In direct response to Eddy's challenge to prove that his calculation of Maria's birth date is in error:
Who shall we all have trust in....Eddy's math and the assumption that he read the stone correctly, or the handwritten entry in the Eastling family bible?Eddy has conviently calculated a date which does not agree with the date of the Fishkill baptism.Did he read the stone wrong?possibly.Does the stone contain errors?again, possibly.I have run into such cases before.I have never seen the stone myself, so I can't say what is true with regard to the stone, and what is not.Eddy has a very active imagination, however, and he always has preferred to use that, instead of research and real records, to try and sell his case for clinging to the highly flawed DAR application.Back to the question...Eddy's math or the Eastling family bible?The Eastling family bible contains an entry for Maria's birth, stating it to be Sep 15, 1801...an exact match to the Fishkill baptism records, and an entry which was likely entered by Maria, herself.That date, and the death date of her father, were certified by the notary as being recorded in the family bible.While Edddy and his math are NOT a primary source for Maria's birth date, the Family bible is.I find it odd that Eddy would try to discredit the certified Bible entries from the DAR application, considering that he has always maintained that the contents of the DAR application are the sum total of all evidence in existence on this family.Does this mean that he, too, is now questioning the validity of these highly flawed documents.Sorry, Eddy, but you have the document in your own hand which proves Sep 15, 1801 as her real birth date.
As to the name variations - Lassing/Lossing/Lawson, etc.Eddy's claim that they can't be the same person, because the name isn't spelled exatly the same, illustrates his ignorance of genealogy in general.He has admitted that in his own direct - Gusman, etc - that there were spelling variations, yet he insists that it could not happen in the Van Siclen/Lawson family.Anyone who has done any serious genealogy will be very aware of frequent spelling variations occurred in real life.There is no danger of Ed selling his fantasy on this point.
As to Fanny and Ferdinand's affadavits...they contain no references to primary source documents that can be verified.Without corroborating evidence, they are little more than family folklore.The name of Catharine Johnson as mother of Maria was clearly created by Violet's error in researching marriage license records.The name appeared in the affadavits not because it was a true name, but because it was thought to be true because Violet's research was thought to be true.Once it was established that Violet had made an error with the marriage license records, the statements in the affadavits became suspect, and cannot be accepted without supporting evidence.
Sorry Eddy, but all REAL evidence still proves that Maria was d.o. Cornelius Van Siclen and Hannah Lawson of Brighton, Ontario.
As to the additional children born to Maria before 1825.If you have real evidence to support that, I am interested.If it is yet another set of names/data that was created in your mind, or came as family folklore/wishful thinking and has no supporting evidence, then I am not interested.What you consider proof, and what genealogists consider proof, are usually miles apart.Did Maria Marry before 1825?It's possible.prove it to me...but do it with new evidence.Nothing contained in the DAR application can be used to establish that as fact.Show me some newly discovered primary source documents which establish this as fact.No more of your wishful thinking or dreamed up facts.