Mertz Genealogy - Person Sheet
Mertz Genealogy - Person Sheet
Parent-Proof notes for Rachel (Spouse 1)
We know that Henry’s wife was Rachel in 1850 and that Henry had several children not listed as heirs of his first wife. These younger children were Sarah, age 4, Theodore age 2 and Andrew age 1.
We know that Thomas Forshey had a daughter named Rachel, unmarried in 1839. There s a family tree we found that covers all these people (Forshey, Rupe, Fester), it is fairly well documented citing many sources (better tan most such trees) — but clearly has made what we think are a few erroneous conclusions, so cannot be totally trusted — and it suggests that Rachel, wife of Henry Roup was none other than Rachel, daughter of Thomas Forshey.
This idea that after a man’s wife died young, he married second her sister — is not without precedent, especially back in those days.
And there is one other document that either reasonably supports this assertion (or some might argue contradicts it).
The death certificate of Mary Ellen Hill says she was born in 1849 and was the daughter of George Roup and Rachel Forscia. I can find Mary Ellen in the 1860 Census and she was living, not with George Roup, but Henry Roup instead. We can’t be sure this 1860 household was the remnants of Henry Roup’s 1850 household as most of the children are missing and of course wife Rachel seems to have died in any event.
What if Mary Ellen were born in 1850 (just after the Census was taken) and what if either it was a mistake that her father was George Roup (maybe it was really Henry) or what if her father was really George Henry or Henry George? What if this was a different Rachel Forshia (though we only know of one) and therefore doesn’t really contradict the theory after all that Rachel, wife of Henry Roop was Rachel Forshey?
The point is when trying to unravel and identify the parents of Sarah, wife of Henry Martz, any theory that I can reasonably come up with gets contradicted somewhere along the way and the only way to believe the theory is to believe certain apparently contradictory “facts” must not be exactly right.
We know that Thomas Forshey had a daughter named Rachel, unmarried in 1839. There s a family tree we found that covers all these people (Forshey, Rupe, Fester), it is fairly well documented citing many sources (better tan most such trees) — but clearly has made what we think are a few erroneous conclusions, so cannot be totally trusted — and it suggests that Rachel, wife of Henry Roup was none other than Rachel, daughter of Thomas Forshey.
This idea that after a man’s wife died young, he married second her sister — is not without precedent, especially back in those days.
And there is one other document that either reasonably supports this assertion (or some might argue contradicts it).
The death certificate of Mary Ellen Hill says she was born in 1849 and was the daughter of George Roup and Rachel Forscia. I can find Mary Ellen in the 1860 Census and she was living, not with George Roup, but Henry Roup instead. We can’t be sure this 1860 household was the remnants of Henry Roup’s 1850 household as most of the children are missing and of course wife Rachel seems to have died in any event.
What if Mary Ellen were born in 1850 (just after the Census was taken) and what if either it was a mistake that her father was George Roup (maybe it was really Henry) or what if her father was really George Henry or Henry George? What if this was a different Rachel Forshia (though we only know of one) and therefore doesn’t really contradict the theory after all that Rachel, wife of Henry Roop was Rachel Forshey?
The point is when trying to unravel and identify the parents of Sarah, wife of Henry Martz, any theory that I can reasonably come up with gets contradicted somewhere along the way and the only way to believe the theory is to believe certain apparently contradictory “facts” must not be exactly right.