McCool < In particular the statement that the name Lawson cannot have metamorphosed from other forms of the name.>
Gusman – I have no difficulty with names evolving into or being derived from different names. Lawson certainly can change into some other spelling. In the same manner Lossing can also change into another spelling.
McCool < It is really hard to understand why you insist upon that since it is well established that this is precisely what happened>
Gusman – Perhaps in that time period there was a change from a Lossing to a Lawson – however, I will dispute with you for a very long time that Hannah Lossing the mother in the Fishkill DRC 1801 birth record who gave birth to a Maria born Sept 15 1801, became the Annetje (Hannah)Lawson buried in Briton, Ontario Canada. You will take careful note that I stated – “became the Annetje Lawson” and I did not state “was Annetje Lawson”.
I submit the following. What I will write is not news to you but may put a somewhat different spin on Van Curen’s allegations that Hannah Lossing became Annetje (Hannah) Lawson.
Children inherit the surname of their biological fathers. We already know that! A daughter’s surname is known as her maiden name. Now that’s out the way! A daughter/girl/ teenager/woman/elderly lady takes her maiden name to her grave. She may marry and change her surname to that of her husband and may do that from once to any number of times during her lifetime. However, her maiden name remains with her throughout her life time and is buried with her.
Annetje (Hannah) Lawson’s father was Simeon Lawson. That tells us that Hannah Lawson was born with a maiden name of Lawson. She married Cornelius Van Sicklen and became Hannah Lawson Van Sicklen. In 1849 Hannah Lawson died and would have died as Hannah Lawson Van Sicklen although as is generally the custom her maiden name may not have appeared on her grave marker. I have seen markers with both the maiden and married names. Frequently in obituaries the maiden name of women is reported. I will be surprised if you fail to agree that Hannah Lawson, born as Lawson did not take Lawson to her grave.
Now I go to Hannah Lossing. Hannah Lossing had a biological father with the surname Lossing. That is proven by the rather obvious fact that she is recorded as Hannah Lossing in the Fishkill DRC 1801 birth record. It is logical to assume that Hannah Lossing took her Lossing maiden name to her grave.
We have established that we are working with two very uniquely different women, one born Lawson and the second born Lossing.
The couple recorded in the Fishkill 1801 record as the parents of Maria born Sept. 15 1801 are Cornelius FV Sicklen and Hannah Lossing. That tells us that Hannah Lossing born to a biological father surnamed Lossing, although married to a Cornelius FV Sicklen, was not married to the same man as Hannah Lawson who also married a Cornelius Van Sicklen. We are faced with two uniquely named women each married to an identically named Cornelius Van Sicklen.
It would be a notable exception to any church policy if a church recorder of births and baptisms would deliberately record any name except the genuine maiden name of the wife and mother of the husband and child who’s birth is recorded. It is one of those incidents that wouldn’t happen.
Consequently, I do not hesitate to state that it is impossible for Hannah Lawson to have been the mother of the Maria born Sept 15 1801 to parents Cornelius FV Sicklen and Hannah Lossing as their names are recorded in the the Fishkill DRC 1801 record.It is then equally impossible that the husband of Hannah Lossing could have been the husband of Hannah Lawson.
If Hannah Lawson had been the wife of the husband Cornelius FV Sicklen and mother of the child Maria, Hannah Lawson is the name we would today be reading in the Fishkill DRC 1801 church record, not Hannah Lossing.
You can’t get away from the inescapable fact that Hannah Lossing’s maiden name was the same as her biological father and the church recorder would not substitute another womens maiden name for that of the real mother who in this case was Hannah Lossing. Hannah Lossing’s name was in the church record as the wife and mother because the maiden name of that wife and mother was Lossing, not Lawson.
Hannah Lawson’s name was not in the Fishkill DRC 1801 church record because she was neither the wife of Cornelius FV Sicklen nor mother of Marie.
Van Curen needed a birth record for child born on Sept 15 1801 named Maria. He searched the various church records until he found one with a mother named Hannah Lossing and a father named Cornelius FV Sicklen. He already had in his Van Sicklen genealogy a couple named Cornelius Van Sicklen and Hannah Lawson with a child named Maria Van Siclen but no record of a birth date. Van Curen had finally found a child with the birth date and year he needed to match the birth date and year of Maria Van Siclen. What does Van Curen do – he changes Hannah Lossing’s maiden name to Hannah Lawson and he has what he needs, a child named Maria Van Sicklen with a recorded birth date and first name identical to the wife of Luther Calvin Eastling. Unfortunately for Van Curen I produce affidavits showing that the wife of Luther Calvin Eastling is Maria Van Siclen. So what – just add the “k” make it read Maria Van Sicklen and he is there. Unlike Van Curen and apparently yourself, I have a serious problem with accurate blood-lines and so Van Curen and I come head to head and you know the rest of that story.
Neither Van Curen nor yourself will convince me that Hannah Lawson was the biological mother of the Maria recorded in the Fishkill birth record. Neither of you have any means whereby you can get around the biological fact that daughters retain the maiden name they inherit from their fathers.
All that Van Curen has are two men with the identical name of Cornelius Van Sickle married to two different women with one woman named Hannah Lawson and the second woman named Hannah Lossing.
In addition he continues to be unable to produce any document with the face value evidence needed to prove that Maria Van Siclen is anything except Maria Van Siclen. Van Curen has already admitted that he does not have a marriage record for a Maria Van Sicklen.You understand that even if Van Curen could uncover documents, which would prove that Hannah Lossing’s maiden name was not Lossing but rather Lawson, he would next have to come up with a reason the recorder of Fish Kill DRC births would have recorded the mothers name as Hannah Lossing. Van Curen continuous to be faced with the impossible task of proving that the wife of Luther Calvin Eastling was not named Marie Van Siclen.
Van Curen has sandbagged you about how he changed Hannah Lossing into Hannah Lawson. With each lady having a unique inherited biological maiden name they are not one and the same person. In the event others have fallen into the same trap, I suggest you discuss with them the impact biologically inherited surname/maiden names have on potential name changes – another reason to apply correct spelling when working with surnames.