennett of Joseph Ball:
Hannah
Esther
Elisabeth
and Anne.
By his second wife Mary Johnson he was the father of Mary Ball, who became Mary Washington.
So, it looks to me like Mary Montague, although a real person, was moved up a generation so that they could jettison Mary Bennett from the genealogy at most prominent sites.
Even the link above (which claims to be following Genealogy.com) tries to make you think it wasn't Montague but Johnson who was the mother of Mary Washington.
This puts an even bigger red flag by Mary Bennett and makes us wonder why they are scrubbing her.
Well, since we have seen the Bennetts in recent papers, we already know.
Thomas Pynchon's mother was a Bennett, and we found that she was also very well scrubbed.
I suggested she was descended from the English peerage, and I suggest the same thing with George Washington.
It is even more important with Washington, because they don't want to admit he was from English nobility.
That would be too big a clue.
Especially when we discover which lines of nobility.
I am also reminded that there are many Bennetts now who admit they are Jewish.
So, let's pin down this Mary Bennett.
Since Mary Washington was born in 1708, we can ditch the birthdate of 1665 for Mary Bennett.
It is very doubtful she was 43 when she gave birth to Mary.
In fact, the link above gives her date of death as 1720, different from Mary Montague.
We are told she was born in West Chester, England, no date.
That helps, because Chester is in Cheshire.
We also drop a “t” from her name, making her Mary Bennet.
We assume she was born about 1670.
So, who could she be related to in Chester, England?
The very first possibility that comes up in a search at Wikipedia is Henry Bennet, 1st Earl of Arlington.
But since it appears he was from Middlesex; we are fooled and move on.
His brother John, 1st Earl Ossulston, has links to nearby York through his first wife Elisabeth, widow of the Vice-Admiral of Yorkshire.
His second wife Bridget Howe had links to Nottinghamshire, which is also near Cheshire.
However, this is also a stretch, so we look for better.
Henry Bennet's daughter Isabella was married at the age of 4 to Henry FitzRoy, later 1st Duke of Grafton.
Aha!
Grafton is in Cheshire.
In fact, it is just five miles south of Chester.
This Henry Fitzroy was illegitimate son of King Charles II, his mother being Barbara Villiers, Countess of Castlemaine.
So, our links are all the way to the top here.
Of course, Mary Bennet can't be the daughter of Isabella—since the dates are wrong—but she may be the sister.
When was Henry Bennet born?
We are told 1618, which at first seems too old to be the father of Mary Bennet.
However, he didn't marry until 1667.
He married Elisabeth NassauBeverweert, b. December 28, 1633.
So, our Mary Bennet could have been her daughter.
Isabella was born around 1668, so this is the perfect place to fit in Mary Bennet.
As indication we have found the missing key, we find Elisabeth of Nassau was Dutch.
Notice the Beverweert, which is Dutch.
Elisabeth's grandfather was the Prince of Orange.
Remember, just a few years later a Prince of Orange would become the King of England, William III.
So, again, the links go all the way up.
But why is this indication we have found the right line for George Washington?
Because if we go back to Washington's genealogy, we find Dutch ancestors at this very same place.
Mary Montague's mother is given as Maritje Meijnderts [Minor], the daughter of Meijndert Doedes and Marritje Gerrits.
What does this tell us?
Only that Doedes and Gerrits are not surnames.
Neither is Meijnderts, which just means “minor”.
So, Washington's genealogy is being scrubbed again.
The only thing that may help us is Marritje Gerrits, who in a search happens to be the mother of Gerrit Jansz de Heer(e), a famous Dutch East India merchant in those years (around 1690).
De Heere's wife Johanna was later married to Jan van Hoorn, who was also Governor of the East Indies, and to Cornelis van Waveren, Governor of the West India Company.
Van Waveren was also the Commissioner of the Bank of Amsterdam and was one of the wealthiest men in Holland.
This East India Company clue is what links us to the Princes of Orange, since remember, it was the bankers and other rich guys—mostly Jewish—who funded the princes.
But it looks like Washington was related to both the princes and the bankers.
Notice the manager of the page is given as Erica “the Disconnectrix” Howton.
Did you get it?
She is disconnecting by scrubbing links.
Intel is toying with us, as usual.
In support of the Cromwell change, a quick glance of Oliver Cromwell's genealogy shows him with a mother Elizabeth Stewart and maternal grandmother Catherine Payne.
More to the point here, remember the Paynes in George Washington's genealogy?
See the first paragraph of this paper.
Beyond that, Oliver's sister Catherine married Col. John Jones, MP, one of the ones who allegedly killed King Charles I.
Moreover, this John Jones was from Wales.
See below, where I show Martha Washington was descended from Welsh knights named Jones, linking her to famous architect Inigo Jones—also said to be from Wales.
And if we move forward from Oliver Cromwell, we find his family marrying into the Russell and Rich families.
See Frances Cromwell, 1638 who married both John Russell and Robert Rich.
In the same paper, we saw the Russells many times, including as the Governor of Massachusetts and as close relatives of the Bordens.
But let us return to the Bennets.
If we keep going back from Thomas Bennett, we come to Sir Thomas Bennet, Lord Mayor of London in 1603 and father of Sir Simon Bennet, 1st Baronet of Bechampton.
[We find many Elizabeth Bennets in this family, which was of course the name of the lead character in Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice.]
But were these Bennets related to the Bennets above?
Yes.
Henry Bennet, Lord Arlington, was son of Sir John Bennet, MP, who was the grandson of Richard Bennet of Clapcote.
And he was the brother of our Lord Mayor of London, Sir Thomas Bennet.
So, we have now linked the Washingtons to the English peerage twice with this one family.
We aren't done, however.
Lord Bennet's brother was Baron Ossulton, remember?
His son was the Earl of Tankerville, who married Mary Grey.
That is an important name in the peerage, as you may know, since it goes back to the Marquesses of Dorset, who produced Lady Jane Grey.
Thomas Grey, 2nd Marquess of Dorset and Duke of Suffolk, was the grandson of Elizabeth Woodville, King Edward IV's queen.
His daughter Lady Jane Grey was Queen for nine days in 1553 before being executed.
She was the granddaughter of King Henry VII, but that didn't help her when the Privy Council turned against her husband and his father, the Duke of Northumberland.
That leads us into another can of worms, which I will just touch upon.
Pat Robertson is the most famous 700 Club guru, and his father was Absalom Robertson.
Did you get the clue yet?
It isn't subtle.
These people are so in-your-face it defies belief.
Absalom's maternal grandfather was Absalom Graves Willis, son of Mary Gordon Churchill.
His grandmother was Anne Garnett.
There is also a previous Absalom Robertson of 60 years earlier, whose mother is Hannah Hamilton. See my previous paper on C. S. Lewis for more on the Hamiltons.
In fact, they link us to the Churchills again, since 10 Downing St. was named for the Downings, and the Prime Minister lives here.
The Garnetts are related to the Jones, who just happen to come up in the genealogy of Martha Washington.
You will say there are hordes of Jones, but these Jones aren't from the hordes, they are from the central clan, as I will show you.
Absalom Graves Willis' 2g-grandmother was Elizabeth Jones.
She is in direct line with Sir William Jones of Caernarfon, Wales, b. 1520.
You will see why that is important in just a moment.
They soon married into the Rhys family (later Rice and Royce) of Wales and Buckinghamshire.
They were also related to the Griffiths, first Baronets of Burton Agnes.
I bet you don't think I can link Pat Robertson to Martha Washington, since he seems to have just dropped into this paper from left field.
And I admit he did.
I myself don't understand how he appeared here. I went from the woman managing the Geni page of Durden, to Captain Stubing of Love Boat, to Gavin MacLeod, to 700 Club, and here we are.
But here we go.
Martha Washington's grandmother was Martha Jones.
She is in direct line with Roland Jones, b. around 1580, England but location unknown.
I suggest he was related to Inigo Jones, the famous architect.
Why?
For one reason, Inigo Jones is another ghost.
He has no ancestry at all.
He falls from the sky at age 30 in 1603 and begins designing palaces for the King of Denmark.
Another clue is that Jones is said to be from Wales.
Well, we just saw Sir William Jones in the line of Pat Robertson, from Wales, at the same time Inigo is said to be coming from there.
Coincidence?
Unlikely.
Another even stronger clue is that Inigo Jones was the uncle of John Webb.
We can also look at Sidney and Beatrice Webb, two of the founders of the London School of Economics and the Fabian Society.
Both huge red flags.
I hit the LSE in my paper on Naomi Klein/Naomi Wolf, where I reminded you that another founder, George Bernard Shaw, wasn't an economist and didn't even go to college.
Anyway, Beatrice Potter married Sidney Webb, 1st Baron Passfield, and so she became a Baroness.
He died October 13, 1947, at age 88.
Spook markers galore.
Sidney Webb was President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for the Colonies.
He founded the New Statesman in 1913, a huge spook rag.
His genealogy is completely scrubbed, which is again a HUGE red flag.
We are told he was made a Baron in 1929, but this is unlikely.
Plus, if we check for Passfield, we find nothing in England but a small hamlet in Hampshire.
It sounds like a joke.
More likely is that Webb was from a line of peers and became a Baron when one of his family died.
But this family is completely in the black.
This makes us question the bio of Catherine Webb, so-called Woman with a Basket, leader of the Cooperative Women's Guild in England in the early 1900s.
She was likely a plant, seeing that her death is listed as 1947.
Also, in support of that is that Webb's mentor, Margaret Llewelyn Davies, was the daughter of a Fellow at Trinity College, Cambridge, spook central.
I can't say what the project was with this Women's Guild and will have to look at it later.
For another twist here, you may wish to remind yourself that Jason Bourne's real name was David Webb.
Bourne is the character in all the Bourne films, played by Matt Damon.
Also curious is Sam Webb, head of the American Communist Party from 2000-2014, succeeding Gus Hall. We already know that the ACP is a spook construct.
I mention him so that you can connect him to Warren Beatty.
We are told Warren was born a Beaty to middle-class parents, but that was always suspect.
His genealogy is slender, partially scrubbed, and not really credible.
I suggest he is related to this admiral.
Then we find Philip Barker-Webb, b. 1793, who—we are told—was born into a wealthy aristocratic family.
Really, what family is that?
Wiki doesn't tell us, so we go to Googlebooks, DNB, p. 105, where we learn he was the great grandson of Philip Carteret Webb, Milford House, Surrey [whom I already mentioned above].
In the same bio, we learn that Philip Barker-Webb was a friend of John Ball.
That links us back to George Washington again, who was the grandson of Joseph Ball.
This indicates a close relationship of the Balls and Webbs well into the time of Washington.
Previously, we had only found a link more than a century earlier.
Also, of interest is this:
In December 1756, Philip Carteret Webb was made joint solicitor to the treasury and held that post until June 1765; he was consequently a leading official in the proceedings against John Wilkes, and for these acts was dubbed by Horace Walpole,
"A most villainous tool and agent in any iniquity.”
Wilkes was one of the few Members of Parliament to support the American Revolutionaries.
Which means he was a spook.
His father was Israel Wilkes.
Note the first name.
He went to university in Holland.
We are told Wilkes had a strong sympathy for non-conformist Protestants.
Of course he did.
John Wilkes Booth was named for John Wilkes and was related to him.
Was John Wilkes really cross-eyed?
Either he was or the artist was.
Seeing Philip Webb lead proceedings against John Wilkes indicates to me the whole thing was another hoax.
They were both probably crypto-Jews running another misdirection project.
We will see more evidence for that when I unwind the American Revolution more fully.
For now, let us continue with the Webbs.
We find a General John Webb, b. 1667 in Wiltshire, whose father Colonel Edmund Richmond Webb “had a position” in the household of Prince George of Denmark, the husband of Queen Anne.
Anne (6 February 1665 – 1 August 1714) was Queen of Great Britain and Ireland following the ratification of the Acts of Union on 1 May 1707, which merged the kingdoms of Scotland and England. Before this, she was Queen of England, Scotland, and Ireland from 8 March 1702.
Both Webbs were cousins of Henry St. John, 1st Viscount Bolingbroke. Henry's grandfather was Admiral Robert Rich, the 2nd Earl of Warwick.
We saw this Rich family in my paper on Friedrich Engels.
Like the French Revolution, the English Revolution was very short-lived.
In the former, a Louis Bourbon was back on the throne within 20 years.
In the latter, a Charles Stuart was back within 11 years.
And we have already found a lot of indication above that the American Revolution was a front for something, since I have shown George Washington was from English royalty and crypto-Jewish families.
His lineage (and that of his wife) goes right to the top of both the English peerage and the East India Company.
So, it is very unlikely George was fighting against either one.
But I will save most of that for a future paper.
Now, if we go back to the dissolution of the monasteries under Thomas Cromwell and Richard Rich, we find that one of the monasteries seized was sold to Lawrence Washington, ancestor of George and a prominent wool merchant.
George's great grandfather John Washington had near relations that lived at this Sulgrave Manor.
But her father is Colonel Nathaniel Pope of Gloucester, England.
Was he related to the poet Alexander Pope (the Rape of the Lock, etc.)?
Undoubtedly, since Alexander Pope's father was a wealthy linen merchant.
We know what that means.
We are told Pope's family had to move from London in 1700, due to persecution of Catholics.
This is unlikely.
More likely is that they moved due to rising anti-Jewish sentiment in the city.
Since William was still King, the Jews were still held in favor by the government in 1700, and their numbers had been rising steadily since the 1650s—when Cromwell had explicitly let them in.
By 1700, London was feeling some backlash from these rising numbers, and some wealthy Jews fled the city.
My guess is the Popes were among that number, since they removed themselves to Binfield, next door to Windsor Castle.
That would have been a strange place for Catholics to hide out, seeing that the King hated Catholics.
But it was the perfect place for a prominent Jewish family to hide out.
But if you take that last link, you can see their proposed route between Dickens and Washington.
It takes twenty-three moves, going through the:
Barnes
Clerks
Grants
Dandridges
Custises
Laws
Wedderburns
Colvilles
Stracheys
Shakespears
Bonds
and Shucksburghs.
I have just shown you can get there in about five moves through a single family, the Balls.
Kindred Britain is sold as interactive, but it is almost impossible to navigate, and once you do penetrate their system you find these highly misleading routes that indicate the relationships are much more distant than they really are.
However, the Kindred Britain route does allow us to add some more links to Washington, including:
the Stracheys
the Clerks
the Shakespears
and the Barnes.
We have seen the last two in recent papers.
Dorothy Shakespear was the wife of top spook Ezra Pound.
The Strachey link takes us to Lytton Strachey, a disgusting gay member of the Bloomsbury Group, and son of a Lt. General (3-star).
Lytton's mother was a Grant, which is how they are related to Washington.
The Stracheys come from the Strachey Baronets, created in 1801 by George III.
Lytton went to Trinity College, of course.
If you want to know why I called him disgusting, here is one example:
The Apostles formulated an elitist doctrine of "Higher Sodomy" which differentiated the homosexual acts of the intelligent from those of "ordinary" men.
He also had a famous S&M relationship with Roger Senhouse, head of the publishing house Secker and Warburg.
For more disgusting moments, you may watch the movie Carrington, which nauseatingly recreates his menage-a-trois with nutcase Dora Carrington.
For some reason beyond the ken of reason, she apparently loved Lytton despite his total disregard for her, and his preference for her gay husband Ralph Partridge.
Which brings us back to Washington.
A new book has begged controversy by claiming George and most of the other founding fathers were gay.
A few years ago, I wouldn't have countenanced such a thing, and even now it isn't at the top of my list of interesting topics.
However, having discovered what I have in the past five years by hundreds of hours of research, the claim no longer surprises me.
I think it is more important that the founding fathers appear to be Jewish than that they may have been gay, but—as with almost everyone else I have studied—it wouldn't surprise me if they were both.
As I have said, only half-jestingly, in previous papers, it looks like nearly every famous person is a gay Jewish spook.
Being a mathematician and able to run statistics, I find that is the only logical thing to do.
Some mainstream sources have critiqued these gay claims against the founding fathers by arguing that the claims can't be true due simply to their number.
The author claims that many of these famous men were gay, and he is answered that since only 2% of men are gay, the odds are very much against all these founding fathers being gay.
But that is what you call pushing statistics.
The argument, though appealing to math, doesn't wash, and it doesn't wash because statistics don't work like that.
The 2% statistic applies to all men, not to each group of men.
You can't apply the 2% statistic to any and every group of men, no matter how small or specific.
It would be like going into a gay bar and expecting only 2% of the men there to be gay.
The founding fathers were only a handful of men out of all the men in the country, so there is no way to apply the general statistic to them.
They could very easily have all been gay, if there was some system in place to promote gays to these positions.
And, as we have seen in previous research, there is such a system in place in several fields, including:
the arts
the performing arts
the media
politics
and possibly Intelligence.
I will have more to say about Revolutionary times in upcoming papers.
This is just the first step.
You may now read my paper on Benjamin Franklin for more.
