Nathaniel Cooke of Windsor, Conn. (b. 1621?; d. 1688); was he born in Crewkerne, Somersetshire?

+2 votes

It is now clear Nathaniel Cooke (1621?-1688, Windsor, Conn.) was not related to Aaron Cooke (genetic testing shows them to be in entirely different haplogroups).

It has been suggested that he was the Nathaniel Cooke baptized 20 March 1620/21, in Crewkerne, Somersetshire (the same town where his wife was baptized).  He was son of John Cooke (alias Hooper) and Rachel Daubeny (married 1602), and they likely knew the Vore family in Crewkerne.  I have not yet been able to determine if they ever came to New England.  If their son Nathaniel was the immigrant, perhaps he instead came alone to Windsor, Connecticut, shortly before his marriage to Lydia Vore in 1649, possibly because he was related to Rev. John Warham (whose mother was also a member of the Cooke "alias Hooper" family of Crewkerne).

Does anybody have any opinions whether Nathaniel (b. 1621), son of John Cooke and Rachel Daubeny, was Nathaniel Cooke of Windsor, Connecticut (who married Lydia Vore)?

"England Marriages, 1538–1973 ," database, FamilySearch ( : 10 December 2014), John Cooke and Rachell Daubeny, 21 Oct 1602; citing Crewkerne,Somerset,England, reference , index based upon data collected by the Genealogical Society of Utah, Salt Lake City; FHL microfilm 0481077 IT 2. 

WikiTree profile: Nathaniel Cooke
asked in Genealogy Help by Kenneth Kinman G2G6 Mach 4 (43.6k points)
edited by Kenneth Kinman

3 Answers

0 votes

I found the burial record at for John Cooke "the Younger" in 1621 at Crewkerne, Somersetshire.  So he wasn't an immigrant to New England.  However, I could find no burial record for his wife as Rachel Cooke or Rachel Daubeny.  But now that I think about it, I should also look to see if she might have remarried.  In any case, I suspect son Nathaniel Cooke immigrated to Windsor as a young man (17-18 years old) without his parents to join his cousin Rev. John Warham (probably a first cousin if Agnes (Cooke) Warham was an older sister of John Cooke the Younger).

Name: John Cooke the Younger
Event Type: Burial
Burial Date: 19 Aug 1621
Burial Place: Crewkerne, Somerset, England
answered by Kenneth Kinman G2G6 Mach 4 (43.6k points)
I have taken the first step and created a profile for John Cooke Jr. alias Hooper.  I attached him to Nathaniel as "uncertain" father.  There was already a profile for his presumed sister Agnes (Cooke) Warham and her parents.

Therefore, we now that we know that there is strong genetic evidence that Aaron Cooke was not Nathaniel's father, and we need to see if there is any evidence against John Cooke Jr. and Rachel Daubeny being his parents.  So far, there is strong evidence that they are his parents, and so far there is no evidence to the contrary.  I found no evidence that Nathaniel Cooke (baptized 1621) died in England or was married in England.  The evidence is admittedly circumstantial, but I find it very convincing.  I just wish we knew more about Rachel (Daubeny) Cooke, and what happened to her after her husband died.  All those internet trees that say she died in 1640 give no place of death, much less a source (other than other internet trees that have endlessly copied the same presumptive date).

This way too speculative to establish an English origins.  If I came across this profile I would break the line as unproven and purely speculative. It is extremely unlikely you are correct.   Cooke was way too common a name to think you have the right baptism and the right family just because the name is the same.  Tagging it is as uncertain is not good enough, as there is still this presumption that it is probably correct.  You need to find evidence in wills that this is the correct Nathaniel Cooke, which is frankly unlikely given the supposed father died in the same year he was supposedly born.

You can put this theory in the biography, but I think you should disconnect his parents as unfounded.  If this was a PGM profile we would detach the parents and Profile Protect it in order to prevent parents from being added until better evidence is found.  This is how bad genealogy gets spread on the internet.
I agree with Joe. Thank you for disconnecting the speculative parents
0 votes
A note added to an Ancestry profile for John Hooper Cooke the Younger cites "Search for the Passengers of the Mary & John 1630" (Volume 19) as suggesting that Nathaniel Cooke was not the son of Aaron Cooke and also suggesting that he was instead the Nathaniel Cooke baptized on 20 March 1621 at Crewkerne, son of John Cook Jr. and Rachel Daubeny.

 I could not find Volume 19 online, but am wondering if the article therein might have mentioned information that I have not yet discovered.
answered by Kenneth Kinman G2G6 Mach 4 (43.6k points)
edited by Kenneth Kinman
I was able to get little snippets of the article in Volume 19 (using Google Books).  It is apparently on pages 169-172 and perhaps on adjacent pages as well.
I will see if I can check this for you.  It should be at my local Family History Center.  The holiday weekend may slow me down though.
+3 votes

I have removed John Cooke Jr. (alias Hooper) and Rachel Daubney as the parents of Nathaniel Cooke until more evidence can be found.

So I posted the following comment in his profile:    

I have created a profile for another child (Lydia).

And since the evidence linking him to the Cooke family of Crewkerne is circumstantial, I have removed those parents until more concrete evidence can be found.

answered by Kenneth Kinman G2G6 Mach 4 (43.6k points)

Related questions

+2 votes
0 answers
33 views asked Mar 30, 2018 in Genealogy Help by J Rogers G2G Crew (870 points)
+6 votes
6 answers
+10 votes
4 answers
+5 votes
1 answer
158 views asked Feb 17, 2015 in Genealogy Help by anonymous G2G6 (6.8k points)
+2 votes
1 answer
+4 votes
1 answer
282 views asked Jan 25, 2013 in Genealogy Help by Joan Windsor G2G Rookie (250 points)
+4 votes
3 answers

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

disclaimer - terms - copyright