Let me state right here at the very beginning, that I am only interested in deconstructing the existence of Sir John Clay, or Claye, coal Baron of Wales. I am fully behind the fact that John Clay arrived in America on the ship, The Treasurer in 1613, and that he pioneered the Clay family in America. I do dispute he was a Captain and a Grenadier, but let's leave it at that.
The genealogy of the name of Clay in America has been superbly documented by many people, and the Clay Family Society of America have been pioneers in the research of the Clay surname, and their use of DNA testing. You will find a link to them on the relevant page.
However, they have also posted on their website, the excellent research of the late Robert Young Clay, which quite categorically refutes the existence of this Sir John Clay. There is a link to that article on the links page.
There are also many other genealogy societies in America who refute the existence, until proven, of Sir John Clay, one being the US Southern Colonies Project, which is also available in links.
There are probably upwards of 15,000 family trees on Ancestry with this mythical figure in in them. He is quite a legend, and sadly, that is all he is.
Let’s look at the facts behind some of these trees:
There are 13,447 trees in the largest group and, for some reason, some of them have a portrait of the English Admiral, Horatio Nelson on them, Nelson was born in 1758, so it's difficult to see a connection. Why not use a portrait of Sir John Clay, coal Baron of Wales? Well, there's the problem: like Nelson, you need to exist to have your portrait painted. A large number of people claim descent from Sir John Clay, knighted at the battle of Tewkesbury, as he was the father of Sir John Thomas Clay, but he wasn't. Sir John, knighted at Tewkesbury, was the son of Sir John Clay of Cheshunt, which you can see in the links. He most likely died childless and unmarried, c1473. On the family trees, the coat of arms presented as belonging to the imaginary Sir John Thomas Clay, is always presented as those of the arms of Edmund Clay, which they are not. See the Clay coat of arms link.
In this large group, we have trees with more than 30 records attached to a page on Sir John Clay. Great, surely that proves he must have existed. Sadly, it doesn’t, because if you take a look at some of these records, they may have a John Clay on them, but also a date. For example, for 1763, if the dates don't match up with the dates of your subject, then they are not your subject. There was more than one John Clay born in England; in fact there was more than one Sir John Clay, but HE wasn't one of them.
But what is never on any of these trees, is a real record of anything that would prove the provenance of Sir John Clay, Coal Baron of Wales.
Now with the sites that do have these records, there is also a certain amount of movement around Great Britain.
For example, we have Sir John, born in Wales, married in Durham, with a son in Yorkshire, a daughter in Wiltshire, another son born in London, and a son that died in Warwickshire. His father died in Staffordshire, his mother died in Derbyshire, and so on. Even if Sir John had existed, he would, I am sure ,have been far too busy as a coal Baron, to go running up and down the country, siring children and burying relatives.
These trees are obviously copied, as they are usually identical.
Then you have the trees with no records, which is just simply not Genealogy.
Three wonderful examples from the trees stand out:
A lady claimed that she did not put records on her tree because she knew instinctively that the person on the tree was her family, which is a novel approach to genealogy.
Another tree where the gentleman concerned claimed to have a PHD in genealogy. He then produced a tree that claimed that the great statesman, Henry Clay, was a Royal. I am quite sure that Henry Clay would not have thanked him for that.
Another tree has Sir John Clay claiming a US civil war pension.
I am sure there are further amusing examples on Ancestry.
Let me make it clear, that I am not just talking about American trees; there are examples from Australia and the UK and Canada and possibly other places.
As mentioned above, American genealogy societies are now pushing back on the existence of Sir John, but the myth has been around a long time, certainly since the publication of The Clay Family by Mary Rogers Clay in 1899, and possibly before. The publication of this book fueled the myth, but the flames were still being fanned in 2014. The biography of General Lucius D Clay, by Jean Edward Smith, a Pullitzer prize winner, and a biography of Henry Clay, by Quentin Scott King, both claim that their subject was descended from Sir John Clay, coal Baron of Wales.
As a matter of interest, the great general Lucius D Clay descended from a convict from Yorkshire, England. I happen to share the same DNA.
As yet, despite attempts, there is no known ancestor of Henry Clay in England, but I do hope the link is found in my lifetime.
Why does this matter? If people are enjoying their genealogy, even if it's wrong, what's the problem? Well, if it's giving pleasure, I'm pleased, but the great pleasure of genealogy is getting the facts right , otherwise it's fantasy, not genealogy.
In short, and being brutal about it, if you believe you descend from Sir John Claye, coal Baron of Wales, you are mistaken, he simply did not exist.
If I have deflated some people's perceptions of their family history and their links to England, then I am truly sorry. I am also sorry that I have been harsh on other people's attempts at genealogy. I do this only to prove a point. I hope that I can encourage you to look further into your own family history and find the true link to England, because if your name is Clay, or you have Clay ancestors, then the link to England will be there and it may go back further to France.
The first recorded Clay in England was in 1080, Walterus De Clai, a Frank, living in Cambridgeshire. He is recorded again in the Domesday book.
DNA is the best way to find your roots, and you might find them in France, like I did.
Do take a look at the rest of the site, as there are some great links to Clay family history sites, American and English, and I can guarantee that your ancestors are on there.