It simply boggles the mind why Eddy would be so determined to cling to fictitious ancestors, or why he continually tries to pass himself off as an expert in a field he has absolutely no knowledge or experience in.Personally, I prefer being related to real people, rather than ones that were invented by poor research for a DAR application, but if Eddy wants to be related to non-existent people...such is his perogative.Clinging to the DAR application as gospel, he has effectively created a block making it totally impossible for him to identify any of his Van Siclen(Sicklen, etc) ancestors.My concern is for the innocent who may be misled(suckered) into trying to research based on the DAR piece of fiction.It only leads to a dead end that can never be resolved.Let's address the main points of Eddy's last post.
"I am somewhat impressed by the effort you put into drafting this post. Unfortunately it contains nothing that provides a link between the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen and his father or mother. It does not provide proof that Catherine Johnson was not the grandmother of the deponents as you allege and first wife of the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen. It does not provide evidence that the Cornelius Van Siclen was not a Revolutionary Veteran. Not being able to find official records proving his revolutionary service does not prove that he did not serve. The absence of official records proves only that the records have not been found and does not prove that there is no record of service or that he did not serve. The record of his service is in the affidavits."
I have no wish or reason to even attempt to connect affadavit Cornelius Van Siclen and affadavit Catharine Johnson to anyone in the Eastling line.You cannot connect fiction to reality.When Violet Voorhees identified Cornelius Van Sicklen and Catharine Johnson, m. by license in NY, 1771, as Maria's parents, she made a critical mistake that can be easily proven.And since Catharine Johnson of that cited marriage record was NOT Maria's mother, any reference to the name Catharine Johnson, anywhere in the DAR application or affadavits, is suspect.Clearly Violet came up with the name by a research "error", and the deponents simply repeated the error....deal with it.Cornelius Van Sic(k)len and wife Catharine Johnson were a real couple, but they never left New York, and they, together, did not have a daughter named Maria.He had a daughter named Maria, but with first wife, Femmentje Vanderveer, and nearly 50 years older than the Maria married to Luther.It is impossible to make a connection between Maria and her real ancestry while using the affadavits, because of the errors found in the affadavits.Maria's father DID NOT serve in the Revolution.Deal with it.What I have sought to do...and have done successfully...is prove who Maria's parents really were.Not through family folklore or the faded memories of elderly people who were aided by highly flawed/inadequate/hastily done research of a daughter whose only interest in family history wass to gain acceptance into the DAR; but rather through hard work and diligent research of "real records".The date matches for Maria, and the date matches for Cornelius provide proof positive of Maria's true lineage.ANY/ALL professional genealogy researchers would agree that the evidence is too overwhelming to ignore.Real records provide the proof of a family lineage.Family folklore provides nothing except interesting stories, which are more often than not filled with fiction.Such is the case with your affadavits.The affadavits are essentially worthless because they are unsubstantiated and contain obvious errors.The name Catharine Johnson came from a research error...deal with it.
"What you have done is allege to show the lineage of the Brighton Cemetery Van Siclen. You can’t even do that without using an aka to get from Cornelius Van Sicklen born 1775 to the Brighton Cemetery Cornelius Van Siclen. Why if he had been a Van Sicklen most of his life would he have been buried under Van Siclen engraved stone. The Brighton Cemetery Van Siclen is not the same person as the affidavit Van Siclen."
Here goes Eddy with his "AKA" nonsense again.Of course, all serious researchers would laugh at that nonsense.Firstly, I know Cornelius of Brighton is not the same as the affadavit Cornelius.Affadavit Cornelius is a fictitious person that supposedly served in the Revolution and married Catharine Johnson and lived in Quebec.His birth was not recorded, his marriage was not recorded, none of his children were ever recorded(real records, not family folklore), his Revolutionary service was not recorded, his life was not recorded(not taxes, not land, not census, nothing) and his death was not recorded.Gee...someone who lived for 100 years without a single detail of his entire life being duly recorded.How unusual.What I AM referring to is Maria's real father....a man whose life is well documented.He did NOT serve in the Revolution, and neither did Cornelius of Brighton....and those two ARE one in the same.I know that everyone else is aware of the ignorance at work here, but I feel compelled to "draw a picture" for Eddy's benefit.Cornelius Van Siclen of Brighton and Cornelius Van Sicklen of Fishkill co-incidentally have the same birth date(Brighton Cemetery vs Poughkeespie Church records).What are the odds of that happening to two different people whose names have only one letter difference?Maybe one in a trillion.Cornelius Van Sicklen of Fishkill married Annetje Lawson, Cornelius Van Siclen of Brighton was married to Hannah Lawson.(Fishkill marriage record vs Brighton Cemetery).Buried in Brighton is Ferdinand Van Sicklin(how does Eddy's exact spelling nonsense explain this?), son of Cornelius Van Siclen.I know this is his son, because Cornelius Van Siclen's land(lot B29, Brighton) passed to Ferdinand Van Sicklin after Cornelius' death.Co-incidentally, Cornelius Van Siclen's son, Ferdinand Van Sicklin, has the exact same birthdate as does Ferdinand Van Sicklen, the son of Cornelius Van Sicklen and Annetje Lawson of Fishkill(New Hackensack baptism vs Brighton Cemetery).Either the above is proof...or we have a long series of co-incidences occured that are mathematically impossible.Sorry Eddy...too many to be considered co-incidence.We have now adequately proven:
1. That Cornelius Van Sicklen of Fishkill and Cornelius Van Siclen of Brighton are unquestionably the same person.
2. That Hannah Lawson of Brighton and Annetje Lawson of Fishkill are the same person
3. That exact spelling was NOT a focus of the people who lived in the early 1800s, and that spelling in official records were more often written by the "sounds like" method, rather any concern over exact spelling.
Eddy's "aka" and "exact spelling" tyrades are nothing short of pure ignorance.It is obvious that he is proud of his ignorance, as he wears it like a badge of honor.It is time(actually way past time) to set the record straight on surname spellings and to fully illustrate how ignorant his ridiculous claims truly are.
There were 3 Cornelius Van Sicklens in Dutchess County in the late 1700s...real records establish that.One married to Hannah Lawson, One married to Sarah Van Wyck, and one married to Catharine Johnson.For Hannah Lossing of the 1801 baptism to be a different person than Hannah/Annetje Lawson, there would have to be another Cornelius Van Sicklen in Fishkill at the time.Fishkill records say there wasn't another Cornelius she could be married to. Note in the Fishkill records he is identified as "Cornelius F Van Sicklen"...that is "F" for "Ferdinand".That name keeps popping up.Father of the Cornelius that married Annetje Lawson, son of Cornelius VS and Annetje Lawson, son of Maria Van Siclen and Luther Eastling.Just more co-incidences.Eddy, for two years now I have been telling you to spend time with Dutchess County baptism records.If you would just do a little honest research, you wouldn't waste our time with ignorant statements about things you know nothing about.The Van Siclen/Eastling history is soon to be published in it's proper lineage within the Van Keuren family history(descendants of Margriet Van Keuren and Simeon W Lassen/Lawson).I suggest you get in line to buy a copy, so you will know who your real ancestors are.Lassen, Lossing, Losson, Lawson, and Lassing do not make up 5 different families, but are all spelling variations of the same name, and used interchangeably throughout the 1700s/1800s.Eddy would have us believe that each time a record appears with just one letter different in a name, even if the spouses name is exactly the same, it is still a different person, effectively increasing the actual population some 10 fold. So let's examine Annetje's parents closely in the church records to see just how dedicated the recorders were to EXACT SPELLING.(all are exact spellings, as written in the records):
13 May, 1756: Syman LASSING marries Margrieta Van Keuren
29 Oct, 1756(short gestation periods back then):Simon Lassen and Margreit Van Keuren baptise daughter Marya
2 Jun 1764:Simeon Lassing and Grietje Van Keuren baptise twins Johannes and Willem
16 Nov, 1765: Simon LASSING/Margaretha Van Keuren baptise daughter Geertruy
24 Oct, 1769: Simeon LASSEN and wife, Margriet, sponsor a baptism for Johannes Lassen
15 Apr, 1770: Simeon LASSON(note this spelling) and Geertje Van Keuren baptise son Benjamin.Ed will claim these are differnet people because of the spelling, but the baptism sponsors are Matheus and Annatje (Green)Van Keuren, brother and sister in law of Margriet Van Keuren who married Syman Lassing in 1756.
15 Nov, 1771: Simeon LASSEN and wife Margriet Van Keuren sponsor a baptism for Tjerck Van Keuren/Maria Westerveld, brother and sister in law of Matheus and Margriet Van Keuren
May 17, 1772: Simeon LASSEN and Margriet Van Keuren baptise daughter Catharina
Hannah Lawson - 23 Oct, 1774, Simeon LASSON and wife Margriet Van Keuren baptise daughter Annatje...named for sister in law Annatje Green.Note that the spelling is LASSON.
More on exact spelling in records:
Mar 15 1777, Jacobus Lasson of Poghkeepsie is married at New Hackensack.1 letter different from Poughkeepsie...so must be a different place.Wonder where it is?
Aug 27, 1777, Jane Johnson of Schotland married at New Hackensack.Can't be Scotland, because of the spelling.Wonder where Schotland is?
7 Feb, 1778, Laurens Beecker of Rheinbeek is married at New Hackensack.I know where Rhinebeck is, but not Rheinbeek.I'll have to check my map.
Feb 15, 1778, Maria Wiltsie of Hoopwell is married at New Hackensack.Hmmm...Hopewell is near New Hack, but I don't remember seeing a "Hoopwell".
Page 313 of the New Hackensack Church index says "Lassen(see also Lansing, Lasse, Lassing, Lasson, Lauson, Lossing, Lawson).Gee, you think maybe the church people had a handle on the spelling thing?Maybe Eddy could learn something from the people who work the church records on a daily basis..... but probably not.You see the same first names under Lassing that you do under Lawson and Lasson.Same people...different spellings.
"Question – If Annetje Lawson is the daughter of Simeon Lawson and Margriet Van Keuren, that means that Aannetje Lawson had her Lawson maiden name from birth by birth parents named Simeon Lawson and Margriet Van Keuren.....
I am betting that Hannah Lossing will have a father named Lossing."
Time to "call a spade a spade".Eddy's "aka/exact spelling" nonsense is nothing short of pure ignorance, born of his steadfast refusal to do anything resembling research.Church records in Dutchess County New York readily prove that Simon Lawson and Simon Lassen and Simon Latson and Simon Lasson and Simon Lassing(plus all of those for Simeon) are all the same man.For anyone having a vested interest in the Van Siclen/Eastling line, I implore you to do the research for yourselves.I will be happy to provide necessary references to find the records you need.You will quickly realize that Violet Voorhees DAR application(including the affadavits) is largely a work of fiction.She got into the DAR, and that was all that mattered to her.The irony is, that Maria really does descend from the Cornelius who married Catharine Johnson...but he is her great grandfather, not her father.And Catharine Johnson was not her mother, but actually stepmother of her grandfather, Ferdinand.There is that name, Ferdinand, again.Just a co-incidence, right, Eddy?