Frands Olufsen Thestrup - Change to: Frands Olesen Thestrup please

Look: https://www.gravsted.dk/person.php?navn=frandsthestrup

Jette Rosborg

The grave says "Frants" There is no Olufsen. The Web site is not a primary source.

In the 17th century Ole and Oluf are the same name. Bishop Frands Thestrup's father was Oluf Thestrup according to the Stambog of Rasmus Pedersen Thestrup:

År 1613.
2. Lørdagen, som infaldt den 30. oktober, da klokken var 12 ommiddagen, blev min søn Oluf Rasmussen Thestrup født, da solen var i Skorpionens og månen i Vægtens tegn, og blev døbt på alle helgens dag,som da indfaldt den næste mandag derefter og båret til kirken af min svigermoder og nævnt efter min hustrufader. Hans faddere var disse efterskrevne:
Povl Nielsen,
Mette Christensdatter
Tammes Jespersen,
Maren Olufsdatter
Søren Nielsen,
Maren Deinusdatter
(og Ole Worm, borgmesters søn, som nys var hjemkommen).

Therefore, we will maintain the fathername as Olufsen

Series Pastora in Helligåndskirken , Copenhagen.
A series Pastora is a list of the priests who have served through the ages in a congregation. It can be read in some church records but often even on a painting in the parish church. Usually carried only the priest who has the highest position in the congregation (the serving Vicar or curate) so the congregation's other priests may be searched in other sources.

LOOK:
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_pastorum

Maybe the argumentative ones will take up a job at Helligåndskirken , Copenhagen where the name is "Frands Olsen Thestrup."

"Olufsen" and "Olsen" - "Oluf" and "Ole" are interchangeable - like generic medicines!

GOOD: Then it shouldn't matter to you that I change the name to Olesen or Olsen.

Ole is a form of Olaf (yes): however, the scholars of DenStoreDanske.dk also acknowledge Ole (not Olufsen).

I am in possession of Stamtavle over slægterne STAMPE OG THESTRUP by Hans Andreas Møller, 1910.

They list:
Hr. Ole Rasmussen Thestrup, f. 30 Oct 1613 18 Jan 1673.

I know, I also have the book in my library. In respect of Rasmus Pedersen Thestrup's own written words we keep the old Danish form "Oluf".

Please supply a picture of his written words to document. Then I am okay.

https://dis-danmark.dk/bibliotek/903014.pdf p.34 written in original early 1600s Danish (Olluff Rasmussøn Thestrup)

I have found in his own handrwriting on page 8 Ole Thestrup:
https://dis-danmark.dk/bibliotek/903014.pdf

You are manipulating the text and cannot distinguish between a preface/introduction (p.8) and the "Stambog" (R.P.T's own words). I am not at all surprised.

The main reason to keep "Oluf" is that we do not have churchbooks for Aahus in 1613 and therefore Rasmus Pedersen Thestrup "Stambog" is the best primary source available:

1)Original text
A n [n] o 1 613. 2. Løffuerdagen, som indfandt denn 30. octob[er], der klochen war 12 ommedagen, bleff min søn Olluff Rasmussøn Thestrup føedt, der sollen war vdj Schorpionens och mannen vdj Wegttens thegen, och bleff døbt paa alle helgens daug,som da indfalt den neste manddag der effter /: och boren till kierchen aff min goedmoder och neffnt eptermin høstru fader :/ hans faaderewarre disse effterschne:Pouell Nielssøn Mette ChristensdaterTammes Jespersøn Maren OllufsdaterSøffren Nielsøn Maren Deinusdater(och Olluf Worm borgemesters søn som nys war hiem-kommen och)

2) Translated by Helge Søgaard

År 1613. 2. Lørdagen, som indfaldt den 30. oktober, da klokken var 12 om middagen, blev min søn Oluf Rasmussen Thestrup født, da solen var i Skorpionens og månen i Vægtens tegn, og blev døbt på alle helgens dag,som da indfaldt den næste mandag derefter /: og båret til kirken af min svigermoder og nævnt efter min hustrufader :/ hans faddere var disse efterskrevne: Povl Nielsen Mette ChristensdatterTammes Jespersen Maren OlufsdatterSøren Nielsen Maren Deinusdatter(og Ole Worm, borgmesters søn, som nys var hjem kommen og

I have not been manipulating text Mr. Ersbøll.

#1: It's there for all to see on page 8:
https://dis-danmark.dk/bibliotek/903014.pdf

#2: I have also provided the scholarly reference in a well known bibliography:
http://denstoredanske.dk/Dansk_Biografisk_Leksikon/Kirke_og_tro/Bis...

His wife was well known in the noble circles: margrethe kirstine moth (1612-1681), was daughter of the royal physician, Matthias Poulsen Moth (1567 - 1647). My 9th Great Uncle.

The name is Ole, which is in the Danish tradition.

I maintain that you are manipulating facts: (On page 8) "Håndskriftets historie kan beskrives således, idet den første del af ejerlisten kun formodningsvis kan opstilles på grundlag af slægtsfølgen. Efter forfatterens død overgik det til sønnen Ole Thestrup (1613-1673), sognepræst til Dalby og Stubberup og provst, og derefter tU hans søn Frantz Thestrup (1653-1735), biskop i Ålborg. Fra ham eller fra hans søn Ole Thestrup (1684-1736), sognepræst i Dannemare og Tillitse...."

is a list of owners of the manuscript - you never arrived to relevant part the original text (p.34-35) of R.P.T.

I have already stated that Ole and Oluf are interchangeable but all serious readers will recognise that R.P.T. uses "Olluff" that Søgaard correctly translates into "Oluf" (p.34-35)

I am using Rasmus Pedersen Thestrups Stampbog on page 8.
https://dis-danmark.dk/bibliotek/903014.pdf

It reads "Ole Thestrup"

In genealogy it is imoprtant to use standardized name forms. I suggest you put other forms in the column for "also known as"

You're just an old man who doesn't like to be incorrect!

Look at page 8 of your own document (there is no reference on page 34-35):
https://dis-danmark.dk/bibliotek/903014.pdf

I don't control the document above.

I'm much younger than you Jens. BETTER EYES!

You are not using the "Stambog" but the modern preface (1972) to the "Stambog"
I fully agree on standardisation, but nevertheless his own father uses the name "Oluf" in 1613.

År 1613. 2. Lørdagen, som indfaldt den 30. oktober, da klokken var 12 om middagen, blev min søn Oluf Rasmussen Thestrup født....(p.35)

It was of course his father who gave him the name and he new how to write goid Danish.
As he got older and partly famous he might have gotten the more informal name Ole, among his friends, but if his father gave him the Christian name Oluf, that is his name.

Franciscus Thestrup
http://www.kb.dk/images/billed/2010/okt/billeder/object9692/da/

I am not at all surprised that you cannot find the text ,,,https://dis-danmark.dk/bibliotek/903014.pdf, I have provided all the visual proof that is needed

The book you have submitted Mr. Ersbøll is from 1972.

Page 35 of the text cited by Jens is very clear. Oluf.

That there are interchangeable spellings is the usual state of affairs in the historical European Tree.

That one form might be the more usual one is irrelevant in the face of evidence as to the use in the family.

Oluf.

Yes, but Anne, it's a document from 1972 and not the original. Also, I found what Jens was looking for but it was actually on page 37 of the document PDF, but printed 35.

SO THE PROBLEM IS THAT: There were "Initials" to prove on the original, which we have no copy. The PDF is from a book printed in 1972.

The notation on the inserted page between 32 and 33 reads:
Stambogens forsats med Rasmus Pedersen Thestrups initialer, hans bomærke og forneden initialerne til hans ukendte valgsprog. De sidste findes ligeledes bagest i stambogen, ordnede i korsform. Derefter første side af stambogen.

Which translates:
The stud book's proposal with Rasmus Pedersen Thestrup's initials, his emblem and the bottom initials of his unknown electoral language. The latter are also at the end of the herd-book, arranged in cruciform. Then the first page of the herd book.

It is not even a tertiary source data!

Yes. It’s from 1972 because it is a transcription. We count it as very nearly primary, it being as near as we can get to primary with early documents, when the transcription is solid and follows contemporary transcription methods and conventions (I used to be a transcriber myself).

1972 is recent enough to be falling in that realm. (1914, no; 1842, right out.)

The reason things work this way has to do with accessibility.

With early events, the primary documents are difficult to get to, first of all. You have to go to the place where they reside, to see them.

Very well but that can be solved by photo copy.

But that doesn’t always solve the accessibility issue. Even if older documents can be photographed (and many are too fragile), the photos or photocopies don’t necessarily show everything. I often find that I can see things on the actual page that do not show up in a photo.

And beyond that there is often the issue of readability. Some early documents are unreadable unless you know the script, even if you know the language.

So transcriptions are what we use to make early documents accessible.

Then, if as a scholar, one needs to make sure of the accuracy, one studies the transcription and then visits the actual manuscript, to see if indeed the transcription is true.

But that is very seldom necessary.