Can anyone find out or tell me how I might find out how my family is connected to the Pequot Indians of CT. My uncle did a genealogy years ago but passed before I started my search. I recently came across the connection but did not save it and of course now that I want it I can't find it.

No No and No sorry!!!! --- Cindy Valley <cvalley@bvafirm.com> wrote: > Any Nathaniel, Elijah or Augustine? > > -----Original Message----- > From: hayden-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:hayden-bounces@rootsweb.com] > On Behalf Of Lauren Smith > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 2:08 PM > To: hayden@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [HAYDEN] DNA - John Hayden > > I'm a CT Hayden. I have 10 Nehemiahs' and 9 > Williams'. > --- ernie_jones@comcast.net wrote: > > > Thanks....that's what I thought but wasn't sure. > > > > > > -------------- Original message > > ---------------------- > > From: "shayden" <shayden@columbus.rr.com> > > > Sorry, Ernie. The test measures markers on the > > Y-chromosome. Only males have > > > the Y-chromosome so it is passed from father to > > son. Your Y-chromosome is > > > that of your father, his father and so on back. > In > > your case, you would need > > > to find a Hayden male descendant of Nehemiah. > > > > > > The surname does not have to be Hayden but > unless > > there is a link, such as a > > > name change, assuming a common male ancestor can > > be risky. For example, one > > > of the descendants of William Hayden of CT in > the > > project has the surname > > > Keys. The test confirmed that this subject did > > descend from William Hayden > > > as was believed based on research. > > > > > > Steve Hayden > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: hayden-bounces@rootsweb.com > > [mailto:hayden-bounces@rootsweb.com] On > > > Behalf Of ernie_jones@comcast.net > > > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 10:16 AM > > > To: hayden@rootsweb.com > > > Subject: Re: [HAYDEN] DNA - John Hayden > > > > > > So does need to be a male with the last name of > > Hayden for the testing to be > > > valid? > > > > > > My tie to Hayden is: > > > Julia Hayden (the daughter of Nehemiah that I > have > > on the web site) > > > Her son Otis Dickey > > > His daughter Julia Dickey (My > > grandmother) > > > Her daughter Donna Pratt (My > > mother). > > > > > > So if I or my mother were tested would it help > the > > project any? > > > > > > Ernie > > > > > > > > > -------------- Original message > > ---------------------- > > > From: "shayden" <shayden@columbus.rr.com> > > > > The Hayden DNA Project currently has 22 > members > > tested. The Hayden > > > pedigrees > > > > are as follows. > > > > > > > > Four descendants of Francis Heydon of MD; 3 > well > > documented, one shown > > > where > > > > connects to Francis' line. > > > > > > > > Six descendants of John Hayden of MA; 3 well > > documented, 2 have secondary > > > > sources at some links and 1 who had no clue he > > was related. This line is > > > > fortunate to have the unique pair of values in > > the first marker panel. > > > > > > > > Two descendants of William, both well > > documented. > > > > > > > > Four Hadens with two lines that may or may not > > share a common ancestor > > > since > > > > immigration to America. > > > > > > > > Five Irish Haydens with one awaiting results. > > None of the four appear to > > > > share a common ancestor. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One Hayden of unknown origin who connects to > no > > other tested lines. > > > > > > > > Since mutation of the Y-chromosome happens at > > random generation changes, > > > one > > > > can only calculate the probability of a shared > > common male ancestor. > > > > Disproving a connection is generally easier > than > > establishing one. For > > > > example, since there was only a 0.02% of John > > and William sharing a common > > > > father, I believe we can conclude they were > not > > brothers. > > > > > > > > So, Carol is correct. Y-chromosome DNA testing > > analysis is an exercise in > > > > statistics. Increasing the number of markers > > tested and increasing the > > > > number of people tested both increase the > sample > > size which, in turn, > > > > decreases the width of the confidence > interval. > > > > > > > > However, researchers looking for the father of > > John have a great advantage > > > > in the unique combination of two markers on > the > > Y-chromosome. In this > > > case, > > > > the sample size of the American cousins is > large > > enough. What is now > > > needed > > > > is English cousins to get tested. > > > > > > > > You can see the DNA project results at > > > > http://www.rhhandson.com/hayden_dna.html . > > > > > > > > > > > Steve Hayden > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an > email > > to > > > HAYDEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word > > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > > > in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an > email > > to > > > HAYDEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word > > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > > > the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email > > to HAYDEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word > > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject > and > > the body of the message > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email > to > HAYDEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email > to HAYDEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > the body of the message >

Question about the info on that web page. Is the line from #17 John Hayden who died in 1681 on down correct? I'm also wondering if the place is incorrect on that entry. Thanks Ernie On Jun 13, 2007, at 9:26 PM, Edward Hayden wrote: > > I have modified the page at www.hayden.org/hayden/hayden1.htm as > follows: > > ============================================= > > The link between Gideon and this John Hayden is no longer accepted > as true. > Anyone with documentation concerning the parentage of this John > Hayden or > the descendants of this Gideon Hayden is invited to submit that > information > to this website to be shared with all Hayden family researchers. > Thanks! > Edward Hayden, ehayden@hayden.org > > William Dowell at http://www.stithvalley.com/ancestry/taylor/ > johnhayd.htm" > gives a compelling argument that Gideon was not the father of John > that > arrived in the new world 1630'ish (reference contributed by Ernie > Jones) > > ============================================= > > I will be happy to modify other sections of any pages on the > HAYDEN.ORG > website to make them more accurate for Hayden family researchers. > Please > feel free to send new information or research at any time. > > Recently several researchers have sent new information which will > be added > to the site as soon as I possibly can get it on. I have been extra > busy for > the past month or so at my "real" job, but the pressure will be off > again > sometime early next week and I will have a couple of months > available with > less job pressure again. > > Thanks for any help in keeping the website information accurate. > > > Edward Hayden > > > -----Original Message----- > From: hayden-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:hayden- > bounces@rootsweb.com] On > Behalf Of Ernie Jones > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 12:37 PM > To: hayden@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [HAYDEN] Attn: Ernie re: Nehemiah Hayden > > That's what I get for being half asleep when I threw that page > together. Not only did I leave out a generation but I had an extra > John thrown in the genetic stew pot. I have corrected that now. > > It is now clear to me what Jim was saying and I believe he is > correct. This John who married Miss Pullan is not the son of Gideon > of Cadhay Devon England. I think William Dowell at http:// > www.stithvalley.com/ancestry/taylor/johnhayd.htm gives a compelling > argument that Gideon was not the father of John that arrived in the > new world 1630'ish. > > There is info on the Hayden.org site that does seem to make this tie > - http://www.hayden.org/hayden/hayden1.htm. Mr Dowell gives evidence > while the list on hayden.org is just that - a list. > > Thanks > Ernie > > > > On Jun 13, 2007, at 9:47 AM, catoohey@aol.com wrote: > >> >> Ernie, >> >> >> >> I hadn't really looked at your tree until just now. >> >> My info shows that the John that arrived in 1630 IS the John that >> married Susannah Pullen. >> >> >> >> I have this from numerous sources: >> http://www.dixfieldcitizennews.net/genealogy/5422.htm >> >> http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~haydenfamilyalbum/ >> genealogy_report.htm >> >> http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi? >> op=AHN&db=mercer&id=I3263 >> >> I also have an old genealogy book that says the same. >> >> The information that this John is the son of Gideon seems to be >> wishful thinking. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ernie Jones <ernie_jones@comcast.net> >> To: hayden@rootsweb.com >> Sent: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 11:34 am >> Subject: Re: [HAYDEN] Attn: Ernie re: Nehemiah Hayden >> >> >> >> I'll answer the different questions I received in this one message. >> First I did make a mistake on my last update on that web page and >> eft out one generation. Between John and Samuel I had left out a >> ehemiah and Hannah (Neale). >> Lauren - I think the Hannah Ames you are asking about married John >> he brother of the Nehemiah/Hannah (Neale) that I had left out. That >> s the second generation John that Catherine mentions. >> h, and no you are not butting in at all. The reason I posted to >> his list was for anyone to get involved that wanted to. >> As for the the "fact" as to if the second generation John was married >> o Sussan Pullan or not, I'll leave that debate up to others. >> owever I do state on my page "...as I understand it to be". I think >> hat disclaimer is pretty clear. >> Ernie >> On Jun 13, 2007, at 3:57 AM, Lauren Smith wrote: >>> Ernie, >> Do you have a Hannah Ames in your history? >> Lauren >> --- Ernie Jones <ernie_jones@comcast.net> wrote: >> >>> OK...I've put a little outline from John Hayden of >>> Dorchester 1630/31 >>> down thru Nehemiah that is documented in the files >>> on the site. >>> >>> Let me know if there are any questions. >>> >>> ernie >>> >>> >>> On Jun 12, 2007, at 5:06 AM, CEVaughan412@aol.com >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> In a message dated 6/12/2007 3:26:26 A.M. Eastern >>> Daylight Time, >>>> hayden-request@rootsweb.com writes: >>>> >>>> http://www.ibejones.com/Hayden/photocpy.htm >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Could you tell me where these Haydens >>> lived/originated from? >>>> Thanks >>>> carol >>>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email >>> to HAYDEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word >>> 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and >>> the body of the message >>> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to HAYDEN- >> request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >> in the subject and the body of the message >> >> ------------------------------ >> o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to HAYDEN- >> request@rootsweb.com >> ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and >> the body of >> he message >> >> >> _____________________________________________________________________ >> _ >> __ >> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's >> free from AOL at AOL.com. >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to HAYDEN- >> request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >> in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > HAYDEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to HAYDEN- > request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message

Thanks....that's what I thought but wasn't sure. -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: "shayden" <shayden@columbus.rr.com> > Sorry, Ernie. The test measures markers on the Y-chromosome. Only males have > the Y-chromosome so it is passed from father to son. Your Y-chromosome is > that of your father, his father and so on back. In your case, you would need > to find a Hayden male descendant of Nehemiah. > > The surname does not have to be Hayden but unless there is a link, such as a > name change, assuming a common male ancestor can be risky. For example, one > of the descendants of William Hayden of CT in the project has the surname > Keys. The test confirmed that this subject did descend from William Hayden > as was believed based on research. > > Steve Hayden > > -----Original Message----- > From: hayden-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:hayden-bounces@rootsweb.com] On > Behalf Of ernie_jones@comcast.net > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 10:16 AM > To: hayden@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [HAYDEN] DNA - John Hayden > > So does need to be a male with the last name of Hayden for the testing to be > valid? > > My tie to Hayden is: > Julia Hayden (the daughter of Nehemiah that I have on the web site) > Her son Otis Dickey > His daughter Julia Dickey (My grandmother) > Her daughter Donna Pratt (My mother). > > So if I or my mother were tested would it help the project any? > > Ernie > > > -------------- Original message ---------------------- > From: "shayden" <shayden@columbus.rr.com> > > The Hayden DNA Project currently has 22 members tested. The Hayden > pedigrees > > are as follows. > > > > Four descendants of Francis Heydon of MD; 3 well documented, one shown > where > > connects to Francis' line. > > > > Six descendants of John Hayden of MA; 3 well documented, 2 have secondary > > sources at some links and 1 who had no clue he was related. This line is > > fortunate to have the unique pair of values in the first marker panel. > > > > Two descendants of William, both well documented. > > > > Four Hadens with two lines that may or may not share a common ancestor > since > > immigration to America. > > > > Five Irish Haydens with one awaiting results. None of the four appear to > > share a common ancestor. > > > > > > > > One Hayden of unknown origin who connects to no other tested lines. > > > > Since mutation of the Y-chromosome happens at random generation changes, > one > > can only calculate the probability of a shared common male ancestor. > > Disproving a connection is generally easier than establishing one. For > > example, since there was only a 0.02% of John and William sharing a common > > father, I believe we can conclude they were not brothers. > > > > So, Carol is correct. Y-chromosome DNA testing analysis is an exercise in > > statistics. Increasing the number of markers tested and increasing the > > number of people tested both increase the sample size which, in turn, > > decreases the width of the confidence interval. > > > > However, researchers looking for the father of John have a great advantage > > in the unique combination of two markers on the Y-chromosome. In this > case, > > the sample size of the American cousins is large enough. What is now > needed > > is English cousins to get tested. > > > > You can see the DNA project results at > > http://www.rhhandson.com/hayden_dna.html . > > > > > Steve Hayden > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > HAYDEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > HAYDEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message

So does need to be a male with the last name of Hayden for the testing to be valid? My tie to Hayden is: Julia Hayden (the daughter of Nehemiah that I have on the web site) Her son Otis Dickey His daughter Julia Dickey (My grandmother) Her daughter Donna Pratt (My mother). So if I or my mother were tested would it help the project any? Ernie -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: "shayden" <shayden@columbus.rr.com> > The Hayden DNA Project currently has 22 members tested. The Hayden pedigrees > are as follows. > > Four descendants of Francis Heydon of MD; 3 well documented, one shown where > connects to Francis' line. > > Six descendants of John Hayden of MA; 3 well documented, 2 have secondary > sources at some links and 1 who had no clue he was related. This line is > fortunate to have the unique pair of values in the first marker panel. > > Two descendants of William, both well documented. > > Four Hadens with two lines that may or may not share a common ancestor since > immigration to America. > > Five Irish Haydens with one awaiting results. None of the four appear to > share a common ancestor. > > > > One Hayden of unknown origin who connects to no other tested lines. > > Since mutation of the Y-chromosome happens at random generation changes, one > can only calculate the probability of a shared common male ancestor. > Disproving a connection is generally easier than establishing one. For > example, since there was only a 0.02% of John and William sharing a common > father, I believe we can conclude they were not brothers. > > So, Carol is correct. Y-chromosome DNA testing analysis is an exercise in > statistics. Increasing the number of markers tested and increasing the > number of people tested both increase the sample size which, in turn, > decreases the width of the confidence interval. > > However, researchers looking for the father of John have a great advantage > in the unique combination of two markers on the Y-chromosome. In this case, > the sample size of the American cousins is large enough. What is now needed > is English cousins to get tested. > > You can see the DNA project results at > http://www.rhhandson.com/hayden_dna.html . > > Steve Hayden > >

Any Nathaniel, Elijah or Augustine? -----Original Message----- From: hayden-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:hayden-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Lauren Smith Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 2:08 PM To: hayden@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [HAYDEN] DNA - John Hayden I'm a CT Hayden. I have 10 Nehemiahs' and 9 Williams'. --- ernie_jones@comcast.net wrote: > Thanks....that's what I thought but wasn't sure. > > > -------------- Original message > ---------------------- > From: "shayden" <shayden@columbus.rr.com> > > Sorry, Ernie. The test measures markers on the > Y-chromosome. Only males have > > the Y-chromosome so it is passed from father to > son. Your Y-chromosome is > > that of your father, his father and so on back. In > your case, you would need > > to find a Hayden male descendant of Nehemiah. > > > > The surname does not have to be Hayden but unless > there is a link, such as a > > name change, assuming a common male ancestor can > be risky. For example, one > > of the descendants of William Hayden of CT in the > project has the surname > > Keys. The test confirmed that this subject did > descend from William Hayden > > as was believed based on research. > > > > Steve Hayden > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: hayden-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:hayden-bounces@rootsweb.com] On > > Behalf Of ernie_jones@comcast.net > > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 10:16 AM > > To: hayden@rootsweb.com > > Subject: Re: [HAYDEN] DNA - John Hayden > > > > So does need to be a male with the last name of > Hayden for the testing to be > > valid? > > > > My tie to Hayden is: > > Julia Hayden (the daughter of Nehemiah that I have > on the web site) > > Her son Otis Dickey > > His daughter Julia Dickey (My > grandmother) > > Her daughter Donna Pratt (My > mother). > > > > So if I or my mother were tested would it help the > project any? > > > > Ernie > > > > > > -------------- Original message > ---------------------- > > From: "shayden" <shayden@columbus.rr.com> > > > The Hayden DNA Project currently has 22 members > tested. The Hayden > > pedigrees > > > are as follows. > > > > > > Four descendants of Francis Heydon of MD; 3 well > documented, one shown > > where > > > connects to Francis' line. > > > > > > Six descendants of John Hayden of MA; 3 well > documented, 2 have secondary > > > sources at some links and 1 who had no clue he > was related. This line is > > > fortunate to have the unique pair of values in > the first marker panel. > > > > > > Two descendants of William, both well > documented. > > > > > > Four Hadens with two lines that may or may not > share a common ancestor > > since > > > immigration to America. > > > > > > Five Irish Haydens with one awaiting results. > None of the four appear to > > > share a common ancestor. > > > > > > > > > > > > One Hayden of unknown origin who connects to no > other tested lines. > > > > > > Since mutation of the Y-chromosome happens at > random generation changes, > > one > > > can only calculate the probability of a shared > common male ancestor. > > > Disproving a connection is generally easier than > establishing one. For > > > example, since there was only a 0.02% of John > and William sharing a common > > > father, I believe we can conclude they were not > brothers. > > > > > > So, Carol is correct. Y-chromosome DNA testing > analysis is an exercise in > > > statistics. Increasing the number of markers > tested and increasing the > > > number of people tested both increase the sample > size which, in turn, > > > decreases the width of the confidence interval. > > > > > > However, researchers looking for the father of > John have a great advantage > > > in the unique combination of two markers on the > Y-chromosome. In this > > case, > > > the sample size of the American cousins is large > enough. What is now > > needed > > > is English cousins to get tested. > > > > > > You can see the DNA project results at > > > http://www.rhhandson.com/hayden_dna.html . > > > > > > > > Steve Hayden > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email > to > > HAYDEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > > in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email > to > > HAYDEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > > the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email > to HAYDEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > the body of the message > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to HAYDEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I'm a CT Hayden. I have 10 Nehemiahs' and 9 Williams'. --- ernie_jones@comcast.net wrote: > Thanks....that's what I thought but wasn't sure. > > > -------------- Original message > ---------------------- > From: "shayden" <shayden@columbus.rr.com> > > Sorry, Ernie. The test measures markers on the > Y-chromosome. Only males have > > the Y-chromosome so it is passed from father to > son. Your Y-chromosome is > > that of your father, his father and so on back. In > your case, you would need > > to find a Hayden male descendant of Nehemiah. > > > > The surname does not have to be Hayden but unless > there is a link, such as a > > name change, assuming a common male ancestor can > be risky. For example, one > > of the descendants of William Hayden of CT in the > project has the surname > > Keys. The test confirmed that this subject did > descend from William Hayden > > as was believed based on research. > > > > Steve Hayden > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: hayden-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:hayden-bounces@rootsweb.com] On > > Behalf Of ernie_jones@comcast.net > > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 10:16 AM > > To: hayden@rootsweb.com > > Subject: Re: [HAYDEN] DNA - John Hayden > > > > So does need to be a male with the last name of > Hayden for the testing to be > > valid? > > > > My tie to Hayden is: > > Julia Hayden (the daughter of Nehemiah that I have > on the web site) > > Her son Otis Dickey > > His daughter Julia Dickey (My > grandmother) > > Her daughter Donna Pratt (My > mother). > > > > So if I or my mother were tested would it help the > project any? > > > > Ernie > > > > > > -------------- Original message > ---------------------- > > From: "shayden" <shayden@columbus.rr.com> > > > The Hayden DNA Project currently has 22 members > tested. The Hayden > > pedigrees > > > are as follows. > > > > > > Four descendants of Francis Heydon of MD; 3 well > documented, one shown > > where > > > connects to Francis' line. > > > > > > Six descendants of John Hayden of MA; 3 well > documented, 2 have secondary > > > sources at some links and 1 who had no clue he > was related. This line is > > > fortunate to have the unique pair of values in > the first marker panel. > > > > > > Two descendants of William, both well > documented. > > > > > > Four Hadens with two lines that may or may not > share a common ancestor > > since > > > immigration to America. > > > > > > Five Irish Haydens with one awaiting results. > None of the four appear to > > > share a common ancestor. > > > > > > > > > > > > One Hayden of unknown origin who connects to no > other tested lines. > > > > > > Since mutation of the Y-chromosome happens at > random generation changes, > > one > > > can only calculate the probability of a shared > common male ancestor. > > > Disproving a connection is generally easier than > establishing one. For > > > example, since there was only a 0.02% of John > and William sharing a common > > > father, I believe we can conclude they were not > brothers. > > > > > > So, Carol is correct. Y-chromosome DNA testing > analysis is an exercise in > > > statistics. Increasing the number of markers > tested and increasing the > > > number of people tested both increase the sample > size which, in turn, > > > decreases the width of the confidence interval. > > > > > > However, researchers looking for the father of > John have a great advantage > > > in the unique combination of two markers on the > Y-chromosome. In this > > case, > > > the sample size of the American cousins is large > enough. What is now > > needed > > > is English cousins to get tested. > > > > > > You can see the DNA project results at > > > http://www.rhhandson.com/hayden_dna.html . > > > > > > > > Steve Hayden > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email > to > > HAYDEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > > in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email > to > > HAYDEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > > the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email > to HAYDEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > the body of the message >

Hi all, It is a great pity for the American Haydens that John was not the son of Gideon. As I have said before DNA is the only way forward, and we are lucky it is available. Ignoring any "Hayden sounding Irish" or similar Dutch or German; the English Haydens [Heydon] who incidentally were originally Normans [they would never have got those properties in those early days without being of Norman blood] The English Heydons originated in Heydon, Essex [now just in Cambridge county] and a branch got established in Norfolk by about 1150, a branch from Norfolk moved to Devon in about 1250 and then the Watford branch in about 1350. Much of the Norfolk branch that stayed in Norfolk had either died out, moved to London or no longer important by 1600. This leaves [in isolation] the Essex branch [my Mother's father] stayed in the north west Essex area until at least 1900 and some may still be there. [None of mine that I can find] Also note the "isolation" of the Devon lot from cousins in Norfolk [a long journey in those days] That part of Essex and Cambridge were very strong Puritan areas, as was Devon; I have looked at all recorded Haydens in these areas, but cant be sure of a John, William or James [there were a few possible John's and a couple of William's] So I feel that of the three Haydens in 1630, we are looking for at least one from Devon [ a few possibilities, who could have been related] Gideon's father Robert had three brothers, Peter, Thomas and John; but I cant find any children from these. This is mostly likely where one of the 1630 Haydens came from. One or both of the other 1630 Haydens, may well have come from Cambridge / Essex and the DNA separating is now 850 years. Not forgetting any "actual" father not being a Hayden, it did happen, maybe not as often as today!!! So DNA has to be pushed especially into England. Regards Tony Burgess, Australia

Sorry, Ernie. The test measures markers on the Y-chromosome. Only males have the Y-chromosome so it is passed from father to son. Your Y-chromosome is that of your father, his father and so on back. In your case, you would need to find a Hayden male descendant of Nehemiah. The surname does not have to be Hayden but unless there is a link, such as a name change, assuming a common male ancestor can be risky. For example, one of the descendants of William Hayden of CT in the project has the surname Keys. The test confirmed that this subject did descend from William Hayden as was believed based on research. Steve Hayden -----Original Message----- From: hayden-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:hayden-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of ernie_jones@comcast.net Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 10:16 AM To: hayden@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [HAYDEN] DNA - John Hayden So does need to be a male with the last name of Hayden for the testing to be valid? My tie to Hayden is: Julia Hayden (the daughter of Nehemiah that I have on the web site) Her son Otis Dickey His daughter Julia Dickey (My grandmother) Her daughter Donna Pratt (My mother). So if I or my mother were tested would it help the project any? Ernie -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: "shayden" <shayden@columbus.rr.com> > The Hayden DNA Project currently has 22 members tested. The Hayden pedigrees > are as follows. > > Four descendants of Francis Heydon of MD; 3 well documented, one shown where > connects to Francis' line. > > Six descendants of John Hayden of MA; 3 well documented, 2 have secondary > sources at some links and 1 who had no clue he was related. This line is > fortunate to have the unique pair of values in the first marker panel. > > Two descendants of William, both well documented. > > Four Hadens with two lines that may or may not share a common ancestor since > immigration to America. > > Five Irish Haydens with one awaiting results. None of the four appear to > share a common ancestor. > > > > One Hayden of unknown origin who connects to no other tested lines. > > Since mutation of the Y-chromosome happens at random generation changes, one > can only calculate the probability of a shared common male ancestor. > Disproving a connection is generally easier than establishing one. For > example, since there was only a 0.02% of John and William sharing a common > father, I believe we can conclude they were not brothers. > > So, Carol is correct. Y-chromosome DNA testing analysis is an exercise in > statistics. Increasing the number of markers tested and increasing the > number of people tested both increase the sample size which, in turn, > decreases the width of the confidence interval. > > However, researchers looking for the father of John have a great advantage > in the unique combination of two markers on the Y-chromosome. In this case, > the sample size of the American cousins is large enough. What is now needed > is English cousins to get tested. > > You can see the DNA project results at > http://www.rhhandson.com/hayden_dna.html . > > Steve Hayden > > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to HAYDEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

The Hayden DNA Project currently has 22 members tested. The Hayden pedigrees are as follows. Four descendants of Francis Heydon of MD; 3 well documented, one shown where connects to Francis' line. Six descendants of John Hayden of MA; 3 well documented, 2 have secondary sources at some links and 1 who had no clue he was related. This line is fortunate to have the unique pair of values in the first marker panel. Two descendants of William, both well documented. Four Hadens with two lines that may or may not share a common ancestor since immigration to America. Five Irish Haydens with one awaiting results. None of the four appear to share a common ancestor. One Hayden of unknown origin who connects to no other tested lines. Since mutation of the Y-chromosome happens at random generation changes, one can only calculate the probability of a shared common male ancestor. Disproving a connection is generally easier than establishing one. For example, since there was only a 0.02% of John and William sharing a common father, I believe we can conclude they were not brothers. So, Carol is correct. Y-chromosome DNA testing analysis is an exercise in statistics. Increasing the number of markers tested and increasing the number of people tested both increase the sample size which, in turn, decreases the width of the confidence interval. However, researchers looking for the father of John have a great advantage in the unique combination of two markers on the Y-chromosome. In this case, the sample size of the American cousins is large enough. What is now needed is English cousins to get tested. You can see the DNA project results at http://www.rhhandson.com/hayden_dna.html . Steve Hayden -----Original Message----- From: hayden-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:hayden-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of CEVaughan412@aol.com Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 7:08 AM To: hayden@rootsweb.com Subject: [HAYDEN] DNA - John Hayden I have a question about the Hayden DNA testing. How many Hayden's have been tested in this project? While I believe that DNA testing is the only answer to this John - Gideon thing, we need numbers to prove it for sure. How many people aren't who they think they are due to extra-marital births, unrecorded adoptions etc over the years? I just think that there is not enough Hayden descendants in the DNA database and we certainly need those across the Pond to join. Carol ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to HAYDEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I have a question about the Hayden DNA testing. How many Hayden's have been tested in this project? While I believe that DNA testing is the only answer to this John - Gideon thing, we need numbers to prove it for sure. How many people aren't who they think they are due to extra-marital births, unrecorded adoptions etc over the years? I just think that there is not enough Hayden descendants in the DNA database and we certainly need those across the Pond to join. Carol ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

Keep up the good work.......Jim Edward Hayden <ehayden@sbcglobal.net> wrote: I have modified the page at www.hayden.org/hayden/hayden1.htm as follows: ============================================= The link between Gideon and this John Hayden is no longer accepted as true. Anyone with documentation concerning the parentage of this John Hayden or the descendants of this Gideon Hayden is invited to submit that information to this website to be shared with all Hayden family researchers. Thanks! Edward Hayden, ehayden@hayden.org William Dowell at http://www.stithvalley.com/ancestry/taylor/johnhayd.htm" gives a compelling argument that Gideon was not the father of John that arrived in the new world 1630'ish (reference contributed by Ernie Jones) ============================================= I will be happy to modify other sections of any pages on the HAYDEN.ORG website to make them more accurate for Hayden family researchers. Please feel free to send new information or research at any time. Recently several researchers have sent new information which will be added to the site as soon as I possibly can get it on. I have been extra busy for the past month or so at my "real" job, but the pressure will be off again sometime early next week and I will have a couple of months available with less job pressure again. Thanks for any help in keeping the website information accurate. Edward Hayden -----Original Message----- From: hayden-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:hayden-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Ernie Jones Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 12:37 PM To: hayden@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [HAYDEN] Attn: Ernie re: Nehemiah Hayden That's what I get for being half asleep when I threw that page together. Not only did I leave out a generation but I had an extra John thrown in the genetic stew pot. I have corrected that now. It is now clear to me what Jim was saying and I believe he is correct. This John who married Miss Pullan is not the son of Gideon of Cadhay Devon England. I think William Dowell at http:// www.stithvalley.com/ancestry/taylor/johnhayd.htm gives a compelling argument that Gideon was not the father of John that arrived in the new world 1630'ish. There is info on the Hayden.org site that does seem to make this tie - http://www.hayden.org/hayden/hayden1.htm. Mr Dowell gives evidence while the list on hayden.org is just that - a list. Thanks Ernie On Jun 13, 2007, at 9:47 AM, catoohey@aol.com wrote: > > Ernie, > > > > I hadn't really looked at your tree until just now. > > My info shows that the John that arrived in 1630 IS the John that > married Susannah Pullen. > > > > I have this from numerous sources: > http://www.dixfieldcitizennews.net/genealogy/5422.htm > > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~haydenfamilyalbum/ > genealogy_report.htm > > http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi? > op=AHN&db=mercer&id=I3263 > > I also have an old genealogy book that says the same. > > The information that this John is the son of Gideon seems to be > wishful thinking. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ernie Jones > To: hayden@rootsweb.com > Sent: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 11:34 am > Subject: Re: [HAYDEN] Attn: Ernie re: Nehemiah Hayden > > > > I'll answer the different questions I received in this one message. > First I did make a mistake on my last update on that web page and > eft out one generation. Between John and Samuel I had left out a > ehemiah and Hannah (Neale). > Lauren - I think the Hannah Ames you are asking about married John > he brother of the Nehemiah/Hannah (Neale) that I had left out. That > s the second generation John that Catherine mentions. > h, and no you are not butting in at all. The reason I posted to > his list was for anyone to get involved that wanted to. > As for the the "fact" as to if the second generation John was married > o Sussan Pullan or not, I'll leave that debate up to others. > owever I do state on my page "...as I understand it to be". I think > hat disclaimer is pretty clear. > Ernie > On Jun 13, 2007, at 3:57 AM, Lauren Smith wrote: >> Ernie, > Do you have a Hannah Ames in your history? > Lauren > --- Ernie Jones wrote: > >> OK...I've put a little outline from John Hayden of >> Dorchester 1630/31 >> down thru Nehemiah that is documented in the files >> on the site. >> >> Let me know if there are any questions. >> >> ernie >> >> >> On Jun 12, 2007, at 5:06 AM, CEVaughan412@aol.com >> wrote: >> >>> >>> In a message dated 6/12/2007 3:26:26 A.M. Eastern >> Daylight Time, >>> hayden-request@rootsweb.com writes: >>> >>> http://www.ibejones.com/Hayden/photocpy.htm >>> >>> >>> >>> Could you tell me where these Haydens >> lived/originated from? >>> Thanks >>> carol >>> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email >> to HAYDEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word >> 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and >> the body of the message >> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to HAYDEN- > request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > > ------------------------------ > o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to HAYDEN- > request@rootsweb.com > ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > the body of > he message > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > __ > AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's > free from AOL at AOL.com. > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to HAYDEN- > request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to HAYDEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to HAYDEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I have modified the page at www.hayden.org/hayden/hayden1.htm as follows: ============================================= The link between Gideon and this John Hayden is no longer accepted as true. Anyone with documentation concerning the parentage of this John Hayden or the descendants of this Gideon Hayden is invited to submit that information to this website to be shared with all Hayden family researchers. Thanks! Edward Hayden, ehayden@hayden.org William Dowell at http://www.stithvalley.com/ancestry/taylor/johnhayd.htm" gives a compelling argument that Gideon was not the father of John that arrived in the new world 1630'ish (reference contributed by Ernie Jones) ============================================= I will be happy to modify other sections of any pages on the HAYDEN.ORG website to make them more accurate for Hayden family researchers. Please feel free to send new information or research at any time. Recently several researchers have sent new information which will be added to the site as soon as I possibly can get it on. I have been extra busy for the past month or so at my "real" job, but the pressure will be off again sometime early next week and I will have a couple of months available with less job pressure again. Thanks for any help in keeping the website information accurate. Edward Hayden -----Original Message----- From: hayden-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:hayden-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Ernie Jones Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 12:37 PM To: hayden@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [HAYDEN] Attn: Ernie re: Nehemiah Hayden That's what I get for being half asleep when I threw that page together. Not only did I leave out a generation but I had an extra John thrown in the genetic stew pot. I have corrected that now. It is now clear to me what Jim was saying and I believe he is correct. This John who married Miss Pullan is not the son of Gideon of Cadhay Devon England. I think William Dowell at http:// www.stithvalley.com/ancestry/taylor/johnhayd.htm gives a compelling argument that Gideon was not the father of John that arrived in the new world 1630'ish. There is info on the Hayden.org site that does seem to make this tie - http://www.hayden.org/hayden/hayden1.htm. Mr Dowell gives evidence while the list on hayden.org is just that - a list. Thanks Ernie On Jun 13, 2007, at 9:47 AM, catoohey@aol.com wrote: > > Ernie, > > > > I hadn't really looked at your tree until just now. > > My info shows that the John that arrived in 1630 IS the John that > married Susannah Pullen. > > > > I have this from numerous sources: > http://www.dixfieldcitizennews.net/genealogy/5422.htm > > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~haydenfamilyalbum/ > genealogy_report.htm > > http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi? > op=AHN&db=mercer&id=I3263 > > I also have an old genealogy book that says the same. > > The information that this John is the son of Gideon seems to be > wishful thinking. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ernie Jones <ernie_jones@comcast.net> > To: hayden@rootsweb.com > Sent: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 11:34 am > Subject: Re: [HAYDEN] Attn: Ernie re: Nehemiah Hayden > > > > I'll answer the different questions I received in this one message. > First I did make a mistake on my last update on that web page and > eft out one generation. Between John and Samuel I had left out a > ehemiah and Hannah (Neale). > Lauren - I think the Hannah Ames you are asking about married John > he brother of the Nehemiah/Hannah (Neale) that I had left out. That > s the second generation John that Catherine mentions. > h, and no you are not butting in at all. The reason I posted to > his list was for anyone to get involved that wanted to. > As for the the "fact" as to if the second generation John was married > o Sussan Pullan or not, I'll leave that debate up to others. > owever I do state on my page "...as I understand it to be". I think > hat disclaimer is pretty clear. > Ernie > On Jun 13, 2007, at 3:57 AM, Lauren Smith wrote: >> Ernie, > Do you have a Hannah Ames in your history? > Lauren > --- Ernie Jones <ernie_jones@comcast.net> wrote: > >> OK...I've put a little outline from John Hayden of >> Dorchester 1630/31 >> down thru Nehemiah that is documented in the files >> on the site. >> >> Let me know if there are any questions. >> >> ernie >> >> >> On Jun 12, 2007, at 5:06 AM, CEVaughan412@aol.com >> wrote: >> >>> >>> In a message dated 6/12/2007 3:26:26 A.M. Eastern >> Daylight Time, >>> hayden-request@rootsweb.com writes: >>> >>> http://www.ibejones.com/Hayden/photocpy.htm >>> >>> >>> >>> Could you tell me where these Haydens >> lived/originated from? >>> Thanks >>> carol >>> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email >> to HAYDEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word >> 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and >> the body of the message >> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to HAYDEN- > request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > > ------------------------------ > o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to HAYDEN- > request@rootsweb.com > ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > the body of > he message > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > __ > AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's > free from AOL at AOL.com. > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to HAYDEN- > request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to HAYDEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Ernie is correct in his statement that John and William were brothers is likely a perpetuation of old information. The origin may be the same as that of John's father was Gideon. In any case, we now know that neither are true statements. The connection of John to his English line is an interesting possibility. It turns out that John's male descendants, including myself and four other tested members of the Hayden DNA project, all have a very rare combination of two loci values. So rare that there is only a 0.003% chance of it occurring by chance. A Hyden male was also found to have this rare combination so he is now known to somehow be connected to John. The connection is likely to have occurred prior to immigration to America. Descendants of William do not exhibit this combination of values. It is even more fortunate that these two loci occur in the first 12 marker panel of results which means it is the least expensive test. This means we can test English "cousins" at a relatively low cost to establish a connection with high confidence. Alas, no English "cousins" have yet agreed to participate or even expressed any interest even though we have some financial support for such a test. Because descendants of William, Francis and various Irish Haydens do not exhibit this rare combination, it will be more expensive and less certain to screen using DNA for their English or Irish ancestors. Steve -----Original Message----- From: hayden-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:hayden-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Ernie Jones Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 4:17 PM To: hayden@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [HAYDEN] John of 1630 I had seen this before but don't recall where. Perhaps not a myth but the perpetuation of old information that was once believed true and the modern evidence does not support. Bottom line is still the same though. However the information at http://www.hayden.org/hayden/hayden1.htm. still indicates this connection. ( I almost accepted that connection even though I had seen the info on the Stith Valley site. I had just not realized that I was looking at the same wrong connection until now.) Not sure who should be notified to either remove that or place disclaimers there. Is there any indication that this William who was once believed to be the brother of John is older or younger and if he did have the Baronet title? One thing I am getting from this is that those of us that are in the line of John from 1630'ish is that we really don't have any information that takes the family back any further. Is that correct? Thanks Ernie

Gideon must be a popular Hayden name. I have at least 3 in my Hayden line. --- Ernie Jones <ernie_jones@comcast.net> wrote: > I had seen this before but don't recall where. > Perhaps not a myth > but the perpetuation of old information that was > once believed true > and the modern evidence does not support. Bottom > line is still the > same though. > > However the information at > http://www.hayden.org/hayden/hayden1.htm. > still indicates this connection. ( I almost > accepted that connection > even though I had seen the info on the Stith Valley > site. I had just > not realized that I was looking at the same wrong > connection until > now.) Not sure who should be notified to either > remove that or place > disclaimers there. > > Is there any indication that this William who was > once believed to be > the brother of John is older or younger and if he > did have the > Baronet title? > > One thing I am getting from this is that those of us > that are in the > line of John from 1630'ish is that we really don't > have any > information that takes the family back any further. > Is that correct? > > Thanks > Ernie > > > On Jun 13, 2007, at 11:59 AM, shayden wrote: > > > Old myths seem to die hard! > > > > DNA studies have shown that there is only a 0.02% > chance that John and > > William were brothers. Not very likely. In fact, > there is less than > > a 0.2% > > chance that they were close cousins. They may > share a common Hayden > > male > > ancestor but there is only a 16% probability that > that common > > ancestor lived > > since the time of Thomas de Heydon or ca. 1200. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: hayden-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:hayden- > > bounces@rootsweb.com] On > > Behalf Of Ernie Jones > > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 2:37 PM > > To: hayden@rootsweb.com > > Subject: Re: [HAYDEN] John of 1630 > > > > I do not have a solid source for this, only a note > from a deceased > > Hayden relative whom I've never met or talked to. > She did do some > > pretty heavy research though. Her note says that > John's brother > > William was an "English Baronet". IMPORTANT to > note here that I have > > not seen any real evidence to verify this. > However, if it were true > > that would make John the younger brother not > William. The Baronet > > title would be inherited by the oldest male child > born in wedlock. > > When looking at the A, B, & C passenger lists for > the Mary & John it > > could look like John is the younger, but it's not > real clear. Anyone > > have input??? > > > > > http://www.maryandjohn1630.com/passengerlist_c.html > shows William as > > 18 and John as 17. Another source > http://www.pennlaird.com/eggleston/ > > MnJ.html shows William born in 1616 making him > 13/14 years old when > > coming to America. I suspect this source was in > error so I didn't > > pay much attention to it beyond noting this. > > > > It is not clear, as I think we know, if John > and/or William were on > > the Mary & John. However, this ship was only one > of many during > > 1630/31 bringing Puritans to the new world. > (Someone please correct > > me if I'm wrong.) My conclusion is that if they > were not on the Mary > > & John herself then they would have been on one of > the sister ships. > > Right??? > > > > There is a possibility that John's father may have > been Gideon, but > > not the Gideon of Cadhay Ottery St. Mary. > HOWEVER, I want to be > > clear that I only throw this out for thought and > consideration and > > that I don't have even a slight shred of evidence > to support this. > > It's just something to ponder - after all John had > to have had a > > father and Gideon is a possible name, but then so > is Fred, William, > > or Henry. His father being Gideon COULD explain > the confusion. > > Again I'm only offering this for thought and I > don't want to confuse > > things. > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email > to HAYDEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > the body of the message >

Old myths seem to die hard! DNA studies have shown that there is only a 0.02% chance that John and William were brothers. Not very likely. In fact, there is less than a 0.2% chance that they were close cousins. They may share a common Hayden male ancestor but there is only a 16% probability that that common ancestor lived since the time of Thomas de Heydon or ca. 1200. -----Original Message----- From: hayden-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:hayden-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Ernie Jones Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 2:37 PM To: hayden@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [HAYDEN] John of 1630 I do not have a solid source for this, only a note from a deceased Hayden relative whom I've never met or talked to. She did do some pretty heavy research though. Her note says that John's brother William was an "English Baronet". IMPORTANT to note here that I have not seen any real evidence to verify this. However, if it were true that would make John the younger brother not William. The Baronet title would be inherited by the oldest male child born in wedlock. When looking at the A, B, & C passenger lists for the Mary & John it could look like John is the younger, but it's not real clear. Anyone have input??? http://www.maryandjohn1630.com/passengerlist_c.html shows William as 18 and John as 17. Another source http://www.pennlaird.com/eggleston/ MnJ.html shows William born in 1616 making him 13/14 years old when coming to America. I suspect this source was in error so I didn't pay much attention to it beyond noting this. It is not clear, as I think we know, if John and/or William were on the Mary & John. However, this ship was only one of many during 1630/31 bringing Puritans to the new world. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.) My conclusion is that if they were not on the Mary & John herself then they would have been on one of the sister ships. Right??? There is a possibility that John's father may have been Gideon, but not the Gideon of Cadhay Ottery St. Mary. HOWEVER, I want to be clear that I only throw this out for thought and consideration and that I don't have even a slight shred of evidence to support this. It's just something to ponder - after all John had to have had a father and Gideon is a possible name, but then so is Fred, William, or Henry. His father being Gideon COULD explain the confusion. Again I'm only offering this for thought and I don't want to confuse things. On Jun 13, 2007, at 10:53 AM, CEVaughan412@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 6/13/2007 1:38:21 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > hayden-request@rootsweb.com writes: > > Be careful with this site as it shows incorrectly that John, > spouse of > Susanna Pullen, has known parents. This fact has been shown in > numerous cases as > incorrect. > > Were you able to find the sources for the data shown? > > Jim > >

In a message dated 6/13/2007 1:38:21 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hayden-request@rootsweb.com writes: Be careful with this site as it shows incorrectly that John, spouse of Susanna Pullen, has known parents. This fact has been shown in numerous cases as incorrect. Were you able to find the sources for the data shown? Jim Mormons say he was born 2 November 1606 in Ottery St. Mary, England. The son of Gideon Hayden and Margaret Davies. There is some contradictory evidence. They had a son John who has not been traced after 1627. There were about a dozen other " John Haydens " of that age christened in Devonshire and Somerset, England. Several references identify John Hayden, of Dorchester Massachusetts. A freeman in Braintree, May 14, 1634. His will was dated 31 October 1678, probated 26 July 1684. His widow Susannah ( that was living 1695 ) was executrix. John was connected with the first ironworks in Massachusetts. Other references, one of which cites " tradition in all branches of the Hayden family " say that John came to Dorchester in 1630 with his younger brother William, on the ship Mary and John which brought Puritans from Plymouth. Said to be from the borders of Somerset and Devon ( which would include Ottery St. Mary ). References show Willam on that ship but do not show John. The English records show a John Hayden, but not a William, as a son of Gideon Hayden of Ottery St. Mary. That family in England remained pillars of the Established Church for several later generations. Parish records indicate ( but not quite conclusively ) that this John Hayden died in Devonshire, at Woodbury near Ottery St. Mary, in 1658, ruling him out as our John. Many Mormon genealogies claim him as our ancestor, erroneously in my opinion. [Brøderbund WFT Vol. 11, Ed. 1, Tree #1750, Date of Import: Mar 12, 1999] 8 Generations to Mary Katherine Hayden, b.1923. First generation of Hayden Family in America. John Hayden came from Devonshire, England to Boston, MA in 1630 with Father Warham's congregation on the ship "William and John", chartered. John had two Brothers with him on this Voyage, William and James. James settled at Charlestown, MA. William settled at Windsor, CN. John settled at Braintree, MA. They were the sons of Gideon Hayden of England. They were in the shipping bussiness. Will dtd 31 Oct 1678 - proved 26 July 1682. NOTICE: The above notes are not my notes and don't reflect my opinions. Carol E. Vaughan March 12, 1999 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Arrived in Massachusetts in 1630. Sailed in the "Mary and John" with brother William who settled in Connecticut. First settled in Dorchester where he received several small parcels of land and became a freeman in 1634. Moved to Braintree by 1636. Was fined for entertaining a servant, remitte because he do so knowingly, in June 1639. "In answer to the petition of John Hayden of Braintree craving some release, it is ordered (in regard to the great affliction of God that lies upon the petitioner in regard to his child, as also his late loss of a cow, being half his estate) that he shall be yearly allowed...some five pounds toward the charge of keeping the child {probably Joseph}, the town {to pay} the rest." Renewed 1653. Renewed to Goodwife Hayden 1664 & 1665. In 1656 in was ordered that there be a road through Dossit's land in Braintree so Goodman Hayden can bring his corn out. Miscellaneous, “1651, At this time, we find the first case of insanity in the town. ‘In answer to the petition of John Heydon of Braintree, for relief in respect of his distracted childe, as also some loss lately befalne him, this Court doth order, that the said John Heydon shall have from the County, towards the charges of keeping the childe, five pounds per annum, to be payed out their own Town levy, and the Town to bear the rest of the charge till the Court se cause to withdraw their benevolence.’” John settled in Dorchester, Mass. And sometimes spelled his name Haiden, as in his will. He was made Freeman May 14, 1634. He moved to Braintree in 1640. The second entry in the records is the birth of his son Jonathan. A part of the town where he settled is called Randolph, and is very near Quincy, Mass. The record of his will is Suffolk probate 6,483 and mentions his wife Susan, sons Samuel, Joseph, John, Nehemiah and Jonathan. The children of his second son Samuel and daughter Hannah. Appoints his wife Susan with Samuel Thompson and Joseph Penniman executor.” >From “History of our Ancestors” by Rutherford - 929.2 R932401h “John Hayden and a younger brother, William Hayden, came to New England aboard the John and Mary in the company of three hundred immigrants under the direction of the Reverend John Warham and the Reverend Samuel Maverick. The company landed at Dorchester, Mass. In 1630. >From “Colonial Families of the US of A Volume 5, 1937 p. 275: John Hayden was listed as a proprietor in 1632, and a freeman May 14, 1634. He was acquitted June 8, 1639 for entertaining (hiring) an unlicensed servant, but as he did it ignorantly, the fine which previously had been levied against him was remitted to him.” >From “The Pioneers of Massachusetts”, 1900, p. 223: John Hayden moved to Braintree, now Randolph, Mass., settling near the Iron Works and the Iron Work Bridge. He was connected with first Iron Works in Mass. He probably moved to the town of Braintree in 1640, as the birth of his son Jonathan Hayden, March 19, 1640 was recorded on the second page of the town records of Braintree. The dates of his three children born after Jonathan were also recorded in the Braintree records. >From the “Records of the Town of Braintree 1640-1793 p. 631-632: John Hayden ’s will, dated October 31, 1678 was probated July 26, 1682. As he specified, his estate was not to be settled until after the death of his son, Joseph, final probate was delayed until April 4, 1695. The Massachusetts General Court Deboard Susanna Hayden, his wife, deceased, February 9, 1684, and appointed John Hayden, Jr. and Jonathan Hayded the executors of the estate. John Hayden deeded most of his land to his sons prior to his death. “The Heydons in England and America” by Rev. William B. Hayden Chapter V. The Devon Line. Page 41: “I assume that John, William and James Haydon, three brothers, the immigrant ancestors of the American lines, and who appeared in Boston, Dorchester and Charlestown in 1630, were sons of Gideon Haydon of Cadhay, No. 15 in the Devon line, for the following reasons: (1) The family tradition is that we are descended from the Devonshire branch. (2) The immigrants, when they landed, had the Devonshire spelling of the name. (3) They evidently came over in close connection with the Massachusetts Bay Company, whose headquarters were at Exeter, and whose officers and members were near neighbors of the Haydons. (4) The Haydons were few in number. All accounts agree that the Lymston branch, for a time distinct, probably in a line of younger sons, became at length re absorbed in the Ebford-Cadhay branch; and all the places mentioned in connection with them are in a little radius of ten or twelve miles. Hence the question arises, Where else could they have come from? (5) We know that the said Gideon had several younger sons grown to manhood in 1630, but who thereafter suddenly disappeared from the scene, there being, so far as I have been able to learn, no record of their marriages, settlement, decease or descendants in England. (6) I find the State Papers that the family were engaged in the shipping business at that time…” >From “The Visitations of the County of Devon, comprising The Heralds’ Visitations of 1531, 1564 & 1620” by Lieutenant-Colonel J.L. Vivian. Pages 458-459: Haydon of Cadhay Arms: -Arg., three bars gemels Az., on a chief Gu. A fesse dansettee Or. Crest:- A lion Arg. Seizing on a bull courant Sa. “John de Haydon to Robert Haydon to Henry Haydon to William Haydon to Robert Haydon to John Haydon to Henry Haydon to John Haydon to Richard Hayden to Richard Hayden to Thomas Haydon to Thomas Hayden to Robert Haydon to Gideon Haydon to John Hayden 2 so, bap. 2 Nov. 1606 at Ottery St. Mary, (1) named in the will of his great uncle Peter Haydon, living 1627. (1)Ottery St. Mary Parish Register. The Hayden Family - Author unknown “…As stated above John, James and William are supposed to have been brothers - but so far as we have any reliable information, they might have been second cousings or even no relation at all and the statement that they came on the “Mary & John” is merely a supposition also, based upon the fact that they soon separated, it is evident that they considered Dorchester neither conducive to their health nor to their happiness: - for John recorded as a “freeman in Braintree, Mass, in 1640; James likewise in Charlestown, Mass. In 1637; and William turns up in the land of ‘Nutmegs’ as a freeman at Windsor, Connecticut in 1640. Carol ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

I had seen this before but don't recall where. Perhaps not a myth but the perpetuation of old information that was once believed true and the modern evidence does not support. Bottom line is still the same though. However the information at http://www.hayden.org/hayden/hayden1.htm. still indicates this connection. ( I almost accepted that connection even though I had seen the info on the Stith Valley site. I had just not realized that I was looking at the same wrong connection until now.) Not sure who should be notified to either remove that or place disclaimers there. Is there any indication that this William who was once believed to be the brother of John is older or younger and if he did have the Baronet title? One thing I am getting from this is that those of us that are in the line of John from 1630'ish is that we really don't have any information that takes the family back any further. Is that correct? Thanks Ernie On Jun 13, 2007, at 11:59 AM, shayden wrote: > Old myths seem to die hard! > > DNA studies have shown that there is only a 0.02% chance that John and > William were brothers. Not very likely. In fact, there is less than > a 0.2% > chance that they were close cousins. They may share a common Hayden > male > ancestor but there is only a 16% probability that that common > ancestor lived > since the time of Thomas de Heydon or ca. 1200. > > -----Original Message----- > From: hayden-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:hayden- > bounces@rootsweb.com] On > Behalf Of Ernie Jones > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 2:37 PM > To: hayden@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [HAYDEN] John of 1630 > > I do not have a solid source for this, only a note from a deceased > Hayden relative whom I've never met or talked to. She did do some > pretty heavy research though. Her note says that John's brother > William was an "English Baronet". IMPORTANT to note here that I have > not seen any real evidence to verify this. However, if it were true > that would make John the younger brother not William. The Baronet > title would be inherited by the oldest male child born in wedlock. > When looking at the A, B, & C passenger lists for the Mary & John it > could look like John is the younger, but it's not real clear. Anyone > have input??? > > http://www.maryandjohn1630.com/passengerlist_c.html shows William as > 18 and John as 17. Another source http://www.pennlaird.com/eggleston/ > MnJ.html shows William born in 1616 making him 13/14 years old when > coming to America. I suspect this source was in error so I didn't > pay much attention to it beyond noting this. > > It is not clear, as I think we know, if John and/or William were on > the Mary & John. However, this ship was only one of many during > 1630/31 bringing Puritans to the new world. (Someone please correct > me if I'm wrong.) My conclusion is that if they were not on the Mary > & John herself then they would have been on one of the sister ships. > Right??? > > There is a possibility that John's father may have been Gideon, but > not the Gideon of Cadhay Ottery St. Mary. HOWEVER, I want to be > clear that I only throw this out for thought and consideration and > that I don't have even a slight shred of evidence to support this. > It's just something to ponder - after all John had to have had a > father and Gideon is a possible name, but then so is Fred, William, > or Henry. His father being Gideon COULD explain the confusion. > Again I'm only offering this for thought and I don't want to confuse > things.

Ernie, I hadn't really looked at your tree until just now. My info shows that the John that arrived in 1630 IS the John that married Susannah Pullen. I have this from numerous sources: http://www.dixfieldcitizennews.net/genealogy/5422.htm http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~haydenfamilyalbum/genealogy_report.htm http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=AHN&db=mercer&id=I3263 I also have an old genealogy book that says the same. The information that this John is the son of Gideon seems to be wishful thinking. -----Original Message----- From: Ernie Jones <ernie_jones@comcast.net> To: hayden@rootsweb.com Sent: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 11:34 am Subject: Re: [HAYDEN] Attn: Ernie re: Nehemiah Hayden I'll answer the different questions I received in this one message. First I did make a mistake on my last update on that web page and eft out one generation. Between John and Samuel I had left out a ehemiah and Hannah (Neale). Lauren - I think the Hannah Ames you are asking about married John he brother of the Nehemiah/Hannah (Neale) that I had left out. That s the second generation John that Catherine mentions. h, and no you are not butting in at all. The reason I posted to his list was for anyone to get involved that wanted to. As for the the "fact" as to if the second generation John was married o Sussan Pullan or not, I'll leave that debate up to others. owever I do state on my page "...as I understand it to be". I think hat disclaimer is pretty clear. Ernie On Jun 13, 2007, at 3:57 AM, Lauren Smith wrote: > Ernie, Do you have a Hannah Ames in your history? Lauren --- Ernie Jones <ernie_jones@comcast.net> wrote: > OK...I've put a little outline from John Hayden of > Dorchester 1630/31 > down thru Nehemiah that is documented in the files > on the site. > > Let me know if there are any questions. > > ernie > > > On Jun 12, 2007, at 5:06 AM, CEVaughan412@aol.com > wrote: > >> >> In a message dated 6/12/2007 3:26:26 A.M. Eastern > Daylight Time, >> hayden-request@rootsweb.com writes: >> >> http://www.ibejones.com/Hayden/photocpy.htm >> >> >> >> Could you tell me where these Haydens > lived/originated from? >> Thanks >> carol >> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email > to HAYDEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > the body of the message > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to HAYDEN- request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------ o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to HAYDEN-request@rootsweb.com ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of he message ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

Hi Carol, Thanks for the sources. This is helpful. I'm showing an email, one of several, that I've received over the years (25+) regarding the parents of John Hayden from Jess Scott. It probably summarizes it the best. I find FREQUENTLY that data I get from the Mormans is incorrect and should be used as a starting point only. Hopefully the DNA project now going on will help us. Most of the great researchers from the New England Historical Genealogical Society state his parents and origin are unknown. Jim Welcome to StithValley.com Jess B. Scott You may send me Email at jscott@stithvalley.com http://www.scotthillfarm.com/ancestry/taylor/hayden.htm#JOHN John Hayden of Dorchester and Braintree, Massachusetts Bay Colony by William J. Dowell "Again and again we read that Gideon Haydon and Margaret Davy of Cadhay House, Ottery St Mary, Devonshire, were the parents of John Hayden, the 1632 immigrant to Dorchester, Massachusetts. "However, tracing the origins of an early New England immigrant ancestor can be an extremely challenging exercise, not least because, in the past, genealogists have often reached firm conclusions based upon very inadequate evidence, such as a coincidence of names and dates. Frequently, New England settlers have been identified as members of gentry families in England, who were generally well documented. However, relatively few immigrants came from a gentry background; they were mostly tradesmen or yeomen. Thus the Gideon Haydon genealogy has gained wide acceptance among John Hayden's descendants in America, but without any proof beyond a coincidence of name and date. "On the other hand, there are two strong arguments against this genealogy. First, the Gideon Haydon family of Cadhay were adherents of the Church of England, and their sons, Gideon Haydon (1609-1680) and Nicholas Haydon (1620-1676), were ardent Royalists during the English Civil War, whereas our John Hayden was clearly a Puritan. Second, coinciding with John Hayden's arrival in Massachusetts is the presence there of William Hayden and James Hayden. There is the possibility that either or both of these men were brothers of John. In that case, however, it is unlikely that they were children of Gideon Haydon, because no record exists of a child named William born to Gideon and Margaret Haydon. Gideon and Margaret had a child named James, but this son died in infancy.1 Of course it is equally possible that these three were cousins, or even strangers, which would not necessarily upset the identification of John Hayden as the son of Gideon and Margaret Haydon of Cadhay. "...The Puritans' Great Migration began in 1630, and, until its close in 1640, brought 25,000 English Puritans to Massachusetts Bay Colony. A great fleet of ships containing one thousand settlers sailed in 1630. On March 20, 1630, they sailed from Plymouth, England, including the Mary and John, three hundred tons, Capt. Squib, master. William Hayden may have been a passenger on the Mary and John. It was the first ship of the 1630 fleet to arrive at Massachusetts Bay. The company was put ashore at Nantasket (Hull) on May 30, 1630. The settlers in this fleet founded the Massachusetts Bay towns of Dorchester, Boston, Charleston, Medford, Watertown, Roxbury, and Lynn. It is not known whether John Hayden was related to William Hayden, or whether John Hayden sailed with this fleet. There is no record of John Hayden sailing on the Mary and John.10 "There is a third Hayden, James, who settled in Charlestown, where he was admitted to the church in 1635, and admitted as a freeman March 9, 1636/7. He was a ferryman. His wife was Elizabeth, and their children were James (born December 13, 1637), John (born October 26, 1639), Ruhamah (born September 18, 1641), Elizabeth, Joshua, Mercy, and Thomas. An inventory was taken of his estate December 12, 1667, and filed by his wife, Elizabeth. There is no evidence that James Hayden was related to either William Hayden or John Hayden of Dorchester. Everything we know about James suggests that he was an ordinary Puritan tradesman, and not the scion of the gentry.13 "John Hayden was shown as a proprietor of Dorchester, granted a sixteen-acre Great Lot on January 16, 1632/3, admitted as a freeman of Dorchester on May 14, 1634, admitted to the church at Dorchester, and married to Susanna Pullen, also around 1634. He was before the General Court "for entertaining a servant unlicensed," and his fine was remitted on June 6, 1639, because the offense "being done ignorantly."14 John received a grant of land in Braintree (now Randolph) in 1640, and he and Susanna moved from Dorchester to Braintree about 1640. The General Court assisted them financially, from 1647 to 1655, in the care of Joseph, a child "bereaved of his senses." They had seven children: John (born 1635, Dorchester, died May 1718), Samuel (died 1676), Joseph (died 1678), Jonathan (born May 1640, died 1718), Hannah (born April 1642, died July 1669), Ebenezer (born September 1645, died February 1718), and Nehemiah (born February 1648, died December-January 1717/18). Nehemiah Hayden is our ancestor. "The final proof on the question whether John Hayden, of Dorchester and Braintree, Massachusetts, is the same man as John Haydon, son of Gideon and Margaret Haydon of Cadhay, is to be found in the parish registers for Woodbury parish, Devon. According to the Woodbury parish registers, John Haydon, son of Gideon and Margaret Haydon of Cadhay, did not go to Massachusetts, but was married and buried in England. "As I have shown, our ancestor, John Hayden, was in Dorchester, Massachusetts at least as early as January 1633, and married Susanna Pullen in Massachusetts around 1634. Returning to John Haydon of Ottery St. Mary, Devon, we find a marriage for John Haydon to Eleanor Waringe in the nearby church at Woodbury, Devon, on November 26, 1634.15 This is almost certainly the son of Gideon Haydon, as Ebford in Woodbury parish had been the ancestral home of the Haydons since 1397.16 At least four generations of Haydons are buried at Woodbury, as far back as the burial records go.17 Of John Haydon's siblings, two were baptized at Ottery St. Mary and eight at Woodbury, suggesting that Ebford in Woodbury was the family's principal residence.18 Haydons continued to hold the property at Ebford until 1700.19 And the only John Haydon or Hayden baptized in Woodbury or Ottery St. Mary during the years 1595-1620 was John, son of Gideon, baptized at Ottery St. Mary on November 2, 1606.20 Children of John Haydon and Eleanor Waringe Haydon were baptized at Woodbury in 1638, 1642, and 1644.21 On July 12, 1658, John Haydon was buried at Woodbury.22 In 1676, Nicholas Haydon, younger brother of John Haydon, was also buried at Woodbury. He is expressly identified in the parish register as "son of Gideon Haydon of Cadhay."23 This shows the continued use of Woodbury by family members of that generation. It appears certain, therefore, that John Haydon, son of Gideon and Margaret Haydon of Cadhay, did not go to Massachusetts, but rather lies buried in Woodbury churchyard, Devon. 1 James Haydon, bap. May 17, 1619, Ottery St. Mary, bur. July 18, 1619, Ottery St. Mary. Ottery St. Mary Parish Register. For Gideon and Nicholas Haydon as Royalists, see John A. Whitham, Ottery St. Mary (Chichester, Sussex: Phillimore & Co. Ltd, 1984), 48-49, 88-89. 2 John A. Whitham, Ottery St. Mary, 86, 112. Turbary and furze was the right to dig peat and cut gorse for fuel on another man's land. 3 Quoted by John A. Whitham, Ottery St. Mary, 87. 4 J. L. Vivian, ed., Visitation of Devon, 1620. 5 Puritan meetings had been outlawed under the Conventicle Act of 1664. John A. Whitham, Ottery St. Mary, 48-49. 6 Ottery St. Mary Parish Register. 7 J. L. Vivian, ed., Visitation of Devon, 1620. 8 Ottery St. Mary Parish Register. 9 Cadhay is opened by the owners to the public each Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday in July and August, and on Sunday and Monday of the spring and summer bank holidays. For information contact Lady William-Powlett, Cadhay, Ottery St. Mary, Tel. (0404) 812432. 10 Maude Pinney Kuhns, The "Mary and John" (Rutland, VT: Charles E. Tuttle Co., 1971), 5, places William Hayden on the Mary and John. Charles Edward Banks, The Winthrop Fleet of 1630 (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company, 1968), 103, does not list any Haydens as passengers on the Mary and John. Banks does not identify any Haydens among the colonists of the Winthrop fleet. Robert Charles Anderson, The Great Migration Begins, Immigrants to New England 1620-1633 (Boston: New England Historic Genealogical Society, 1995), identifies only one Hayden (John) as arriving prior to 1634. 11 Maude Pinney Kuhns, The "Mary and John," 41. 12 Maude Pinney Kuhns, The "Mary and John," 41, 42, 53, 185-187. 13 Charles Henry Pope, The Pioneers of Massachusetts (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company, 1969), 223. 14 Robert Charles Anderson, The Great Migration Begins, vol. 2, 892. 15 Woodbury Parish Register. William C. Hayden of Bandera, Texas, first developed this line of research. Email from William C. Hayden to the author, March 15, 1997. 16 Frederic Colby, Visitation of Devon, 1620 (1872). Original manuscript prepared by a royal agent who interviewed the gentry to establish their pedigrees and present family members. J. L. Vivian published another edition of 1620 Visitation in the 1880s. He annotated births, marriages, and burials from parish registers, which presumably he examined in the original. 17 J. L. Vivian, ed., Visitation of Devon, 1620. 18 Ibid. 19 Ursula W. Brighouse, Woodbury – A View from the Beacon. 20 Ottery St. Mary Parish Register. J. L. Vivian, ed., Visitation of Devon, 1620. 21 Woodbury Parish Register. 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid. J. L. Vivian, ed., Visitation of Devon, 1620. "The Haydon Family Parish documents on the Cadhay Manor Devon Line, from Tom Keys, tomandgail1@comcast.net . These are 2 pages from the documents pages 458 and 459. From Tom: "All of the Haydon/Haydens have been trying for YEARS to prove if John and William Hayden of the Mary and John Ship of 1630 did or did not belong to the Cadhay Manor Family of Gideon Hayden. I surely wanted them too also, but NO THEY DID NOT. William is NOT even listed on the family records and the John who is listed , married, stayed in England and raised a family there." Tom Keys has a lot of English info on Heydon/Haydon/Hayden families." CEVaughan412@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 6/13/2007 1:38:21 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hayden-request@rootsweb.com writes: Be careful with this site as it shows incorrectly that John, spouse of Susanna Pullen, has known parents. This fact has been shown in numerous cases as incorrect. Were you able to find the sources for the data shown? Jim Mormons say he was born 2 November 1606 in Ottery St. Mary, England. The son of Gideon Hayden and Margaret Davies. There is some contradictory evidence. They had a son John who has not been traced after 1627. There were about a dozen other " John Haydens " of that age christened in Devonshire and Somerset, England. Several references identify John Hayden, of Dorchester Massachusetts. A freeman in Braintree, May 14, 1634. His will was dated 31 October 1678, probated 26 July 1684. His widow Susannah ( that was living 1695 ) was executrix. John was connected with the first ironworks in Massachusetts. Other references, one of which cites " tradition in all branches of the Hayden family " say that John came to Dorchester in 1630 with his younger brother William, on the ship Mary and John which brought Puritans from Plymouth. Said to be from the borders of Somerset and Devon ( which would include Ottery St. Mary ). References show Willam on that ship but do not show John. The English records show a John Hayden, but not a William, as a son of Gideon Hayden of Ottery St. Mary. That family in England remained pillars of the Established Church for several later generations. Parish records indicate ( but not quite conclusively ) that this John Hayden died in Devonshire, at Woodbury near Ottery St. Mary, in 1658, ruling him out as our John. Many Mormon genealogies claim him as our ancestor, erroneously in my opinion. [Brøderbund WFT Vol. 11, Ed. 1, Tree #1750, Date of Import: Mar 12, 1999] 8 Generations to Mary Katherine Hayden, b.1923. First generation of Hayden Family in America. John Hayden came from Devonshire, England to Boston, MA in 1630 with Father Warham's congregation on the ship "William and John", chartered. John had two Brothers with him on this Voyage, William and James. James settled at Charlestown, MA. William settled at Windsor, CN. John settled at Braintree, MA. They were the sons of Gideon Hayden of England. They were in the shipping bussiness. Will dtd 31 Oct 1678 - proved 26 July 1682. NOTICE: The above notes are not my notes and don't reflect my opinions. Carol E. Vaughan March 12, 1999 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Arrived in Massachusetts in 1630. Sailed in the "Mary and John" with brother William who settled in Connecticut. First settled in Dorchester where he received several small parcels of land and became a freeman in 1634. Moved to Braintree by 1636. Was fined for entertaining a servant, remitte because he do so knowingly, in June 1639. "In answer to the petition of John Hayden of Braintree craving some release, it is ordered (in regard to the great affliction of God that lies upon the petitioner in regard to his child, as also his late loss of a cow, being half his estate) that he shall be yearly allowed...some five pounds toward the charge of keeping the child {probably Joseph}, the town {to pay} the rest." Renewed 1653. Renewed to Goodwife Hayden 1664 & 1665. In 1656 in was ordered that there be a road through Dossit's land in Braintree so Goodman Hayden can bring his corn out. Miscellaneous, “1651, At this time, we find the first case of insanity in the town. ‘In answer to the petition of John Heydon of Braintree, for relief in respect of his distracted childe, as also some loss lately befalne him, this Court doth order, that the said John Heydon shall have from the County, towards the charges of keeping the childe, five pounds per annum, to be payed out their own Town levy, and the Town to bear the rest of the charge till the Court se cause to withdraw their benevolence.’” John settled in Dorchester, Mass. And sometimes spelled his name Haiden, as in his will. He was made Freeman May 14, 1634. He moved to Braintree in 1640. The second entry in the records is the birth of his son Jonathan. A part of the town where he settled is called Randolph, and is very near Quincy, Mass. The record of his will is Suffolk probate 6,483 and mentions his wife Susan, sons Samuel, Joseph, John, Nehemiah and Jonathan. The children of his second son Samuel and daughter Hannah. Appoints his wife Susan with Samuel Thompson and Joseph Penniman executor.” >From “History of our Ancestors” by Rutherford - 929.2 R932401h “John Hayden and a younger brother, William Hayden, came to New England aboard the John and Mary in the company of three hundred immigrants under the direction of the Reverend John Warham and the Reverend Samuel Maverick. The company landed at Dorchester, Mass. In 1630. >From “Colonial Families of the US of A Volume 5, 1937 p. 275: John Hayden was listed as a proprietor in 1632, and a freeman May 14, 1634. He was acquitted June 8, 1639 for entertaining (hiring) an unlicensed servant, but as he did it ignorantly, the fine which previously had been levied against him was remitted to him.” >From “The Pioneers of Massachusetts”, 1900, p. 223: John Hayden moved to Braintree, now Randolph, Mass., settling near the Iron Works and the Iron Work Bridge. He was connected with first Iron Works in Mass. He probably moved to the town of Braintree in 1640, as the birth of his son Jonathan Hayden, March 19, 1640 was recorded on the second page of the town records of Braintree. The dates of his three children born after Jonathan were also recorded in the Braintree records. >From the “Records of the Town of Braintree 1640-1793 p. 631-632: John Hayden ’s will, dated October 31, 1678 was probated July 26, 1682. As he specified, his estate was not to be settled until after the death of his son, Joseph, final probate was delayed until April 4, 1695. The Massachusetts General Court Deboard Susanna Hayden, his wife, deceased, February 9, 1684, and appointed John Hayden, Jr. and Jonathan Hayded the executors of the estate. John Hayden deeded most of his land to his sons prior to his death. “The Heydons in England and America” by Rev. William B. Hayden Chapter V. The Devon Line. Page 41: “I assume that John, William and James Haydon, three brothers, the immigrant ancestors of the American lines, and who appeared in Boston, Dorchester and Charlestown in 1630, were sons of Gideon Haydon of Cadhay, No. 15 in the Devon line, for the following reasons: (1) The family tradition is that we are descended from the Devonshire branch. (2) The immigrants, when they landed, had the Devonshire spelling of the name. (3) They evidently came over in close connection with the Massachusetts Bay Company, whose headquarters were at Exeter, and whose officers and members were near neighbors of the Haydons. (4) The Haydons were few in number. All accounts agree that the Lymston branch, for a time distinct, probably in a line of younger sons, became at length re absorbed in the Ebford-Cadhay branch; and all the places mentioned in connection with them are in a little radius of ten or twelve miles. Hence the question arises, Where else could they have come from? (5) We know that the said Gideon had several younger sons grown to manhood in 1630, but who thereafter suddenly disappeared from the scene, there being, so far as I have been able to learn, no record of their marriages, settlement, decease or descendants in England. (6) I find the State Papers that the family were engaged in the shipping business at that time…” >From “The Visitations of the County of Devon, comprising The Heralds’ Visitations of 1531, 1564 & 1620” by Lieutenant-Colonel J.L. Vivian. Pages 458-459: Haydon of Cadhay Arms: -Arg., three bars gemels Az., on a chief Gu. A fesse dansettee Or. Crest:- A lion Arg. Seizing on a bull courant Sa. “John de Haydon to Robert Haydon to Henry Haydon to William Haydon to Robert Haydon to John Haydon to Henry Haydon to John Haydon to Richard Hayden to Richard Hayden to Thomas Haydon to Thomas Hayden to Robert Haydon to Gideon Haydon to John Hayden 2 so, bap. 2 Nov. 1606 at Ottery St. Mary, (1) named in the will of his great uncle Peter Haydon, living 1627. (1)Ottery St. Mary Parish Register. The Hayden Family - Author unknown “…As stated above John, James and William are supposed to have been brothers - but so far as we have any reliable information, they might have been second cousings or even no relation at all and the statement that they came on the “Mary & John” is merely a supposition also, based upon the fact that they soon separated, it is evident that they considered Dorchester neither conducive to their health nor to their happiness: - for John recorded as a “freeman in Braintree, Mass, in 1640; James likewise in Charlestown, Mass. In 1637; and William turns up in the land of ‘Nutmegs’ as a freeman at Windsor, Connecticut in 1640. Carol ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to HAYDEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message