Paragraph 3: "If you really want to get confused just look at the internet and the various Family websites.”
Agreed! Now we’re getting somewhere! However…
Paragraph 3: “What follows is a summary based upon the most current verifiable explanation.”
$#&&!!%!! Had me, then lost me. How Mr. Kolar could write these two (above) sentences back-to-back is beyond me. Why? Because nothing he states following this sentence is verifiable at all, and no references or documentation is supplied at all.
Paragraph 4: “Johann George Rupp was born in the village of Wimmern in Lower Alsace, Germany in 1721.”
Documentation please? There is none. This is straight out of the county histories. See my previous post, and my online article, incorporating the research work of Annette Burgert. The village is determined to be Wimmenau and there are no records at all predating 1724. There is a burial noted for Ulrich Rupp, a man often referenced as George’s father, and it seems likely that this is in fact the village of origin, but Burgert does reiterate that while other Rupp records are found there, there is nothing to reference George Rupp at all. Nothing.
Paragraph 4: “The Rupps were Mennonites of Swiss origin.”
Documentation please? There is no evidence of this whatsoever. There were Rupps in the Lancaster and later Lebanon and Dauphin area that were indeed Mennonites, but there is no evidence of connection between that family group and the Macungie Rupp family group. In fact, the frequency of Macungie Rupp infant baptisms and sponsorships (a number of which I have referenced relative to Johannes as sponsor) factually argues agains them being part of any anabaptist sect. This is a prime example of the "Ancestry mess," whereupon many casual folks looking for their family history find a surname that matches their own, have a "light bulb" moment, and then add it to their family tree. Then it gets repeated ad nauseum about three thousand more times and the next thing you know, 'Hey Bingo! We were Mennonites!" No evidence at all save on planet Ancestry. It doesn't help that the Mennonite Rupps had at least three - and possibly more - family members named 'Johannes' across multiple generations, and furthermore, there were additional Rupps spread through Lancaster/Lebanon and further west that also do not seem in any way tied to the Macungie Rupps (no evidence for it, anyway). This has led to the wildly divergent speculations as to 'Macungie John's' death date, as people for many years have simply been randomly using the dates on gravestones in alternately either Lancaster (Roop cemetery in Leola), Harrisburg (Chambers UMC) or York (Canadochly).
Paragraph 4: “Various European references show that Johann George Rupp had at least four ancestors who were gunsmiths starting as early as the 1500s.”
Documentation please? There is no evidence of this whatsoever. The earliest reference to this belief that I’ve found is incorporated into a 1931 newspaper article from Reading offering a fluffy write-up of a Rupp family reunion. Possibly Dennis Kastens may have come across something offering insight into this matter, but I have yet to find documentation of it in his works. Also, there is absolutely no documentation of George Rupp having the vornamen “Johann” or some variant of this; it’s straight out of the county histories. He very well may have had that name at his baptism, but as I’ve already illustrated, there are no extant records of his baptism to be found in Germany. No American record utilizes the name “Johann George” or “John George.” He is always referenced simply as George Rupp. The only reference to a “J. George Rup” was actually in reference to his son George Jr., from 1791, which I document in my research relative to the records of the Jordan Reformed congregation. George Sr. may very well have been christened Johan or Johann George, but nobody save perhaps the priest at his baptism or the priest at his deathbed would have used his vornamen ‘Johann.’
To be continued…
