Posted By:Van
Subject:Re: Van Curen are we being flim flamd
Post Date:August 07, 2001 at 21:05:37
Message URL:
Forum:Vansickle Family Genealogy Forum
Forum URL:

Sorry, Eddy. The exact spelling issue is something that exists only in your mind. Experienced and knowledgeable genealogists will always laugh at your ridiculous arguments, because they know full well that spelling variations in old records were commonplace. That IS the point I was trying to make. And you are the only one that doesn't seem to understand so simple a concept. If you had ever done any actual research, you would never have asked such a dumb question. have a marriage record for "Maria Van Siclen", spelled exactly. I say you are lying and insist you prove it. Of course, everyone who has a copy of the DAR application already knows that the name SPELLED EXACTLY in the certified marriage record is "Maria Van Siclin". Oops...did you forget that. And that same certification, where it addresses ownership of the bible...says her maiden name was "Van Sicklin". In fact, in the certified Bible records, Maria is NEVER referred to by the exact spelling of "VAN SICLEN". So, if I falsified the name, then so did you. Oh, I see...spelling variations may be interpreted and changed by you, and that is OK. But noone else is allowed. The certified bible entries and affadavits contain more than one spelling of the name, so you have NO proof that VAN SICLEN is the one and only acceptable spelling. In reality, her father has been recorded as "Van Siclen", and also as "Van Sicklen", and most commonly as "Van Sicklin". Most of his descendants today use Van Sicklin, which was, by the way, the EXACT SPELLING certified by L R Larsen as her maiden name in the certified Bible entries. The records exist, references have been the research.

If you look back in this thread, you will see Richard McCool's impression of your Nonsense. Sorry, but he doesn't support your family folklore genealogy. Richard is a thorough genealogist, who meticulously sources his work.

Fact: Maria, wife of Luther Calvin Eastling, was the daughter of Cornelius Van Sicklen(aka Van Sicklin) and Hannah Lawson(aka Hannah Lossing, aka Annetje Lassing, aka Annetje Lassen, etc). Real research and real evidence have proven same. You need to wake and realize that there is a reason why you can't find so much as one piece of paper to support the DAR fantasy....and the reason is that the people identified in the DAR app and wit: Cornelius Van SICLEN and Catharine Johnson of Quebec...never existed. Sorry, but all of that bit of fiction still originated with Violet Voorhees marriage license mistake...Ferdinand and Fanny simply repeated the mistake, nothing more. Of course, Eddy has a parachute. He will insist that Canadian records don't exist, and that is why he can't find anything. However, those of us who have spent a great deal of time in Canadian research know that to be false. Eddy's parachute failed to open, once again.

I have nothing to prove, as I have already proved the line. You, Eddy, on the other hand, have everything to prove, since you have never presented a single original source document to establish the DAR fantasy as anything other than unsubstantiated family folklore. You are really getting boring with your exact spelling noise. You can't even substantiate that ridiculous claim. Read the contents of the DAR application again. 27 times the surname appears....but it is spelled exactly "Van Siclen" only 9 times. Count them yourself. And you call that conclusive. And the affadavits do NOT confirm the exact spelling, as you claim. If anything, they raise serious doubts about it. Fanny, in her affadavit, said she was the "daughter of Luther Calvin Eastling and Maria Van Siclen or Sickle". And how does that confirm it? Her own daughter wasn't sure...she used the word "OR", showing she wasn't sure, so how can you be?

To everyone else who reads this, I apologize. Dealing with a child can be exasperating. Anyone who is truly interested in the Van Sicklen/Eastling line(I choose the "Van Sicklen" spelling, because that is the spelling found on Maria's baptism record, noting that noone, especially Ed, knows for sure how Maria preferred to spell it) can e-mail off message board at:, and I will gladly provide the necessary references to prove Maria's parentage. This useless rhetoric serves no useful purpose and provides no additional information. It is my suggestion that Mr Gusman cease addressing the message board until he at least has 19th century Canadian records which will establish some credibility for his far-fetched fantasy.