To: Mr Norman
You may not have anything to offer of genealogical value, but you have given us all a good laugh.No need to rehash, so I will try to keep it simple.Your post, point to point:
Your own words sum it up quite nicely:
"I don't have any idea where you are coming from or where you are going."
Of course you don't.You refuse to consider any/all of the well documented evidence which clearly proves the DAR application and its contents, including Fanny and Ferdinand's affadavits, to be false.
1814 versus 1824.I addressed it too...intelligently.Read the comment of the Notary who certified the dates, when he speaks of her father's death.An exact quote: "That the day of the month in the record of the death of father Van Siclen is too indistinct to read"Since an 1850 entry is already too difficult to read clearly, how clear do you suppose an 1814/1824 entry might be?A handwritten 1 and a handwritten 2 have the same basic shape, and on a faded document, can be very difficult to tell apart.1824 is not tampering, when you believe it to be true.As yet I have seen nothing to establish that 1814 is the correct date.Can you prove that the notary didn't make a mistake in reading a nearly unreadable record?Produce the bible itself, so that it may be closely examined.Then perhaps we will know what date was truly recorded.
Van Sicklen vs Van Siclen:Recognized by ALL qualified researchers of the family in question as being the same family name.In an age of relative illiteracy, it was commonplace for an individual or family unit to have records of their surnames under more than one spelling.Even in records where the person in question wrote their own name, spelling variations are common.The focus on exact spelling proves nothing except that the person making the ridiculous claim knows absolutely nothing about the subject.There is only one document in support of the whole fantasy...the DAR application, and it was written more than 55 years after the death of Cornelius Van Sic(k)len, and nearly 40 years after Maria's death.From this document, you get the exact spelling of "Van Siclen".How, I ask, do you come up with that ridiculous notion?I suggest you read the contents of the DAR application very carefully.Here is how the two surnames are spelled EXACTLY, throughout the application contents:
page1: Van Sickle, Van Siklin(no "Van Siclen" here)
page2: Easlin(written by Fanny's daughter), Van Sickle(4 times), Van Sicklin(no Van Siclen Here)
page 3: Van Sickle, Van Sicklin(no Van Siclen here)
page 4: Van Siklen, Van Siclen, Van Sickle
page 5: No entries
page 6: Easlin(notary certification of Fanny's maiden name), Easling(notary certification of Luther's surname), Eastling(Notary certification of the name on the family Bible), Van Sicklin(Notary certification of the maiden name of Luther's wife.Note the "K"... it is in the document, exactly that way, and is also the same spelling used on Cornelius land record in Murray, Ontario), Easlin(2nd time),Eastling(2nd time), Eastling(3rd time)
page7: Van Siclin(certified Bible entry of the 1814 marriage. Yes, it is spelled with 2 "i"s, and no "e"s.Still think a mistake in the date is impossible?), Eastling, Eastling(2nd time), Eastling(3rd time), Van Siclen, Van Siclen(2nd time).
page8: Eastling, Van Siclen, Van Sickle, Van Siclen, Van Sicle, Van Siclen.(This is Fanny's affadavit.Cornelius' granddaughter spells his surname 4 different ways in her affadavit.Exact spelling...Where?)
page9: Eastling, Eastling, Van Siclen, Van Siclen, Van Siclen.
In 24 appearances of the surname throughout, it is spelled EXACTLY "Van Siclen" only 9 times.Tell me how this proves that the name should be spelled Van Siclen, and no other spelling can be considered?This IS the the only document Ed Gusman possesses in support of his fantasy, and it clearly proves that exact spelling is NOT a viable issue.The immediate family themselves, in their own notarized affadavits, cannot agree on the spelling.Did you, Mr Norman, actually read the contents of the DAR application before you started waving the "exact spelling" banner?Of course not.You say I should give it up in the face of the affadavits....Fanny's affadavit uses 4 different spellings of Van Siclen.Don't believe me?Read it for yourself.Someone is looking pretty stupid here.
Noting that various records of Luther Eastling can be found with the spellings "Eastling, Easling, Easlin, Esling", and that all are known variations of the same family name, the following excerpts apply to Ontario families of that name group:
From "Disbanded Troops and Loyalists in Township 5(Matilda), 1784 - Garret Esling, Frank Esling.
From Settlers of Township 5(Matilda), muster roll # 8, 1785 - Garret Esling, John Esling, Frank Esling.
From Crown Land grants given to Loyalists who served in the Kings Royal Regiment(source, "A History of the Kings Royal Regiment of New York"), Garret Eastling drew a lot in 1786 in Luneneburgh, Ontario.(Esling to Eastling....Where is that exact spelling nonsense now?)
How and where did I discover all of this data?It is called research.Go to your local LDS Family History Center and tell them that you would to see their library catalog entries for Kings County, New York; Dutchess County, New York; Ontario Province, Canada, Lake County, Indiana; and Portage County, Wisconsin, to include church records, land records, court records, estate records, census records, and anything else.Then do as I did, spend hundreds of hours in dedicated research finding records to clearly identify the true ancestral line. Be sure and check surrogate court and census records for people with the last name Eastling(all known spellings, of course).For your own satisfaction, also lookup Quebec Province records.Through these, you will discover that the claims of Maria's father living/dying in Quebec are absolutely false, and that Luther Eastling was recorded only once in Quebec...the death of his first wife in 1812.After you have researched...and everything you find proves the DAR application and affadavits to be false...write back and tell me why you would blindly believe someone who has never done any research in his life, and has absolutely no documentation in his possession which would even suggest that the claims made in the DAR application/affadvits are true.
I didn't lie about the certified Bible entry of Maria's marriage.I believe the certification is an error, given that the first known child birth was in 1825.I didn't lie about the number of children for Luther and Maria.I can only find REAL records for 7 of them.There may well have been 10...probably were...if there truly were 10, give me the names and dates.When I verify them, I will add them to the family file.I don't add "no-name, no-date, no-place" children based on heresay evidence, and I don't build family files based solely on 50 year recollections of 2 elderly people.None of my sources are "of my own creation", and they can all be found in the library.You do know what a library is, right?
A couple of additional observations, for any additional readers of this mess.First, Mr Norman's attacks come without any specific knowledge of the family lineage in question, or even of the documentation involved.He was clearly unaware that the documents which he claims prove the exact spelling of the surname, in fact, use numerous spelling variations.He was also unaware that the affadavits, sworn under oath, contained sveral different spellings of both surnames.Even the children of Luther Eastling and Maria Van Sicklen, in their affadavits, used more than one spelling of both surnames.Mr Norman's comments also illustrate that he has made no attempt to research or verify the entries made in my family treemaker webpage on the descendants of Cornelius Van Sicklen, which includes the Eastling family.He simply has taken Mr Gusman's word for it, noting that Mr Gusman has NO source documents, whatsoever.I found it odd that Mr Norman would blindly follow someone who can't even produce a single record to substantiate the myth...that is until I read another post by Mr Norman.Now I understand clearly.I refer everyone reading this to the "Van Siclen" forum.An entry there, made on the same day as his first entry in this forum, reads:
"Oops, wrong forum".
He did not surf in here by accident.Out of hundreds of messages on the various spellings of this family's surname, he did not accidently come across my post.Had he truly been interested in the Exact spelling of "VAN SICLEN", he would have posted a relevant message on that board.He was clearly looking specifically for my message, and no other.Why?Ed Gusman, desperate to revive a fantasy that has been officially dead for months, asked his friend, Greg Norman, to pretend to be a concerned "surfer".Sorry Greg. Your unnecessaary post on the Van Siclen forum exposed you.