The father of R.E. Lee was Major General Henry Lee.
In 1773, Henry Lee graduated from Princeton.
In 1782, he married a cousin Matilda Lee, of the estate of Stratford, on the Potomac, following the death of her father, Philip Ludwell Lee,
In 1790, Matilda Lee put her estate in trust for her children. Soon afterwards she died.
In 1793, Henry Lee married Ann Hill Carter, daughter of Charles Carter, owner of the James River plantation and reportedly the second richest man in Virginia after George Washington.
In 1807, their fourth child, Robert Edward Lee was born.
In 1810, Robert Morris was unable to pay $40,000 he owed to Henry Lee.
In 1831, Robert E. Lee married Mary Custis at Arlington House. The mansion (on 1100 acres) overlooking what is now Arlington National Cemetery, was home. Robert E. Lee was not the butler.
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/106/196.html
The United States Supreme Court
U S v. LEE, 106 U.S. 196 (1882)
UNITED STATES v. LEE.
KAUFMAN and another
v. SAME.
December 4, 1882
* * *
These are two writs of error to the same judgment, one prosecuted by the United States, eo nomine, and the other by the attorney general of the United States in the names of Frederick Kaufman and Richard. P. Strong, the defendants against whom judgment was rendered in the circuit court. The action was originally commenced in the circuit court for the county of Alexandria, in the state of Virginia, by the present defendant in error, against Kaufman and Strong and a great number of others, in the names of the real parties under which the pleadings to recover possession of a parcel of land of about 1,100 acres, known as the Arlington estate. It was an action of ejectment in the form prescribed by the statutes of Virginia, under which the pleadings are in the names of the real parties plaintiff and defendant.
* * *
The plaintiff offered evidence establishing title in himself by the will of his grandfather, George Washington Parke Curtis, who devised the Arlington estate to his daughter, the wife of Gen. Robert E. Lee, for life, and after her death to the plaintiff. This, with the long possession under that title, made a prima facie right of recovery in plaintiff. The title relied on by defendants was a tax-sale certificate made by the commissioners appointed under the act of congress of June 7, 1862, 'for the collection of direct taxes in the insurrectionary districts within the United States,' as amended by the act of February 6, 1863. At this sale the land was bid in by said commissioners for the United States, and a certificate of that fact was given by these commissioners and introduced on the trial as evidence by defendants. If this sale was a valid sale, and the certificate conveyed a valid title, then the title of plaintiff was thereby divested, and he could not recover. If the proceedings evidenced by the tax sale did not transfer the title of the property to the United States, then it remained in the plaintiff, and, so far as the question of title was concerned, his recovery was a rightful one.
* * *
The circuit court was competent to decide the issues in this case before the parties that were before it. In the principles on which these issues were decided no error has been found, and its judgment is affirmed.
* * *