Bit of a muddle need another brain

[Guest]

I have a family
Father Samuel KEEN a Printer
Mother Sarah KEEN nee (Gill)

here they are in 1871 ignore the born in Paris bit ? Samuel was born in Mile End Middlesex

http://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin/sse.dll?db=uki1871&h=29002358&ti=5538&indiv=try&gss=pt&ssrc=pt_t6737403_p-1235602854_kpidz0q3d-1235602854z0q26pgz0q3d32768z0q26pgPLz0q3dpid

Amongst their children are

John Thomas KEEN Born 21/2/1850 Baptised 17/3/1850 living in Bethnal Green ,Have the Birth Cert .
Cannot find him in 1851 or anywhere after that ??????

John William KEEN Born abt 1853 Strand according to the 1871 Census

The only Birth Reg for that period is for a John Daniel KEEN Dec 1853 Strand but cannot find a Baptism for him

John William KEEN Baptised 9/6/1861 St Clement Danes

John William KEEN died 1882 Have this Death Cert

now for the complicated bit

John Thomas KEEN aged 25 Married a Catherine Mackdonough in 1879 Southwark ???

But why call himself John Thomas and what happened to John Thomas ??

any ideas please hope this is easy to understand ?

[Tom Tom]

Sorry Val, have looked but just confusing myself with it.

What children do they have with them in 1861?

[Guest]

Thanks for looking Tom cannot find them in 1861?

[Darksecretz]

John Thomas KEEN Born 21/2/1850 Baptised 17/3/1850 living in Bethnal Green ,Have the Birth Cert .
Cannot find him in 1851 or anywhere after that ??????

John William KEEN Born abt 1853 Strand according to the 1871 Census

The only Birth Reg for that period is for a John Daniel KEEN Dec 1853 Strand but cannot find a Baptism for him

John William KEEN Baptised 9/6/1861 St Clement Danes

John William KEEN died 1882 Have this Death Cert

are all of these the same family Val? if so, is it likely that the John Thomas KEEN b.1850 died?

If they had a birth reg they might NOT have been baptised, likewise if you find a bapt they might NOT have a reg, (unless it was after 1875)

[Darksecretz]

have you seen this Val?

http://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin/sse.dll?rank=1&new=1&MSAV=1&msT=1&gss=angs-g&gsfn=john+T&gsln=ke%3fn&msbdy=1850&msbpn__ftp=Middlesex%2c+England&msbpn=5275&msbpn_PInfo=7-|0|0|3257|3251|0|0|0|5275|0|0|&cpxt=1&catBucket=rstp&uidh=lg3&msbdp=2&cp=11&pcat=ROOT_CATEGORY&h=19344681&db=FreeBMDDeath&indiv=1

if you try John T Ke?n in the searchox it brings up quite abit :smilee:

[Guest]

thats interesting Julie ? have been looking for a birth for a John T Kean about 1851 and not found any as yet ? so maybe that is him? but where is he in 1851 onwards ?
I do know John William Keen died in 1882 as his wife remarries but why did he use the name John Thomas Keen instead of John William on the Marriage??
lots of questions thanks again Julie think I'll give it a rest for another couple of years

[Tom Tom]

What name did John William / John Thomas Keen use on the 1881 census with his wife?

[Guest]

John Keene , thanks Tom

I am coming to the conclusion the first John died

http://search.ancestry.co.uk/iexec?htx=view&r=5538&dbid=7572&iid=LNDRG11_688_691-1129&fn=Catherine&ln=Keene&st=r&ssrc=pt_t6737403_p225143845_kpidz0q3d225143845z0q26pgz0q3d32768z0q26pgPLz0q3dpid&pid=21205502

[chrisj1961]

In the London burials, there is a John Thomas Keen, buried 2 January 1851, not sure if you have seen that one at Lambeth St. Mary's, only discrepency is that this kiddy was born about 1847 - could be an answer as this little one died before the census in 1851, and they could have got the age wrong - just a guess Val.

The other problem ... it could be that John William took his brother's name, my gg grandad was called Richard, birth certificate and baptised Richard. Later on in life, he took the name William Richard, William was his father's name. He didn;t take the name William until some 18 years after his father's death. It could be that this other John William chose to use John Thomas for any number of reasons, possibly even to honour his brother who died in infancy. Just a thought

[Guest]

thanks Chris did see that death but ruled it out, suppose they could have made a mistake ? shame I cant find the family in 1861 wonder where they were ?? as they are in St Clement Danes in 1851 and 1871 so would have thought they would be there in 1861 ?

[Darksecretz]

is St clement danes part of the 'missing' bits in 1861 Val?

http://www.familytreeforum.com/content.php/544-Missing-census-pages

[kylejustin]

ooh, that's a good but sad point julie!

[Guest]

thanks Julie I did read what bits were missing but didn't think there's was? I did search for St Clement Danes and some addresses for that area did appear.