Mette Lauridsdatter Kotte - Mette Lauridsdatter Kotte: Why does the Tinhuus Skinkel Coat of Arms Appear here?

Mette Lauridsdatter married to Jørgen Knudsen Seeblad and Hans Friis, af Odense is NOT a Kotte according to DAA and should not bear neither a noble name or a coat of arms. Please stop using the kids project roskildehistorie.dk as a source. If you disagree please contact the DAA organization which have kept track of the danish noble lines for hundres of years if you disagree and can prove that she was a Kotte.

Mette, you are mixing Mette Lauridsdatter with her niece Mette Lauritzdatter Kotte.

Again I have removed the Kotte coat of arms you have added to her and the only solution left is locking the profile to prevent further edits from you.

Mette Lauridsdatter was NOT a kotte, - her sister did however marry a Kotte and was even named Kottes after her first husbands death which she got the daugther Mette Lauritzdatter with, - which correctly can use the Kotte coat of arms.

Again: Please do not mix Mette Lauridsdatter with her niece Mette Lauritzdatter Kotte which correctly was the daughter of Lauritz Nielsen Kotte and Mette Lauridsdatter's sister Karen.

And as I have suggested several times: If you still claim that the information from DAA is less correct than some US notes please contact them.

Mette, The Millenium files can be useful (I myself avoid them like crazy), but they are not primary sources.

The terms keep getting used without explanation; I will explain.

the most valuable sources are primary sources. This means documentation that is contemporary with the person in question. Sometimes primary sources contradict each other; in that case, the argumentation centers around where the documents came from, who collected them, if there is likely to be bias, and the like.

Reliable secondary sources are in many cases, for older profiles, the best we can do. The best of the reliable secondary sources will cite the documents they are using, and also be relatively free from bias.

Much less useful sources would be such things as family web trees, general histories which don't actually cite their sources, writings that have obvious bias, and the like.

The sources that you have been citing are not primary sources.

the fact that you do not have access to primary data does not mean that the writings you can find are of equal value.

NOTE: Please be aware that comments have been deleted from this discussion

Customer Service, please close this discussion