no image
Privacy Level: Open (White)

Ann (Cox) Hussey (abt. 1694 - bef. 1745)

Ann Hussey formerly Cox aka Garretson
Born about in Berkshire, Englandmap
Ancestors ancestors
Wife of — married 1712 (to 3 Dec 1726) in New Castle County, Delawaremap
Wife of — married 1727 (to before Sep 1745) [location unknown]
Descendants descendants
Died before before about age 51 in Newberry Twp., York County, Province of Pennsylvaniamap
Problems/Questions Profile managers: Lee Bain private message [send private message] and Bonnie Nilsen private message [send private message]
Profile last modified | Created 13 Sep 2010
This page has been accessed 1,720 times.

Biography

Ann was a Friend (Quaker)

Though it is not clear if William Cox and his wife were Quakers when they first emigrated to Delaware, but by 1710/1711 they seem to have been 'convinced' for the first gatherings of the Hockessin Monthly Meeting were held in their home.

According to her "Find A Grave" entry, which is only as reliable as the sources the person posting the information has, Ann Cox was born in 1692, and passed away in 1743. [1] The date of birth of 1694 is probably more accurate, because Ann had a sister, Amy, who was christened in 1692.

Shinfield Christening NOT Quaker John and Rachel's Ann

[2]Shinfield, Berkshire, England: Ann Cox daughter of John and Rachel, christened 19 July 1696.
There are some who argue that Ann is the daughter of John Cox and Rachel Carr Cox based on this record from Shinfield, Berkshire, which is about 35 miles from Drayton, Berkshire where John and Rachel lived before emigrating to Pennsylvania in 1708. Aside from this one record there is no evidence that John and Rachel had a daughter named Ann.

Genealogical sources must be interpreted in light of the history and culture of their day. John and Rachel Cox of Abingdon/Drayton were convinced Quakers. From our 1st record of him in 1678 he was a Quaker, and it was clear then that he had been a Quaker for some time. He'd been a Quaker through the decades when being a Quaker meant potential imprisonment, even death. These were people who did took their faith seriously. So, while record of an infant being baptized is no big deal to us, looking at it through the lens of history, if we know what Quakers believed on the subject, we can reach a conclusion we might not otherwise know.

Quakers believed that the indwelling presence, or 'that of God' was in every person and that priests, pastors and the ceremonies and rituals of the church served only to come between us and the presence of God. This was a radical belief which got them into trouble with the church and the state - same thing because the church and the state were one. Cross one and you brought the wrath of both on you and your household.

One of the rituals Quakers did not believe in was water baptism, and they refused to christen or baptize their infants. In fact, having your baby christened by a priest was cause for disownment by their Monthly Meeting! Seen in this light we can say with absolute certainty that this couple is *not* the Quaker couple of Abingdon/ Drayton Berkshire, John Cox and Rachel Carr Cox. Aside from that there is no evidence that they ever had a daughter named Ann. There is not a single shred of actual, by that I mean not misattributed, evidence that John and Rachel had a daughter named Ann. Their only daughter was named Sarah. Cox is as common a surname as is Smith in England. Repetitions of the name are inevitable, which is why we have to be extremely careful when sourcing these older ancestors.

But there is plenty of evidence that William Cox and his wife Emmi Van der Coelen had daughters Ann and Amy. Ann married 1st Casarius Garrettson about 1712/1713 and 2nd Nathan Hussey in 1728.

[3]From Quakers in Delaware in the Time of William Penn; Casparius Garretson and Ann Cox were married about 1712/1713. By the time Casparius died in December of 1726 they were parents of three sons, John, William and Joseph, a daughter Ann, and at least one more daughter.

Ann Cox married Casparus Garretson. In 1722 Casparus Garretson and William Cox Jr. bought land near each other a few miles east in Mill Creek Hundred Twp. When Ann’s husband, Casparus Garretson died in 1727, he specified legacies to his minor children, so when Ann proposed to marry her second husband, Nathan Hussey, in 1728, William Cox Jr. was brought in as some sort of trustee to represent the minor children’s rights, probably with regard to Casparus Garretson’s will.

After the death of Casparius Garretson, Ann (Cox) Garretson married Nathan Hussey, son of John Hussey, Jr. Casparius' brother Garret Garretson married Charity Hussey, a younger daughter of John and Rebecca Hussey. Thus the Garretson and Hussey families became much intertwined. Ann and Nathan Hussey moved to York County and had a daughter Susannah who married Joseph Updegraff. Ann (Cox) Garretson's children, Ann and John, married Nathan Hussey's siblings, Christopher (step-uncle) and Content (step-aunt), in New Castle, Delaware and promptly moved with Nathan to York County.

Kennett MM MINUTES 1686-1739, P. 198. 4-3 mo (May) 1728 Nathan Hussey and Ann Garretson appeared here and signified they continued their intentions of marriage and nothing appearing to obstruct the same they having consent of parents and the affairs of the estate is  ? By an obligation given into the hand of William Cox on behalf of the orphans. Therefore, we leave them to their liberty to accomplish the marriage according to truth and appoint John Richardson and John Trego to see the orderly accomplishment thereof.

On the marriage record, traditionally parents or close relatives of the bride and groom sign in the right hand column under the signatures of the bride and groom. The parents of Ann Cox Garretson and Nathan Hussey were not present, but Wm Cox signed in the right hand column of the marriage certificate as the first person representing the bride’s side. He also signed in that position on some of the marriages of the children of Ann Cox. These records imply, but do not prove, that Ann is the sister of William Cox, Jr., and thus daughter of William Cox and Amy.

One other point, it is inconceivable to me that Ann Cox would let John Cox and Rachel, live and die in abject poverty, if they were the parents of Ann. Both Casparus Garretson and Nathan Hussey were well to do.

I have a very large number of distant Cox dna matches, which would be consistent with a double descent from John Cox and Ann Cox. LJB

Death: Ann is said to have died Bef 25 September 1745 in Newberry Twp., York County, Pennsylvania

Sources

  1. Find A Grave, database and images (https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/51254391 : accessed 23 November 2017), memorial page for Ann Cox Garretson (1692–1743), Find A Grave Memorial no. 51254391, Find A Grave Memorial# 51254391
  2. "England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975," database, FamilySearch(https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:J7M3-NHM : 11 February 2018, John Cox in entry for Ann Cox, 19 Jul 1696); citing , index based upon data collected by the Genealogical Society of Utah, Salt Lake City; FHL microfilm 88,393.
  3. Quakers in Delaware in the Time of William Penn, by Herbert Standing, published 1982, p. 138-139: Online link

See Also





Is Ann your ancestor? Please don't go away!
 star icon Login to collaborate or comment, or
 star icon contact private message private message a profile manager, or
 star icon ask our community of genealogists a question.
Sponsored Search by Ancestry.com

DNA Connections
It may be possible to confirm family relationships with Ann by comparing test results with other carriers of her mitochondrial DNA. However, there are no known mtDNA test-takers in her direct maternal line. It is likely that these autosomal DNA test-takers will share some percentage of DNA with Ann:

Have you taken a DNA test? If so, login to add it. If not, see our friends at Ancestry DNA.



Comments: 20

Leave a message for others who see this profile.
There are no comments yet.
Login to post a comment.
My thought is that since we cannot agree or clearly establish who Ann (Cox) Garretson Hussey's parents are, both sets should be disconnected from Cox-20552 and Cox-245, and the duplicate profiles for the wife of Casparius Garretson and Nathan Hussey be merged to avoid any further duplication of the downlines. Research for the parents can continue and perhaps a definitive answer will emerge.
posted by Edie (Nibling) Kohutek J.D.
edited by Edie (Nibling) Kohutek J.D.
Cox-20552 and Cox-245 appear to represent the same person because: clear duplicate
Cox-20552 and Cox-245 are not ready to be merged because: needs more research to establish parentage
Cox-20552 and Cox-245 appear to represent the same person because: Dates and names match
posted by Bonnie Nilsen
Bonnie, the problem is that Lee Bain does not agree with me on the parentage of Ann Cox Garretson Hussey and the records are not clear as to her parents are. I told Lee that I would look further to try to come to some agreement, but life has gotten in the way. I would like to wait until we can have an agreement.
Cox-20552 and Cox-245 are not ready to be merged because: Not same parents
posted by Lee Bain
Cox-20552 and Cox-245 appear to represent the same person because: These entries appear to be the same person
posted by Norm Schmidtke
Cox-20552 and Cox-245 do not represent the same person because: There is a disagreement on the parents of Ann Cox. The few clues I see in the records indicate to me that she is the daughter of William cox, not John cox and Rachel.
posted by Lee Bain
Cox-20552 and Cox-245 appear to represent the same person because: I agree with the research already done.
posted by Bonnie Nilsen
Cox-20552 and Cox-245 are not ready to be merged because: There is a disagreement on the parents of Ann. I believe she is the daughter of William Cox & Amie. I would be glad to consider any public record suggesting otherwise.
posted by Lee Bain
I have added some additional notes that lend support to Rachel Carr and John Cox being the parents of Ann. These were adapted from another profiles and I will be looking for specific citations for these source materials. If anyone has reason to believe these are wrong, please post a comment or other research.
I agree Ann Cox married 2nd Nathan Hussey. I believe it is clear that John Cox Jr. who m. Mary Harlan is son of John Cox, Sr and Mary, not John Cox and Rachel. I also believe Ann Cox is a sister of this last John Cox, Sr. For convenience, I have them as children of Wm Cox=Amy, but would be better to list them as unknown. I also descend from John Sr. and John Jr. In my pedigree I show my line to Ann listed as Cox-20552. Please no one merge Cox-20552 with this page, Cox- 245, which I believe to be incorrect. I should no doubt be removed as a co=-manager on this page. Lee Bain
posted by Lee Bain
Regardless of who Ann (Cox) Garretson's parents are, it appears clear that she married Nathan Hussey after Casparius Garretson died.
i believe this profile is all mixed up. John Cox who married Rachel is not the same John Cox who married Mary [perhaps Garretson]. John Cox jr. who m. Mary Harlan, is the son of John Cox and Mary [perhaps Garretson]. Ann Cox and Amy Cox are sisters of John Cox sr who married Mary [perhaps Garretson]. See John Jr. as Cox-13416 and John Sr as Cox- 13417.
posted by Lee Bain
Regarding comment below: Ann Cox, who was christened in 1696, is undoubtedly NOT the sister of John Cox, Sr, who was born in 1675 in Drayon, Berkshire, England; but is the sister of John Cox, Jr who was born in 1699 in England.
Cox-13418 and Cox-245 appear to represent the same person because: The names and dates appear to correspond.
posted by Karen (Schick) Macagno
Ann (Cox) Hussey is no doubt the sister of John Cox, Sr with wife Mary, possibly Garretson, (I misstated Jr. in earlier note). John Cox Jr. m. Mary Harlan, and was son of John Cox Sr. of London Grove, so Jr. was not the son of John Cox and Rachel. John Jr. was a son of John Cox and Mary, and nephew of Ann Cox.

See marriage record of John Cox Jr.. Also, see William Brooke Fetters who does a careful study of these two cox families in "Six Columbiana Co., Ohio Pioneer Families, Family 5, William Leech and Jane Garrettson", 1998. Fetters is a descendant of both Cox families. I would be glad to discuss this further,

posted by Lee Bain
Cox-2879 and Cox-245 appear to represent the same person because: Same name, same husband, same children
posted by Bob Tonsmeire
Cox-2879 and Cox-245 are not ready to be merged because: Need more info
posted by Bonnie Nilsen
Cox-2879 and Cox-245 appear to represent the same person because: Same name, same husband
posted by Bob Tonsmeire

C  >  Cox  |  H  >  Hussey  >  Ann (Cox) Hussey