Big changes have come to — all content is now read-only, and member subscriptions and the Shop have been discontinued.
Learn more

Chat | Daily Search | My GenForum | Community Standards | Terms of Service
Jump to Forum
Home: Surnames: VanSickle Family Genealogy Forum

Post FollowupReturn to Message ListingsPrint Message

Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisited”
Posted by: Douglas Van Curen (ID *****7681) Date: October 07, 2002 at 21:04:55
In Reply to: Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisited” by legacy of 1585

Eddy is such a die hard. Such a devoted Non-Researcher. So much time he has wasted clinging to a long dead DAR fantasy. Time that could have been better spent do real research. I wonder if anyone besides Eddy still believes in the DAR error claiming that Maria VS Eastling was the daughter of Cornelius Van Siclen and Catharine Johnson. So who was Maria Van Siclen Eastling's father? Cornelius Van Siclen, of course. Spelled exactly that way, on his tombstone. He died Mar 19, 1850, and is buried in the little family cemetery in Brighton Ontario Canada. So Eddy is half right. Maria was the daughter of Cornelius. So who was Maria's mother? Over the course of her life, her mother was recorded under a number of different name variations, but whether you call her Annatje Lassen, Annetje Lasson, Annetje Lassing, or Hannah Lawson...she is definitely Maria's mother. Maria's baptismal record at the Fishkill Dutch Reformed Church provides an indisputable date match to the Eatling Bible. Add to that the date match for the Death of Cornelius in the Eastling bible to the cemetery record in Brighton. And what of the deponents in the DAR record. One of them, son of Maria, was named Ferdinand. Cornelius of Brighton...father of Fishkill Maria....had a son named Ferdinand, and was, himself, the son of a Ferdinand. Imagine that, Maria named a son after either her brother or grandfather. And these are just a few of a long list of "coincidences". The coincidences are too numerous to be just coincidences. Sorry Eddy, the claim that Catharine Johnson was Maria's mother was nothing more than Violet Voorhees error. The fact that it appears in the affadavits merely means that the deponents repeated Violet's error. There is still not one shred of REAL evidence to support the Catharine Johnson fantasy, and there never will be...because it didn't happen. The line is proven...Maria Van Siclen Eastling was d.o. Cornelius Van Siclen and Hannah Lawson of Brighton, Ontario. And Cornelius did not serve in the Revolution, because he was born in 1775. The DAR application and it's affadavits are simply and obviously in error. Nothing else needs to be said about them.

Notify Administrator about this message?

Post FollowupReturn to Message ListingsPrint Message
Search this forum:

Search all of GenForum:

Proximity matching
Add this forum to My GenForum Link to GenForum
Add Forum
Home |  Help |  About Us |  Site Index |  Jobs |  PRIVACY |  Affiliate
© 2007 The Generations Network