well, I don't want you to take my comments and/or questions as criticism. Yes, it's true that it's very easy for something to be lost. However, once we get to the "last" possessor of an art, it's hard to tell if the art is not "his" alone. After all, in the end, imo, everyone wants to make the TCC he practices "his own." I am not making a "political" argument, merely a logical one on that point.
I'm not saying that any of the claims are untrue. I don't doubt the circumstances; I only question some of the conclusions.
Ok, if I understood you correctly, you've been practicing TCC for a few years. Congratulations! And, I would sincerely urge you to ignore the 'politics', but don't stop using your head because your heart seems satisfied. Ignore the politics because, imo, they're not important to the practitioner's progress. I have met skilled and unskilled practitioners from all the styles. Any benefit that you get from a particular style or teacher will be the result of your own effort.
Well, that's been my experience. Anyway, in the last 2 decades, I have suddenly seen many terms spring up. But, it's the "meaning" given to those terms that has interested me. Ok, I'll admit, it seems to me like advertising, "market differentiation," and status-seeking.
It's like "old Yang". I understand the concept, but there are so many. Google ithttp://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=%22old+yang%22+style&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
The same holds true for the concept/idea of "frames". There are various definitions of "large", "middle", and "small" given with great authority and conviction. But, not all of these definitions have a history in the literature.
Otoh, I guess this is just normal for Chinese martial arts. I suppose it would be nice to hear from the remaining family members --just to get their take. At some point, they'll be gone and even more explanations will emerge.