John, a name he used interchangeably with Jen, Jensen was named as his eldest son in the will of Claus Jensen. The Jensens at that time were also interchanging the Johnson spelling with Jensen in official documents. So Jan Jensen or John Johnson, take your pick.

In 1734, Johannes Jansen, son of Claus from Germantown, was listed on a Salford tax list. This was probably for the land that Claus and Katherine deeded to him in 1732 -- it being the same 206 acres Claus bought in 1702.

In 1755, John Johnson, yeoman of Salford Township, and Anna Mary his wife, deeded 150 acres of that same 206 acres to son Nicholas. The deed specifically mentioned that it was the same land Klaus and Catherine had deeded to John in 1732.

The names of the townships that now form Montgomery County were evolving in the early 1700’s and it is not clear the exact distinction between what later was called Salford Township and earlier Bebbers Township. But Jan Jansen lived his adult life on land his father had deeded over to him -- land in Bebbers Township in 1732 when Claus deeded it to Jan -- and then in Salford Township when Jan deeded it to his son Nicholas.

Jan Jensen (aka John Johnson) was my ancestor, there is no question about it. While the rest of this commentary deals with the issue of the several men named John Johnson having some connection to Germantown in the early-to-mid-1700’s and which one of them married Mary Rittenhouse, daughter of Nicholas -- don’t misunderstand the confusion on that subject as meaning there is any doubt about the identity of our ancestor Jan. These facts apply to our Jan -- and only our Jan.

1. Jan lived his adult life in Salford Township. His occupation was yeoman (meaning farmer).

2. Jan was the son of Claus Jansen.

3 Jan Jensen, yeoman of “Sulphur” (meaning Salford) Township was involved with the heirs of Heivert Papen in several transactions whereby certain lands of Heivert were sold by his daughters after his decease. Jan had first married Elizabeth Papen, a marriage documented to have taken place in 1719. Elizabeth died before 1728, possibly as early as 1723 or 1724.

4. In 1755, Jan deeded land, with wife Anna Maria, to their son Nicholas. This land had been deeded to Jan by his parents Klaus and Catherine Johnson in 1732. Nicholas died in 1760.

5. Jan died in 1777 and named five children in his will -- son Nicholas, deceased, and four daughters including Margaret Boyer wife of Leonard. What I wish I knew was when those children were born as a clue to determining who their mother was.

If all I wanted was to be sure I knew enough about my ancestor Jan Jensen to be sure I had not misidentified him or his parents, my work would be done on this family. But there is this quite intriguing possible Rittenhouse connection that makes Jan Jensen a special ancestor. The Rittenhouse family was a very important family of early Germantown and Colonial America.

Now this is a fact I really wish to get right. I believe other amateur genealogists too often choose to believe any hint that they might be related to some prominent person or family and they do too little real fact-finding to document their belief. I do not wish to ever be accused of that so I have tried hard to get this right.

And the truth is I don’t have all the proof I would like to say with certainty that William Rittenhouse was our ancestor.

• If I could show that Margaret Johnson was the daughter of Jan’s first wife, Elizabeth Papen, then the Rittenhouse connection is made as she was the daughter of Elizabeth Rittenhouse (William’s daughter) and Heivert Papen. The problem is that in order for this to be true, it has to be the case that Margaret Johnson was about 10 years older than the man she married. However, I wonder if that might be the case as the names of Margaret and her sisters line up almost exactly with the names of Heivert Papen’s daughters.

• If, however, Margaret was the daughter of Jan’s second wife Anna Maria, then the truth of the matter rests with whether Anna Maria was, in fact, Mary Rittenhouse, daughter of Nicholas (William’s son). That may or may not be true and it comes down to determining which of four (or more) candidate John Johnsons in fact married Mary Rittenhouse.

• I am currently of the theory that Margaret Johnson was the daughter of Elizabeth Papen but I am also going to document that, while not proven, it may even be that Anna Maria was none other than Mary Rittenhouse -- so that, if in the future, some additional piece of evidence comes along proving Margaret’s mother was Anna Maria, then I will still have made the case that, even so, the Rittenhouses might possibly still belong in our family tree.

TOO MANY JOHN JOHNSONS OF (OR ONCE OF) GERMANTOWN
Nicholas Rittenhouse, in his will, referred to a daughter Mary. He did not name any of his daughters by their married names, nor give the names of their husbands. But, Wilhelmina Rittenhouse, his wife, referred to Marya Jensen in her property disposition. Wilhelmina specified some things be given to daughters and some to granddaughters, so it is not clear which Marya was. But in either case, enough is known about her other daughters that it must have been daughter Mary who married Jensen.

But was Mary’s husband’s name John? I can’t really document that fact, but I can say that all the early sources who have mentioned Nicholas’ daughter Mary say that John Johnson was the name of her husband -- even though they seem to disagree on which one it was.

So this is the “$64,000 question” for me -- which John Johnson was it? In the course of trying to figure this out, I have identified and learned a good bit about four men of that name, all of whom had some ties to Germantown and all of whom lived in the early 1700’s to about the time of the Revolutionary War or shortly before. The four were:

1. My Jan Jensen. I know for a fact that my Jan Jensen had a wife named Anna Maria and a daughter named Maria. And of all of the candidates, he is the only one who was Jensen at times, Johnson at other times, and take note that Wilhelmina Rittenhouse spelled the name Jensen in her property disposition.

And we know that his father, his uncle and Nicholas Rittenhouse were Mennonite ministers at the same time. That plus the fact that Jan’s first wife was the aunt of Mary Rittenhouse means he had every reason to know her, well.

2. John Johnson, weaver, who signed documents with a distinctive mark “I I”. This signature appears on a document signed by the heirs of Conrad Johnson. And, from other documents where that signature was used, I also know that as early as 1738, his wife was Margaret. He was said to be a weaver of Germantown at certain times, but by the time of that 1738 deed, he was of Lower Dublin Township. A John Johnson of that place wrote his will in 1760 and his wife was named Margaret. His children were John and Ann and his brother was William.

3. John Johnson, sadler, of Germantown, was born in 1708. His wife was named Agnes. This John sold land as the sole surviving executor of Matthias Malone (Millan?) in 1753. Matthias made the “Germantown Preparative Meeting of Quakers” one of his beneficiaries. And so I’m sure John the sadler was Quaker. I also know that John the sadler was the son of Dirck Johnson whose wife was Margaret Millan. Dirck had a daughter Catherine who married Caspar Wistar.

4. A John Johnson of Germantown died and in 1769 his heirs -- sons Casper, Joseph, Nicholas and Benjamin sold property to their brother William.

Now there are certain things that seem almost contradictory about several of these men and so I suspect there is still far more to be learned. For example, while that John who died leaving wife Margaret and brother William just has to be the one with the unique signature, son of Conrad, and whose wife was Margaret, how can it be that Conrad had no son William?

Or, wouldn’t it seem obvious that the John who named a son Casper, an unusual name -- there was no other Casper Johnson that I am aware of -- would be the John whose sister married Casper Wistar But Dirk’s family bible clearly says his son John married Agnes. And John and Agnes were still quite alive into the 1780’s.

These facts I’ve cited about each John Johnson are documented facts which have to be accounted for in assessing any theories about which was the son-in-law of Nicholas Rittenhouse. For example, the fact that John the weaver had a wife named Margaret as early as 1738 would have to be reconciled with the fact that Mary Rittenhouse was Marya Jansen in 1737. You could argue she died and he remarried quickly but there is no evidence of that so I think the weaver is ruled out.

To be sure, just to confuse things further, there were other John Johnsons in Philadelphia County in those times. For example, in 1728, Barbara Boon, widow, and her children sold land to Mary Johnson, widow of John Johnson late of Wiscaso and her children: John, Joseph, Abraham, Mary and Martha. And in 1756, John Johnson of Worcester, yeoman, and Mary his wife sold land to Christopher Heebner. Mary's mark was a script M. Finally there was a John Johnson of Horsham whose wife was also Mary, daughter of Godshalk Godshalk. In an event, these other John Johnsons were, I think, too far removed from Germantown to be relevant. And several of the four Johns I have enumerated had sons named John.

So, having introduced the candidate Johns, now let’s examine the various statements by other people purporting to say something about the John Johnson whose wife was Mary Rittenhouse. Many of these statements seem more based on hearsay than documented fact. None of the authors of these alternative views are people to be argued with lightly. I’m not sure any of them would be what would be called trained professional genealogists, but they clearly were professional historians. Nonetheless, I think all may be wrong.

WHICH JOHN JOHNSON MARRIED MARY RITTENHOUSE?
It is my view that, of the four John Johnsons, ours is the best candidate to have been the one who married Mary Rittenhouse.

The main competing view was actually put forward in an 1832 biography of David Rittenhouse (famed astronomer and esteemed associate of Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin). The book was written by William Barton and based on interviews with family members alive at that time including, to ascertain the early family history, a trip to Amsterdam to interview the brother of the original Rittenhouse immigrant who was still living in Amsterdam.

The Barton Version of Things. The main competing view was actually put forward in an 1832 biography of David Rittenhouse (famed astronomer and esteemed associate of Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin). The biography was written by William Barton. It was based on interviews with family members alive at that time including, to ascertain the early family history, a trip to Amsterdam where Barton interviewed the brother of the original Rittenhouse immigrant -- who was still alive and living in Amsterdam.

Barton says that Mary Rittenhouse married John Johnson and had children named: Casper, John, Nicholas, William and Benjamin. Now this was a.) clearly not our Jan Jensen (because of the names of the children) and b.) a view that must be considered since it was written when people who may have known the absolute truth may well have been alive to provide it and this theory must therefore be, at least a little discredited, if I am to believe my alternate theory.

The Barton version of things was then basically repeated by Daniel K Cassel who was commissioned by the Rittenhouse Family Association in 1893 to write a family genealogy. He mentioned Elizabeth Papen who married our Jan Jensen and said nothing more is known of this family and he mentioned Mary Rittenhouse and repeated what Barton said about her husband and children virtually verbatim.

I can’t prove Barton was wrong. The John Johnson he was referring to sounds remarkably like the John who died in Germantown before 1769 -- the sons names line up perfectly if you substitute Joseph on the property deed for John as stated by Barton.

I can say that Barton was mostly concerned with other Rittenhouse family members and Mary, daughter of Nicholas, was just mentioned in passing. Did he get those names of John and Mary’s children from interviews with family members alive at the time? If so, it is hard to argue. Or, was he only trying to flesh out what he could say about John Johnson? Did he perhaps just assume it was that particular John Johnson -- perhaps the only one he knew existed in that time and place?

The Duffin Version of Things. Fast forward to the year 2000, when the trustees of Rittenhouse Town -- a cluster of buildings preserved in Philadelphia that includes the original Rittenhouse paper mill and certain early family dwellings -- published a pamphlet on the history of the buildings as well as the history of the family. James Duffin, chief archivist of historical records at the University of Pennsylvania, did the genealogy.

James Duffin was more concerned with William Rittenhouse, brother of Mary, than Mary herself. William, he says, married Lisbeth Johnson who Duffin says (with no basis for how he knew it to be true) was the sister of John Johnson -- the one that married William’s sister Mary. Further, he says that both Lisbeth and John were children of Conrad Johnson, he refers and comments on a 1748/49 release signed by Conrad’s heirs -- and finally he makes the statement that John Johnson, husband of Mary Rittenhouse, was the weaver of Germantown, and was absolutely not John Johnson (or Jan Jensen) of Salford Township.

The most amazing thing about Duffin’s assertions is that even though he says the John Johnson he is saying was the husband of Mary was “confirmed by Barton’s family sources” -- he in fact adds the additional identification that he was the son of Conrad and thereby is pointing to an entirely different John Johnson.

Conrad Johnson’s son John was the one with the distinctive mark. And the wife named Margaret. And the children named John and Ann. Conrad died in 1717 but he didn’t name his children in his will. Their names though are known from a 1748/49 release whereby his heirs released Dirk Jansen, Conrad’s brother and Executor of his estate. The named heirs were Jacob and John of Philadelphia, Peter and Matthias of New Jersey and Catherine Funck, Barbara Maurer and Margaret Peters. John signed that document with his distinctive mark. Note the absence of a daughter Elizabeth.

I have scoured the Duffin paper to completely understand the arguments he makes. And they are less than rock solid.

• He argues that Lisbeth was a known daughter of Conrad because she was listed as such in a list of early Germantown students. I have searched for that list and cannot find it -- which doesn’t disprove its existence. Remember, she wasn’t named in the release and also remember we do know that Claus had a daughter Elizabeth.

• Moreover he says, she was not named in the release signed by all of Conrad’s children because she “must have died” and his evidence for that is she was also not named on deeds executed by her husband in the years just before that release was executed. I have searched for any such deeds and am unable to find them either. In addition, had William been acting in his capacity as Executor of his father’s estate on those alleged deeds, he wouldn’t have needed Lisbeth’s signature. There was an Elizabeth wife of William who purportedly died in Germantown in 1782 and some say that was Lisbeth. I don’t know about that but the point is there really is no evidence that I can find that she died before the 1740’s. Moreover, even if she did die young, her children with William should still have been a party to the release. I don’t believe Lisbeth was Conrad’s daughter.

• As to our Jan versus “the right” John, he makes the point that they had different signatures, a point with which I wholeheartedly agree. Of course, those two different men had different signatures. But how does he know what the signature of Mary’s husband John looked like? And didn’t he notice John’s unique signature on the release that he so carefully had to examine to explain why Elizabeth was not named thereon?

• Because the document he refers to as having been signed by John Johnson and wife Mary was a 1745 deed donating land for a school. It describes John as a weaver of Germantown but it was not that distinctive signature I know so well. So this is either yet another John -- or quite possibly it was the John who died before 1760 with sons named Casper, William, Benjamin, Nicholas and Joseph -- the one that Barton said was the right John all along.

• Now the truth is, I do not know what the signature of my Jan Jensen looks like, but he was neither a weaver nor of Germantown, so the 1745 deed could not have been him.

And that’s where I am. I have identified four John Johnsons but two are ruled out by the names of their wives -- Margaret in one case and Agnes in the other. I am left with two John Johnsons as possible candidates:

• My Jan Jensen, yeoman of Salford Township, who had a wife named Anna Maria and a sister named Elizabeth. I agree he had a different signature than either the one with the distinctive mark or the one who signed the 1745 deed, but Duffin doesn’t say on what document the unique signature of John Johnson is found in connection with anyone of the Rittenhouse family or Mary, in particular.

• John Johnson whose sons were named Casper et al. I can find no document or other citation of any kind which would say what his wife’s name was. And I have searched. He did not name a wife in his will. I can find no other document he signed. The idea that his wife was named Mary seems to be based on the 1745 deed, but I don’t see the connection -- how is it proved that was John, father of Casper? Maybe we’ve identified a fifth John Johnson to stir into the mix.

As I said, I do not have the smoking gun, yet, to absolutely prove, beyond all shadow of a doubt, that Mary Rittenhouse and Anna Maria Jensen were the same person -- but I have done everything possible to find the evidence one way or the other and feel the evidence of the way I say it is more compelling.

Our John Johnson wrote his will 21 May 1769 and it proved 4 Apr 1777 so those dates bracket his date of death (which was probably much closer to the 1777 date). He was a yeoman living in Salford Township. His will did not mention a wife who I presume had pre-deceased him. He left the heirs of his son a small amount of cash “over and above what I have already given my son Nicklaus” and otherwise left everything to share equally among his four married daughters: eldest Maria wife of Nickolaus Rerig, Gertrude the wife of Paul Kerster, Elizabeth the wife of John Wydener and youngest daughter Margaretha the wife of Leonhart Boyer.

The Ancestry World Tree (AWT) of Michael K Miller cites “William Rittenhouse, America’s Pioneer Paper Manufacturer and Mennonite Minister” by Milton Rubicam -- and says Elizabeth was the daughter of Heivert Papen and Elizabeth Rittenhouse. The book on the Jensen family agrees. We know from his will that Hyvert had a daughter named Elizabeth and we also know from several land records that Elizabeth and her husband Jan Jensen were among the named heirs of Heivert.

Elizabeth did sign a deed in 1722 and that was the last we know for sure she was alive. And she died by 1728. But obviously between 1719 and mid-1720’s, there was sufficient time for her to have had any number of John’s five children.

I am going to make the main case here that I believe Elizabeth Papen was the mother of all of John Johnson’s children. My main argument is this -- her father had five daughters, named, in birth order -- Scyntia, Maria, Gertrude, Margaret and Elizabeth (she being the youngest). John Johnson had four daughters named, in birth order -- Maria, Gertrude, Elizabeth and Margaret.

The symmetry and similarity of those two sets of names is astounding. I can easily explain why the absence of Scyntia among John’s children is not important -- maybe she died young, maybe Elizabeth never liked her sister Scyntia, whatever. I have a harder time explaining why Elizabeth reversed the order of the two youngest girls -- Elizabeth (named after herself and/or her mother) and Margaret. But, I know of no obvious reason why Mary Rittenhouse might have chosen the name Margaret for a daughter. Nor Leonard either. So that sums up the case for Elizabeth Papen being the mother of all of John Johnson’s daughters.

The main rub is that Margaret would have had to have been born before 1728 and she married a man born in 1737 -- nine years younger than she? Stranger things have happened.

The will of Nicholas Rittenhouse written 24 May 1734 mentioned daughters Seikie, Catherine, Mary and Susanna and said that each was to get just one shilling because they had received their portion in his lifetime. He mentioned no married names for any of the daughters but I strongly suspect all were married by 1734.

What they call the will of Wilhelmina Rittenhouse but was really simply a list of personal items and who they were to go to mentioned Marya Jensen and also made clear the married surnames of all her daughters. Whether Marya was a reference to her daughter or granddaughter is not totally clear, but either way confirms that her daughter Mary married Jansen.

I know Jan’s second wife was named Anna Maria and/or Anna Mary. There was an article printed in “The Perkiomen Region”, a historical bulletin, titled “Genealogical Studies of Some Providence Families” written by Ralph L Johnson published in 1934. Ralph and his wife both were descendants of several of the earliest families of Montgomery County -- the so called Perkiomen/Skippack regions which he refers to as Providence. Many of the families he documented were our ancestors too, including Johnson and Rittenhouse.

Ralph cited the 1755 deed whereby John Johnson and wife Anna Mary deed to son Nicholas a tract of land. This is the main basis for establishing that Jan’s wife was Anna Mary, so I wanted very much to find that deed which should have been recorded in Philadelphia County since Montgomery County had not yet been spun off from Philadelphia in 1755. But it wasn’t there. It actually was not recorded until much later when Nicholas’s heirs sold the land and both deeds were recorded in Montgomery County back-to-back. But I did find it. It not only established that Jan’s second wife was named Anna Mary but the deed refers to their son Nicholas.

I am not sure whether to put too much faith in that wording as indicative that she was the mother of Nicholas. Might it have said that even if he was Elizabeth’s son? More ambiguity.

Nicholas could have been named for Nicholas Rittenhouse or just as conceivably for Claus Jensen, Jan’s father. So that sheds no light on the subject either.