Dec.6 to Richard and Doug - My responses to some new allegations against the deponents & affidavits.
My responses are preceded by the word Gusman - Paragraphs not preceded by Gusman - were taken from this and earlier posts by Richard McCool.
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Posted by: Richard Alan McCool (ID *****7472) Date: November 26, 2002 at 09:12:20
In Reply to: Maria Van Siclen Bible by legacy of 4
Again speaking only for myself, I cannot wait!
...But, hope for a direct, not meandering, reply. Whatever faux pas I may make as I try to get you to focus on something other than your fixations, are of course regretted. Unlike some persons we know, I hope to be corrected where that is necessary.
Gusman - You don’t have a prayer of redirecting “my fixations” toward anything except the un-provable allegations which you and your buddy continue to heap on the affidavits and the deponents. For instance let us look at those in your quoted paragraph 3 immediately following. An excellent example of how you place words and thoughts never written by the deponents into the minds of those people dead 76-78 years and somewhat less for Violetta. The errors you appear to have made in Paragraph 3 have the appearance of being intentionally created to mislead readers against the real contents of the affidavits. Perhaps I am in error about an “intentional” distortion of the affidavits by yourself - in which case my apology for writing “intentional“. Your allegations still require challenging. I am including one affidavit - Fanny’s. The affidavit of Ferdinand is nearly identical in content.
Gusman - Richard has stated that the deponents may have been confused. I must ask - confused about what?
The deponent did not and could not have confused Richard’s Cornelius I and Cornelius II with their grandfather Cornelius Van Siclen. For the deponents there was no one outside or inside their family named Van (Anything) except for the grandfather of the deponents who was indeed a Van Siclen. Consequently there were no Van (whatevers) with whom they could have confused their affidavit grandfather or grandmother Catherine Johnson, his first wife. Richard, it is you, who is confused because you cannot bring yourself to accept the truths contained in the affidavits.
Gusman - Richard wrote - “…if indeed this is what they really said. We don't know why at this late date, but speaking for myself, and perhaps for Doug, the feeling is that they either were confused themselves, or by Violetta's mistake, or that the affidavit transcriber took down their words wrong.” Ahhh yes - both Doug and Richard always portray the deponents as either confused, forgetful, hazy memories or it is the notary who “wrote the words incorrectly”. The deponents knew exactly that what they were testifying too was the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It is Doug and Richard, ruled by their prejudices against affidavits and not by their good sense, who are the confused people.
Gusman - The deponents did not write about the Cornelius Van Sickelens’ appearing in Waddell. They were not confused about anything - lest of all about who their grandparents Cornelius Van Siclen and Catherine Johnson were. What reason would there have been for the deponents to have been confused when the only Van Siclen they knew was the Cornelius Van Siclen who was their grandfather.
Gusman- Violetta’s mistake was entering on her DAR application the name Cornelius Van Sickle as her Revolutionary veteran - an error on her part because Violetta, at age 51, after hearing all of her life that she had great grandfather who had been a Revolutionary veteran, did not seek from her mother Fanny the correct name of Violetta’s Revolutionary veteran before entering Cornelius Van Sickle in her DAR application. I don’t know from where Violetta picked up the Van Sickle name but probably entered it because in 1906 it had come into vogue in her generation of Eastling descendents. I do know she did not get it from her mother, deponent Fanny, who knew that the real name of her grandfather was Van Siclen. It is worth noting that Violetta did not enter as her veteran the name Cornelius Van Sicklen on her DAR application. It was the deponents who eight months later corrected, with their affidavits, the unintentional error created by Violetta when she entered Van Sickle. An error Violetta could easily have avoided if she had discussed with her mother Fanny, Violetta’s plan to join the DAR prior to completing her application. Fanny would have told Violetta that her Revolutionary veteran was not a Van Sickle but was a Van Siclen.
Gusman - Richard appears to be intentionally creating a scenario for the deponents consisting of confusion, mistakes and a transcriber’s error. Richard’s scenario is not based on the facts contained in the deponent’s affidavits. Richard appears to want to create the scenario of deponent debilitation in order to influence readers, into believing that the deponents were incapable of determining the accuracy of their testimony and possessed little in the way of self determination to control their own destinies, thereby making them an easy mark for Violetta’s influence over them. If you believe Richard, then the deponents would have been too debilitated to know the name of their grandmother Catherine Johnson, too debilitated to know that Catherine was the first wife of her husband, Cornelius Van Siclen, too debilitated to read their affidavits prior to signing them, too debilitated to know if their grandfather had served in the Revolution and they were so deficient in character and honor that they would permit Fanny’s daughter Violetta to influence them into perjuring themselves by creating a fictitious Catherine Johnson.
Gusman - If you, the readers, are willing to believe such nonsense then I wish you well as you join Robin Richard’s and Friar Doug’s merry band of archers as they roam the fantasy land of Sherwood Forest shooting arrows of blunted allegations that never hit their marks.
Gusman - As to Richard’s statement - “affidavit transcriber took down their words wrong”. Richard, are you so naive that you believe and expect the readers to believe that the deponents would not first read what had been written by the “affidavit transcriber”. Having taken an oath to tell the truth, it need not be said, but for your personal enlightenment I will so say. The deponents would have very carefully read their affidavits and only after they were absolutely certain that what was written was precisely what they had sworn to state (the exact truth), would the deponents then sign their affidavits.
Gusman - A major faux pas by Richard McCool - Witness the following: Posted by: Richard Alan McCool (ID *****7472) Date: November 24, 2002 at 10:17:35
Richard - “7. Doug had told you of precise records he has found of the births or baptisms of some of the children mentioned in the Bible records. He has not said that there were not other children besides those for whom he found records. Again, you mistake proper genealogical research.”
Gusman - First - no records have been discovered to date for births or baptisms for any of the Luther and Maria children. Second - and I emphasize this, Doug has not found a single record of any type for even one of the Luther C. & Maria Van Siclen Eastling children. Where do you get the idea that Doug has discovered them?
Gusman - Douglas Van Curen received ALL OF HIS INFORMATION about the children of Luther and Maria Van Siclen from myself, including the names of seven of the 10 children referenced by Maria Van Siclen‘s Bible transcript. Doug has found no “precise” records for a single Eastling child referred to in the Bible Transcript.
Gusman - Doug has known since he received the affidavits that Maria Van Siclen gave birth to 10 children. Unless he has recently changed his personalized version of the Van Sicklen/Eastling genealogy, Doug at one time recorded only 7 children as born to Maria. He rationalized his intentional dropping of three children from the Eastling genealogy because he doesn’t know their names. Doug , arbitrarily and with no supporting documentation, changed Maria Van Siclen’s marriage date from 1814 to 1824 thereby making her an unwed mother three times over. He appears to have chosen 1824 because Maria’s first known named child Hiram was born in 1825. Doug could not accept the 11 year childless gap between Maria’s marriage at about age 12 years 10 months in 1814 so he “tampered” with Maria Van Siclen’s transcribed Bible entry by dating her marriage as 1824.
Gusman - Myself and other descendents of Eastling’s researching the Eastling lineage have now discovered the names of two additional children of Luther and Maria Van Siclen Eastling, leaving but one name out of the 10 Bible transcript names not known. The two names discovered were born in the 11 year unnamed children’s gap. I contributed very little to the discoveries of the two out of three missing children. The yeomen’s work was done by a lady in the U.S. a second lady in Canada and a Canadian researcher. Since that time a third lady in the U.S. has uncovered additional complementary data to the discovery. We now know their names, the names of their husbands or wives, their ages, the year they were born, where they were born, how many children they each had, the names and ages of their children etc.
Gusman - A competent researcher who is privy to information that a family had 10 children will record the children’s names that are known to him/her and show additional children known to have been born or died who’s names are not known in a manner suitable to the researcher. It matters not that the first names of the children are known.
Gusman - Another minor faux pas for Richard but nevertheless a faux pas - quoting from - Posted by: Richard Alan McCool (ID *****7472) Date: November 24, 2002 at 10:17:35
Richard - “4. Cornelius II died between 1805 and 1806, the dates of execution and probate of his will. He died in New York State. I did not say he died in 1850. You have said that. It is not true that he died in 1850. Cornelius II evidently died in 1850.”
Gusman – I believe you meant to write Cornelius I died between 1805 and 1806. I did not in any posting state that Cornelius I or Cornelius II died in 1850. What I have stated is what is written in the Maria Van Siclen Bible transcript as written by Maria - “father VAN SICLEN died March the ?? in 1850”. Father Van Siclen is Maria Van Siclen’s father - “Father Van Siclen” is neither Cornelius (I) or Cornelius (II) Van Sickelen in Waddell’s,. Father Van Siclen is not the Brighton Cemetery Cornelius Van Siclen. Note that the March date was not legible to the Notary and could have been any day between March 1 and 31. Doug has alleged that Father Van Siclen is the Van Siclen buried in Brighton Cemetery and does not for a moment hesitate to define the date of death as March 19 1850 for the death of “Father Van Siclen“ even though the Notary did not transcribe a date. He is wrong because father Van Siclen died at between the ages of 90-100 and is not the Brighton Cemetery Van Siclen. I have elected to select age 95 as his age at death in Quebec and he is certainly buried in Quebec although no evidence is available which will prove the province in which he is buried.
Posted by: Richard Alan McCool (ID *****7472) Date: November 24, 2002 at 10:17:35
Richard - 5. Cornelius II and his wife Hannah Lawson removed from New York State to Canada. Doug has laid this all out for you and it need not be repeated. He has alerted you to their burial place and the inscriptions on their graves stones. (Incidentally, it makes not the slightest difference exactly where they died. What matters is that they are buried where they are buried and that the dates on their stones reflect the dates gathered by Doug from the New York records. Lots of people die far from their final resting place.)
Gusman - What you wrote is without merit !- Cornelius II is not the affidavit Cornelius. What your buddy Doug has “laid out” are the records for a Cornelius (II) Van Siclen/Van Sickelen/Van Sicklen for which no linkage has been discovered that would connected him with the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen. The birth date of the Brighton Van Siclen (1775) is wrong for him to have been a Revolutionary Veteran and the name of his wife Annetje/Hannah Lawson is wrong to be the wife Catherine Johnson of the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen.
Richard wrote -I have to tell our readers at this point, should there be any readers at all, that my concerns and areas of expertise on the larger family revolve around the Long Island branches of our family.
Richard wrote -Ed's Canadian heritage and its origins are not part of my "area." Thus, I defer to the excellent cogitations of Doug Van Curen on these issues. It is, of course, foolish not to take advantage of the expertise each of us might offer.
Richard wrote -But, let there be no doubt that the trail of this branch of the family is defined by modern research and does not need the fixations of Mr. Gusman, who lost his "z" but not his zeal, to progress, forwards and backwards in the research.
Gusman - Sarcasm , Richard, does not become those who offer other readers of this forum to take advantage - “of the expertise each of us might offer“ - referring to Richard and Doug.
Richard - Any compiler of the Van Sic[k]le[n] family descending, as does Ed, from Ferdinandus^1 VS, and particularly those with Canadian and EASTLING roots (emphasis RAM, for the Eastling GenForum), should apply through this forum, or privately, to Mr. Van Curen or myself for further information on the family.
Gusman - I too would suggest that people interested in their progenitors of the Van Sic(k)le(n) persuasion contact who ever they believe has the correct information about their lineage - not myself - I know nothing more than what Waddell has written. However, if you are looking for a lineage connection with the parents of affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen, I suggest that you first review the affidavits and Bible transcript in detail and with care. You will discover, as I have presented on this forum, that there is no documented evidence in the affidavits for a connection with any lineage earlier than the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen. In other words the affidavits provide no leads for a connection with the unknown parents of the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen. I believe that the affidavit Van Siclen is a man who fell through the genealogical cracks. Waddel describes some of the descendents of Johannes as “of them no further trace”. Farther into this dialog I do some speculating of my own, however I caution the reader that my speculations are just that speculation not supported by proving evidence.
Gusman - Doug makes an excellent case for the lineage of the Brighton Cemetery Van Siclen. He must first provably discredit the affidavits before he can link the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen and Catherine Johnson to the Brighton Cemetery Van Siclen and the lineage he created for him.
Gusman - Doug and Richard fail to comprehend that merely alleging that something in the affidavits is not true is not equivalent to providing evidence for what they allege. For instance alleging that Catherine Johnson never lived is not evidence that the deponents didn’t know their grandmother. Doug and Richard must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Catherine Johnson never was born. Stating that Cornelius Van Siclen was not a Revolutionary Veteran because no records of his service have been found is not proving that he never served.
Richard - (In truth, Ed, your are not useful to this Forum, but, rather, obstructionist. Your self-proclaimed determination to remain ignorant of proper genealogical research, is not the least bit helpful to those who might prefer to do actual research. Please step aside (this in NOT an invitation to use still another alias). In the end, you will be proven right or wrong--unfortunately not by your efforts. Rather by those whose only vested interest is that of proper research. Before you go there, this does not mean that I think for a second that you are right. You are wrong. Consider this a pending Olive Branch for the time when you come around to accepting your real and proper heritage.)
Gusman - Now really Richard, how can you say that I am an “obstructionist“. “By golly” Richard , I do believe I detect an element of jealousy on your part in your preceding paragraph. Were it not for my unrelenting insistence and uncompromising attitude that the Bible transcript and the affidavits were correct with their exact spelling for Van Siclen, it is most unlikely that someone living in the Brighton, Quebec, Canada area would have taken the initiative to search the Brighton Cemetery records and Doug would still be attempting to prove that Maria Van Siclen was not Van Siclen but was MariaVan Sicklen. The stone in Brighton cemetery engraved with Van Siclen caught you and Doug on your blind side, Richard, right along with Doug.
Gusman - Curious - did whoever told Doug about the Brighton Cemetery Van Siclen happen to include the first name or initial of the Brighton Cemetery Cornelius’s wife. Would it be A. or H; or how about Annetje or Hannah. You understand that Doug has only told me that the Van Siclen name is on the Cemetery Stone, he has not revealed by photo or hand tracing what is engraved there for the wife of the Brighton Cemetery Cornelius Van Siclen.
Gusman - Richard stated above - “Rather by those whose only vested interest is that of proper research. Before you go there, this does not mean that I think for a second that you are right. You are wrong. Consider this a pending Olive Branch for the time when you come around to accepting your real and proper heritage.”
Gusman - Appreciate you pending offer of an Olive Branch but it will not be accepted. I know the affidavits are correct.
Gusman- On what do you base you allegation that I have not conducted “proper research” as opposed to what you perceive as proper research by Doug. I have done no research into the Van Siclen lineage. I accept that the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen is the end of my ancestral Van Siclen lineage. Huge expenditures of money and/or effort for the limited data which may or may not be found simply cannot be justified. Who his progenitors are would be interesting but is of negligible importance to myself.
Gusman -If Richard chooses to allege that I am an obstructionist because I support the affidavits, which refute the unproven allegations presented by Richard and Doug, Richard is certainly free to continue doing so.
Posted by: Richard Alan McCool (ID *****7472) Date: November 24, 2002 at 10:17:35
Richard - “1. There is no secret. Doug has laid out your proper ancestry. It does not require any affidavits to do this. It requires genealogical research. This has been done for you.”
Gusman - Wrong! Doug has laid out nothing that connects the affidavit Van Siclen with any lineage. A connection with any lineage exists only in the imagination of Richard and Doug.
Gusman - A surname in itself is not conclusive stand-alone evidence that the specific affidavit Van Siclen descended from the lineage Richard and Doug has defined. The affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen name, standing unconnected as it does without a clue about parentage, cannot arbitrarily be linked by Richard or Doug to any speculated lineage until additional evidence is first discovered.
Gusman - If Richard and Doug can provide irrefutable evidence that a single error is contained within the affidavits, I will give up my defense of the affidavits. In other words - either prove up or be quiet and accept as fact the truth of the testimony contained within the affidavits.
Gusman - Personal speculations based on nothing factual - “Waddell page 82 Third Generation Family No. IX 10. Ferdinand Van Sickelen……..VI Johannes, born November 25 1722, who married, (November 17 1743,) Gertie Lott, (and had issue: Maria, baptized December 15 1751; Elsie, baptized December 5, 1753, who probably died young; Abraham, baptized July 19, 1756; and Elsie, baptized July 22 1764, and of them no further trace) and is supposed to have died January 26, 1805; and from him is descended the New Lott Van Siclens; VII Arie or Aaron born March 30, 1724 who married Maria Laan, (and had two children baptized in the Dutch Reformed Church of Readington, New Jersey; namely, a daughter, Maria, who was baptized, January 28 1753; and a son, Abraham, who was baptized September 30 1755--no further trace); VIII………
Gusman -Take careful note Richard and Doug that Waddell states above: “Abraham baptized July 19, 1756.…and of them no further trace.” “Then a second time for an Abraham baptized Sept 30 1755 “...no further trace.”
Gusman - I emphasize that no conclusive linkage of the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen with the lineage of Ferdinand Van Sickelen or his son Johannes can be proven. It as though the affidavit names Cornelius Van Sicklen and Catherine Johnson appeared out of no where. Doug’s and Richard’s difficulty with the affidavits is their inability to comprehend that there was a Cornelius Van Siclen and Catherine Johnson family with a child or children about which they had never heard and knew nothing. Their egotism prevents them from admitting that there are any Van Whoever’s in the U.S. or Canada about which they do not know.
Gusman - They ignored the obvious fact, backed up by Waddel, that there are many unrecorded Van’s who simply vanished because no records were made of their births or baptism. When Doug and Richard recover from their shock, as I hope they will eventually, hopefully they will comprehend that there are many Van Whatever descendents about which they know nothing and have never heard about.
Gusman - The progenitors of the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen and Catherine Johnson will be a family or families that fell through the historical cracks or children who were born, as an example, to Johannes, which were not, for whatever reason, recorded when born or baptized. It should not shock the Internet world if I make the suggestion that perhaps the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen was born to an unwed mother. Don’t be deceived, the morality and percentage of illegal births in the Colonies was just as high as it is today.
Gusman - Perhaps, rather than continue their misguided efforts to fit the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen and Catherine Johnson, into existing lineages known to Doug and Richard they would do themselves a favor by reviewing the affidavits and Bible transcript, and search for a couple matching the descriptions provided by the affidavits. As opposed to their unrelenting sarcasm and ridiculing of the descriptions of the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen and Catherine Johnson, along with the deponents who created the affidavits.
Gusman - The affidavits are correct with their descriptions of Cornelius Van Siclen and Catherine Johnson. When the two researchers finally understand that the deponents were describing people they had personally known, people who had no doubt fallen through the genealogical crack they should have no problem accepting the veracity of the affidavits. It isn’t that the affidavit descriptions are wrong, it is that the two researchers are attempting to force the described Cornelius Van Siclen and Catherine Johnson into the two researchers personal perception of where they should fit. They can’t find the proper hole so they revert to sarcasm, ridicule and reject the affidavits as fraudulent. Their lack of vision and comprehension combined with their inability to comprehend the significance of the descriptions, which are telling the two researchers to look for new and undiscovered lineages from any source is astounding, considering that they both describe themselves as expert genealogy researchers. It is unfortunate that the researchers, rather than look for new lineage sources, keep trying to shoot down the affidavits because they can’t fit Cornelius and Catherine Johnson into existing lineages.
Gusman - Their research techniques are equivalent to a child who can’t get a square peg (affidavits) into a round hole and then destroys the peg (affidavits) without looking for the square hole (a new lineage source). The correlation is not complementary but it exactly describes the research techniques of Richard and Doug..
Gusman -There were dozens of Catherine Johnsons’ in the Colonies and who is to say, with the Dutch propensity to use the identical names repeatedly for children, how many unrecorded Cornelius Van Siclens’ were born between 1750-1760. I am, however, certainly willing to admit that there may be an undiscovered linkage to the New Lott Van Siclens’ through Johannes born Nov. 25 1722. Perhaps so perhaps no, the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen could easily have been either Cornelius Abraham Van Siclen (Cornelius A.V. Siclen) born 1755 or Abraham Cornelius Van Siclen (Abraham C.V. Siclen) born 1756 or simply Abraham Van Siclin as recorded on the LDS Revolutionary veteran’s index - or none of the above. Recall Waddell‘s statement - “and of them no further trace“.. My allegations are pure and simple guesswork by myself - nothing more - fact is that although I propose it, I do not necessarily believe it - it is an option only. It would not be the first time middle names were either dropped or switched with usage of one name becoming predominate. My father used his middle name from his teen years until he was killed at 93. He had a first name but most people didn’t know it existed. It would not be the first time an illegitimate baby had ever been born and no record kept. It would not be the first time that a legitimate birth had occurred and whoever attended the birth or baptism neglected record the event. I have read birth certificates that were not filed by the attending Doctor until nearly a year had passed - How many do you think he lost?. Either of our two researchers care to make an estimate of how many Van Whatever children were never recorded as born or baptized by the midwives or physicians between 1750-1760? There is also room in the descendent list of Johannes for the unrecorded birth of the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen between 1750 and 1760 - notably between 1756 and 1760.
Gusman - My father was born in 1905 but no birth record was ever filed for his birth by either the midwife or physician in attendance - he had quite a time attempting to prove that he was born and in what year it occurred.. Because no birth record had been filed he didn’t know exactly how old he was until he retired at age 65. He couldn’t get his Social Security until he could prove his age. Turned out that after a huge amount of trouble and effort he eventually discovered that he was one year younger than he thought and had to pay a full year of Social Security payments before he was permitted to receive his Social Security.
Gusman - What is striking is that Waddell states that for both Abrahams (born 1755 & 1756) - “there is no further trace“. I would guess that “no further trace“ means they disappeared from historical records after their births in 1755/1756 just as there is no historical record connecting the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen with a father. So who is to say and prove that Cornelius Van Siclen was not born to Johannes between 1750-1760 and the records of his birth or baptism were never placed into a written record. I will repeat that which I posted a couple of previous times. The age of the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen based on the affidavits was estimated to be between 90 and 100 years. Using 95 as a reasonable estimated age places his birth in 1755 - exactly the correct time frame to have been born to Johannes and Gertie Lott and not recorded or to have been an illegitimate birth to some unwed mother and not recorded.
Gusman - About me providing evidence that affidavit Cornelius was a Revolutionary veteran - I have none and wouldn’t know where to find it unless he is one of the names in the LDS index with a variant spelling. And who is to say that L.D.S has all of the Revolutionary War records of all of the veterans who were in the Colonial Army, Navy, Marines during the war.
Posted by: Richard Alan McCool (ID *****7472) Date: November 20, 2002 at 21:56:11
“By the way, I am using the Van Siclen spelling here, but at various times the name was spelled several ways-just as it is today. Harping on this spelling business does not signify and is simply not a viable argument. This is nothing new to anyone who spends time among the actual records. “
Gusman - I “harp” about spelling because I believe there should be a paper trail to spelling variants. If a researcher encounters variations of spelling for what they believe to be the identical individual and the correct spelling cannot be determined where is the problem with recording both spellings in their genealogy or other documentation about that person. Suppose I had relented and excepted Doug’s version of Van Sicklen spelling for Maria Van Siclen and her father, - care to speculate about the Brighton Cemetery Van Siclen? Doug has accepted the Van Siclen spelling so forcefully that he even changed the name of Cornelius FV Sicklen in the Reform Fishkill baptismal record to read Van Siclen. If he did not then why is he now referring to the Maria Van Siclen in the affidavits and Bible transcript as Maria Van Siclen as opposed to Marie Van Sicklen.
Gusman - Then too, why do the two researchers deflate the importance of spelling and constantly ridicule my insistence on the correct spelling of affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen. Then when they are attempting to rationalize their failure to find a Revolutionary service record, they apply strict exact spelling standards for Cornelius Van Siclen name
End of response to Richard McCool Two additional dialogs will be posted after this one.
Gusman - From a professional European researcher. I would prefer to include his name as it should be included for his recognition. Because of Richard’s and Doug’s demonstrated propensity to ridicule anything they fail to understand, I will withhold the researcher’s name and take the risk of offending him rather than taking the chance of exposing him to ridicule of any type and for whatever reason. I hope the gentleman who wrote this will understand should he happen to visit this form.
Gusman – Dr. ( ) - name intentionally withheld to prevent exposure to ridicule by amateurs to the field of genealogy research.
The family-name Kruit appears in the Netherlands in several spellings. 'Classic' spelling modes were "Cruijt" or "Cruyt", but these have been altered in modern time (roughly since 1800) to "Kruijt" and "Kruyt", while the spellings "Kruit" and more rarely "Kruid" appear to be the most recent orthographic adaptations.
It is not the difference in spelling Cruijt versus Kruyt or Kruit. That bothers nobody, because the spellings of first and second names have been quite variable in the 19th century, and is dependant more on the authors. Although there were trends: Originally Cruyt or Cruijt, changed into Kruyt or Kruijt and the most modern spelling is Kruit. Spellings became more or less officially fixed early in the former century, when Napoleon introduced official public registration (to recruit more people for his armies)
In ordinary Dutch "Kruit" refers to 'gunpowder'; while "Kruid" means 'herb' or 'plant'. It appears unlikely, however, that these substances had anything to do with the origin of our family name.
The family name "Cruijt" originated in Flandres (Belgium) in the second half of the 14th century, as a corruption of "Croet" and "Cruut". The first person with this family name (as far as our knowledge goes) was JAN CROET, a citizen of Antwerp in 1336.[.....].
Within the country, now known as "The Netherlands" (or "Holland") the earliest record preserved of a member of the 'Kruit family' refers to CLAAS DIE CRUIJT, a citizen of Campen in 1386 (2).
(2) Burgerboek 1302-1469, fo.67v, 1386, Gemeentearchief Kampen [....].
Campen (today: Kampen) was an important ancient trade town, and member
of the Hanze trading League of cities.
Forced by religious persecution, but also stimulated by economic attraction, some of the Belgian Cruijt-people moved to Holland (Rotterdam and neighboring cities) around the year 1500; they are considered to be the forbears of several of the present-day Kruijt-, Kruit- and also certain Kruid-families in the Netherlands.
In the century thereafter, the Cruijts continued to migrate in Northern and Northeastern directions and have settled in several communities, where they became the ancestors of apparently independent Kruit-family trees or branches. The family-relations between many of these groups are still unknown because of the absence of reliable family records earlier than around the year 1600.
Gusman - Here is additional correspondence. This time about Eastling’s. From a professional British Isle’s researcher. I would prefer to include his name as it should be included for his recognition. Because of Richard’s and Doug’s demonstrated propensity to ridicule anything they fail to understand, I will withhold his name and take the risk of offending the researcher rather than taking the chance of exposing him to ridicule of any type and for whatever reason. I hope the gentleman who wrote this will understand should he happen to visit this form.
Dr. ( ) - name intentionally withheld to prevent exposure to ridicule.
About the origin of the Eastling name.
ESLING is probably the Original surname but a great number of variations have evolved over at least the last 500 years, namely
Eslinge, Esteling, Estelinge, Easling, Essling, Esterling, Easterling, Eastling, Eslin, Eslen, Easlin, Easlin, Easlen, Eastlea, Estlea, Easlea, Easley, Eassley, Essley, Essly, Esley, Essla Eslea etc,
It originated as a surname on the east coast of England in the aftermath of the invasion of various peoples of 'Anglo-Saxon' stock who arrived from northern Germany and southern Denmark & Sweden (the Jutland peninsular and the island between Danish Jutland and Sweden) after the Romans withdrew from Britain at the beginning of the 5th century A.D., i.e. the early 400"s
Some very rare surnames have developed from the personal names of the tribal leaders of those early groups and ESLING is one of the oldest. It derives from one such tribal leader called ESLA, who is mentioned for what it is worth in the dynastic tree for the British Royal Family as having arrived in Britain from N. Germany or Southern Denmark about 411 A.D. and being 15 generations before the greatest of the English medieval kings Alfred the Great who died in 899 A.D.
The people who were part Else's retinue had come to depend on him as a military leader who could guarantee their security and economic survival. In early Germanic or Scandinavian terms, there were classed a ESLA's 'inga', a linguistic term meaning a dependant or follower
The ESLINGA were there identified from very early times as stemming from that source as ESLA's people, and they can be found in the period after 1500, still living on the eastern seaboard of Britain, from mainly the counties of Suffolk, Norfolk, Linconshire and Leicestershire in and around the Midland and East Anglian Region, right up to Aberdeenshire in Scotland.
ESLA's involvement as a chieftain/sub-king of the Northumbrian dynasty saw him ranging up and down the East Coast in all probability during his lifetime. There is a place name in Northumbrian called ESLINGTON, which means 'the tun (township) of ESLA's inga (people or followers).
If you have forbears who carried this surname or you do so today; it derives almost certainly from this exceptional character. Allowing for the absence of any standard spelling system in the English language until comparatively recently (William Shakespeare spelled his surname in at least 22 different ways in his lifetime, and HE was literate) the variations in this surname have evolved because 'old England' (pre-1837, when the Registration of Births Deaths and Marriages were made possible though NOT compulsory till later) relied upon the Minister/Vicar/Priest of the local Parish Church recording Baptisms and Marriages and noting Burials from people who were quite often not literate and spoke in an accent or dialect with which he was not familiar. He therefore recorded the name he HEARD as he assumed it should be spelled.
When folks migrated from Britain to North America or Australia, they found that the new countries had established demographic systems which were much more standardized which seems to be why many of the ESLINGs' and EASLEAs' etc were formalized into EASLEY after arriving in the Americas after the1500's. Much later, the central European migrants arriving at Staten Island were greeted by Scots immigration officers who translated the unprounceable Polish/Hungarian/Russian names into solid British though more often Scottish - names. Which is why the great American composer Aaron Copeland bore a good Scottish name and not the 'KAPLAN' that his father tried to get the immigration officer to comprehend.
End of correspondence relating to naming conventions.
This ends this dialog - I will be posting two additional dialogs related to the affidavit issue. One deals with the Catherine Johnson versus Annetje Lawson controversy and the other will deal with evidence proving that the deponents did not conspire to create a Revolutionary Veteran for Violetta
Notify Administrator about this message?
|Home | Help | About Us | Site Index | Jobs | PRIVACY | Affiliate|
|© 2007 The Generations Network|