Person:Frances Hays (1)

Frances Hays
b.est 1729-1739
m. 1729
  1. Frances Haysest 1729-1739 -
  2. Margaret Haysest 1730-1740 -
  3. Catherine Haysest 1730-1740 -
  4. Ruth Haysest 1730-1740 -
  5. Samuel Hays1734 - 1793
  6. Col. William Haysbef 1740 - 1804
  7. Joanna 'Joan' Haybef 1740 -
  8. Hugh Hays1740 -
  9. Rebecca Hays1743 -
Facts and Events
Name Frances Hays
Gender Female
Birth? est 1729-1739 [not listed in Importation of 1740]


Return to Old Augusta County!
Old Augusta
Hays Tapestry
YDNA. Hays
Current Research
Hays Tapestry

……………………..The Tapestry
Families Old Chester OldAugusta Germanna
New River SWVP Cumberland Carolina Cradle
The Smokies Old Kentucky





Chalkley's provides no records for this individual. Nor is she listed in the 1740 importation oath of her father, Patrick Hays (1), which implies either

  • a) she was not yet born at the time of importation [1]
  • b) she was a married adult at the time of importation, and her importation was paid for by her husband
  • c) she never came to America
  • d) she is not a child of Patrick and Frances, if she existed at all.

The basis for identifying her as a child of Patrick (1) and wife Frances is unknown.


There are two records for a Frances Hays in Chalkley's Chronicles. Both are for (Frances Hays, wife of Patrick (1)), mother of Frances (1):

Surname Given Name Volume Original
Link Year Text Likely WeRelate***
Hays Frances 3 2 426 1765 Page 60.--20th August, 1765. Patrick Hays and Frances to Hugh Hays, £100, 400 acres corner Robert Alexander, Halfway Creek. Teste: John Taylor Wm. Robertson, Robert Alexander. Delivered: Francis Smith, 1st October, 1767. Frances Hays married name of Frances McNitt. Source of Maiden name unknown. Often given as McNitt, McNaught, McKnight, and others.
Hays Frank [Frances] 3 1 357 1759 190.--17th November, 1759. Patrick Hays and Frank (Frances) to Wm. Hays £100, 255 acres on both sides of patent line of Beverley Manor and Burden's great tract, part of 854 acres held by patent of Beverley and Borden; corner Dunlape. Teste: Samuel Gallt, Hugh Hays.

Table Notes

The above records were extracted from Chalkley's Chronicles for persons of a specific given name (e.g "William Hays") ordered by "Year"**. Plausible spelling variants (e.g., "Wm. Hayes", "William Heas", etc) are included. In some cases plausible variants that might be typographical corruptions are included for the sake of erroring on the "safe side". For example, Chalkley gives a parenthetical note for one record indicating that he couldn't tell from the original source whether the person meant was "Hugh Keyes" or "Hugh Hayes". In this particular case, the record is probably for "Hugh Keyes", but has been included with the listing for Hugh Hays for the sake of the possibility that it really does refer to a Hugh Hays.

*The number of entries under this name in the Index to Chalkley's Chronicles. The actual number of records may be larger (most likely) or smaller, depending on the accuracy of the index. Some records in Chalkley's for the target may not appear in the index, and other records may not be located on the page described. The former records are indicated in this column with "not", standing for "not found in the index". The latter records are indicated under "text" with a "?" Note that some records, not captured in Chalkelys index, may not appear at all in this listing.
** "Year" assigned may not be the year the record was made, but the year which appears to be related to the event described associated with the person of interest. For example, if testimony was entered into the court records in the year 1836 describing the Revolutionary War record of the target, then the assigned date is not 1836 (when the record was made) but approximate date 1776 (the start of the Revolution).
***This is the current "best guess" as to the identity of the person associated with this record. Note that it is not always possible to tell who a particular records applies to. If the record includes details of the persons family, then it's easier to make the identification. Sometimes no such information is available in the record, but there will be other clues (such as adjacent neighbors, etc) that allow the identification. In any case, sometimes one "John Smith" looks pretty much like another "John Smith", so take these identifications with a healthy grain of salt.

  1. 1737 at the latest, based on on land records in Derry County for kinsmen who obtained land warrants in that year.