|Subject:||Re: Van Curen are we being flim flamd|
|Post Date:||June 22, 2001 at 17:29:26|
|Forum:||Vansickle Family Genealogy Forum|
If you are asking if I personally have the marriage record, the answer is no. I am still looking through Canadian Archive microfilms in search of same, because I want to be able to prove the date, regardless of what it is. But then...Mr Gusman doesn't have the marriage record either. He has a Notary's certification of a Bible entry. I have that too, and it does NOT, repeat NOT establish a Van Siclen/Eastling marriage(see below)....To the 1814/1824 question I again refer to the Notary's comment on the death date of Maria's father as being "Too indistinct to read". I submit that he had similar trouble reading the marriage date. I have never questioned the authenticity of the Bible record, simply the readability, and I challenge the 1814 date based on A. Maria was 12 years old, and B. her first known child was born in 1825. Since this is Mr Gusman's direct line, perhaps he can get copies of the actual Bible entry, and we can all know what the entries really say, or how illegible they are. I have never implied that Mr Gusman falsified the certification. If anything, he places too much emphasis on the Notary's attempt to read nearly unreadable dates, and not enough emphasis on trying to locate source documents. I ask that you make a specific reference to a post where I suggested that he falsified anything, as I don't recall doing any such thing.
If you are trying to suggest that Maria Van Siclen and Maria Van Sicklen are 2 different people, simply because of the absence/presence of a "k" in the name, the argument isn't valid. We are talking about 1 person, regardless of how you choose to spell it. That is one topic that will be addressed in the website I am creating on this controversy, and I will use entries from the 76 Church books I have in my possession to illustrate how common spelling variations were, as well as prove that Lawson and Lossing are the same family. The Church, land, and other records DO, in fact, prove that Cornelius and Hannah's daughter married Luther Eastling. The verification of the Key dates/names and other paralell data sufficiently establishes which
Maria Van Sic(k)len married Luther Eastling, regardless how you choose to spell her name. On the "VAN SICLEN exact spelling, Cornelius Van Sicklen of Murray, as discussed already...his father appears on the Revolutionary muster rolls of the Dutchess 4th Militia as Ferdinand Van Siclen.(source: "New York in the Revolution as Colony and State, Vol 1, The Miltia", page 245) There you have the preferred spelling, in the direct line. Again on the topic of the preferred spelling, Van Siclen, I note once again that out of 24 appearances of the surname within the documents of the DAR file, including the affadavits, the exact spelling "VAN SICLEN" only appeared 9 times. So how do you know that is the right spelling and that no other can be considered? The affadavits are used by Mr Gusman as proof of the exact spelling, so I refer you to the affadavit of Fanny Kelly, daughter of Luther and Maria. She said, and I quote EXACTLY: "am the daughter of Luther Calvin Eastling and Maria Van SICLEN or SICKLE". Does that sound like a sure thing to you?. Next Line, exactly: "My mother was the daughter of Cornelius Van SICLEN or SICLE". Perhaps you can explain to me how we arrive the exact spelling of "Van Siclen", considering Maria's own daughter isn't even sure. Now, how about the certification of the Bible entries by the Notary. Much fuss has been made of those as proof of the exact spelling of VAN SICLEN. I quote EXACTLY as written by the Notary: "the family Bible of Luther Calvin Eastling and Maria, his wife, whose maiden name is VAN SICKLIN". The land owned by Maria's real father, in Murray, Ontario, is titled under the EXACT surname "VAN SICKLIN", and that is the exact same spelling found in the Notary's certification. So, again I ask...how do you come up with VAN SICLEN as the ONLY correct spelling? Throughout the contents of the application, including the affadavits, I see the following spellings:
So...which is right? How can you tell? I know, lets use the surname from the certified marriage record that has received so much attention of late. You say Mr Gusman has provided a marriage record for Maria Van Siclen, so let's take a look. This is an EXACT quote, so pay attention to the spelling of Maria's name:
"...that subsequent entries among many others in said family bible are the following "Luther & Maria Van Siclin Eastling was mared July 22nd, 1814"
That is exactly as written...not even grammar errors were edited out. If Mr Gusman claims that this is a marriage record for Maria Van SICLEN(spelled exactly), then I will now say that he falsified the record. According to the notary's certification, Maria's name is spelled with 2 "i"s, and no "e"s. I didn't do that....the Notary spelled it exactly that way, most likely because that was how it was spelled in the bible. He seemed to have made an effort to write exactly what he read, even the grammatical errors. There is no doubt that the name is spelled "VAN SICLIN" in the Bible marriage record, certified by L A Larson, Notary Public. If the immediate family in 1906 and 1907 can't get together on the exact spelling, how can Mr Gusman and yourself be so sure of it? So much for Van Siclen being the preferred spelling. The only documents in Mr Gusman' possession prove that exact spelling is not a valid argument. But, don't take my word for it. Obtain a copy of the application and affadavits from the DAR, and read them for yourself.
And I didn't dance around the marriage issue. While I can't prove exactly when they were married, or where, I have proved which Maria married Luther Eastling. It would be nice to know the fine details, but there is far more to proving ancestry than simply presenting a marriage record, or pulling unsubstantiated data out of a DAR file.