Mertz Genealogy - Person Sheet
Mertz Genealogy - Person Sheet
Birth1770
Memo(ballpark estimate based on life events)
Death1807
Memo(date of administrator’s bond)
FatherPhilip Mertz (G1) (1740-1815)
MotherMargaret (Hannes?) (-1824)
Spouses
Birth, Parent-Proof, Designation notes for William Mertz (G1b)
A William Mertz was listed in the 1800 Census in Heidelberg Township (then Northampton County) where we also find Philip Mertz. Philip was age 45+, William 26-45. In 1790, in Heidelberg Township, there was a Philip March and George March. These three people: Philip, William and George were also mentioned as parents or sponsors in the early baptism records of the Heidelberg church.
In the 1790 Census, Philip had three additional males in his household besides himself. George (born 1761) was married already and living on his own. We know that Philip had a son Daniel in 1773 and I think the other two were William who just appeared in Heidelberg in 1800 and then Dewalt (born 1776) who just appeared in Heidelberg in 1810. William is designated G1b.
I don’t know very much about William at all. Here is what I do know and/or believe:
1. Wilhelm Mertz was a sponsor with Elizabarbara (sic?) Peter at the 1791 baptism of Wilhelm Hartman son of Heinrich and Catharina Hartman. When that couple baptized their son Philip, Philip and Margaret Mertz were the sponsors. I believe Catharina was Philip’s daughter and William’s sister. These two baptisms bolster my argument that William was Philip’s son. I also “glean” one other detail from this baptism record. I think William and Elizabarbara were both single, perhaps though, as often was the case, “dating” and would soon marry.
2. William was first listed in Census in 1800 in Heidelberg Township. He was age 26-44 as was his wife and they had 1 young son and 3 young daughters all under the age of 10.
3. There is an estate record for a William Mertz who died, it says, in Macungie Township in 1808. The administrator of his estate was John Peter. Why this record says he was of Macungie and not Heidelberg, if it was this William, I don’t know. But John Peter was also the administrator of William’s wife’s estate in 1814 and she was also said to be of Macungie — except that in the actual estate papers in several places it said she was of Heidelberg. I think John Peter was confused about the boundary line between Heidelberg and Macungie.
4. In any event, the key detail here is the name of the administrator. There is that baptism record where William and a young (presumably) Peter woman were sponsors and, in 1797, George Mertz, brother of William I believe, mortgaged property to and borrowed a good sum of money from John Peter, Sr. So I believe maybe both William and George married daughters of John Peter and that explains his role as estate administrator. It also fits my theory that William did not, as of 1808, have any grown sons who might have fulfilled that role.
5. I cannot find William in the 1810 Census but there was, in Heidelberg, a “Widow” Mertz with a son and a daughter 0-9 and a son 10-15. If this was William’s widow, the three young daughters perhaps had died although it’s possible to think that maybe one of them was born in, say, 1792 and had married by 1810.
6. In 1814, the estate of Elizabeth Mertz, widow of William, was administered by John Peter. In that same time period, petitions were filed for guardians of her five minor children, Jonas and four daughters. That petition also said William had had four additional children but unfortunately didn’t name the older ones or indicate in any way how many were sons versus daughters.
In the 1790 Census, Philip had three additional males in his household besides himself. George (born 1761) was married already and living on his own. We know that Philip had a son Daniel in 1773 and I think the other two were William who just appeared in Heidelberg in 1800 and then Dewalt (born 1776) who just appeared in Heidelberg in 1810. William is designated G1b.
I don’t know very much about William at all. Here is what I do know and/or believe:
1. Wilhelm Mertz was a sponsor with Elizabarbara (sic?) Peter at the 1791 baptism of Wilhelm Hartman son of Heinrich and Catharina Hartman. When that couple baptized their son Philip, Philip and Margaret Mertz were the sponsors. I believe Catharina was Philip’s daughter and William’s sister. These two baptisms bolster my argument that William was Philip’s son. I also “glean” one other detail from this baptism record. I think William and Elizabarbara were both single, perhaps though, as often was the case, “dating” and would soon marry.
2. William was first listed in Census in 1800 in Heidelberg Township. He was age 26-44 as was his wife and they had 1 young son and 3 young daughters all under the age of 10.
3. There is an estate record for a William Mertz who died, it says, in Macungie Township in 1808. The administrator of his estate was John Peter. Why this record says he was of Macungie and not Heidelberg, if it was this William, I don’t know. But John Peter was also the administrator of William’s wife’s estate in 1814 and she was also said to be of Macungie — except that in the actual estate papers in several places it said she was of Heidelberg. I think John Peter was confused about the boundary line between Heidelberg and Macungie.
4. In any event, the key detail here is the name of the administrator. There is that baptism record where William and a young (presumably) Peter woman were sponsors and, in 1797, George Mertz, brother of William I believe, mortgaged property to and borrowed a good sum of money from John Peter, Sr. So I believe maybe both William and George married daughters of John Peter and that explains his role as estate administrator. It also fits my theory that William did not, as of 1808, have any grown sons who might have fulfilled that role.
5. I cannot find William in the 1810 Census but there was, in Heidelberg, a “Widow” Mertz with a son and a daughter 0-9 and a son 10-15. If this was William’s widow, the three young daughters perhaps had died although it’s possible to think that maybe one of them was born in, say, 1792 and had married by 1810.
6. In 1814, the estate of Elizabeth Mertz, widow of William, was administered by John Peter. In that same time period, petitions were filed for guardians of her five minor children, Jonas and four daughters. That petition also said William had had four additional children but unfortunately didn’t name the older ones or indicate in any way how many were sons versus daughters.
Known Sons notes for William Mertz (G1b)
From Census, assuming it was William in 1800 and then his widow in 1810, William had, possibly, two sons: one born in the 1790’s and one born after 1800. From the Orphan’s Court petition, we know it was Jonas born after 1800.
I believe Jonas survived, was the Jonas first listed in Census in North Whitehall in 1830 and is the Jonas buried at Morgenland Church in Lehigh County.
I believe the other son was Joseph, born 1793. There is no real document that would suggest that William had a son named Joseph. He well might have, there were four older unnamed children noted in his wife’s Orphans Court petition and Joseph’s 1793 birth is not inconsistent with the idea that William was single in 1791 (but possibly “courting” Elizabeth Peter).
If he didn’t marry until after 1791, that rules out Nicholas, William (the younger) and Carl as his sons, leaving Joseph and John Philip as the only other two men born before 1800 who I believe were part of this Heidelberg family.
If that tick mark in 1790 was one of those two, the only additional clue as to which it was is geography. Joseph first appeared in Census in North Whitehall in 1820 where his uncle Dewalt had appeared in 1810 and where Jonas, his brother I believe, then appeared in 1820. I believe Jonas and Joseph became close to their uncle Dewalt after their father, William, died young.
John Philip, on the other hand, first appeared in Census in East Penn Township where George — and Carl and Nicholas — also were mentioned at least once.
I have placed Joseph and Jonas as sons of William (the older). It’s very parallel to the problem of naming the sons of Philip and/or George. It is documented that William had a son Jonas, I am somewhat guessing (though I think I am on pretty solid ground) that the Jonas who lived in North Whitehall and was buried at Morgenland was this Jonas. It is only logic that suggests Joseph was William’s son.
I believe Jonas survived, was the Jonas first listed in Census in North Whitehall in 1830 and is the Jonas buried at Morgenland Church in Lehigh County.
I believe the other son was Joseph, born 1793. There is no real document that would suggest that William had a son named Joseph. He well might have, there were four older unnamed children noted in his wife’s Orphans Court petition and Joseph’s 1793 birth is not inconsistent with the idea that William was single in 1791 (but possibly “courting” Elizabeth Peter).
If he didn’t marry until after 1791, that rules out Nicholas, William (the younger) and Carl as his sons, leaving Joseph and John Philip as the only other two men born before 1800 who I believe were part of this Heidelberg family.
If that tick mark in 1790 was one of those two, the only additional clue as to which it was is geography. Joseph first appeared in Census in North Whitehall in 1820 where his uncle Dewalt had appeared in 1810 and where Jonas, his brother I believe, then appeared in 1820. I believe Jonas and Joseph became close to their uncle Dewalt after their father, William, died young.
John Philip, on the other hand, first appeared in Census in East Penn Township where George — and Carl and Nicholas — also were mentioned at least once.
I have placed Joseph and Jonas as sons of William (the older). It’s very parallel to the problem of naming the sons of Philip and/or George. It is documented that William had a son Jonas, I am somewhat guessing (though I think I am on pretty solid ground) that the Jonas who lived in North Whitehall and was buried at Morgenland was this Jonas. It is only logic that suggests Joseph was William’s son.
Parent-Proof notes for Elizabeth (Spouse 1)
John Peter’s name comes up too many times in this family, he administered both William’s and Elizabeth’s estate he loaned money to George. William was reported in 1791 at a baptism with Elizabeth (I think) Peter, the kind of thing I have observed is a precursor often to a pending marriage. It is my guess that Elizabeth was nee Peter and likely the daughter of John Peter.