|Posted By:||Walt Stander|
|Subject:||Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisited”|
|Post Date:||June 23, 2003 at 07:29:54|
|Forum:||Vansickle Family Genealogy Forum|
Having followed silently through the several years concerning this 'raging topic', I now feel the need (as a novice) to comment on your last statement.
As I have followed this 'Catherine Johnson' statement, I read Mr. Van Curen's notation of her as that she did exist as Cornelius van Sic(k)len's SECOND wife. He never stated that she was 'created' by Violetta or others.
As to Leon W. Eastling's remembrances, I submit that he may have been simply using the preferred naming/status of Catherine in much the same way that I called my step-grandmother 'grandmother' out of respect and love. In my family, on my mother's side, my aunts tried to promulgate many genealogical connections that were merely lore and not fact, so I tend to hold all such family lores and remembrances with some suspicion.
As to the other claims and arguements, I cannot venture as to which is the truth. Again, I am but a novice in these things; I merely wished to clarify what I know that I have read.
(grandson of Evangeline Wheeler van Sicklen)