Talk:John Clay (Wars of the Roses)

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

My edits to this page

I took out the statements "is one of the first documented Clays" and "He was the first known Clay soldier", as without any references, they seemed like weasel words. I'd be happy to see more specific, sourced claims added back. I added a citation needed tag to the claim that he was the ancestor of Henry and Cassius Clay, as a quick search didn't give me any sources that proved that this Sir John Clay and the one who was the ancestor of the U.S. Clays are the same person. It looks like there's probably more information out there; if someone wants to dig into this further and come up with proof of this, I'd very much like to see it. Pinball22 18:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Connection to Henry Clay is doubtful

Well, there is no source listed for Sir John being an ancestor of Henry Clay and CM Clay because no such source is yet known. This has been an argument among Clay Family genealogists for many years. Early undocumented and poorly researched family histories alleged noble descent for the Henry/CM Clay family. No primary documentation has come to light supporting these allegations. While it it not possible to rule out the connection, no serious Clay Family genealogist accepts the line of descent as proven. The assertion really ought to be removed from this article. 69.86.17.160 (talk) 02:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC) I wasn't signed in when I posted this comment - my mistake. JamestownArarat (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]