John (Cox) Cooke (Cox-1190) is incorrectly attached as -

+6 votes
a. the son of Philip Cooke (Cooke-109) and Elizabeth Belknap (Belknap-198)


b. the husband of (unsourced) Elizabeth Cooke formerly Belnap aka Cox (Belnap-20) - these parents are, in turn, incorrectly shown as the parents of a duplicate (unsourced) Philip Cooke (Cooke-2947).

Cooke-109 has another interloper in his family - there is no evidence that he had a son Thomas Cooke (Cooke-1091) who, I would suggest, should be deleted.

Thank you
in Genealogy Help by Anonymous Baker G2G6 (7.6k points)
edited by Anonymous Baker
This quiet a tangle. John Cox-1190 was not the son of Philip Cooke and Elizabeth Belknap. They did have a son, John Cooke who married Alice Saunders. It is Cox-1190 that does not belong.

It appears to me that the attached son, Philip Cooke-2927 is actually a duplicate of Sir Philip Cooke-109. The proposed wife of Cox-1190, Elizabeth Belnap-20 is most probably a duplicate of Cooke-109's wife Elizabeth Belknap-198. They were all incorrectly attached. The only real interloper in this family is John Cox-1190

I have suggested that John Cox-2947 be detached from the wife and son. That the son Cooke-2947 (b.1454) be merged into Cooke-109 (b.1552). That Belnap-20 (b.1452) be merged into Belknap-198 (b.1452).

I have already posted a comment and messaged the manager. I will give him some time to respond before detaching and merging these profiles.

2 Answers

+3 votes
Someone from the England Project should be looking at this one now.
by Lois Tilton G2G6 Pilot (113k points)
+5 votes
You are correct John Cox-1190 should be disconnected from this family. Philip Cooke and Elizabeth Belknap's son John married Alice Saunders and is listed as their son already.

Cox-1190 has a lot of problems, including the attached son Philip. The son would have been born when this, John Cox was about 76 years old. They also have this John Cox living until he was 98. While it is possible it is also highly unlikely, especially during that time period. The Cooke family was from Essex, not Wiltshire.

Even with the various misspellings at times during that time period, I have not ever found Cooke spelled Cox.

I have not had a chance to check Thomas yet.
by Laura DeSpain G2G6 Pilot (293k points)
It's possible they are from an entirely different family?  Cooke I imagine being a common name.
Thank you
John, you are right. I have found a Cox family that long resided in Wiltshire. It appears that he belongs to that family. There are misspellings of their lnab in that time period too and some of them are very close to the misspellings of the Cooke family's lnab.
Thank you, Lois. I am going to look at that. The dates are not close but the dates for Cox-1190 are certainly not reliable. Cox-1190 has his marriage listed as 1498 but has no sources. The date and wife could be incorrect.

Cox-1155 was born in 1551. However, the dates for Cox-1190 are incorrect, or his son's dates are, or both. I am starting to get the idea that Cox-1190 is a conflation of information taken from several other persons with the same name.

I just noticed that not only would Cox-1190 had to have been born when his father was 76, but his son was also born 19 years before he was. The son has no wife or children so that line stops there because he is the only child listed on Cox-1190. They do need to be disconnected. from the Cooke family.
Tip from Eddie King
Okay, thank you. The information all will probably have to be corrected. I am thinking that one of England's Arborist or Connectors may need to look at the Cox family. I have been taking the steps to correct this issue where the Cooke family is concerned.
Re: Cox-1155, my heart sank when I saw who the suggestion actually was. Bishop Richard Cox(e) can be found in Cox trees all over the internet.(He even has a couple of dubious kids attached here on wikitree.) He seems to be the go to man for Coxs and I would tread carefully.
No one is planning to do anything with Bishop Cox's profile. It was just asked if it was possible that the Cox profile that we have been discussing is a duplicate of Bishop Cox's profile.
I passed on this suggestion, which was that Webb-1467 was wrongly attached to Cox-1190 and was instead the mother of Cox-1155.
That is possible if someone were able to find some information on who Cox-1155's parents were. I see that he has been incorrectly attached to Cox-1190 in the past.

Webb-1467 is highly unlikely to be his mother.  His father is ostensibly called Richard, his mother has never been named.

From Oxford DNB (2008)

Cox, Richard (c. 1500–1581), bishop of Ely, and one of the most influential of the first generation of protestant reformers, was born at Whaddon in Buckinghamshire. Nothing conclusive is known about his parents, though the heralds record his father's name as Richard.

 Even the descent of Sir Richard Cox 1st Baronet (cox-1919)  who claimed he was of a Wiltshire family & great grandson of the Bishop has been questioned. The bishop is a can of worms. 

Doubtless Cox-1190 is a product of the misinformation surrounding the bishop just added to another tree. (See also Webb-995.)

I have no opinion on the matter. I just passed on the suggestion from a person who doesn't post here.
It was only a heads up as he's someone I've come across before, that's all.
Thank you, Felix, for that information.

Related questions

+5 votes
2 answers
+3 votes
1 answer
80 views asked Apr 3 in Genealogy Help by Anonymous Baker G2G6 (7.6k points)
+5 votes
2 answers
115 views asked Sep 25, 2020 in Genealogy Help by Lois Tilton G2G6 Pilot (113k points)
+2 votes
0 answers
38 views asked Mar 23, 2017 in Genealogy Help by Mitch Watson G2G Crew (410 points)
+4 votes
2 answers
116 views asked Aug 7, 2019 in Genealogy Help by Heather Husted G2G6 Mach 5 (55.1k points)
+2 votes
0 answers
+2 votes
1 answer
50 views asked Jun 4, 2014 in Genealogy Help by anonymous
+1 vote
1 answer
+6 votes
2 answers
1.7k views asked Jun 14, 2012 in Policy and Style by M Lechner G2G6 Mach 6 (61.8k points)

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright