I know about the online trees but this is simply information that an individual has posted - with no sources re. the details which are crucial here and which I've already mentioned. With regard to the ancestry ones it looks like someone put the information on and others have simply copied it. What I'm trying to say is that just because you descend from John Snell and all the details from his marriage through to his death are correct with what you know, you can't assume that everything relating to him pre. his marriage his correct with no sources quoted to back it all up.
You, and others, have found these trees and clearly believe them to be correct - however, research doesn't bear the early facts out hence the questions. I live in Suffolk and that's what drew me to this thread in the first place as I always like to try to help people with interests in Suffolk.
As was pointed out earlier, the 'supposed' father James is shown on the trees as bc.1822 when he would only have been 14 when John born in 1836!! Straightaway, one big doubt! I would think this James, in the same actual place as John, is more likely to have been a brother (if indeed a relative) rather than father with only 14 years between them. Again, as already mentioned, all the Australian records I can see only shown John as plain John i.e. his marriage, births of his children and his death.
Something else that concerns me - the death details for John (posted by trish1120) states his parents as:
Snell Jas
Hart Eley
The way I read this is that his mothers surname was Hart although Eley as a Christian name seems odd (wonder if badly written Eliz for Elizabeth or Eliza). With fathers surname shown first then abbrev. Christian name you would expect his mothers details to follow in the same way namely her surname Hart and abbrev. Christian name Eley. Do you understand my reasoning? It just seems so very odd to me that this has become Harriet Eley.
We deal with questions like these so often and always tell people, don't simply accept any online tree/s you find, especially when sources are not given. ALWAYS check out the facts yourself and don't just accept what someone else says. This maxim applies to anyone researching their family.
In this particular instance, there is no baptism for a John Martin Snell (or indeed a plain John Snell) in Sudbury ca.1836, nor can anyone trace a marriage for his given (in the trees) parents. Therefore, because there is no trace, we then ask for a 'check' re. the facts and ask where this information has come from but this is resulting in a brick wall. Your information is from online trees which you are accepting is correct but the facts don't bear this out.
I really think you need to find out exactly when he arrived in Australia and see what facts are given about him. Without that information this saga will go on and on with no-one getting anywhere because they are simply quoting what's on the online trees that simply doesn't pan out (only 2 couples baptising children in Sudbury 1830/1840's namely an Abram and Catherine and a William and Elizabeth).
Annette
