What point are you trying to make when you say - "A note on Johannes VAN SICLEN who married Geertie Lott............his name was recorded EXACTLY "Van Sighele".
You, Van Curen, created the issue of "exact spelling" when you falsified the Van Siclen spelling into Van Sicklen. I have always used the spelling of Van Siclen as found in the Certified Bible entry, confirmed 97 years later by the affidavits.
Bear in mind that it was you who created a reason to alter the "Van Siclen" spelling into "Van Sicklen", not I. If you hadn't falsified the spelling you would not now find yourself in the embarrasment of admitting that you don't have a record of the marriage of Maria Van Sicklen to Luther C. Eastling. Whereas I do have a certified copy of a record of the marriage of Maria Van Siclen to Luther C. Eastling written by Maria Van Siclen herself.
If you want to argue about the deriviation of "Van Siclen" from "Van Sighele" then argue with whoever posted the sources of Van Siclen.
Why don't you ask Richard McCool yourself what he believes about the deriviation of "Van Siclen from Van Sighele". Richard McCool has an ancestor who carried the surname of Van Siclen - surely you know that!
When and where would you suspect the Van Siclen name and exact spelling originated? There is also a cemetery of Van Siclens in NY. Today there are Van Siclen's scattered throughout the U.S. Perhaps someone knows the source for the first Van Siclen, perhaps not. None of that is relative to or justifies your falsification of Van Siclen into Van Sicklen and my insistance that the spelling of Van Siclen should always be as recorded in the Certified Bible entry of Maria Van Siclen.
Maria Van Siclen spelled her maiden name and her father's surname as Van Siclen. I make no apology for using and insisting on the exact spelling of Van Siclen when referring to Maria and her father. Without conclusive evidence showing a spelling other than Van Siclen, only a misdirected person, such as yourself, would spell Van Siclen any other way except the spelling used by Maria Van Siclen herself.
I know of no legitimate reason why you, Van Curen, chose to alter the exact spelling of Van Siclen by falsifying it into Van Sicklen.
Once I again I ask you to provide conclusive evidence that the Certified Maria Bible entry spelling of Van Siclen is incorrect! You, Van Curen quote - "Source: Flatbush Dutch Reformed Church, page 99, Dec 2, 1743."
My answer to that less that relative nonesense is - So what! - your source doesn't prove that Van Siclen should be spelled Van Sicklen or even that Van Siclen should be spelled Van Siclen. Your source proves only that the person referred to spelled his name as "Van Sighele" - absolutely nothing else. Your quoted source doesn't note or even imply what the descendents of "Van Sighele" used for a surname.
Where does it state that the father of Maria Van Siclen could not have descended from a "Van Sighele" as well as one of the other "Van whatever's". For that matter where does it state that the father of Maria Van Siclen did not derive the name Van Siclen from a "Van name" his father had and so begin a third or fourth Van Siclen line through brothers of Maria Van Siclen.
Try again Van Curen, you proved nothing with this one. Again I ask you what was your point!
|Home | Help | About Us | Site Index | Jobs | PRIVACY | Affiliate|
|© 2007 The Generations Network|