Child on census 1 year old ?

[Guest]

Jane NIXON aged 1 on the 1861 census
I believe Samuel KEEN the son of the Keen Household and Jane NIXON are the parents , I noticed quite a few people have her in their Tree and give her name as Jane Emma Keen birth 25 Apr 1861 Homerton ? but as the census was taken the 7 Apr 1861 and it says she is 1 ? think something is wrong.
Also this couple had twins born the 25 Oct 1861 so Jane's Birth would be rather too near the twins.
Your thoughts please.
Thanks

http://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin/sse.dll?db=uki1861&indiv=try&h=5675619

[Elaine ..Spain]

I believe Samuel KEEN and Jane NIXON are the parents

Are you saying that you think Samuel (head of household and husband to Caroline) is the father of the child?

I read is that Jane, aged 1, is the daughter of Jane Nixon, aged 21 (boarder).

[Anne in Carlisle]

It does say 'daur of do' for the child. ie daughter of the boarder Jane Nixon, unmarried.

Anne

[Gwyn in Kent]

The online baptism record of Emma Jane KEEN shows an address of Homerton.
She was baptised at Hackney on 26 May 1861,the daughter of Thomas and Elizabeth, a carman....no birthdate recorded.

[Guest]

Thanks people ,no Elaine the son Samuel born in 1840 , he is with Jane in 1871 they went on to have more children , that is the wrong girl then Gwyn thanks for that.

http://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin/sse.dll?db=uki1871&h=12265996&ti=5538&indiv=try&gss=pt&ssrc=pt_t6737403_p6112377323_kpidz0q3d6112377323z0q26pgz0q3d32768z0q26pgPLz0q3dpid

[Elaine ..Spain]

Also this couple had twins born the 25 Oct 1861 so Jane's Birth would be rather too near the twins.

The entry for the child Jane Nixon on the 1861 census gives her age as 1. As the census was taken on 7th April 1861 it means that Jane could have been born any time between 8th April 1859 and 7th April 1860.
Plenty of time after that for the mother Jane to get pregnant and give birth to twins in October 1861.

[Guest]

ooh yes Elaine but what I meant was if Jane had been born in 1861 as the other people on Ancestry have her, then it would have been nigh impossible , I am amazed that so many have her in their Tree with the wrong Baptism even the wrong Parents on the Baptism to what they have in their Tree ? dont people check their facts ?

[Chrissie Smiff]

I can't see any likely birth ref for Jane Val. Under Nixon, Keen or even Henderson. I also had a look to see whether they had her christened later on with the others but I can't find.

[Guest]

Thanks Chrissie ,I did find a birth reg for a Jane Keene Mar 1860 Bethnal Green ? which would about fit but why is she Jane Nixon on the census records ?

[Chrissie Smiff]

Because Samuel's father gave the details and didn't accept, or know, the situation?

[Guest]

good point Chrissie
I have been trying to find another Jane Keene born that time ,and there isn't one as far as I can see so reckon this one could be her?

[Chrissie Smiff]

Yes Val, I've been looking too and I agree with you. I have looked at all the Janes' born in Bethnal Green for that time frame and she definitely looks like the only likely one. Maybe Jane Snr registered her birth and wasn't sure how to spell Keen at that time.

[Guest]

I just asked somebody who has her in their tree how they know her birth seems he only copied a cousins info? I might do that but then I double check its right .
Thanks again Chrissie I am going to claim her for now till I have enough money to order the cert, funny though they had all their other children baptised but not this one ?