Thank you Eddy. By enumerating the spelling variations found in the DAR app, the Bible certifications, and the affadavits, you have, yourself, proven that you have nothing to substantiate your exact spelling claim. You simply picked the one that looked best to you and declared that to be the one true name. One thing you have never done is offer anything that would prove your exact spelling fantasy to be anything more than an overactive imagination. Get real...counting the spelling variations and declaring one over all others to be the right one because it was the one used the most. You will never find a qualified/experienced genealogist that will buy that nonsense. And you assume that everything in the Bible was written by Maria, yet you have no proof of who wrote the entries or even when they were written, or even that the marriage date was not misread. If the bible can be found, I am confident it will prove that the notary misread the date. All other known records so indicate.
Historical documents...you keep referring to them, and I find that odd...since you don't have any. Since the discussion is about Maria's ancestry, where are your original source documents for this family? A historical document is one that records an event of the principles at the time in question....i.e.: an 1850 death certificate recording the death of someone in 1850 is a historical document. Affadavits written in 1907 are NOT historical documents for events that occurred during the Revolution, early 1800s, or even 1850. You have only family folklore based on serious research errors. These are not Historical documents, and I don't include them as evidence in any of my work because:
1. They are riddled with obvious errors
2. Nothing in them, except Maria's birth date and father Van Sic(k)len's death date, can be verified.
I can't falsify a record that doesn't exist. While you do have statements made by family members who are relating what they "think" or "remember" happened, you have no actual documents establishing the acuracy or credibility of those statements. Despite what you claim, you do NOT have a marriage record...you have only a certification of a bible entry, that may, realistically, have been misread. Anyone who looks seriously at the known facts will have a problem with an 1814 marriage date. People do make mistakes...even in notarized documents...and this is clearly one.
Van Sicklen to Van Sicklin. You say there is no connection. I say when the owner of lot B-29, Murray is recorded on the land deed as Cornelius Van Sicklin, and found in the 1841 census as Cornelius Van Sicklin, but buried in the adjoining family cemetery as Cornelius Van Sicklen, and the name on the adjoining cemetery is Van Sicklen, and he was baptised Van Sicklen, then there most certainly is a connection. While the average person would have clearly understood the point(spelling) made, such is over your head because of your exact spelling fixation. While the exact spelling of surnames is considered important in 2001, it was relatively unimportant in 1800.
Van Siclen is a derivation of Van Sicklen. All who are recorded as Van Siclen descend from someone who used Van Sicklen. You really should spend some time with Long Island baptism records. It really doesn't matter whether the exact spelling "Van Sicklen" appears in the documents, or not. Regardless of how they may have spelled the family name in their lifetime, it was still a derivation of Van Sicklen.
I correspond with Richard McCool on occassion. I don't know him personally, but I know his work. His research is solid...enough said. If you wish to see his comments, follow the Van Sickle Forum thread back. He made several. Where were you?
The location of "Father Van Siclen"'s death was not in the Bible entries. There is absolutely nothing in the bible entries which would establish that Maria could not be the daughter of Cornelius Van Sicklen of Murray. On the other hand, "REAL" records from Canada and New York, recording "REAL" events, prove that she was. Keep the "REAL" records and the bible entries as source documents, and put everything else, especially the affadavits, in the "Fiction" section where they belong.
Final point: Ed Gusman continues to wave the 1906 and 1907 documents as if they were the only truth in the universe. How odd that he cannot produce even one document dated before 1900 which supports the claims made in those documents. Of course, he never will find supporting documents, as the 1906/1907 docs are mostly fiction. The "REAL" documents identifying the "REAL" Lineage of Maria VAN SICKLEN Eastling are referenced in my work, and easily attainable.
I am in no way concerned over your tantrums, name calling, or false logic. Until you can produce some records to go with your fantasy, noone will take you seriously.
|Home | Help | About Us | Site Index | Jobs | PRIVACY | Affiliate|
|© 2007 The Generations Network|