Family:William and Jemima Cox: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (Added Nancy Cox) |
(Added note.) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
== Notes == | == Notes == | ||
There is a set of children listed as children of Lucy Cox, based on an interpretation of William Cox's will. This interpretation seems to have been disproven, but work still needs to be done to move these children back into William's family. Barthena Cox still seems to be a bit of a mystery, because of her approximate birth date. | There is a set of children listed as children of Lucy Cox, based on an interpretation of William Cox's will. This interpretation seems to have been disproven, but work still needs to be done to move these children back into William's family. Barthena Cox still seems to be a bit of a mystery, because of her approximate birth date. [[Source:DNA Matches|DNA testing]] undertaken by a descendant of Barthena showed a reasonable match with a Kellums, renewing the possibility that Barthena is, in fact, a Kellums. Though, the testing is not of a type as would clarify the nature of the relationship. | ||
== Sources == | == Sources == | ||
Revision as of 19:47, 6 November 2016
- Father
- William Cox - b. 1740/1750 - d. Abt. 1820
- Mother
- Jemima Turner - b. Abt. 1746 - d. Abt. 1830
Children
| Name | Birthdate | |
| William Cox, Jr. | Abt. 1762 | |
| John Cox | Abt. 1768 | |
| Jemimah Cox | Abt. 1771 | |
| Lucy Cox | Abt. 1773 | |
| George Cox | Abt. 1775 | |
| Preston Cox | Abt. 1777 | |
| Nancy Cox |
Notes
There is a set of children listed as children of Lucy Cox, based on an interpretation of William Cox's will. This interpretation seems to have been disproven, but work still needs to be done to move these children back into William's family. Barthena Cox still seems to be a bit of a mystery, because of her approximate birth date. DNA testing undertaken by a descendant of Barthena showed a reasonable match with a Kellums, renewing the possibility that Barthena is, in fact, a Kellums. Though, the testing is not of a type as would clarify the nature of the relationship.