The Descent of the Cottons of Cotton Edmunds from 1275 to the Present as Proven by Documentary Evidence and DNA Analysis

31 May to 7 June of 2020

Documentary evidence has previously been available to connect the 13th century lords of the manor of Cotton Edmunds to various British gentry families, including the Cottons of Crakemarsh. Additionally, the descent of various Cotton families in America could be documented beyond doubt up to the point of Walter Cotton's arrival in Virginia in the second half of the 17th century. DNA evidence has suggested a possible connection, but without documentary evidence, the proof of connection could not be considered complete. Research efforts over the last week, from 31 May to 7 June 2020, have enabled the uncovering and confirming of the necessary evidence connecting the two.

Research began in America in the 1990s on the origins of what later became known as Cotton/Cotten Family 4 of the Cotton/Cotten DNA Project. This research resulted quite quickly in the identification of Walter Cotton, a certain 17th century immigrant from England as being the common ancestor of a now very large American Cotton lineage. The discovery was due to the discovery of a very early 18th century will of a certain Thomas Cotton of Virginia, describing his wife Mary Hyde Cotton as being a loving wife and a William Cotton and yet another Thomas Cotton as “cousins” and specifying that this second Thomas Cotton was the son of Walter Cotton without describing Walter Cotton's relationship with himself. Frustratingly, no documentary evidence concerning the exact nature of the relationship between the presumably older Thomas Cotton and Walter Cotton could be found even after extensive research into the matter was done at the Family History Library of the Church of the Latter Day Saints in Salt Lake City, nor later at the Institute of Historical Research of the University of London. Indeed, the wording of the will raised more questions than it answered as to the exact nature of these relationships. 

In addition, the issue was further confused by previous generations of genealogists identifying these people as belonging to the John Cotton of Bertie County (usually known for the sake of the convenience of genealogists as John “Bertie” Cotton to distinguish him from other John Cottons), North Carolina. It was, in the late 1900s, assumed by most family historians that Thomas and Walter Cotton were somehow or other members of John "Bertie" Cotton's immediate family, either as his children or the children of the supposed father, yet another John Cotton.

A DNA project initiated in 2003, in spite of the primitive nature of genetically based DNA research at the time, very quickly showed that the descendants of William and Thomas, the two men mentioned as "cousins" in the will of Thomas Cotton of Virginia were, genetically speaking, a completely different different Cotton family from that of John “Bertie” Cotton. It also established that the older cousin William (the husband of Mary Hyde Cotton's granddaughter, Mary Smith) and the younger cousin Thomas Cotton (the husband of Mary Hyde Cotton's youngest daughter Jane Hyde) had to have been brothers. An assumption was then made that the older Thomas Cotton of Virginia and his cousin Thomas's father Walter were brothers and that the two young men were, in fact, his nephews.

This was justified by the fact that the word "cousin" was being used as it commonly had been in England in previous centuries to indicate any relative other than one's children, direct ancestors, or the siblings of oneself or one's direct ancestors. Thus, during the middle ages, even a grandchild was often referred to as a cousin in legal documents. Though this no longer seems to have been the case with regard to grandchildren during the 18^th century and though the use of nephew and neice begins to appear in 17^th century documents, in the early 18^th century it would seem that its use as a way of referring to the children of one's siblings still remained as a possible use of the word. 

A search was then made of English parish records which soon yielded two brothers of more or less the right age, Walter and Thomas, being born to a certain William Cotton of Wolverhampton. On the basis of this, an identification was made with the brothers Walter and Thomas Cotton of Wolverhampton as very likely being Walter and Thomas of Virginia. Though this later proved to be a problematic identification, it should be noted that many thousands of dollars were spent on researching the matter for a more positive identification. Nevertheless, positive documentary evidence never appeared that could directly substantiate this identification.

Eventually, research uncovered in Staffordshire records an additional two sets of contemporaneous Thomas/Walter Cotton sets of brothers, all being born in the same general area of that county and all being close in age to each other. Besides the Thomas and Walter of Wolverhampton, another set was Thomas and Walter Cotton of Crakemarsh in Uttoxeter and a third set was Thomas and Walter of Fulfen in Burntwood (near Lichfield). Nevertheless, by the time these two other sets of brothers by the names of Thomas and Walter Cotton were discovered, Thomas and Walter of Wolverhampton, having been uploaded to the internet, had acquired an aura of orthodoxy and were already widely accepted by genealogists and family historians.

Research also uncovered a problem as to the Wolverhampton identification with regard to Walter of Virginia. The ca. 1701 and 1702 Virginia militia muster rolls provide evidence that Walter Cotton of Wolverhampton would have been too young to have been Walter Cotton of Virginia and that another Walter Cotton would make a better fit chronologically. In the muster roles of 1701 Walter does not appear, while in those of 1702 Walter Cotton is mentioned as being too old to serve in the militia. According to the then English common law which was applicable to Virginia at that time, men were liable for militia duty from the ages of 16 to 60, meaning that Walter had to be 60 or older in 1702 and so could not have been born later than 1642. The Cottons of Wolverhampton in the mid-17th century appear to have been Church of England adherents which encouraged infant baptism, due to the high infant mortality rate of the times and out of a desire to ensure that no matter how soon after birth a baby died, it, having been christened, would have a place as a christian in heaven. Some groups of non-conformists did not believe in this practice and christened children having reached the age of reason outside of the Church of England in their own churches, thus resulting in their births not being included in parish church records maintained by law since 1535. There is every reason to believe that Walter of Wolverhampton was christened probably within a week or so of birth, as Wolverhampton was an important regional urban center and travel time to church would not have limited opportunities for baptism. If so and if he were still alive, Walter Cotton of Wolverhampton would have been 59 years old and, thus, liable for militia duty in 1702 and Thomas of Wolverhampton would have been 55. This, in turn, threw doubt on the initial assumption identifying Thomas and Walter of Wolverhampton with Thomas and Walter of Virginia, and suggested that perhaps the two Virginians were not brothers, but cousins in the modern sense of the word. As various possibilities existed, the matter remained unresolved.

After many years, being retired and having free time, I initiated in late May of this year (2020) a search into the Cottons of Alkingtons, a gentry family whose members include Sir Allen Cotton, the Lord Mayor of London is 1625 to 1626, believing that I might be able to establish a link between this family and that of the John “Bertie” Cotton family of North Carolina previously referred to above. In doing so, a critical piece of information regarding the identification of the first Thomas Cotton of Virginia was uncovered in a search done on 31 May 2020 by means of the familysearch.org website. Instead of uncovering information I was looking for with regard to the Alkington Cottons, what caught my eye was a record of the marriage of Thomas Cotton and Susannah Haewood on 8 November 1664 in Uttoxeter, the parish of the Crakemarsh Cottons. Presumably, this is the same as the Susannah Haywood who was christened on 2 February 1650 in Coleshill, Warwickshire, England and listed as the daughter of John Haywood. More importantly, as the Wolverhampton Cottons always used their parish church in Wolverhampton, this meant that the Thomas Cotton and Susannah Haywood getting married in Uttoxeter could be identified with Thomas Cotton of Virginia and his first wife Susannah who appears in the colonial records of Virginia, especially as the name Susannah was a rather rare one for the time. It also meant that Thomas Cotton of Virginia had to be the same Thomas Cotton who was christened on 19 May 1636 in Uttoxeter and was, thus, the son of William Cotton, esq. and an older brother of Walter Cotton who was christened in Uttoxeter on 14 November 1639, a man who would have been 60 or 61 when the muster list of 1702 was drawn up. This, in turn, lead to a quick unraveling of the relationships between the three Thomas and Walter sibling sets and showed that the Wolverhampton set had a second cousin relationship with the other two which had a first cousin relationship among themselves. It also firmly established beyond all doubt that Cotton/Cotten DNA project family 4 is to be identified with the family consisting of the descendants of the lords of the manor Cotton Edmunds in Cristleton near Chester in Cheshire, England, the medieval Cotton family from whom the Cottons of Crakemarsh in Uttoxeter were descended.

To better understand the nature of these relationships, we need to turn to the 1654 will of Thomas Cotton of Burntwood, where he names his kinsman Rowland Cotton of Crakemarsh (the oldest brother of Thomas and Walter Cotton of Crakemarsh) as his executor, establishing that the Cottons of Crakemarsh and Fulfen in Burntwood are of the same family. To get a clear understanding of the origin of the Burntwood Cotton family, we must go back to a certain Thomas Cotton who, because of transaction in 1612 by this person and his wife Frances, giving up future rights to the grandfather of Thomas and Walter of Crakemarsh for certain property in various places in Staffordshire, including Crakemarsh, it becomes clear that the Burntwood Cotton family clearly must descend from this Thomas Cotton and that he may be further identified as a Thomas Cotton appearing in a Staffordshire Visitation of the College of Arms as one of two younger sons (the other being Philip) of William Cotton and Elizabeth Malory and the brother of Walter Cotton of Crakemarsh, the father of William Cotton of Crakemarsh and the grandfather of Rowland, Thomas and Walter, individuals who have been previously mentioned above. However, it is also clear chronologically that the Thomas Cotton writing the will of 1654 cannot have been the Thomas Cotton of the land transactions, who would have been at least one generation older.

In fact, an online examination of Lichfield Parish record data by means of the familysearch.org website showed a Thomas Cotton whose spouse, Francis, is buried at Lichfield on 15 November 1619. A further examination of church records at Lichfield showed the birth of this family's children, being Thomas Cotton (christened 4 March 1606), William Cotton (christened 11 August 1614), Edward Cotton (christened 3 October 1615) and Susana (christened 1 February 1617). Another of this Thomas's children would be Humfry who was buried at Lichfield in 1618, possibly would have been a baby who died at birth. On 7 March 1654/5, the will of Thomas Cotton of Fulfin in Burntwood was proved by his widow Dorothy. The only marriage appearing in Church of England parish records between between a Thomas Cotton and a Dorothy during that period of the 17th century when a marriage would have had to have taken place in order to produce four sons by 1654 (including a son Walter who married Abigail Stringer in Lichfield on 22 January 1656) is in 1628 between Dorothy Russel of Churcheaton and Thomas Cotton of Whiston in Penkridge, but this couple have a family which can be documented in Penkridge and have children whose names do not match those of Thomas and Dorothy Cotton of Burntwood. The explanation is either that their marriage took place during a time when there is a gap in the records of the church they were married in or that they were non-conformist, something which would have led to no records surviving.

The oldest son mentioned in the will of 1654 of Thomas Cotton of Burntwood is a Walter Cotton who is certainly the Walter Cotton who marries Abigail Stringer on 22 January 1656, making a total of three Walter Cottons who had brothers by the name of Thomas and who were of the same generation living in the same English county (Staffordshire). The other two Walter Cottons known to have existed at that time in Staffordshire were Walter Cotton of Wolverhampton, born in 1643, and Walter Cotton of Crakemarsh, born in 1639. Neither would have been old enough to have been likely to have gotten married in 1656, thus making it certain that the concerned person can only be Walter Cotton of Burntwood. The oldest son of this couple, Edward, was christened in Marchington on 28 January 1658/9, but was buried at Lichfield on 31 March 1662. Furthermore, Abigail was buried at Lichfield on 28 January 1671/2 and then Thomas on 18 December 1676.

William, the proginator of the Wolverhampton Cottons is to be identified with the younger brother of the Thomas Cotton of Fulfen in Burntwood listed above as being christened on 4 March 1606. This William would have been the same William Cotton who married Anne Edge on 8 September 1633 in Trentham, Staffordshire. Though most certainly the Anne Edge christened in Uttoxeter on 25 June 1612 as the daughter of Sampson Edge, she belonged to a family which had family members living in Wolverhampton at this time and Wolverhampton became the parish of choice of this couple.

Concerning the children of Thomas Cotton of Burntwood and Dorothy, Abigael Stringer (the daughter of John Stringer and Marie, christened in Lichfield on 23 April 1636) can be shown as marrying their oldest son, Walter Cotton, gent. on 22 January 1656 at Lichfield. Walter and Abigael can also be shown as having a child by the name of Edward who was christened on 22 January 1658 in Marchington, Staffordshire (and not Lichfield). Nevertheless, two succeeding children Francis (30 July 1662) and Elizabeth (7 July 1664) were christened at Lichfield. However, there is record of the Thomas and Dorothy's son, William residing in Burntwood as a gentleman in 1664 and being listed as liable for a national hearth tax levied in 1666. There seems to be no other record of the fourth brother Humphrey, other than his father's will, but the third brother Thomas would have been the Thomas Cotton who became a resident of Marchington, where this Thomas Cotton who, on 10 September 1663, married Margrett Boulton (christened on 10 February 1643 at Dilhorne, Staffordshire, as the daughter of George and Mar(y)ia Boulton) and by whom he had several children who were christened in Marchington, a place where he may be presumed to have resided and where, from the times the times of this Thomas Cotton's great-great-grandfather Humphrey, the Cotton family had land interests.

As for Walter and Thomas Cotton, the sons of the first William Cotton of Wolverhampton, neither can be traced at present, though parish church records make it clear that another of William's sons, also named William remained in Wolverhampton and raised a family there.

The above discussion has implications for the ancestry of all the branch families of the Cottons of Cotton Edmunds that are included under the category of Family 4 on the excellently managed Cotton/Cotten DNA Project (http://www.skylinc.net/users/cottondna/family4.htm) website maintained by Michael Cotton. For this reason, I am now working on a family tree that, on a very preliminary basis, can be used to trace family relationships among these various branches. Anyone wishing to contact me regarding this work should do so at hkitabayashi@gmail.com. I will gladly provide information and exchange opinions regarding the current state of my research on this family tree.