Person talk:Francis Cooke (2)

Baptism [1 December 2013]

Someone may want to research Gidea Hall instead of Gides Hall. Gidea Hall is home of a Cooke family in Romford, Essex, England. Several websites with information. [posted by Neal Gardener]

Source:Mason, Thomas W. New Light on the Pilgrim Story, p. 55, claims the baptism was 27 Oct 1578 at St. Martin's, Charing Cross and it was recorded as "Francisca". Page 58: Ann, 1572, Mildred, 1573, and John 1575, other children of Richard Cooke of Gidea Hall, are said to have also been found there. Some documents are cited (p. 57) that mention two daughters and two sons this source thinks make up the four youngest children (none of the four(?) youngest children were named in the will), and one of the notes mentions "Fr. Cooke's porcion". They lived at Gidea Hall, which was inherited by the eldest son Anthony on the father's death in 1579. Anderson says nothing about this in GMB, and other comments I have seen hints of, suggest it is not generally accepted, though I am obviously lacking in details of the rebuttal. Regardless, the death of Richard Cooke 3 Oct 1579 seems somewhat at odds with a baptism date in 1584. While you don't need a father to baptize a child, it seemed the English custom was to baptize them pretty soon after birth. Which is to say, either the identification of the parents, or the baptism seem off, or, of course, both. --Jrich 19:55, 20 November 2012 (EST)
Would anyone object to changing the parentage be changed to use SpeculativeParents? This theory has been around since the 1920s, and if it was worth talking about, I have to think GMB or Caleb Johnson would have at least mentioned it.--Amelia 04:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
As is my usual position, I think people that want to change things should provide evidence. It seems to me that the evidence above, which hopefully it is clear that I find unlikely, seems to be the best documented evidence of any theory, and so as such, the ball is in the court of those that don't like this theory. If it is so unlikely, it shouldn't be so hard to find evidence that this applies to another person, or some other failing. If it is not mentioned because it is disproven, it should be possible to find the grounds for that disproof, as opposed to the above proposal of assuming disproof such based on one person's lack of notice of the evidence. --Jrich 20:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)