Starting Sept. 30, 2014, Genealogy.com will be making a big change. GenForum message boards, Family Tree Maker homepages, and the most popular articles will be preserved in a read-only format, while several other features will no longer be available, including member subscriptions and the Shop.
 
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: Ed Gusman (ID *****7908) Date: December 04, 2002 at 15:12:09
In Reply to: Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisited” by D G Van Curen of 1585

Nov 7 2002 Douglas Van Curen e-mailed Nov 7 2002

I have read your posting of : November 28, 2002 at 10:10:40. In fact quite carefully. It contains nothing that proves that there is an error in the affidavits. You cannot prove errors exist in the affidavits by showing a lineage from the Brighton Cemetery Van Siclen to Ferdinandus Van Syckling. None of the references you provide are evidence of a single error in the affidavits.

I am somewhat impressed by the effort you put into drafting this post. Unfortunately it contains nothing that provides a link between the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen and his father or mother. It does not provide proof that Catherine Johnson was not the grandmother of the deponents as you allege and first wife of the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen. It does not provide evidence that the Cornelius Van Siclen was not a Revolutionary Veteran. Not being able to find official records proving his revolutionary service does not prove that he did not serve. The absence of official records proves only that the records have not been found and does not prove that there is no record of service or that he did not serve. The record of his service is in the affidavits.

What you have done is allege to show the lineage of the Brighton Cemetery Van Siclen. You can’t even do that without using an aka to get from Cornelius Van Sicklen born 1775 to the Brighton Cemetery Cornelius Van Siclen. Why if he had been a Van Sicklen most of his life would he have been buried under Van Siclen engraved stone. The Brighton Cemetery Van Siclen is not the same person as the affidavit Van Siclen. What would your reaction be if someone reviewing the cemetery records or walking the graves would discover a Cornelius Van Sicklen with a wife who’s first name initial was A. or H. ? I know the discovery of the Brighton Van Siclen really rattled you…………

Doug wrote – 6: Cornelius, b. 1775, m. Annetje Lawson Jul 8, 1795, Fishkill, New York. They had 7 children, including Maria b. Sep 15, 1801, Fishkill, New York. This is the point that Ed goes into his "exact spelling" tyrade. He would have us believe that Cornelius Van Sicklen married to Annetje Lawson in Fishkill in 1795; Cornelius Van Sicklen and Hannah Lossing parents of Maria born Fishkill Sep 15, 1801, and baptised at the Fishkill DRC; and Cornelius Van Siclen and Hannah Lawson buried in Brighton in 1850(who just happened to have the exact same birth dates as the couple from Fishkill and are buried with a son Ferdinand, who also has the exact same birthdate as the Fishkill couple's son Ferdinand) are, in fact, 3 distinctly different couples.

Cornelius Van Siclen and Hannah Lawson
Cornelius Van Sicklen married to Annetje Lawson
Cornelius Van Sicklen and Hannah Lossing

You allege that Hannah Lawson, Annetje Lawson and Hannah Lossing are all one and the same person. If that is true then Hannah Lossing using aka became Annetje Lawson using aka became Hannah Lawson. I will accept that Hannah Lawson and Annetje Lawson can be one and the same person.

In your Van Sicklen genealogy you have under Generation No 3 the following.:

8. Cornelius Van Sicklin was born September 04 1775 in Poughkeepsie, NY, and died March 19 1850 in Brighton, Canada. He married Annatje Lawson July 08, 1795 in Fishkill, New York, DAUGHTER OF SIMEON LAWSON AND MARGRIET VAN KEUREN……

Note the words – ANNETJE LAWSON…….DAUGHTER OF SIMEON LAWSON AND MARGRIET VAN KEUREN

Question – If Annetje Lawson is the daughter of Simeon Lawson and Margriet Van Keuren, that means that Aannetje Lawson had her Lawson maiden name from birth by birth parents named Simeon Lawson and Margriet Van Keuren.

If Annetje Lawson was a Lawson by and from her birth with a birth father named Simeon Lawson, then how and in what year did Hannah Lossing become Annetje Lawson?
If Hannah Lossing and Annetje Lawson are one and the same person as you allege them to be, then the birth parents of Hannah Lossing have to be without exception Simeon Lawson and Margriet Van Keuren. If that is the case then why isn’t Hannah Lossing recorded as Hannah Lawson on the 1801 Fishkill baptismal record?

If the birth parents of Hannah Lossing are not the same as those of Annetje Lawson – you loose your entire house of cards.

The birth father of Annette Lawson being named as Simeon Lawson leaves no room for you to force feed with aka’s Hannah Lossing into the Simeon Lawson family.

Until such a time as you come up with irrefutable proof that Annetje Lawson was not born to Simeon Lawson and Margriet Van Keuren, or absolute proof that the parents of Hannah Lossing are Simeon Lawson and Margriet Van Keuren, it looks to me at this point in time that you may have permanently lost your Maria Van Sicklen born Sept 15 1801 to Hannah Lossing. With Hannah Lossing goes her Maria Van Siclen born Sept 15 1801 and your connection to the Brighton Cemetery Cornelius Van Siclen and Annetje/Hannah Lawson. I would guess that only the birth parents of Hannah Lossing will resolve the problem.

If you loose Hannah Lossing, you loose her daughter Maria, you have no one to plug into the hole left by your Maria born Sept 15 1801. For myself it makes no difference which way the outcome ends. Either way has no effect on the affidavit Maria Van Siclen.

Question that needs an answer – If Simeon Lawson and Margriet Van Keuren are the birth parents of Annetje/Hannah Lawson who were the birth parents of Hannah Lossing appearing in the Fishkill 1801 baptismal record?????????

You recall perhaps a year more or less ago I said that the maiden name of a women is always the same as her father. I followed that by asking you how you can justify using aks’s for changing a women’s maiden name without changing the surname of the women’s father.

I am betting that Hannah Lossing will have a father named Lossing.

Ed


Notify Administrator about this message?
Followups:

Post FollowupReturn to Message ListingsPrint Message

http://genforum.genealogy.com/vansickle/messages/973.html
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