Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisited”
-
In reply to:
Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisitedu201d
Walt Stander 6/23/03
Dear Walt,
(Readers please forgive this personal note)--I have your recent private communication and regret not having found the time to return my hello. This is due to time restraints only. I am here right now as I want to post a query to this message board and was "visiting past posts." Still, it won't do to NOT take this opportunity to acknowledge your email and return my similar sentiments.
Meanwhile and concerning your posts in this thread, I'd like to say that you short yourself your native instinct in your genealogical pursuits --and that is to question everything the family lore has left you regarding your ancestry. I was brought up with the exultations of the "Van Sicklen Patroonship" on Long Island. Of course, this patroonship never existed.
Mr. Guzman (did I use a wrong spelling?), unfortunately, cannot seem to find his way past the lore and onto more edifying, i.e. true, information.
But, we thank you for trying to work his way through his impediments.
Yours,
Richard
More Replies:
-
Van Sicklen Controversy
Walt Stander 8/02/07
-
Re: Van Sicklen Controversy
Richard McCool 8/03/07
-
Re: Van Sicklen Controversy
Walt Stander 8/03/07
-
Re: Van Sicklen Controversy
-
Re: Van Sicklen Controversy