"A photocopy of the original has been procured (Buckingham Record Office, Archdeaconry of Buckinghamshire Wills, March 1550/1). Dated 16 March 1550/1 and probated 21 March 1550/1, it calls him "Will'm Mountaguewe the Elder of Boveney in the p'r'she of Burnh'm, Fyssherman." "Will'm Mountaguewe of Bray my eldyst sonne" was to receive the messuage at Bray where he was living, over the river northwestward in Berkshire. "Jone my wyffe duringe her lyffe" was to have the family dwelling in Boveney with ten acres and another lease of land. "Robt'e Mountagewe my yongist Sonne" was eventually to have Jone's legacy and also a messuage called "Durdants w't syxtene akers of arable lande medowe & pasture" that William had purchased. William additionally named daughters Alice and Katherine. Executors were to be his wife Jone and "Robt' Mountague my youngiste sonne, Robt'e noneage [a minor]." Overseers were to be Thomas Grow and "Robt'e Mountagewe of Bovney." As William's son Robert was a minor in 1551, he cannot be the Robert born about 1505. Probably the overseer Robert Montague of Boveney was the Robert born about 1505. Possibly he was William's brother."

"Here in Boveney hamlet, where the castle parapets materialize from every fog, Robert Montague lived. He was born, probably in the hamlet, around 1505.

"Probably the pedigree earlier than Robert Montague could be ascertained from manor court rolls, as Robert held property in the hamlet of Boveney, also in the village of Burnham, and in the parish of Dorney, but few rolls for the involved manors have been found. Indications are, however, that the Montague family was well established at Boveney before Robert's generation. Two lists of inhabitants, one in 1522 and one in 1524, probably include his father.

"The first of these two lists is The Certificate of Musters for Buckinghamshire in 1522 (Buckinghamshire Record Society 17 [1973]:246-248). As nearly as scholars can determine, the value of the real estate (lands and tenements) and of goods of all independent adults was assessed. Forty-two names are on the list for "The Hamlett of Boveney in ye parishe of Burnham." The seven Montagues among them are: Wm. Mountegue, land worth £1 6s. 8d.; Wm. Mountague senior, land worth 13s. 7d.; Wm. Mountegue, land worth 3s.; John Mountegue, goods worth £2; Agnes Mountegue, goods worth £3; John Mountague, land worth 1s. and goods worth £13 6s. 8d.; and Rob. Mountague, goods worth £3 6s. 8d.

"The second list, Subsidy Roll for the County of Buckingham Anno 1524 (Buckinghamshire Record Society 8 [1950]:14), contains just the names of taxpayers. The returns for Burnham include Boveney, and only two Montagues appear. Robert Mountague paid £1 on wages; this was the most common amount paid in the parish. John Mountague paid £9 on goods; only a few people paid more than he."

"Only those who have attempted to compile the genealogy of a Virginia family of early settlement, rapid increase, and wide dispersion, such, for instance, as the Montagues, Taliaferros, or Armisteads, can form any conception of the great amount of careful and painstaking labor which Mr. Montague has performed in the preparation of this book. In such cases it is probable that there is nothing in print, or if there is, it is merely a reproduction of uncertain and sometimes contradictory tradition; the members of the family, with such special information as each may possess, are scattered all over the South and West, and such manuscript evidences as may have been preserved, as family Bibles, deeds, wills, &c., may be in the possession of a next-door neighbor, or may be in California. Even where an old Bible has been preserved, it refers only to one line, and leaves the others in darkness. The compiler's first resort is the slow and costly work of examining the records in the various counties where members of the family have lived. If he should be so fortunate as to find that the records of the counties he is interested in have escaped the ravages of time and war, he has then to make a patient, page-by-page search of many huge volumes, and note every name and every date, for any one of these may be of the highest importance in identification or in supplying the gaps left by the (to the compiler) most provoking carelessness of people in not making wills. All this work, and more, Mr. Montague has done, and done well. He was fortunate in working in counties like Middlesex, Lancaster, Essex, Spotsylvania, Louisa and Cumberland, where the records are almost entire. Had the family treated of been resident in Stafford, Gloucester, or Nansemond, it would have been impossible to collect any complete or accurate pedigree. But even with this advantage, his undertaking was a difficult one. He says in the preface: "Families had not to any extent moved [prior to 1720] from original homesteads, the generations had lived and died in the same neighborhood, and each generation seemed to have borne the same names of William, Thomas, and Peter; of Elizabeth, Caroline, and Frances. It seemed impossible to separate one from the other. Even when the records of all the counties were in hand, it was found impossible to form from them a connected pedigree. It was only when copies of the few vestry books [the parish register] of Christ Church, Middlesex, were used in connection with the various county records, that light began to appear."

"Mr. Montague found, as other genealogists have, that the parish register was essential to his work, and uses it largely. We are glad to be able to state that the Virginia Society of Colonial Dames has recently had the register of Christ Church parish, Middlesex, copied, and propose to print it at an early date. It is to be hoped that the Colonial Dames will receive ample support, and that they may be encouraged to carry out their wish to publish all of the remaining vestry books and registers. Such a publication would be a contribution of great value to Virginia genealogy and local history.

"The book now under examination is a handsomely-printed volume of nearly 500 pages, and treats at length of the descendants of Peter Montague, son of Peter and Eleanor Montague, of Boveny, parish of Burnham, Buckinghamshire, England, who came to Virginia in 1621, when sixteen years of age. The pedigree of the Montagues of Boveny, beginning with Wm. Montague, of Boveny, whose will was proved in 1550, was entered in the Visitation of 1634, when Peter Montague is stated to be "now in Virginia." While Mr. Montague shows good reason to believe that this family was descended from some cadet of the great house of Montacute, Earls of Salisbury (they bore the same arms, with an addition of three pellets), yet the members appear to have lived quietly the life of the minor gentry of the time, the only person of public note among them being the learned and disputatious Richard Montague, successively Bishop of Chichester and Norwich, who died in 1641, and was the first cousin to the grandfather of the immigrant.

"Peter Montague settled first on the plantation of Samuel Matthews, and afterwards removed to Upper Norfolk (Nansemond), which he represented in the House of Burgesses in 1652 and 1653. About 1654, probably, he removed to Lancaster (then including Middlesex), and represented that county also from 1651 to 1658. He was a large landowner and a leading citizen, and was styled "Col. Peter Montague," from his rank in the militia. His will, proved May 27, 1659, is on record in Lancaster. Of his descendants in each generation, to the present, Mr. Montague gives everything that most careful inquiry and research could gather. Among the individuals of most prominence were Col. Philip Montague, who served actively in various commands in the Middlesex militia during the Revolution; Lewis Montague, sheriff of Middlesex, 1762; Col. James Montague, of Middlesex, member of the Convention of 1776, and County Lieutenant during the Revolution; Rev. Philip Montague, a distinguished Baptist minister; Richard Montague, Lieutenant State Navy in the Revolution; General Chas. P. Montague of Maryland; Lieutenant Walter P. Montague, C.S.N.; Prof. Andrew P. Montague, Columbian University; Judge Robert Latane Montague, of honored memory, Lieutenant-Governor of Virginia, member of Confederate Congress (of whom there is a portrait); Edgar Burwell Montague, colonel 32d Va. Infantry, C.S.A.; Lieutenant Wm. L. Montague, C.S.A., mortally wounded at the Crater, and Capt. Thos. B. Montague, C.S.A., also injured at the Crater.

On page 407 is given a very quaint epitaph from the tomb of Captain Richard Ball (whose daughter married William Montague), lying in a secluded spot near Lancaster Courthouse. It is as follows:

"The body of Capt. Richard Ball
Lies entombed within this wall
Thrice seventeen years, two months his age,
He dwelt on earth. But from this Stage
He was removed by God's great grace
We hope into a nobler place;
October was the month wherein
He was acquitted from his sin
Even the twelfth day at ten at night
Death did deprive him of our light
One from the date of twenty-seaven
The Lord (we trust) took him to Heaven
1726"

This was indeed poetic frenzy.

Mr. Montague's book not only includes the descendants of Colonel Peter Montague in the male line, but all the descendants through females, so far as he could ascertain them, to the tenth and eleventh generations. The volume contains four engravings of coats of arms, a pedigree chart (from the Visitation of 1634), and thirty-nine portraits.

The work in all its details deserves high commendation.
- End of Transcription -

"A tradition has existed for fifty years or more, that George Washington was of Montague descent, through his mother Mary Ball. It probably originated from the fact that William Montague married, 1727, a dau. of Capt. Richard Ball, who was Mary Ball's cousin [their fathers were brothers]. This subject has been thoroughly investigated by Rev. Horace E. Hayden in his Va. Genealogies, published Wilkes-Barre, Pa., 1891. The compiler also has made a thorough search, and left no means untried to obtain the truth. The result is, that the only place where such descent could be possible, was through Mary Ball's mother who was, before Col. Ball married her, a Mrs. Mary Johnson, a widow, of Lancaster Co., Va. A tradition exists in the Ball family that Mrs. Mary Johnson was born in England. This tradition has been traced to Mrs. Ann Shearman, whose mother was Esther Ball, the half sister of Mary Ball. If it is true, that she was born in England, then - any descent from Peter Montague was impossible. No record has been found to show the maiden name of Mrs. Mary Johnson, or who she was before her marriage to Johnson. If she was a Miss Montague, she would have to be a daughter of one of the sons of the emigrant Peter Montague. One of his sons did have a daughter whose name was Mary Montague, but church records prove that she married, Oct. 24, 1682, Thomas Payne, and no record exists to show that she ever afterward married any one else. Records of that time and locality are lost, and the maiden name of Mrs. Mary Johnson [Washington's grandmother] will probably never be known."

Mary Montague probably d. in 1686/7 as Mary Payne--probably while giving birth to her first child, Thomas Paine Jr. This supposition is enhanced further by the fact that Mary (Montague) does not appear in the record after 1687. It is not insignificant, for example, that Mary is not mentioned with her siblings in the settling of her father's estate in 1695. Furthermore, her husband Thomas appears to have remarried, as the few extant records containing Thomas Paine show he had a father-in-law named Ellett or Elliott. Thomas Paine apparently did not leave a will when his estate was being settled in 1694/5, but there is no record of a widow or other court orders against his estate as one might expect were there any surviving family. On the other hand, the evidence supporting Mary Bennett as grandmother of George Washington is far more convincing, if not actually proven.

Second, the only other record with an age related date comes from HGPM, 49: "At the age of 18 years Peter emigrated to Virginia, in America." and on p. 52: "He came in the ship "Charles" and landed in Virginia in the month of November, 1621." Unfortunately the compiler of HGPM did not cite sources for these two statements. We are left to assume the compiler had a source and neglected to cite it or he inferred it from sources not revealed. Giving the compiler the benefit of the doubt (there is no reason not to), and using these two documented data points, the possible birth months can be narrowed to one of the nine months between Mar and Nov 1603 (see Table 1). Table 1 fixes Peter's age for these two dates. Then for each fixed age/date, the object is to fill in the age he would have been for each of the set conditions. All ages not agreeing with the ages in the top columns are strikedthrough. Only birth months in which both age columns agree can be considered possible birth months. This analysis, while not producing a conclusive birth month, offers some support for the oft-presented birth year of 1603, and that his birth month was between Mar and Nov. When, or if, additional date-related information is discovered, a third column for the fixed date can be added to the table allowing a further bracketing of the correct birth month.

1. For each possible birth date along the left column, compute Peter's age as it would have to be on the dates of immigration and muster.
2. Strikeout any ages not consistent with his known ages at Immigration and Muster.
3. Possible birth dates [bracketed in blue/bold] are those in which ages at both Immigration and Muster are consistent (agree) with the documented evidence.