Tag: Surname

The value of y-DNA to Hays genealogy

My preferred (non compensated endorsement) y-DNA testing company link https://www.familytreedna.com Cover photo Enoch Hays musket circa 1820 courtesy of Rachael McAllister

I was recently contacted by Rachael offering information on a Hays line:

I have a Hays family record that was given to my grandmother and then to me. It was put together in 1978. 
I have many Hays family photo’s from the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. If interested I have all the records and photo’s on my google drive. I can add you as a viewer and you can download everything I have for your records.
Thanks, Rachael McAllister

She provided the following links to the Nicholas Hays story and also Ancestor photo’s of N.H. (I believe you’ll need to contact her to gain access to them). I see by the story that Nicholas came to America from Ireland in 1746, arriving in Philadelphia and settling in VA before migrating to Greene, TN as the young nation grew. This similar to the migration of my, and many others, Hays line.

The back story of Nicholas Hays written in 1988 (without reference) states that they came from Tipperary (southern), Ireland with discussion of the lineage there (I refer you to the story for specifics). My line, as shown by my DNA goes back to Northern Ireland, most likely coming there from the lowlands of Scotland. Thus we may have two distinct unrelated lineages with a very similar diaspora and same surname on arriving in America.

The “Hay, Hays, Hayes” name has 3 main origins. One is English which is a place name (for example, an area in Kent). The second is Irish, an Anglicised name for “O hAodha” which was “Hayes” in Cork County (and “Hughes” in Ulster). The third from the Norman delaHaye and the formation of the Scot Clan Hay. Thus an an Ulster-Scot Hayes, Irish Hayes, and English Hayes most likely have distinct y-DNA lineages. This confusion of the source of “Hays” is added to by different spellings of Hays, in addition to inaccurate research, incorrect retelling of family history through the generations, and incorrect conclusions not based upon evidence.

While recent records help us follow our lineage and surname, historical records often leave large gaps in our knowledge and leave us guessing on connections with little evidence to go on. This especially as we go back in time and records become fewer with reduced accuracy in the records. Our connections to the mother country are often based upon scant evidence or hear-say passed down the generations. Here is where y-DNA helps.

By itself y-DNA will show a probability of a common ancestor in generations removed but if you add a common surname the odds of a common ancestor goes up. At 67 markers tested and a genetic distance of 3; the odds a non “Hays”surname is related is 24% for common ancestor 4 generations back and 84% at 10 generations but a “Hays” surname increases the odds to 46% related at 4 generations back and 10 generation back it is 93%.

So if the Y-DNA is tested and there are few matching markers the persons are most likely not related and the lineage is different even if it is the same surname (understanding if we go back 20, 30, 40 or 50 generations EVENTUALLY we will find a common ancestor as all y-DNA originated from one person “y-DNA Adam” in Africa). If a person is a close match but the surname is different the common ancestor in most likely further back in time.

For perspective it was 8 generations ago when my ancestors came to America (about 1720). I believe I have a good track and evidence back 6 generations but the DNA helped me connect with the most likely source of my line, John or Patrick Hays (assumed to be brothers) who arrived from Ulster. This helped greatly in building my story of my Hays line, even if I can not find evidence to connect the line (I have a one generation missing link at 7) .

10,000 years ago my DNA line crossed the Italian Alps eventually making its way to Scotland where it stayed for about 800 years. From there it came to America where we have now stayed for 300 years. The group it is in is one of the largest and most common. If a male relative of Rachael’s got the y-DNA test she would then be able to confirm her lineage and connection to the Irish Hays as it would be distinct from the Ulster Hays. As more Hays get their y-DNA tested and compared we’ll be better able to sort out the lineages and from whence we came.

Different spellings by different Hays, Hayses, & Hayeses

The question I wondered is why do the related Hay, Hays, and Hayes have different spellings?  Is one related to a different faction of the Clan, perhaps changed to denote a different geographical area or religion or loyalty?  My line spells it H-a-y-s and “no e” was the standard response to those who sought to automatically put it in.  It was so often done I now state my name then spell it (Hays-H-A-Y-S), and still many put the “e” in it.  But why different spellings and why the added “e” by many?

First grammar 101 – You plural a name (noun) by adding an s (no apostrophe).  For names ending in s we add an es and for names ending in y we do not change to ies like other nouns and add an s after the y, exceptions to the rule.   To make a name possessive we add the ‘s but here we have another rule exception in that a name ending in s can be made possessive by adding only an ‘ after the s and both are considered correct.  For example, the Kennedy family are the Kennedys and their home is Kennedy’s house.  The Jones family are the Joneses and their home is Jones’s House or Jones’ House.

And I note for the record I had to look it up and so expect I (and others) often make an error in the standard rules. So Hay, Hays, and Hayes have exceptions to the rules (ending in y or s) which are probably often not followed.  And the rules of grammar as we know them weren’t in place until the 1900’s (the King’s English and Modern English Usage).  Also, levels of education varied greatly from 1700-1900 and although many could read or write it wasn’t at the levels of knowledge we know today, many being educated at grade school levels only into the 1900’s.  So our present day high school education tendency to err on making the surname plural or possessive is greatly increased in prior generations.

I note on the Scottish Clan map that Hay is used for both the highland and lowland (border) branches of the Clan.  But Clan Hay (following today’s grammar rules would be the Hays and Duns Castle would be Hays’ (or Hay’s) Duns Castle.  But absent a written record with todays proper grammar the use of Hays/Hays’/Hayes/Hays’s for both plural and possessive variations of Hay would sound the same.  I surmise that Hays came into common language use with written spellings of Hays and Hayes being used interchangeably for plural and possessive of Clan Hay peoples and places.

While delaHaye was being anglicized into Hay in Scotland there was an Irish Clan “O hAodha” which was anglicized into Hayes (in County Cork O’Hea and Ulster Hughes).  Scotland, Ulster, and Ireland all had migrations to America over time and so we can expect Hay, Hays, Hayes from Scotland; Hays and Hayes from Ulster; and Hayes from Ireland with each recorded with whatever spelling suited the writer to match the spoken.  A good example is U.S. President Rutherford B. Hayes who is listed on the aforementioned Irish Hayes as a famous person but his own genealogy research shows his Hayes ancestors coming to America from Scotland in the 1600’s with no Hays or Hay spelling in the recorded line.

I did find one mention that the spelling “Hays” was used by the Clan Hay who were Presbyterian and migrated to America due to religious strife in the early 1700’s (Ulstermen).  It was told through 3 generations to an author (I lost specific reference in a computer crash) and thus hearsay.  Pennsylvania Genealogies (1886) by William Henry Egle lists (p. 286) the Hay or Hays Family of PA noting Hay, Hays, or Hayes derive from DelaHaye and “The American branch of the family write it Hays, as a general thing.”

The US Census records (1850 and beyond) used in support of my Hays line spell it “H-A-Y-S” with notations they could read and write, and thus provided a proper spelling.  Grave markers give us better support for the spelling as it is “H-A-Y-S” and it is expected that correct spelling would be of utmost importance on these.

I think we can say beyond a reasonable doubt that the Ulstermen John Hays and Patrick Hays (and their relations in PA and VA in the early 1700’s) preferred the spelling “H-A-Y-S”, but there were variations and “H-A-Y-E-S” was used, including by some of their descendants officially.  We have reasonable cause to believe that Ulster Presbyterian Scots used “H-A-Y-S” as a preferred spelling and a suspicion that this may have been used in the lowlands and Ulster to distinguish the Clan Hay Presbyterians.

The title is correct for the plural of Hay, Hays, and Hayes but I note in closing the proper “s” or “es” grammar rules are not often followed even today.  I am learning that most questions of genealogy and history of the Hays opens up two more questions which requires more research to answer.  But it is the journey which is the adventure, nor arriving at the destination.