Aug 9 2001 Response to Van Curen posted msg. 639.
1. Violetta applies the spelling "Maria Van Sicklin" one time as spelled based on her testimony in her affidavit..
2. The included Certified Copy of Maria's Bible entry section of the Violetta affidavit, spells the name as "Maria Van Siclin" married to Luther C. Eastling and also as "Father Van Siclen died…".
L R Larsen, the Notary, who certified the exact spelling of "father Van Siclen" in the Certified Bible entries then again used the identical spellingwhen he quoted “death of “father Van Siclen”.
3. The affidavit of Ferdinand Eastling (grandson of Maria) spells the surname/maiden name as "Maria Van Siclen his second wife…" and “she was the daughter of Cornelius "Van Siclen…”, and " finally as Cornelius Van Siclen in his lifetime…”
4. The affidavit of Fanny Eastling Kelly (granddaughter of Maria) spells the name as "daughter of Luther Calvin Eastling and Maria Van Siclen or Sickle his second wife" then spells it again as "my mother was the daughter of Cornelius Van Siclen or Van Sicle and Catherine Johnson his second wife" and finally as "My grandfather Cornelius Van Siclen was a soldier in the war of the American Revolution...".
The preceding 4 paragraphs illustrate the spelling of the Van “surname” as it appeared in 4 out of the 5 Eastling documents, by whom spelled,how spelled and number of times the spelling appeared in each document.
Summarizing the spelling of the Van “name”
Certified copy of Bible entry
Fanny Eastling Kelly affidavit
Ferdinand Eastling affidavit
*Van Siclen is most used spelling.
THE SPELLING“VAN SICKLEN” DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE PROCEEDING DOCUMENTS.
Van Curen continues to reference the long ago discredited Violetta DAR application and he states - quoting Van Curen – “You are really getting boring with your exact spelling noise. You can't even substantiate that ridiculous claim. Read the contents of the DAR application again. 27 times the surname appears....but it is spelled exactly "Van Siclen" only 9 times” unquote.
Van Curen fails to illustrate the spelling of 18 out of the 27 names appearing in the Van Curen version of the DAR application. By not reveling the spelling of those alleged 18 names, Van Curen attempts to creates the impression that the spelling“Van Sicklen” appears 18 of those 27 times whereas the spelling “Van Siclen” appears only 9 times. As Gomer Pyle on the Andy Griffith show used to say – “for shame, for shame”on you Van Curen. What a tangled web you weave when you set out to deceive.
Correcting Van Curen’s erroneous projected perception about the DAR application and of what it consists. It is an application submitted by Violetta Voorhees for membership in the DAR. It is a single unique set of documents consisting of 4 pages. It was submitted many months prior to the creation of the affidavits and does not include the affidavits of Violetta, Fanny and Ferdinand. The name Van Siclen does not appear 9 times out of 27 in the DAR application. The “Van Siclen” spelling appears one time only in the DAR application. Nine times is another Van Curen contrived falsehood designed to confuse a reader with misleading as well as falsified facts.
Summarizing name spelling appearing in the DAR application
Van V Sickle1
*Van Sickle is most used spelling
It is worth noting that Van Sickleand Sicklin always appear in the following syntax – “Cornelius Van Sickle or Sicklin”-two times) and one time as “Cornelius V Van Sickle and Siklin”.
THE SPELLING “VAN SICKLEN” (with an “ e “) DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE DAR APPLICATION.
Note – later I will point out how Van Curen in his latest response, to which this discussion references, has attached, by using an (aka), the name of “Van Sicklin” to that of “Van Sicklen” as inVan Curen’s use of “Cornelius Van Sicklen (aka Van Sicklin”). Van Curen is noted for his liberal application of (aka) to names when he cannot provide substantiating evidence supporting his perception of how a name was derived.
In the situation involving the DAR application, if Van Curen feels the need for applying an (aka) to an existing “Van Name”,he should have used “Van Sickle (aka Van Sicklin)”. Clearly Violetta was uncertain about the spelling of Van Sickle versus Van Sicklin but it is equally clear that Violetta never intended “Van Sicklen” (note the “ e”) as an alternate spelling for Van Sickle. She twice demonstrated that fact when she used the syntax“Cornelius Van Sickle or Sicklin”
I had the choice of using the spellings Van Siclen,Van Siclin,Van Sickle,Van Sicle or Van Sicklin appearing in the Certified Bible Copy and/or affidavits. Each spelling appears in the Eastling historical records.
I chose to use the spelling“Van Siclen” as opposed to “Van Siclin”for a single outstanding reason. “Van Siclen” is the spelling recorded by Maria for her father Cornelius Van Siclen – “father Van Siclen died..."as recorded in the Certified Bible entry.
Outstandingreason - The daughter’s surname/maiden name is always inherited from the surname of her father - ergo father's surname "Van Siclen" is synonymous with his daughter Maria "Van Siclen/Siclin". Somewhat incidental but important nevertheless, the Van Siclen surname spelling is also the most frequent spelling appearing in the affidavits, therefore the least likely spelling to be in error. That equates with the most likely spelling for Maria's surname. Finally, but actually foremost, and even in the face of Maria spelling her surname as Maria Van Siclin,the spelling "Van Siclen" is provided by the daughter Maria for her father Cornelius Van Siclen. That in it self gives all of the credence needed to support my assertion that Maria Van Siclin was an unintentional spelling error by Maria Van Siclen. In any event, Van Siclen or Van Siclin -what difference does it make when neither is a derivation of Van Sicklen or evolved into Van Sicklen.
I will reiterate for the last time - as I have so laboriously attempted to explain to Van Curen so many times, the daughters surname is always that of her father. Ergo if the fathers surname is spelled Van Siclen as Maria spelled it, then the exact and correct spelling of Maria's surname is Van Siclen. Van Siclin is nothing more than a simple spelling error by Maria. The spelling "Van Siclen" was confirmed by the affidavits 97 years later. For Van Curen who does not appear to know what “confirmed” means, confirmed by the affidavits 97 years later means simply that the Van Siclen spelling in the affidavits was identical with that in the Certified Copy of Maria’s Bible entry. It isn’t that difficult to understand Van Curen.
I truly hope that my explanation enlightens Van Curen as to the reasons why I chose the spelling Van Siclen as opposed to Van Siclin.
Since Van Curen has a problem with my using the Van Siclen spelling and doesn’t appear to have a problem with the Van Siclin spelling then I suggest that Van Curen change the Maria Van Sicklen Eastling entry in the Van Sicklen genealogy to read Maria Van Siclin Eastling. I have no problem with Van Curen spelling Maria Van Siclen as Maria Van Siclin. Both spellings appear in the Certified Copy of Maria’s Bible entry. Either is equally acceptable to myself. That will remove the Eastling and Van Sicklen link in the Van Sicklen genealogy.
Whether the spelling is Van Siclen or Van Siclin, in either case Van Curen is out of luck because – VAN CUREN REMAINS UNABLE TO PRODUCE A DOCUMENT OF ANY TYPE RECORDING A MARRIAGE OF MARIA VAN SICKLEN IN 1824 TO LUTHER C. EASTLING.
Regrettably that happens to people who have lost their objectivity and integrity and who’s objective becomes one of proving their superiority even to the point they become willingto falsify identities (Van Sicklen replaces Van Siclen),falsifydates (1824 replaces 1814),and alter or substitute people, places and events (7 children replaced 10 children – Province of Ontario replaced Province of Quebec – a mother named Hannah Lossing is substituted for a birth mother named Catherine Johnson). All of which Van Curen by his personal admission on this forum has done with or to the historical Eastling records.
On the other hand – I HAVE A COPY OF MARIA’S CERTIFIED BIBLE ENTRY (PUBLISHED ON THIS FORUM) WHEREIN MARIA RECORDS HER MARRIAGE TO LUTHER C. EASTLING USING THESPELLING OF MARIA “VAN SICLIN” FOR HERSELF AND “FATHER VAN SICLEN” FOR HER FATHERS SURNAME, ALSO CERTIFIED AS AN EXACT COPY.
I will reiterate for the last time - as I have so laboriously explained to Van Curen so many times, the daughters surname is always that of her father. Ergo if the fathers surname is spelled Van Siclen as Maria spelled it, then the exact and correct spelling of Maria's surname is Van Siclen. Van Siclin is nothing more than a simple spelling error by Maria. The spelling "Van Siclen" was confirmed by the affidavits 97 years later.
The issue has never been whether Cornelius and Maria Van Siclen should spell their surname as Van Siclen or Van Siclin. The issue has always been about the source of the surnames for Cornelius and Maria Van Siclen. Van Curen’s source has always been and continuous to be his over worked imagination not supported by substantiating data.My source is the Certified Bible entry written by Maria Van Siclen/Siclin 200 years ago.
So Van Curen can hang up his harping about “exact spelling”. That is an issue intentionally created by himself as a smoke screen to specifically cover up his massively flawed cherry picking type of research for the ancestry of a “Maria Van Sicklen” who was never married to an Eastling. If Van Curen had the integrity to admit that he researched a surname “Van Sicklen”thathe created within his imagination , this discussion would have not appeared on this forum.
If Van Curenhad researched “Van Siclen” you would not have to continue to excaberate an already mangled, misdirected and wasted research effort undertaken by yourself.
If Van Curen can conclusively prove that Richard McCool believes it is nonsense for me to spell a name the exact way in which the name is spelled in a historical document by Maria Van Siclenfor her father, Cornelius Van Siclen,then I am inclined to believe that Richard McCool may run with the same pack as Van Curen types.
However, before I accept such allegations by Van Curen about a person I don’t know,I would like to read something from Richard McCool about what he may perceive as an error by myself when I use a name as it is spelled on a historical record and the spelling is the earliest and only recorded spelling for the name used.
I am somewhat curious as to why you feel you have to repeatedly refer to Richard McCool for support? You have been doing that for nearly two years. Perhaps he is your mentor? You appear to be concerned about Richard McCool impressions so why don't you write him.
I believe you, Van Curen, are placing words into Richard McCool's mouth, hoping that he will not call you on it!
I note that you have now created an aka for “Cornelius Van Sicklen (aka Van Sicklin)”. Violetta Voorhees would be honored if she knew that after the ongoing debasement of her character and integrity,which you previously subjected her too, that you have now decided to use her spelling of Van Sicklin and that you now apply the (aka) to Van Sicklin thereby connecting (aka Van Sicklin) with Van Sicklen, whereas Violetta Voorhees used the syntax“Cornelius Van Sickle or Sicklin”.
In a future responses by yourself I have no doubt that you will eventually work the Van Sicklen name up to where it includes Cornelius Van Sicklen (aka Van Sicklin,(aka Van Siclin),(aka Van Siclen), (aka Van Sickle), (aka Van Sicle), (aka Van Siklin). Is that an umbrella?
Bloody well good show ole man. Keep adding aka's and soon you will either begin or end with (aka Van Curen). Precisely the identical maneuver you practiced when you evolved Hannah Lossing (aka Lassen), (aka Lassing), (aka Lawson). Perhaps I should write my name as Ed Gusman (aka Abe Lincoln), (aka George Washington), (aka Thomas Jefferson), (aka Benjamin Franklin)…..absurd, stupid,foolish, ridiculous you say. No more so than your rationalization and random unwarranted willy nilly application of (aka).
Your problem Van Curen is that you have up to the current date not been able to prove anything that you allege about the affidavits or Certified Bible entries.
Give it up Van Curen, your on going insults, ridicule, falsified documents, speculations and allegations can't get around the affidavits and the information contained therein. My posting of those legal Eastling records finally forced you into admitting to the falsification of historical Eastling records and admitting that you had no records of a marriage for Maria Van Sicklen to anyone.
A single admission of falsification was all I had hoped for. When you admitted to deleting three of Maria's unnamed children merely because they were not named, although recorded as born to Maria Van Siclin Eastling in her Certified Bible entry, I was elated. I baited the hook and you took it.That is called "suckering".
Even though I have seduced Van Curen into admitting that he falsified Eastling records, I have decided that until such a time as Van Curen stops publishing his fraudulent Eastling link with the Van Sicklen genealogy I will keep on writing about Van Curen’s self admitted falsifying Eastling records. In the event that Van Curen has not corrected a second entry in his Van Sicklen genealogy, similar in nature to that of Maria Van Sicklen, but involving a different family, I may at some later date come back with a new exposure of a significant fact. Van Curen knows whereof I write because when I brought it to his attention a long time ago he became angry and told me I was telling an “un-truth” .
I suspect what has been overlooked by those who read this forum and who object to this type of exchange are ignoring the fact that I am defending the accuracy of Notarized and Certified documents written by people who had no reason to lie or deceive the Notary. Therein is the key – no reason to lie!
For myself it is inconceivable that anyone (Van Curen excluded) can believe that a girl 200 years ago writing into her Bible the date of her marriage, her name, her fathers name, death and location of her father's death would be writing a lie or attempt to deceive anyone. It is equally inconceivable that she wouldn't know her own or her father's name.
On the other hand, Van Curen continues to be unable to produce a thread of substantiating evidence beyond a coincidental birth date and first name which is substantiated proof of nothing in the way of a connection between two different Marias’ born to two different mothers.
End of story.