I knew you were lingering out there.Was just wondering how long you would be silent, as your "non-evidence" was falling apart. No, I don't have a marriage record for Maria Van SICKLEN, but you don't have one for Maria Van SICLEN, either.You started the nitpicking with your exact spelling nonsense.That rigidity works both ways.By insisting the marriage record proves my spelling wrong, you also say it proves your spelling is wrong.I see you are still with the tired cliches, and still no valid argument or supporting evidence.Just Eddy alone deciding how the name should be spelled, despite the fact that his chosen spelling does not even represent a majority in the one, and only one, document he does have.Perhaps you would care to explain how the "VAN SICLIN" of the marriage record proves yourclaim of "VAN SICLEN" as the only acceptable spelling of the surname.Van Sicklin, the name on the Murray land records, is just as close in spelling to Van Siclin as is Van Siclen(only one letter off), so what, pray tell, makes your chosen spelling the right one?You have no documented evidence to support claim, the spelling is simply your own personal choice.How does the appearance of the spellings Van Sickle and Van Sicle in daughter Fanny's affadavit prove Van Siclen is right?How about Van Siclin in the certified bible record.Spelling variations are rampant throughout these documents, so what gives you the right to pick one out of the group, and declare it to be "THE" right spelling.I point you to the Notary's notation of the ownership of the Bible, exactly as written in his certification:"said Bible now owned by Ferdinand Easlin Jr, of Bryant, South Dakota".What happened to the "t" and the "g" in "Eastling"?Your exact spelling claim is not a valid argument, it is a JOKE.It is an act of desperation to distract everyone from the evidence which clearly identifies Maria's lineage.There is absolutely nothing in the Notary's certification of Bible records that establishes Maria was not of the Murray, Ontario Van Sicklen family.The date matches, however, prove that she was.Sorry, bubba....The affadavits and certification you hold so dear now stand against you.I don't need a marriage record to prove this family line.Known dates for the Murray family are clearly corroborated by the Bible certification.Remember Sep 15, 1801, and March, 1850.There is where the real proof lies.
I have looked in the Montreal area for the marriage record.Wasn't there.The burial of Luther's first wife in 1812 is the only Quebec record for him and I feel that is related to his military service and not his residence.All other records I have found on him are Ontario.Best guess for the marriage place:Murray, home of his father-in-law.
You say Cornelius was a van Siclen....Fine...show us your evidence of this Van Siclen family in Canada.Can't find any?Imagine that.While you are at it, try locating this place named "Bacauta", Quebec, where he is supposedly buried.Quebec Historians all agree that there never was such a place.Tried finding a record of a Cornelius Van Siclen anywhere in Canada. Not even so much as a tax record?Imagine that.You say there are no Canadian records available?I suggest you check with the LDS Family History Center Catalog before you make that claim again.Probably should check with the Archives in Montreal, too.Seems they have a lot of the records that you have claimed don't exist.You can get their address at the Canada Genweb site.There is the problem with the DAR application and it's contents.Nearly everything claimed therein leads to a dead end for which no supporting records exist.Evidence is what you need.Family folklore is all you have.