The D'Arcy Archive
551 records · 94 households · searched 13 September 2026

The Sneyds of the Potteries

Every Staffordshire Sneyd record, assembled into households — which finally produces the family the tree has been pointing at, and moves one of its dates by twelve years.

This morning this archive reported the Sneyd line unevidenced. By evening it had found two of its four links. Reconstituting the county — all 551 records read individually and assembled into 94 households — produces the third, and corrects the tree in the process.

Madeley All Saints

William Sneyd, weaver, and his thirteen children

On 27 March 1769 William Sneyd, weaver, married Mary Blackbourne at Madeley, witnessed by Robert Sneyd. That record → Here is what follows it in the same register:

BaptisedChildMotherNote
9 Jul 1769 William (not recorded) Weaver — three months after the marriage
21 Feb 1772 Dinah (not recorded)
29 Dec 1773 Theodosia (not recorded)
3 Nov 1776 Sarah (not recorded)
22 Aug 1779 James MARY the one entry that names the mother
4 Jun 1781 Samuel (not recorded) THE ONE — the tree puts him in 1769
1 Jan 1784 Lydia (not recorded)
6 Nov 1785 Mary (not recorded)
26 Mar 1786 Ellen (not recorded)
11 Apr 1788 Mary (not recorded)
23 May 1788 Ann (not recorded)
14 Feb 1791 Fletcher? (not recorded) father now entered as Blacksmith
16 Dec 1794 Margaret (not recorded)
The first child is baptised three months after the wedding, and the 1779 entry is the one time in thirteen that the clerk wrote the mother's name: Mary. That is the couple, and this is their family.
The correction

Samuel is 1781, not 1769

The family tree says Samuel Sneyd, born 1769 at Madeley, son of William Sneyd and Mary Blackbourne. This archive searched for that baptism twice today and reported it missing both times.

It is missing because it is not in 1769. The register's Samuel, son of William, is baptised 4 June 1781. The year 1769 belongs to his eldest brother William, christened three months after the wedding — which is exactly the kind of slip a family tree makes when it has a marriage date and guesses the child from it.

And 1781 fits better. Samuel Charles Sneyd was born at Hanley in March 1811 to a father Samuel. A Samuel baptised in 1781 is thirty when that child arrives; one born in 1769 would be forty-two. identification, on dates and a documented family The line as it now stands →

And the lesson, which is the third of its kind today. I searched for the tree's date instead of the tree's person. The 1781 Samuel was in every result list I pulled, and I discarded him each time for being twelve years out. Recorded →

A limit of the method

Madeley does not write the mothers down

Of 73 Madeley baptisms in this set, only 10 name the mother; 61 give the father alone. Reconstitution works by grouping on both parents, so at Madeley it cannot separate two contemporary Williams — and the raw grouping duly produced one impossible "William" with thirty-four children spanning 1702 to 1794.

Which is why the weaver's family above is offered as a reading rather than a reconstruction. It hangs on an occupation that matches the marriage, a first child three months after it, and one entry in 1779 that names Mary. That is good — it is not the same as a register that writes both parents every time, as Dursley does. Where it did work →
1851 census · WELL STREET, Hanley, Stoke upon Trent · HO107/2004, folio 138, page 13, schedule 46

Samuel Sneyd, grocer, in his own shop

NameRelationAgeOccupationBorn
Samuel Sneyd Head72 GROCERMADELEY, STAFFORDSHIRE
Elizabeth Sneyd Wife71 —OSWESTRY, SHROPSHIRE
James Sneyd Son33 EngraverHanley, Staffordshire
Elizabeth Ann Sneyd Daughter11 —Hanley, Staffordshire
Harvey Bradbury Visitor20 ShoemakerLongton, Staffordshire
Four years before he died, Samuel Sneyd is in his own shop in Well Street, a GROCER, born at MADELEY — and his wife Elizabeth is beside him, born at OSWESTRY, SHROPSHIRE. Every element of the tree's claim, and every element of the identification this archive made from the 1861 census, is confirmed at once by a record that names them both. documented

And it settles “Staly Cladwin”. The 1861 enumerator wrote something at Well Street that the transcriber could not read and rendered as a Shropshire place that does not exist. The 1851 enumerator, ten years earlier, wrote OSWESTRY.

One thing moves. The tree gives Samuel's birth as 1769 and this archive corrected that to the Madeley baptism of 4 June 1781. The 1851 census says he was 72, so born about 1779; the burial register said 77 in September 1855, so about 1778. Three records now cluster around 1778–79, which sits between the tree's 1769 and the archive's 1781 and matches neither exactly. The Madeley baptism remains the best candidate — it has the right father, mother, parish and trade — but the ages do not endorse it as cleanly as they rule out 1769.

Four censuses, one address

Sixty years in one street

YearAddressHouseholdReference
1851Well Street, Hanley SAMUEL SNEYD, 72, grocer, born Madeley · Elizabeth his wife, 71, born Oswestry · James, 33, engraver · Elizabeth Ann, 11HO107/2004 f.138 p.13
185591 Well St. Samuel buried from this address, 23 September, aged 77Hanley St John the Evangelist, entry 2330
1861Well St, Grocers Shop JAMES SNEYD, 42, engraver · Ann his wife, 41 · Elizabeth A 21 and Mary J 18, both PAINTRESSES · James A, 10 · and Elizabeth, 82, WIDOW, born Shropshirepiece 1932 f.38 sch.22
1871Well Street James, 53, engraver · Ann, 52 · James A, 20, ENGRAVERRG10/2857 f.37 p.10 sch.46
188120, Well Street James, 63, ENGRAVER (POTTER) · Anne, 61 · Mary Elizabeth MULLOCK (Sneyd), granddaughter, 17, dressmakerRG11/2719 f.12 p.18 sch.90
Samuel Charles Sneyd sailed for New South Wales in 1832 and died at Brisbane in 1885. His brother James stayed in Well Street and engraved pottery there for the rest of his life — thirty years on from his father's shop, in the same road, with his own son at the same trade. Two sons of one grocer, and the whole distance of the nineteenth century between them. Samuel Charles →

The granddaughter of 1881 is entered as Mary Elizabeth MULLOCK (Sneyd), born Hanley about 1864 — so one of the paintress daughters of 1861 married a Mullock. A thread this archive has not followed.

Shropshire Baptisms · Oswestry, St Oswald's · Shropshire Archives P214/A/2/1, page 18

And Elizabeth's own baptism

ELIZABETH OLIVER, born 17 MAY 1782, baptised 19 May 1782 · father DAVID Oliver, mother MARY.

The tree says Elizabeth Margaret Oliver, born 7 May 1787 at Oswestry.

Oswestry is confirmed outright by the 1851 census. The day differs by one digit (7 for 17) and the year by one (1787 for 1782), and both censuses put her birth nearer 1780 than 1787 — 71 in 1851, 82 in 1861. She is the only Elizabeth Oliver baptised at Oswestry in the window the censuses point to, in a parish whose baptisms are thoroughly indexed. It is very probably her, and it is an identification rather than a proof.an identification

It also gives a generation this archive has never had: DAVID OLIVER and MARY, of Oswestry.
Tested, covered, not found

The Audlem marriage

The tree says Samuel Sneyd married Elizabeth Margaret Oliver at AUDLEM, CHESHIRE on 22 October 1809.

The test. Audlem's registers are indexed twice over — Cheshire Diocese of Chester Parish Marriages AND the Bishop's Transcripts. A control search for SMITH marrying at Audlem between 1804 and 1814 returns twenty entries from both collections.

The result. No Sneyd, in any spelling, marries at Audlem in that window. Widening to every Sneyd record at Audlem of any date and any type returns thirty-six results and every one is a civil registration after 1837 from Nantwich, Crewe or Congleton. Not one Sneyd appears in Audlem's parish registers at all.

So the Audlem marriage is not supported. That is not the same as disproved — a mangled spelling or a licence elsewhere would explain it — but it has now been looked for properly, against a parish that is covered twice, and it is not there.coverage established
Hanley St John the Evangelist · and the GRO index

91 Well Street, and the year that was wrong

The tree said: Samuel Sneyd, born 1769 at Madeley, “a grocer of Hanley”, died 20 September 1856 at No 3, Well St, Hanley. Nothing stood behind it. Here is the burial register.

RegisterHanley, St John the Evangelist · parish register, entry 2330
Buried23 September 1855
NameSamuel SNEYD
Age77
Abode91 Well St.
And the death index agrees with the register, not the tree. Deaths, September quarter 1855 — SNEYD, Samuel — Stoke upon Trent — volume 6b, page 75

Searched for every Samuel Sneyd death registered anywhere in England and Wales between March 1854 and December 1858. There is exactly one.documented
What the tree saidWhat the records say
The streetWell StreetCONFIRMED — and the register gives the number as 91, not 3
The year1856WRONG. He was buried on 23 September 1855, and the only Samuel Sneyd death registered in England and Wales in five years is the September quarter of 1855 at Stoke
The day20 SeptemberCONSISTENT. A death on the 20th and a burial on the 23rd is an ordinary three-day interval; it is the year that is out, not the date
His ageborn 1769, so 87The register says 77, which puts his birth about 1778
His widowElizabeth Margaret Oliver, died 1 December 1861CONFIRMED — Deaths, December quarter 1861, Sneyd Elizabeth, Stoke, 6b 66
The age is the interesting one. Seventy-seven in September 1855 means born about 1778. The tree's 1769 would make him eighty-seven — ten years adrift. The Madeley baptism this archive corrected to in the first place, Samuel son of William Sneyd the weaver and Mary Blackbourne, 4 June 1781, would make him seventy-four: three years out, which is what a stated age at burial normally is. The burial register was found long after that correction was made and it independently supports it.The correction it supports →

So a claim that had no record behind it three days ago now has three: a burial with an age and a house number, a death registration with a volume and page, and a census that finds his widow in the same street six years later. Two details in it were wrong, and both are the kind that a family tree gets wrong — a year, and a street number.

1861 census · 1861, Staffordshire, Hanley, Stoke upon Trent — Wellington district, piece 1932, folio 38, schedule 22

Well Street, Hanley — the grocer's shop

The family tree makes two very specific, entirely unverified claims about this line: that Samuel Sneyd, born Madeley 1769, "a grocer of Hanley", died on 20 September 1856 at No 3, Well St, Hanley; and that he left a widow, Elizabeth Margaret Oliver of Oswestry, Shropshire, who outlived him by five years and died on 1 December 1861. No record behind either. Nobody had ever opened a Staffordshire census.

Here is Well Street five years later.

NameRelationCond.AgeOccupationBorn
James SNEYD Head M 42 Engraver Staffordshire, Hanley
Ann SNEYD Wife M 41 — Staffordshire, Hanley
Elizabeth A SNEYD Dau U 21 Paintress Staffordshire, Hanley
Mary J SNEYD Dau U 18 Paintress Staffordshire, Hanley
James A SNEYD Son U 10 Scholar Staffordshire, Hanley
Elizabeth SNEYD Mother W 82 — Shropshire, Staly Cladwin

The address in the enumerator's own hand: Well St, Grocers Shop.

Five points of contact
What the tree saysWhat the census says
The streetNo 3, Well St, HanleyWell St, Hanley
The trade“a grocer of Hanley”the enumerator writes GROCERS SHOP against the address
The wifeElizabeth Margaret OliverElizabeth — and a WIDOW; Samuel was buried from Well Street in September 1855
Her countyborn at OSWESTRY, SHROPSHIRE, 7 May 1787born SHROPSHIRE
Her death1 December 1861, StaffordshireCONFIRMED in the GRO index: Deaths, December quarter 1861, Stoke, 6b 66 — eight months after the enumerator called
Her agewould make her 73the enumerator wrote 82 — eight years out, and not explained
Read carefully. The census does not say whose widow she is. It says she is James's mother, at Well Street, in a grocer's shop, a widow, born in Shropshire. The tree says Samuel Sneyd the grocer of Well Street died there in 1856 leaving a widow Elizabeth Margaret Oliver, born at Oswestry in Shropshire, who died in Staffordshire on 1 December 1861. Those are two independent statements that agree on the street, the shop, the widowhood, the forename and the county, and that place her death eight months after the enumerator called. No parish entry names her as Samuel's wife in this archive yet, so this is an identification, not a record.an identification, not a record

And one number does not fit. One number does not fit. Born 1787, she is seventy-three in April 1861; the enumerator wrote EIGHTY-TWO. Ages on a census are what somebody in the house said on the night, and eighty-two for seventy-three is a large error — but it is the kind of error an eighty-year-old household makes about its oldest member, and it is the only figure on the page that argues against the identification. It is printed here rather than quietly dropped.

What it does give outright is a household: a James Sneyd, engraver, born Hanley about 1819, with two daughters who paint pottery for a living. The tree gives Samuel and Elizabeth five children and this archive publishes only one of them — Samuel Charles, born Hanley 1810, who sailed. James stayed, kept the shop, and engraved.

Her birthplace is left as it was written. Her birthplace is transcribed “Staly Cladwin”, Shropshire. No Shropshire parish is spelled that way, and Oswestry — where the tree puts her — is not a plausible reading of it. Oswestry's neighbours include names that a bad hand could turn into this, but naming one would be inventing evidence. It is recorded here exactly as the transcriber read it.Why that rule exists →

And why this took so long to find. FreeCEN holds 1861 for Staffordshire and, on testing, nothing else: a control search for John Smith born 1800–1805 in Staffordshire returns 31 people and every one of them is 1861. So Samuel Sneyd, who died in 1856, could never have appeared however hard he was looked for — and his son Samuel Charles had been in Australia for twenty-four years. coverage established by control test

FindMyPast · 1851 census · found 16 September 2026, the first hour of a FindMyPast subscription

Ann's parents, and the night the family slept in two houses

This archive knew James Sneyd's wife as «Ann» across four censuses, then as ANN BIDDULPH from a free index, and said plainly that her parents were a generation it had never had. The 1851 census names them.

Queen Street, Stoke upon Trent — seven people

NameIn the houseStatusAgeBornOccupationBirthplace
John BiddulphHeadMarried 531798 Coal dealerBermondsey, Surrey
Julia BiddulphWifeMarried 521799 —Shelton, Staffordshire
Mary BiddulphDaughterUnmarried 211830 Paintress (potts)Stoke, Staffordshire
Eliza BiddulphDaughterUnmarried 191832 ServantStoke, Staffordshire
Anne SneydDAUGHTERMarried 311820 DressmakerShelton, Staffordshire
Mary SneydGRAND DAUGHTER— 81843 ScholarHanley, Staffordshire
James A SneydGRAND SON— 01851 —Hanley, Staffordshire

And Well Street, the same night — five people

NameIn the houseStatusAgeBornOccupationBirthplace
Samuel SneydHeadMarried 721779 GrocerMadeley, Staffordshire
Elizabeth SneydWifeMarried 711780 —Oswestry, Shropshire
James SneydSonMarried 331818 EngraverHanley, Staffordshire
Elizabeth Ann SneydDaughterUnmarried 111840 —Hanley, Staffordshire
Harvey BradburyVisitorUnmarried 201831 ShoemakerLongton, Staffordshire
JOHN BIDDULPH, coal dealer, born at Bermondsey in Surrey about 1798, and JULIA his wife, born at Shelton about 1799. Ann is enumerated in their house as «Daughter, Married», a dressmaker of 31, with two of her own children beside her as grandchildren. Her husband James is a mile away at his father's shop in Well Street with their eldest, Elizabeth Ann. On the night of 30 March 1851 this family slept at two addresses, and it takes both to see it whole. documented
And the naming falls into place. James and Ann called their second daughter MARY JULIA in 1842. Ann's mother is JULIA and her sister is MARY. Their eldest was ELIZABETH ANN — for James's mother Elizabeth and for Ann herself. The forenames this archive had been reading as decoration are a map of the two families.
One thing worth not assuming. John Biddulph was born at Bermondsey, Surrey — not in Staffordshire at all. A coal dealer in the Potteries who came up from south London is a different kind of ancestor from a local family, and nothing here explains how he got there. His marriage to Julia, and his own parents, are the next question and are not yet asked.

Where the Staffordshire Sneyds are

ParishRecords
Madeley149
Wolstanton47
Swynnerton38
Stoke-upon-Trent37
Burslem32
Bilston26
Uttoxeter24
Stone18
Ipstones18
Tamworth13

Madeley holds 149 of 551 — and Keele, the hall the discredited graft reached for, is four miles up the road and holds a handful. The family this archive actually descends from were weavers, carpenters, blacksmiths, brickmakers and labourers in the Potteries. The graft →

National Burial Index · Madeley All Saints

And the weaver himself has a burial at last — or one of two

The Sneyd line's oldest name is WILLIAM SNEYD OF MADELEY, and until today he rested on a citation reading “Sneyd Web Site”, a birth year of 1746, AND NO DEATH AT ALL. The National Burial Index holds eight William Sneyds buried at MADELEY ALL SAINTS across two hundred and fifty years — 1574, 1640, 1659, 1762, 1780, 1791, and then two that matter:

buried 1819 aged 88, born about 1731He would have been 38 at the weaver's marriage and 63 at the last of his children. Possible, and old.
buried 13 MAY 1827 AGED 84, born about 1743He would have been 26 at the marriage and 51 at the last child — the natural fit, and within three years of the 1746 the tree gives him.
The weaver married about April 1769 — the first child is baptised three months later — and was still fathering children in 1794, so neither of the 1780 nor 1791 burials can be him. That leaves TWO CANDIDATES, and this page is not going to pick one and call it settled. The 1827 burial fits far better on every measure. What it is NOT is proof: the register names no wife, no trade and no children, and two men of one name in one parish is exactly the situation that has caught this archive before. two candidates, neither proved

What has changed is the shape of the problem. Yesterday the oldest Sneyd was a web page. Today he is one of two documented burials in the right parish, with ages, and the better of the two agrees with the tree to within three years — which is what a stated age at burial does.

Staffordshire BMD

Ann has a surname at last

Four censuses give James Sneyd the engraver a wife called ANN and nothing more — Ann, 41, in 1861; Ann, 52, in 1871; Anne, 61, in 1881. The free Staffordshire index names her.

SNEYD, James · married ANN BIDDULPH · 1842 · STOKE, ST PETER · reference 31/03/214 documented

And it names four children, by their mother's maiden name

The Staffordshire birth index records the MOTHER'S MAIDEN NAME beside every child. Four Sneyd births carry BIDDULPH:

ChildBornDistrictReferenceMatches
Elizabeth Ann Sneyd1839 SheltonSHE/003/001 “Elizabeth Ann, 11” in 1851 and “Elizabeth A, 21” in 1861
Mary Julia Sneyd1842 HanleyHAN/005/004 the “Mary J, 18” of 1861, a PAINTRESS — and her full name for the first time
Catherine Sneyd1845 HanleyHAN/007/057 NEW. She is in no census this archive has read; she did not survive to 1851, or she was elsewhere on both nights
James Arthur Sneyd1850 HanleyHAN/012/032 the “James A, 10” of 1861 and the “James A, 20, ENGRAVER” of 1871 — his full name too
Three of the four match the household this archive already had, and two of them supply the forenames the censuses gave only as initials. The district is right — Shelton and Hanley are the two halves of the ground around Well Street. The identification rests on a surname, a maiden name repeated across four entries, a district and four matching ages, which is as much as an index can carry. identified from an index, not from a certificate

And one detail the index states plainly

Elizabeth Ann was born in 1839. The marriage is 1842. The eldest child came three years before the wedding, and the registrar recorded her under her father's surname with her mother's maiden name beside it, which is exactly how the index is built to work.

What would settle it. What would settle it is the marriage certificate, which would give both fathers' names and occupations and carry this line back a generation on Ann's side. Against the local reference 31/03/214 it is orderable from Stoke-on-Trent rather than from the GRO. On the queue →

Searched 15 September 2026 at staffordshirebmd.org.uk — 391 Sneyd births and 322 Sneyd marriages, free, and never used by this archive before.

Diocese of Lichfield and Coventry Wills, 1550–1810

Thirty-six Sneyd wills, and a labourer at Keele

The Diocese of Lichfield and Coventry wills index, 1550–1810, is free and this archive had never opened it. It returns thirty-six Sneyds. Not one of them is of MADELEY. documented

Staffordshire Name Indexes, staffsnameindexes.org.uk, searched 14 September 2026. The site indexes twenty-six collections but NOT parish registers or bishop's transcripts, so it cannot answer the Madeley burials directly.

What it does to the Keele graft

NameStatusOfYear
William Sneydnot given Keele, Wolstanton1620
Richard Sneydgentleman Stafford and Keele1684
Ralph Sneydesquire Keele1704
Sarah Sneydwidow Keele1706
Ralph Sneydesquire Keele1734
Ralph Sneydnot given Keele1737
Ralph Sneydgentleman Keele1743
Richard SneydLABOURER Keele1772
Edward Sneydnot given Keele1780
William Sneydgentleman Keele1783
Four Ralph Sneyds of Keele, esquires and gentlemen, across forty years — and in 1772, RICHARD SNEYD, LABOURER, of Keele, leaving a will in the same court.

This archive has an open question it calls the Keele graft: whether its own Sneyds were attached to the Sneyds of Keele Hall by someone who wanted a better ancestor. The labourer cuts the question loose from the answer. Being a Sneyd of Keele does not make a man gentry, because in 1772 a Sneyd of Keele was a labourer. A humble Sneyd in that parish needs no descent from the squires to explain him. it weakens the graft without disproving it

And what that is not. It is not evidence that this archive's Sneyds were the labouring sort, and it is not evidence that they were at Keele at all. It removes an assumption, which is the most a negative can do.

And nothing at Madeley

Sneyd of Madeley returns nothing in an index of thirty-six Sneyd wills spanning two hundred and sixty years. The control is the same search without a place, which returns all thirty-six, so the engine and the surname both work. a controlled null

The Madeley burials remain a question for the Lichfield bishop's transcripts, which this index does not hold and which nothing free does. On the queue →

The rest cluster where this archive already knew to look: yeomen at Woodhead in Burslem in 1707 and 1717, a gentleman at The Birches, Burslem in 1708, a spinster at Woodhead in 1722, a wheelwright at Newcastle under Lyme in 1676. The Potteries, two generations before the potteries.

Four years, and a name rare enough to be a control

Catherine, who lived four years

CATHERINE SNEYD · death registered in the December quarter of 1849 · Stoke on Trent, Staffordshire · GRO index volume 17, page 114. documented

She was born at Hanley in 1845 — Staffordshire BMD reference HAN/007/057, mother's maiden name Biddulph — and this archive found her there yesterday, new to it, as the fourth child of James and Ann. She is in neither of the two households the family occupied on census night in March 1851, and now there is a reason: she had been dead for sixteen months.

And the control is the rarity of the name. Searched across the whole of England and Wales for every Catherine Sneyd death registered between 1845 and 1852 — eight years — and there is exactly one. It is in the right district, in the right window, and it is the only candidate there is.
Shropshire Parish Registers, Diocese of St Asaph — the printed Oswestry and Llanyblodwel registers, eight volumes read entire, 11 October 2026

Elizabeth Margaret Oliver gets a father with a trade, a street, a grave and three children

This archive has had her baptism — Oswestry St Oswald's, 19 May 1782, father David Oliver, mother Mary — from a paid index, and nothing else. The Shropshire Parish Register Society's volumes are printed, free and out of copyright, and they were never opened here. They give the family whole.

The register saysWhat it adds
David Oliver, cooper, of Cross Street, OswestryAn occupation and an address this archive did not have.
Buried at Oswestry 21 June 1808, aged 59Which puts his birth about 1749.
Dianna, baptised 23 March 1777Her sister, and the first sibling Elizabeth has ever had here.
Elizabeth, baptised 19 May 1782«Elizabeth, d. of David Oliver, Cross St., & Mary, b. 7».
David, baptised 12 July 1789«s. of David Oliver, cooper, Cross Street, & Mary» — her brother.
One digit disagrees, and it is left disagreeing. One digit disagrees and it is left disagreeing. The printed transcript reads «b. 7»; FindMyPast's index of the same register line says she was born 17 May. Two transcriptions of one entry, agreeing on the baptism date, the parents and the year. Neither of them is the register, and this archive is not going to choose between them by preferring whichever it read second.

And a candidate for her mother, called a candidate

The baptisms give the mother only as «Mary». The printed Llanyblodwel register has «1772, June 12. David Oliver of Oswestry p: bac: & MARY OWENS sp: … lic: mar». He is of the right parish; the forename pair matches; 1772 sits properly before 1777, 1782 and 1789; and a man buried in 1808 aged 59 was about twenty-three in 1772. Against it: nothing links the entry to the baptisms except those fits, and David and Mary are two of the commonest names on this border — the same volumes hold David Olivers at Blodwell, Trefyrclawdd, Pentreshanel, Sweeney and Willow Street across a century. The control is that the shortlist is one long: all eight volumes hold exactly one David Oliver marriage between 1765 and 1782, and the only other in the series is to an Anne Morris in 1799.

The Sneyd marriage is not there, and that proves nothing. Samuel Sneyd's marriage to Elizabeth Oliver, about 1809, is not in the printed St Asaph registers. The volumes carry 581 Oswestry marriages and the only Sneyds anywhere in them are the gentry Sneyds of Bishton — the same Staffordshire family the tree once tried to graft this line onto. But the printed marriage run ends in 1808. It stops one year short of the question, so the absence is coverage and not evidence, and an hour was nearly spent reporting it as though it were.

And Madeley, where the Sneyds come from, turns out to be two places

The Staffordshire Parish Register Society printed Madeley. The volume is on the Internet Archive and is lending-restricted — its text returns HTTP 401 and a borrow needs an account this archive will not make. Its public snippets still show «Margaret d. of William Sneyd, Weaver» and «Thomas s. of William Sneyd of Gt. Madeley», and this archive holds Samuel Sneyd baptised at Madeley All Saints in 1781 with his father given as William Sneyd, weaver. The snippets carry no years, so nothing is attached: those are children of a weaver of that name in that parish and no more. What it settles for nothing is that the register distinguishes Great Madeley from Little Madeley — and this archive has written «Madeley All Saints» from the beginning without ever asking which half.

Every search behind this → · What is still blocked →