CP Addition: Richard Pole's 1st marriage to Alice Stradling
Douglas Richardson
In view of this week's discussion of the Pole and Stradling families,
I thought I might mention an addition to Complete Peerage that I
recently came across while doing research for the forthcoming
Plantagenet Ancestry book.
Complete Peerage 11 (1949): 399-402 (sub Salisbury) has a good account
of the life and tragic ending of Margaret Plantagenet, Countess of
Salisbury, the last surviving legitimate member of the Plantagenet
family who was beheaded by King Henry VIII in 1541. Margaret married
before November 1487 Richard Pole (or Poole), K.G. (died 1504), of
Ellesborough and Medmenham, Buckinghamshire, son and heir of Geoffrey
Pole, Knt., by his 1st wife, Edith Saint John. By this marriage,
Margaret was the mother of five children, Henry, K.B. [Lord Montagu],
Arthur, Knt., Geoffrey, Knt., Reginald [Cardinal, Archbishop of
Canterbury], and Ursula (wife of Henry Stafford [Lord Stafford]).
Complete Peerage makes no mention of an earlier marriage for Sir
Richard Pole. F.N. Macnamara, however, in his book, Memorials of the
Danvers Family, published in 1895, gives compelling evidence that Sir
Richard Pole was previously married sometime before 28 June 1483 to
Alice Langford, widow of John Stradling (died 1471), of Dauntsey,
Bremilham, and Marden, Wiltshire. By Alice Langford's first marriage
to John Stradling, she was the mother of a son, Edward Stradling.
On page 238, McNamara specifically states "in the meantime his [Edward
Stradling's] mother, Alice Stradling, became the wife of Richard Pole,
and on June 27, 1483, Richard Pole, in all likelihood incited thereto
by his wife, seized and carried off young Edward from his guardian's
[Henry Danvers] house in Faringdon Ward." Richard Pole, then styled
"late of Isylworth, in Co. Midd., Esquire," was "attached to answer to
Henry Danvers of a plea why with force and arms he took aware Edward
Stradling, kinsman and heir of Edmund Stradling, being under age,
whose custody and marriage belong to the said Henry ... Clearly an
arrangement had been made in the lifetime of John Stradling under
which Thomas Langford had been enfeoffed of the manor of Merden
[Marden] in order than he might with Alice his sister, have custody of
the boy during his minority."
The legal wrangling between Richard Pole and Henry Danvers mentioned
by McNamara is presumably the subject of the following Chancery
lawsuit:
C 1/67/36:
Henry Danvers v. Richard Pole: Custody of Edward Stradlyng,
complainant's ward, son of John, son of Edmund Stradlyng.: London.
McNamara discusses evidence which indicates that Richard Pole, husband
of Alice (Langford) Stradling, was the same Richard Pole who married
Margaret Plantagenet. In a footnote on page 242, McNamara shows that
Richard Pole, then "one of the squires of the King's body," had the
"wardship, custody, and marriage" of young Edward Stradling granted to
him on 11 July 1484. McNamara cites as his source for this grant
Harleian MS. 433, pg. 181, which record has been printed in modern
times by Rosemary Horrox. Complete Peerage makes certain the identity
of this Richard Pole. The editor notes in footnote "a" in Vol. 11,
pg. 400 that Margaret Plantagenet's husband, Richard Pole, was an
Esquire of the Body before October 1485, when he was granted a fee for
such of 50 marks for life. McNamara likewise concludes the following:
"The circumstances of the grant confirm our view that Richard Pole
husband of Alice Stradling, and Richard Pole husband of the Countess
of Salisbury were one and the same person."
Interestingly, while Mr. McNamara published his findings back
regarding the Pole-Stradling back in 1895, it appears that his
information hasn't ever obtained wide circulation. Reading his
account, I note he gives no actual source for the Pole-Stradling
marriage. One gets the impression, however, that his likely source for
the marriage is the Chancery suit between Henry Danvers and Richard
Pole which he definitely consulted.
Elsewhere, I find there is a dispensation recorded dated 1468 for
marriage of John son of Edmund Stradling and Alice "Edwardi"
[Reference: Papal Regs.: Letters 12 (1933): 608]. I assume that the
bride is the same woman who appears elsewhere as Alice Langford. If
so, then "Edwardi" is not the bride's maiden name, but rather would be
Latin for "daughter of Edward." If so, then Alice was presumably the
daughter of Edward Langford.
The online Public Record Office catalog mentions a Chancery suit for a
Thomas, son of Edward Langford (see below), which individual is
presumably the same person as the Thomas Langford who McNamara
identified as the brother of Alice (Langford)(Stradling) Pole. If so,
this suit would lend confirmation that Alice Langford's father was
named Edward Langford.
C 1/143/56:
Christopher, son and heir of Robert Jacob. v. Thomas, son of Edward
Langford, feoffee to uses.: Lands, late of the said Robert in
Brad[field]. Copy of pleadings.: Berks.
Comments are invited.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
Jon Meltzer
Richardson) wrote:
>In view of this week's discussion of the Pole and Stradling families,
>I thought I might mention an addition to Complete Peerage that I
>recently came across while doing research for the forthcoming
>Plantagenet Ancestry book.
"Richard Pole" and "Alice Langford" produces 12 Google website hits.
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> Margaret married before November 1487 Richard Pole (or Poole), K.G.
> (died 1504), of Ellesborough and Medmenham, Buckinghamshire, son and
> heir of Geoffrey Pole, Knt., by his 1st wife, Edith Saint John.
Let's take the small error first: Geoffrey Poole was not a knight. In
Testamenta Vetusta, Vol I, p. 338, where an abstract of his will is
printed, he is called esquire. This is confirmed by CP Vol XIV, p. 567.
Revisiting Testamenta Vetusta, his name is clearly spelt Poole and so
are the surnames of his sons Richard and Henry. But this is only an
abstract of Geoffrey's will so I turned to the official transcript, but
not the original will of course, available on the London PRO site of
Documents On Line:
http://www.documentsonline.pro.gov.uk/
Geoffrey is there spelt Galfridus Poole and the same is used for his
sones later in the will. Though I did note that some scribe had written
in the margin "Galfridi Pole".
The most prominent member of that family was doubtless the cardinal,
whom I was indeed educated to know as Cardinal Pole. So I was
surprised to see in the book of the Oxfordshire Visitation of 1566 the
following entry on page 96 for the east window of the Founders chamber
of Maudelyn Coledge (sic) a description of the arms of the cardinal with
over it:
poole Cardanall
Further this is the spelling used of the family in the various
visitation records, Sussex 1530 & 1633-4, p. 89 and Bedfordshire of
1566, 1582 and 1634, p. 52.
Finally I was intrigued to find in Smyth's "Lives of the Berkeleys" Vol
II, p. 274, that the same spelling of "Poole" was still being used in
the 1620s when Smyth wrote this, though he may just have been copying a
document of 1556.
My conclusion is that the almost universal practice of the time of this
Poole family is that they spelt it thus. When and why the modern form
of "Pole" came in I do not know.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
An. Archer
Don't trust Testamenta Vetusta!
I know from personal experience that it is full of mistakes. Always check
the original references.
An.
"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <t...@powys.org> wrote in message
news:1f75cd9...@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> Tim et al,
>
> Don't trust Testamenta Vetusta!
>
> I know from personal experience that it is full of mistakes. Always
> check the original references.
Perhaps you would care to re-read? I then got hold of a copy of the
will from the PRO, using Documents Online, as I told below.
> An.
>
>
>
> "Tim Powys-Lybbe" <t...@powys.org> wrote in message
> news:1f75cd9...@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
> > In message of 2 Apr, royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote:
> >
> > > Margaret married before November 1487 Richard Pole (or Poole), K.G.
> > > (died 1504), of Ellesborough and Medmenham, Buckinghamshire, son and
> > > heir of Geoffrey Pole, Knt., by his 1st wife, Edith Saint John.
> >
> > Let's take the small error first: Geoffrey Poole was not a knight. In
> > Testamenta Vetusta, Vol I, p. 338, where an abstract of his will is
> > printed, he is called esquire. This is confirmed by CP Vol XIV, p. 567.
> >
> > Revisiting Testamenta Vetusta, his name is clearly spelt Poole and so
> > are the surnames of his sons Richard and Henry. But this is only an
> > abstract of Geoffrey's will so I turned to the official transcript, but
> > not the original will of course, available on the London PRO site of
> > Documents On Line:
> > http://www.documentsonline.pro.gov.uk/
Thsi is what I did as I knew Testamenta Vetusta was only an abstract...
> > Geoffrey is there spelt Galfridus Poole and the same is used for his
> > sones later in the will. Though I did note that some scribe had written
> > in the margin "Galfridi Pole".
This is what was written on the transcript of the will in the PRO.
I can put a copy of the relevant parts on a website. Or you can
download the will yourself?
Douglas Richardson
My comments are interspersed below. DR
Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote in message news:<1f75cd9...@south-frm.demon.co.uk>...
> In message of 2 Apr, royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote:
>
> > Margaret married before November 1487 Richard Pole (or Poole), K.G.
> > (died 1504), of Ellesborough and Medmenham, Buckinghamshire, son and
> > heir of Geoffrey Pole, Knt., by his 1st wife, Edith Saint John.
>
> Let's take the small error first: Geoffrey Poole was not a knight. In
> Testamenta Vetusta, Vol I, p. 338, where an abstract of his will is
> printed, he is called esquire. This is confirmed by CP Vol XIV, p. 567.
Macnamara's book, Memorials of the Danvers Family (1895), pp. 192, 206
indicates that Sir Geoffrey Pole's widow, Bone Danvers, "appears in
two of the records of Magdalen College, Oxford (Corston 11 and 18), in
which she is described as widow of Sir Geoffrey Pole, and resigns, as
do her brothers then (1482) living, William and Henry, their rights in
the manor of Corston." If Mr. Macnamara has correctly transcribed the
two deeds in question, then it would appear that Geoffrey Pole was
knighted sometime between the date of his will (12 Oct. 1478) and his
death date (4 Jan. 1478/9). I might mention that the Henry Danvers
who joined Bone (Danvers) Pole in the Corston deeds is the same
individual who sued Bone's step-son, Richard Pole, in Chancery in 1485
regarding the wardship of Edward Stradling. Corston is a manor in the
parish of Hilmarton, Wiltshire.
The following four visitations also indicate that Geoffrey Pole was
knighted:
1. W. Harvey et al. Vis. of Oxford 1566, 1574, 1634 & 1574 (H.S.P. 5)
(1871): 187–188 (Danvers pedigree: "Bova [Danvers] wife to Sr Jefery
Joole of Buckingham.").
2. W. Harvey et al. Vis. of Bedfordshire 1566, 1582, 1634 & 1669
(H.S.P. 19) (1884): 51–54 (Saint John pedigree: "Edyth [Saint John)
maryed to Sr Gefferey Poole Knight").
3. T. Benolte et al. Vis. of Sussex 1530, 1633–4 (H.S.P. 53) (1905):
89 (Poole-Pole pedigree: "Sr Geffrey Poole knight. = Edith d. of Sr
John St John of Bletsho.").
4. T. Benolte et al. Peds. from the Vis. of Hampshire 1530, 1575, 1622
& 1634 (H.S.P. 64) (1913): 35–36 (Poole pedigree: "Sir Geffrey Pole
knight. = Edith d. of Oliuer St. John of Bletuesho").
A copy of the latter pedigree may be found on your own website at:
The modern form of Pole was evidently in place before 1484. If you
check my post dated April 3rd regarding Sir Richard Pole's first
marriage to Alice Langford, you'll find that every single record I
transcribed for Sir Richard Pole in the period, 1484-1490, spelled his
surname Pole rather than Poole. If you desire to investigate the
matter for the pre-1484 period, I recommend you consult the various
sources cited in the well researched article on Geoffrey Pole which
appeared in the following journal:
National Library of Wales Journal, vol. 17, No. 3 (1972): 277–286.
In the meantime, your statement that the "almost universal practice"
of this family to spell the name Poole appears to be in error. This
is clearly not the case. If the records I transcribed in my post are
any indication, the family was predominantly known as Pole before
1484. Poole remained an alternative spelling, however, as you
indicate above in the window prepared for Cardinal Pole and also in
several of the visitations that I've cited.
Tim Powys-Lybbe
private, then it would be e-mail!), particularly those with some
competence in reading medieval wills,
In message of 5 Apr, royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote:
> Dear Tim ~
>
> My comments are interspersed below. DR
>
> Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote in message
> news:<1f75cd9...@south-frm.demon.co.uk>...
> > In message of 2 Apr, royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote:
> >
> > > Margaret married before November 1487 Richard Pole (or Poole), K.G.
> > > (died 1504), of Ellesborough and Medmenham, Buckinghamshire, son and
> > > heir of Geoffrey Pole, Knt., by his 1st wife, Edith Saint John.
> >
> > Let's take the small error first: Geoffrey Poole was not a knight. In
> > Testamenta Vetusta, Vol I, p. 338, where an abstract of his will is
> > printed, he is called esquire. This is confirmed by CP Vol XIV, p. 567.
>
> Macnamara's book, Memorials of the Danvers Family (1895), pp. 192, 206
> indicates that Sir Geoffrey Pole's widow, Bone Danvers, "appears in
> two of the records of Magdalen College, Oxford (Corston 11 and 18), in
> which she is described as widow of Sir Geoffrey Pole, and resigns, as
> do her brothers then (1482) living, William and Henry, their rights in
> the manor of Corston." If Mr. Macnamara has correctly transcribed the
> two deeds in question,
So we need to find those deeds.
> then it would appear that Geoffrey Pole was
> knighted sometime between the date of his will (12 Oct. 1478) and his
> death date (4 Jan. 1478/9). I might mention that the Henry Danvers
> who joined Bone (Danvers) Pole in the Corston deeds is the same
> individual who sued Bone's step-son, Richard Pole, in Chancery in 1485
> regarding the wardship of Edward Stradling. Corston is a manor in the
> parish of Hilmarton, Wiltshire.
>
> The following four visitations also indicate that Geoffrey Pole was
> knighted:
>
> 1. W. Harvey et al. Vis. of Oxford 1566, 1574, 1634 & 1574 (H.S.P. 5)
> (1871): 187–188 (Danvers pedigree: "Bova [Danvers] wife to Sr Jefery
> Joole of Buckingham.").
The visitation was made nearly 90 years after Geoff Poole's death.
>
> 2. W. Harvey et al. Vis. of Bedfordshire 1566, 1582, 1634 & 1669
> (H.S.P. 19) (1884): 51–54 (Saint John pedigree: "Edyth [Saint John)
> maryed to Sr Gefferey Poole Knight").
Ditto.
>
> 3. T. Benolte et al. Vis. of Sussex 1530, 1633–4 (H.S.P. 53) (1905):
> 89 (Poole-Pole pedigree: "Sr Geffrey Poole knight. = Edith d. of Sr
> John St John of Bletsho.").
This has a date of 1606 on it, over 120 years after Geoff Poole's
death.
>
> 4. T. Benolte et al. Peds. from the Vis. of Hampshire 1530, 1575, 1622
> & 1634 (H.S.P. 64) (1913): 35–36 (Poole pedigree: "Sir Geffrey Pole
I must protest: my reading of the image is definitely "Poole", and in
all instances of the name transcribed from this visitation manuscript it
is written such.
> knight. = Edith d. of Oliuer St. John of Bletuesho").
>
> A copy of the latter pedigree may be found on your own website at:
>
> http://powys.org/
The direct address of this is:
http://www.south-frm.demon.co.uk/visitation/index.html
(and I must ask all if they can see "Pole" or "Poole". Double click on
the image to see it enlarged. The only "Pole"s that I can see are by
the editor in naming the record and in naming the Poole arms.)
And the title of this particular page on my site is "Is this the
crassest set of Visitation Errors". I put it there as a
dreadful warning against relying too strongly on the pages of the
published visitations. I trust those who bother to read my account
there will find it as hilarious as I do.
Anyhow my guess, from the people listed on it, was, and is, that this
was from the 1575 visitation, nearly 100 years after Geoff Poole's
death.
I regret that I do not have access to this let alone to the documents on
which it was based let alone do I have the skill to read the original
documents myself.
> In the meantime, your statement that the "almost universal practice"
> of this family to spell the name Poole appears to be in error. This
> is clearly not the case. If the records I transcribed in my post are
> any indication, the family was predominantly known as Pole before
> 1484.
Were these transcriptions made from original documents of the period or
were they from later transcriptions or abstracts of those documents?
> Poole remained an alternative spelling, however, as you
> indicate above in the window prepared for Cardinal Pole and also in
> several of the visitations that I've cited.
As an 'alternative' spelling it is remarkable that 'Poole' was still
current in _all_ the visitation records made, as above, 80 to 120 years
odd after the death of Geoff Poole.
I will accept that spellings varied at those times; spelling was not the
precise science that it has become today (blame Dr Johnson?).
However I had invested a few ill-gotten pennies in the original
transcription of the original wills of Geoff Poole. Obviously these
will suffer from any defects of the scribe who had access to the real
will. I can only read a few words of them; doubtless there are a few
who can read quite a bit more. So I have put the three pages on my
website at:
http://www.south-frm.demon.co.uk/Manuscripts/Poole_1.pdf
http://www.south-frm.demon.co.uk/Manuscripts/Poole_2.pdf
http://www.south-frm.demon.co.uk/Manuscripts/Poole_3.pdf
These appear to be two wills plus the Probate clause. I would expect
that the second will and certainly the Probate clause would give the
title or status of Geoff at the time of his death.
So the question for those expert in these matters is: what are the
dates of these three documents and by what title was Geoff Poole known
in each. I am hoping that the answers will resolve this issue and
determine whether or no another amendment is needed to CP.
Unless, of course, if it was not customary to give a person's proper
style in his testimentary documents.
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for posting the will of Geoffrey Pole/Poole on your great
website. Much appreciated. By the way, if people have not yet
visited your website, I highly recommend they do so. Your genealogy
section is excellent. You have very impressive ancestry.
In answer to your request for information regarding the will of
Geoffrey Pole/Poole, I can provide the following particulars. The
will commences "In the name of God Amen ... I Geoffrey Poole of
Northend in the parish of Medmenham in county Buckingham, Esquire."
The will is dated 12 October 1478, and proved 21 March [year not given
but 1478/9 is the correct date]. In his will, he refers to his wife,
Bone; his daughter, Eleanor [Alianor]; and his two sons, Richard and
Henry. The will is divided into two parts both with the same date,
one written in Latin and one written in English. Neither the second
part of the will, nor the probate clause mentions Geoffrey's social
rank. The probate clause merely states that the above will was
probated 21 March [1478/9] and that administration of the estate was
granted to Richard Alfred, one of the executors named in the will.
There is an indication that "power" was "reserved," presumably in
favor of the other executor, Morgan Kidwelly.
On the second page of the will (11-12 lines from the bottom), the
testator specifically refers to his two sons as "Richard Pole" and
"Henry Pole." This suggests that the names, Poole and Pole, were
entirely interchangeable in this period.
There is nothing in this will which would preclude Geoffrey Pole from
having been knighted between the date of the will and his death date.
Consequently, if Macnamara has copied the Corston deeds correctly
involving Geoffrey's widow, Bone, it would appear that Geoffrey Pole
was knighted shortly before his death. I concur with you that the
Corston deeds should be consulted.
With respect to the spelling of the surname, all the records I found
which refer to Geoffrey Pole's son, Richard, in the period, 1484-1490,
spell Richard's surname as Pole, not Poole. As such, I presume that
the prevalent spelling of the surname after 1484 was Pole.
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> In answer to your request for information regarding the will of
> Geoffrey Pole/Poole, I can provide the following particulars. The
> will commences "In the name of God Amen ... I Geoffrey Poole of
> Northend in the parish of Medmenham in county Buckingham, Esquire."
Thanks. At least it confirms that Testamenta Vetusta got his Esquire
right.
> The will is dated 12 October 1478, and proved 21 March [year not given
> but 1478/9 is the correct date]. In his will, he refers to his wife,
> Bone; his daughter, Eleanor [Alianor]; and his two sons, Richard and
> Henry. The will is divided into two parts both with the same date,
> one written in Latin and one written in English. Neither the second
> part of the will, nor the probate clause mentions Geoffrey's social
> rank. The probate clause merely states that the above will was
> probated 21 March [1478/9] and that administration of the estate was
> granted to Richard Alfred, one of the executors named in the will.
> There is an indication that "power" was "reserved," presumably in
> favor of the other executor, Morgan Kidwelly.
>
> On the second page of the will (11-12 lines from the bottom), the
> testator specifically refers to his two sons as "Richard Pole" and
> "Henry Pole." This suggests that the names, Poole and Pole, were
> entirely interchangeable in this period.
Thanks for this transcript of the transcript of the original
(presumably now lost? These days they keep the originals but I wonder
if they kept them in those times?).
> There is nothing in this will which would preclude Geoffrey Pole from
> having been knighted between the date of the will and his death date.
Agreed. But there is nothing to say that he was so knighted,
particularly if he was on his death-bed, as his will-writing would
indicate.
> Consequently, if Macnamara has copied the Corston deeds correctly
> involving Geoffrey's widow, Bone, it would appear that Geoffrey Pole
> was knighted shortly before his death. I concur with you that the
> Corston deeds should be consulted.
I look forward to this.
Sounds like the jury is still out and the only evidence so far has him
to be plain Esquire.
> With respect to the spelling of the surname, all the records
Were these the records themselves or transcriptions or abstracts of the
records?
> I found which refer to Geoffrey Pole's son, Richard, in the period,
> 1484-1490, spell Richard's surname as Pole, not Poole. As such, I
> presume that the prevalent spelling of the surname after 1484 was
> Pole.
But not prevalent in the various visitation records of 80 to 120 years
later, that is the curious matter. It may be that people remote from
the family spelt the name differently to those close to the family?
Does anyone know of any documents written by cardinal Reginald Poole in
which he names himself? I have looked for his will but can't find it.
Nor can I find on the PRO site the wills of Richard, Reginald's father,
or of Richard's eldest son Henry.
Douglas Richardson
Today I reviewed a variety of records pertaining to the family of
Geoffrey Pole (or Poole) (died 1479), of Medmenham, Buckinghamshire
found on the online PROCAT catalog (http://catalogue.pro.gov.uk). I
found five records pertaining to Geoffrey Pole himself, five records
pertaining to his son, Sir Richard Pole (died 1504), and three records
pertaining to Sir Richard's widow, Margaret Plantagenet, Countess of
Salisbury. The records (which I have posted below) range in date from
the 1430's to the 1530's. All thirteen records spell the family
surname Pole. I found no instances of any of these people as Poole.
I trust this answers your question as to when the family began using
the spelling Pole for their surname.
Included among the records appears to be a reference to an inquisition
post mortem for Geoffrey Pole dated 19 Edward IV which refers to him
as "esquire." If so, this would be good evidence that he was not
knighted at the time of his death as stated by Macnamara. All the
same, I believe it would be helpful to examine both the inquisition
and the Corston deeds cited by Macnamara.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
- - - - - - - - -
RECORDS OF THE POLE FAMILY:
E 210/9238:
Appointment by Geoffrey Pole of attorneys to take possession of lands
in the lordship of Pebidiauk: (Pembr.)
Date: 15 Hen. VI
E 210/4142:
John, Viscount Beaumont, and Katherine, Duchess of Norfolk, his wife
to John, Abbot of Medmenham, and Geoffrey Pole, esquire : Demise,
indented, of one third of the manor of Medmenham. Endorsed : Final
concord between Thomas Hoo and Richard Leukenore, esquires, and
others, complainants, and John, Duke of Norfolk, Elizabeth his wife,
and Henry Bradfield, clerk, deforciants, conveying to the complainants
and the heirs of Thomas Boket the manors of Upton St.
Date: 37 Hen. VI. / 8 Edw. IV.
C 140/69/11:
Pole, Geoffrey, esq Bucks
19 Edw IV
C 4/26/15:
[-], son and heir of Elizabeth [Nevill], Lady Abergavenny and George
Leyntale v. Geoffrey Pole: bill Date of document after 1461
Date Range: 1462 Jan 1 - 1500 Dec 31
E 210/5176:
George Nevill, esquire, son and heir of Elizabeth Nevill late of the
wife of Edward Nevill, knight to Geoffrey Pole, esquire : Fine: being
a conveyance of one-third of the manor of Medmenham. Bucks.
Date: 49 Hen.VI.
C 1/67/36:
Henry Danvers v. Richard Pole: Custody of Edward Stradlyng,
complainant's ward, son of John, son of Edmund Stradlyng.: London.
C 1/141/77:
Thomas Hylle and others, tenants of Sir Richard Pole, knight, in Long
Wittenham. v. John Pulker, bailiff and farmer of the lordship, son of
Watkin Pulker, farmer of the parsonage of Wittenham.: Ejection of
complainants from tenements taken of dame Alice, duchess of Suffolk,
of the duke of Suffolk, and of the earl of Lincoln.
E 101/72/4/1109:
Parties to Indenture: Indentures retaining the following to serve in
the king's invasion of France. Richard Pole, kt.
Date: 7 Henry VII
E 150/5/3:
Pole, Richard, knight: Buckingham
Date: 20 Henry VII.
E 326/1494:
Demise by Henry Colet, knight, alderman of London, Robert Brudenell,
Thomas Bradbury, and William Gery to Richard Pole, knight, and Ralph
Asshton, of the manor of Ellesburgh (Ellesborough). Bucks.
Date: 16 April, 8 Henry VII
E 41/206:
Indenture between Margaret countess of Salisbury and Henry Pole
knight, lord Montague, her son and heir of the one part, and George
Nevile knight, lord Abergavenny (Bergevenny) of the other part:
Agreement to a marriage between Henry Pole aforesaid and Jane Nevile,
one of the daughters and heirs of lord Abergavenny, and settlement
therefor.
Date: 8 July 7 Hen VIII
E 314/79:
Pole, Margaret, countess of Salisbury [attainted 1540]: Accounts and
legal papers including articles of agreement with Lord Bergavenny on
the marriage of her son to his daughter.
Date: Hen. VIII
E 326/6366:
Parties: Margaret countess of Salisbury, and Henry Pole, knight, lord
Montagugh, her son & John Monson and Wylliam his son; Place or
Subject: The manor of Welton near Louth (Nexte Lowthe). County: [Linc]
Date: 24 Hen VIII
Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote in message news:<cbf7689...@south-frm.demon.co.uk>...
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> Dear Tim ~
>
> Today I reviewed a variety of records pertaining to the family of
> Geoffrey Pole (or Poole) (died 1479), of Medmenham, Buckinghamshire
> found on the online PROCAT catalog (http://catalogue.pro.gov.uk).
> I found five records pertaining to Geoffrey Pole himself, five records
> pertaining to his son, Sir Richard Pole (died 1504), and three records
> pertaining to Sir Richard's widow, Margaret Plantagenet, Countess of
> Salisbury. The records (which I have posted below) range in date from
> the 1430's to the 1530's. All thirteen records spell the family
> surname Pole. I found no instances of any of these people as Poole.
> I trust this answers your question as to when the family began using
> the spelling Pole for their surname.
I wish it did. (Thanks, by the way, for going to the trouble to look
up this catalogue.)
The problem, as you are well aware, is what you see on the site is the
cataloguer's abstract of the deeds. They may very well have used modern
spelling.
We will only find out when someone gets hold of the originals. And I
suspect then it will be ambiguous as multiple spellings will be found,
as was the custom of those times.
Meantime, we can be reasonably certain that the various editors of the
Visitation series determined to copy the verbal content and spelling on
the surviving documents and curiously these all use, universally, the
spelling of "Poole". Why did the originals (or even the copies of those
originals) have this if that spelling had died out at least sixty years
previously?
Has anyone got any suggestions of how to establish what Geoff Poole's
style was at the time of his death? Had he been knighted within the
six months between writing his will, when he was an esquire, and probate
being given? Was there an IPM?
Douglas Richardson
The Pole family records which I culled from the PROCAT catalog are
drawn from a variety of different classes of records. As such, I
think when you check the original records, you'll find that the
surname is spelled Pole just as the modern catalog indicates.
I might add that in addition to the records I reported for Geoffrey
Pole and his son, Sir Richard Pole, I also found around 30 records
involving Sir Richard Pole's three sons, Henry, K.B. [Lord Montagu],
Geoffrey, Knt., and Cardinal Reginald. The surname was spelled Pole
in all but four of these records. As such, I think we can safely
conclude that Pole was the predominate spelling of this family's
surname from at least the 1430's through the mid-1500's. Poole was a
recognized alternative spelling of the name.
As for why the later visitations spelled the surname, Poole, I can't
answer that question. There are many things which are not easily
explained in medieval and colonial records. This may be one of them.
When I find a family that uses an alternative spelling, I try to
reflect that in my records. When there is any question about the
spelling or style, I try to use records generated by the people
themselves, if at all possible. Richard Pole's response to Henry
Danvers' Chancery complaint in 1485 would be such a record. There the
name is Pole, not Poole.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote in message news:<ae57e09...@south-frm.demon.co.uk>...
Brad Verity
> Has anyone got any suggestions of how to establish what Geoff Poole's
> style was at the time of his death? Had he been knighted within the
> six months between writing his will, when he was an esquire, and probate
> being given? Was there an IPM?
Tim,
Per Douglas's previous post, there was an IPM for Geoffrey Po(o)le, in
19 Edward IV (1479-80), currently unpublished and in the PRO.
But that means there was also a writ of diem clausit extremum issued
shortly after his death, which would reveal whatever style/status
(knight vs. esquire) he held at his death. These writs are published
in the Calendar of Fine Rolls.
Unfortunately the UCLA Library doesn't have the Fine Roll volumes for
the years 1471-1485, or I'd check for you when I'm there this Friday.
Sorry I can't be of further assistance.
Cheers, -------Brad
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> Dear Tim ~
>
> The Pole family records which I culled from the PROCAT catalog are
> drawn from a variety of different classes of records. As such, I
> think when you check the original records, you'll find that the
> surname is spelled Pole just as the modern catalog indicates.
>
> I might add that in addition to the records I reported for Geoffrey
> Pole and his son, Sir Richard Pole, I also found around 30 records
> involving Sir Richard Pole's three sons, Henry, K.B. [Lord Montagu],
> Geoffrey, Knt., and Cardinal Reginald. The surname was spelled Pole
> in all but four of these records. As such, I think we can safely
> conclude that Pole was the predominate spelling of this family's
> surname from at least the 1430's through the mid-1500's. Poole was a
> recognized alternative spelling of the name.
>
> As for why the later visitations spelled the surname, Poole, I can't
> answer that question.
Let's try this:
There is a Suffolk family to whom one of my mother's aunts was married.
I always heard them as "Pooley" and, indeed, spelt them as such. Then
I discovered that the usual spelling for at least the last three hundred
years was "Poley". On the other hand the same name from that part of the
world is found in some visitation records as "Pooley".
This could instance an early example of the illogicality of English
spelling, where some people have decided to spell a name "Polxx" where
the pronunciation is "Poolxx".
I have also been told that some current English Pole families pronounce
their name to this day as "Pool".
> There are many things which are not easily explained in medieval and
> colonial records. This may be one of them. When I find a family that
> uses an alternative spelling, I try to reflect that in my records.
> When there is any question about the spelling or style, I try to use
> records generated by the people themselves, if at all possible.
> Richard Pole's response to Henry Danvers' Chancery complaint in 1485
> would be such a record. There the name is Pole, not Poole.
I wonder if this started as a clerical confusion with the far more
prominent de la Pole family? (This confusion is still to be found
within Tompsett's "Hull" pages where he continues to refer to "Richard
Pole" as "Duke of Suffolk" though notes an anomaly in the death dates.)
<snip>
> >
> > Has anyone got any suggestions of how to establish what Geoff Poole's
> > style was at the time of his death? Had he been knighted within the
> > six months between writing his will, when he was an esquire, and probate
> > being given? Was there an IPM?
Anyone?
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote in message news:
>
> > Has anyone got any suggestions of how to establish what Geoff Poole's
> > style was at the time of his death? Had he been knighted within the
> > six months between writing his will, when he was an esquire, and probate
> > being given? Was there an IPM?
>
> Tim,
>
> Per Douglas's previous post, there was an IPM for Geoffrey Po(o)le, in
> 19 Edward IV (1479-80), currently unpublished and in the PRO.
>
> But that means there was also a writ of diem clausit extremum issued
> shortly after his death, which would reveal whatever style/status
> (knight vs. esquire) he held at his death. These writs are published
> in the Calendar of Fine Rolls.
I'm due in London next week so might divert to the PRO on my way back.
> Unfortunately the UCLA Library doesn't have the Fine Roll volumes for
> the years 1471-1485, or I'd check for you when I'm there this Friday.
Thanks for the offer.
>
> Sorry I can't be of further assistance.
>
> Cheers, -------Brad
--
Rosie Bevan
Geoffrey Pole was referred to as an armiger at his inquisition in 19 Edw IV
[Calendarium Inquisitionum Post Mortem v. 4. p.392].
Cheers
Rosie
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> Dear Tim
>
> Geoffrey Pole was referred to as an armiger at his inquisition in 19
> Edw IV [Calendarium Inquisitionum Post Mortem v. 4. p.392].
>
> Cheers
>
> Rosie
Wow! Then it seems that he was not a knight?
Any alternative views, anyone?
(Many thanks, by the way.)
Alex Maxwell Findlater
Pole is the standard modern spelling, while Poole is the phonetic
spelling.
I used to live in Suffolk and work in Norfolk. At one time I had
dealings with a garage in Fakenham, through which I discovered that
they sold Roovers. On further investigating it became clear that
these were cars of the marque ROVER, which uses that wonderful viking
ship as a badge.
When I first went to north Norfolk, I found the accent very difficult
to understand, quite as thick as Glaswegian to my untutored ear.
However, after a few weeks, I became adept and can therefore give you
this little piece of further information.
In Norfolk, if a thing is skew-whiff, ie not quite at right angles, it
is said to be on the sosh, however, if it's only a little bit on the
sosh, it's said to be on the huh, as in uh-huh, which is what I
imagine you to be thinking as you read this.
Douglas Richardson
You can find a pedigree of the ancestry of Geoffrey Pole, of
Medmenham, Buckinghamshire, in the following source:
P.C. Bartrum, Welsh Genealogies 1400–1500, 6 (1983): 898 [Gwenwys 2
(A, B): "Jeffrey Pole, d. 1479 = Edith d. Oliver St. John"].
Mr. Bartrum identifies Geoffrey Pole as the son of a David Fawr, and
gives the Pole ancestry back several generations to a Gilbert "Pool."
This pedigree has similarities to the one you report for Geoffrey Pole
on your website, although I noted some distinct differences. Also, it
appears that Bartrum has identified the placement of a couple of the
Pole wives in their own respective family pedigrees, as he has
provided cross references to those other pedigrees.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote in message news:<1a25109...@south-frm.demon.co.uk>...
Douglas Richardson
> Dear Tim ~
>
> You can find a pedigree of the ancestry of Geoffrey Pole, of
> Medmenham, Buckinghamshire, in the following source:
>
> (A, B): "Jeffrey Pole, d. 1479 = Edith d. Oliver St. John"].
>
> Mr. Bartrum identifies Geoffrey Pole as the son of a David Fawr, and
> gives the Pole ancestry back several generations to a Gilbert "Pool."
Correction: Bartrum identifies Geoffrey Pole as the son of Dafydd Fawr.
DR
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Thanks for this information.
In all the postings about Bartrum's collections, I have noted that the
prevailing view is that he was not a genealogist but a collector, and a
highly scholarly one at that. He put down whatever was in various
manuscripts and I gather that he did not check on the authenticity of
their content; but providing the raw manuscripts is enormously valuable,
of course.
It was for the same reason that I did not incorporate Arthur Plaisted's
account in my genealogy, only including it as a note, as there were no
sources to back it up.
So I wonder if you can let us know your view of Bartrum's work - to
which I do not have access here.
Have you seen, by the way, Constance Poole's will of 1570? It is on the
Documents on Line site of the PRO. Not very legible but she seems to
have used the spelling of the visitations of much the same time.
ADRIANC...@aol.com
<snip>
> Have you seen, by the way, Constance Poole's will of 1570? It is on the
> Documents on Line site of the PRO. Not very legible but she seems to
> have used the spelling of the visitations of much the same time.
>
That reminds me of something I heard on the radio — the great vowel shift of
the 14c when long "o"'s became short "o"s (honest it was not on 1st April)
de Pole (with Poole , etc.) derived its meaning from residence near a pool or
tidal stream from O.E. "[P][long O][L]", and this must be a case where the
pronunciation and spelling remained unchanged, but the spelling of pol (that is
the pond) became pool.
Some more modern "Pools'" derive from the name Paul, which brings us neatly
to "Poulett", earl Poulett , etc. which I understand is pronounce Paulett
rather than like a French chicken (I mean "poo-lay", not the sound a french chicken
makes, which sound I can not spell)
Now what about Mainwaring (pronounced Mannering), Fe(a)therston(e)haugh,
(Featherstone) Beauchamp (Beecham), Berkeley (Barkly) Er Wemyss (Weems) Grosvenor
(Grovenor) Er Harewood (Harwood), etc., etc., etc.
Adrian
D. Spencer Hines
as American and English chickens do.
Their tone is also somewhat more nasal.
DSH
<ADRIANC...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8a.80201f...@aol.com...
Alex Maxwell Findlater
This is derived from living near Hinton St George, the seat of the
Earls Paulett and having friends called Powlett, derived from the
Marquesses of Winchester.
Ian Cairns
> (Featherstone) Beauchamp (Beecham), Berkeley (Barkly) Er Wemyss (Weems)
Grosvenor
> (Grovenor) Er Harewood (Harwood), etc., etc., etc.
I understood Fe(a)therston(e)haugh to be pronounced Fanshaw in some
circles...
There's also Cockburn (Coburn); Cholmondleigh (Chumley); etc., etc.
Ian
ADRIANC...@aol.com
writes:
> <ADRIANC...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:8a.80201f...@aol.com...
> >Tim wrote;
> >
> ><snip>
> >Now what about Mainwaring (pronounced Mannering), Fe(a)therston(e)haugh,
> >(Featherstone) Beauchamp (Beecham), Berkeley (Barkly) Er Wemyss (Weems)
> Grosvenor
> >(Grovenor) Er Harewood (Harwood), etc., etc., etc.
>
Ian replied
> I understood Fe(a)therston(e)haugh to be pronounced Fanshaw in some
> circles...
> There's also Cockburn (Coburn); Cholmondleigh (Chumley); etc., etc.
>
> Ian
>
Yes, I think the Fe(a)therston(e)haughs who held Uppark, West Sussex
pronounced their name as Fanshaw
Adrian