Questions and Answers

Q:
There are two Becherbachs in the Palatinate: Becherbach bei Kirn and Becherbach (Pfalz). Which is the one the Riegels came from ?

A:
Indeed, it is unusual that two towns with the same name are so close together. I found a note in the IGI town register, that even the FHC mixed them up. But I can say that the Riegels came from Becherbach bei Kirn.

Q:
Why are you sure ?

A:
Charles Riegle and I went to the church of Becherbach bei Kirn and we saw the parish register there with our own eyes.

Q:
In earlier genealogies it was said that Mattheiss was born in Bad Münster am Stein - Ebernburg. Why do you say he is born in Münster Emmel ?

A:
Have a look at the manuscript of page 15 of the Becherbach parish register. The page is dark and smudged where they say "Münster Emmel", and it is hardly legible. Moreover, the name of the town has changed today to Piesport. So we can understand that it was misinterpreted as Bad Münster am Stein - Ebernburg closeby Becherbach.

Q:
Are you sure that it is Münster Emmel and not Bad Münster ?

A:
Yes, I have 4 reasons:

  1. The parish register says "Münster Emmel, County of Wittlich". The county capitol Wittlich is much too far from Bad Münster that it had ever belonged to the same county.
  2. "Emmel" would make no sense with "Bad Münster".
  3. Mattheis' wife Maria Werner was born in "Nummern Trohen", today Neumagen-Dhron, the neighbouring town of Münster Emmel.
  4. Jost's sponsor was Jost Peltzer, the town mayor of Münster Emmel. We still find the name Pelzer today in Piesport and Neumagen-Dhron.

Q:
What about the theory that Mattheiss was born in Chemnitz ?

A:
Carl Riegel and James Reigle discovered a family Riegel in Chemnitz and they can follow them back as early as 1390. They also found a Matthias Riegel, born there on 2 Feb 1607 and proposed the idea that it could be the same person as the Mattheiss we are descended from. But from our new results of the Becherbach parish register we can say that Mattheiss was born in Münster Emmel, today Piesport (Mosel). It is not the same person as Matthias from Chemnitz. I believe that we have two (or more) independant Riegel lines in Germany.

Q:
Why do you say Mattheiss' surname was RIEHELL instead of RIEGELL ?

A:
Look again at the manuscript of page 15. Indeed, the old german script "h" can easily be confused with "g". But the writer of this paragraph distinguished them carefully: Please compare the letters "g" and "h" in the word "gebohren" (line 2, 2nd word from the right), or in the word "ungefehr" (line 3, 2nd word from the right) in the manuscript. There is no doubt that he wrote "Riehell" in the year 1662. But in later manuscript from 1679, page 44, he writes "Mattheis Riegel" for the same person.

Q:
And the surname of his children was RIEHL ?

A:
Yes, in the early entries, e.g. pages 17 and 18, Mattheiss' children are named "Riehl". But in later entries, roughly after 1680, they are named "Riegel".

Q:
In your Genealogy of the Riegel family in Becherbach you say that Johann Jacob (1.4.3) is the same person as Hanß Jacob (born 1670), while other researchers identified him with Johann Jacob (1.7.1, born 1680). Why ?

A:
On page 186 we read that Johann Jacob was married on 21 Jun 1695. The Johann Jacob 1.7.1 was only 14 years then, unusually young for a marriage in Becherbach that time. It would match much better to Hanß Jacob 1.4.3 who was 25 years. Because "Hanß" is the short form of "Johann", we can well identify Johann Jacob of page 186 with Hanß Jacob 1.4.3. This is confirmed by page 199, where we read that Johann Jacob was 15 years on Easter 1685, which is true for Hanß Jacob 1.4.3, but not for Johann Jacob 1.7.1.