Did Anne Cooke b. 1526 exist? [closed]

Question

This Anne Cooke's unsourced profile claims that she was born and died in 1526, daughter of Sir Anthony Cooke and Anne FitzWilliam Cooke.  They had an attested daughter Anne Cooke-89 who married Sir Nicholas Bacon-559. So this 1526 Anne Cooke is either a duplicate who should be merged with the "real" Anne Cooke, or a child who died young for whom no evidence has yet been found.

Merges of Cooke-2442 and Cooke-89 have previously been proposed. Should we merge them now, detach Anne, or leave her attached to parents who can't be proved?

Answer 1

I would suggest that it is unlikely that Anthony Cooke and Anne FitzWilliam had a daughter called Anne Cooke b 1526 and that it is more likely that the daughter born in 1526/7 was Mildred Cooke who, on the monument to her in Westminster Abbey, is recorded as being "in her 20th year the wife of lord William Cecil" (they were married by licence on 21 December 1545) and also being in her 63rd year when she died 4 April 1589.  These statements give a yob c1526/7.

Comments

Yes, the date of Mildred's birth really precludes a birth for Anne in 1526 - unless she were a twin who died at birth.

---

Creating the narrative that Anne Cooke-2442 was a twin is, of course, a possibility.

I stand to be corrected but as I understand it, the profile manager who created Cooke-2442 did not suggest that she was a twin to Mildred nor did they cite an original source for her birth/death.  Maybe the profile manager/s can assist with further information?

---

I would like that very much. The identity was either created in error or someone had some information that led to that conclusion, and I would like to know what the ultimate source of that information was.

But the information came from Ancestry, from such trees as say she died in 1526 and source this with a baptismal record from 1834. I have made queries, but not holding out much hope.

Answer 2

Both profile managers have been active on WikiTree within this month.  I would suggest that in the interest of collaboration, no merge type actions be taken until they have been from.  However, adding any information that can be found is perfectly in order, especially on the profile of the father.

I would suggest that the profile of the father, Anthony, could use a separate section, in which all his children, both proved and alleged, are discussed.  This location may shed the most light on the putative daughter.

Comments

I have been in contact with the PM who created the profile. Perhaps he will weigh in here.