In the profile of Nathaniel Cooke ( http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Cooke-2621 ), the biography states that: In Anderson's Great Migration Begins profile of Aaron Cooke, he writes: "Pope also gives Aaron an oldest child Nathaniel, but Nathaniel Cooke of Windsor married in 1649, which would make him too old to be a son of Aaron.)".
So who should we believe? Pope or Anderson? I disagree with Anderson's reason (that Nathaniel was too old). Since Nathaniel Cooke was married in 1649, he could have easily been born in 1631, or even 1632. So he could easily have been born in Dorchester, Massachusetts, son of Aaron Cooke (bp. March 1613/14) who would have been somewhere between 17 and 19 years old ( http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Cooke-66 ).
This would very nicely explain how Nathaniel Cooke ended up in Windsor, Connecticut. He simply moved there as a child with his father Aaron. If so, the only question remaining is who was Nathaniel's mother. There is no evidence that Aaron had a first wife named Mary, so Joan Denslow (only a few months younger than Aaron) could easily be Aaron's first wife (and Nathaniel's mother).
The Cookes and Denslows came over together on the "Mary and John" in the spring of 1630, and Aaron and Joan could have easily gotten married in 1631 at the age of 17 (or maybe even in 1630, especially if they had to get married). No marriage records for Dorchester, Mass., until the 1650s, so it wouldn't have been recorded (nor the birth of Nathaniel Cooke). None of their children were recorded until daughter Joanna was born in 1638 in Windsor. This all makes sense to me, and I hope Anderson might reconsider his statement that Nathaniel was too old to be Aaron's son. But maybe I have missed something???