CP Correction: Jane Neville, wife of Henry Pole, Lord Montagu
Douglas Richardson
Complete Peerage, 9 (1936): 94 (sub Montagu) had a good account of the
life of Henry Pole, K.B., Lord Montagu (died 1538/9), son and heir of
the well known tragic figure of Tudor times, Margaret Pole, Countess
of Salisbury. The editor of C.P. identifies Henry Pole's wife as
Jane Neville, "daughter of George (Neville), Lord Abergavenny, by his
first wife, Margaret, daughter of Sir Hugh Fenne." Henry and Jane
were reportedly married before May 1520. No source is given for
either the marriage or the date by the editor. This couple is
ancestral to the American colonist, Mary Johanna Somerset, of
Maryland.
That Jane Neville's parentage is incorrectly stated in Complete
Peerage is clear from the fact that her husband, Henry Pole, is known
to have been born about 1492. As such, Jane Neville is not likely to
have been the daughter of George Neville, Knt., Lord Bergavenny (died
1492), whose wife, Margaret Fenne, died in 1485.
Rather, it appears that Jane Neville belongs in the next generation of
the Neville family as a hitherto unnoticed daughter of George Neville,
K.B., K.G., Lord Bergavenny (died 1535), by his 1st wife, Joan
Arundel. The younger George Neville was born about 1469 (aged 16 in
1485) and thus would be a good chronological fit to be the father of
Jane Neville, born say 1495, who married Henry Pole.
That this change in Jane Neville's parentage is correct is proven by a
dispensation dated 1531 found in the episcopal register of Stephen
Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester. This dispensation involves the
marriage of Jane Neville's daughter, Katherine Pole, who married
Francis Hastings, K.B., K.G., 2nd Earl of Huntingdon. According to
the dispensation, Francis Hastings and Katherine Neville were related
in the 3rd and 4th degree of kinship. If Jane Neville is placed one
generation down in the Neville family as suggested above, then her
daughter, Katherine Pole, and Francis Hastings would share a kinship
in the 3rd and 4th degrees by virtue of a common descent from Richard
Wydville, 1st Earl of Rivers. However, if Jane Neville remains as a
daughter of the elder George Neville and Margaret Fenne, then no 3rd
and 4th degree kinship would exist whatsoever betweeen the two
parties.
The actual dispensation between Francis Hastings and Katherine Pole is
long and an exact verbatim copy of it is not necessary here.
However, the pertinent portions of it are presented below:
Dispensatio - Petrus Vannes serenissimi domini Henrici octaui Dei
gracia [etc.] Hibernie a Latinis secretarius, ac sanctissimi in
Christo patris et domini nostri domini Clementis diuina providencia
huius nominis pape vii in regno Anglie fructuum reddituum et
proventuum aliorumque iurium sancte Romane ecclesie et apostolice
camere debitorum collector et receptor generalis etiam ad nostram
vitam deputatus, DILECTUS nobis in Christo Francisco domino Hastynges,
filio et heredi Georgii comitis de Huntyngdonia, et Katherine
Mountegue alias Poole, Londoniensis et Wintoniensis respectiue
diocesium, infra dictum Anlie regnum residentibus, Salutem in domino
sempiternam: SEDIS apostolice providentia circumspecta nonnunquam
juris rigorem sua mansuetudine temperat, et quod sacrorum canonum
indulgendi facultatem sua auctoritate concedit, prout personarum et
temporum qualitate / pensata id in Deo salubriter dominus noster papa
inter alias facultates nobis concessit vt cum quibusuis personis dicti
regni et in eo residentibus, tercio et iiii mixtum aut quarto et
quarto seu quarto tantum consanguinitatis et affinitatis gradibus
coniunctis, ut invicem matrimonialiter copulari valeant dispensare
possimus, prout in literis apostolicis nobis conessir plenius
continetur: NUPER vero ex parte vestra nobis fuit expositum quod
mutuam inter vtriusque vestrum familias amiciciam arctiori vinculo
confirmandi studio, ex certisque aliis iustis et racionabilibus causis
coram nobis expositis et per nos approbatis animum vestrum in fac
parte mouentibus, desideratis inter vos matrimonium contrahere, sed
quia tercio et quarto consanguinitatis gradibus adimplere non
potestis, canonica dispensacione desuper non obtenta ... DAT. in
edibus solite habitacionis nostre apud Pouleshayne prope edem diui
Pauli Londoniensem anno Domini millesimo quingentesimo tricesimio
primo [1531], mensis vero Julii die vndeuigesimo [sic], pontificatus
antedicti sanctissimi domini nostri Clementis pape septimi anno
ocatauo. Petrus Vannes collector." [Reference: Herbert Chitty,
Registra Stephani Gardiner et Johannis Poynet Episcoporum
Wintoniensium (Canterbury and York Soc., vol. 37) (1930): 22-25].
The exact kinship between the two parties would be as follows:
Richard Wydville
______________/_________________
/ /
Katherine Wydville Margaret Wydville
/ /
Anne Stafford Joan Arundel
/ /
/ Jane Neville
/ /
Francis Hastings Katherine Pole
Comments are invited.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
Leo van de Pas
Douglas Richardson, at first, gingerly questions the parentage of Jane
Neivlle, wife of Henry Pole, but then gets quite convinced that he has the
correct parrentage for her, for this he has a "proof".
But first I would like to note that I have seen three sources, which all can
be wrong of course, who give George and Margaret Fenne as the parents of
Jane, these are : The Complete Peerage, Cahiers de Saint Louis and Gerald
Paget.
Douglas uses the dispensation dated 1531 for Jane's daughter Katherine as
proof, because, if Jane is a daughter of George Sr. and Margaret Fenne,
there is no 3rd or 4th degree of kinship between that daughter Katherine and
her husband Francis Hastings, 2nd Earl of Huntingdon.
I do not know how Douglas did his counting, but to me, by Jane being the
daughter of George Sr. and Margaret Fenne, there is definitely a 4th degree
(4th Cousin) relationship between Katherine
and Francis Hastings, both being descendants of Ralph Nevill, 1st Earl of
Westmorland.
Ralph Nevill, 1st Earl of Westmorland
father of
Eleanor (and Cicely)
mother of
Anne Percy
mother of
Mary Hungerford
mother of
George Hastings, 1st Earl of Huntingdon
father of
Francis Hastings, 2nd Earl of Hungtingdon
Ralph Nevill, 1st Earl of Westmorland
father of
Cicely (and Eleanor)
mother of
George, Duke of Clarence
father of
Margaret, Countess of Salisbury
mother of
Henry Pole
father of
Katherine Pole
I think this places the "proof" on rather loose grounds.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Leo van de Pas
appear three times in the ancestor list of both Francis Hastings and his
wife Katherine Pole.
For Francis they appear as number 36-37, 50-51, 90-91
For Katherine they appear as numbers 24-25, 42-43, 88-89
Ralph Nevill
1st Earl of Westmorland
/
---------------------------------------------
Richard Nevill Edward Nevill
/ /
Catherine Nevill George Nevill
/ /
Edward Hastings Jane Nevill
/ /
George Hastings KATHERINE POLE
/
FRANCIS HASTINGS
In modern terminoly they were 3rd cousins once removed,
but what were they in the terminoly applied at the time?
ADRIANC...@aol.com
> I do not know how Douglas did his counting, but to me, by Jane being the
> daughter of George Sr. and Margaret Fenne, there is definitely a 4th
> degree
> (4th Cousin) relationship between Katherine
> and Francis Hastings, both being descendants of Ralph Nevill, 1st Earl of
> Westmorland.
>
No doubt I am wrong, but my understanding was that 4th cousins were related
in the 5th degree? 1st cousins have a common grandparent which, according to
the table previously posted to Gen-Med are related in the 2nd degree.
Adrian
Douglas Richardson
The dispensation for Francis Hastings and Katherine Pole clearly
states they were related in the 3rd and 4th degrees of kindred [2nd
cousins, once removed]. That's rather close kinship. The
dispensation was not likely to have mistaken a 3rd and 4th degree
kinship for a more remote one.
Francis Hastings' ancestry is securely anchored. Katherine Pole's
ancestry is also well established. Based on the standard accounts of
their ancestry, Francis and Katherine don't have a 3rd and 4th degree
kinship between them. However, after reviewing the literature on the
Nevilles of Abergavenny, my impression is that the children of the two
George Nevilles are NOT well documented in the literature. So, it
doesn't surprise me that the editor of Complete Peerage made this
mistake in assigning Jane Neville as a daughter to one of two
successive George Neville's. My guess is that the editor did not have
the birthdates of Henry Pole and the younger George Neville in hand.
If he did, he would have realized it was the younger George Neville
who was Henry Pole's father-in-law, not the senior George Neville.
In any case, something is clearly wrong with the Complete Peerage
account, as Henry Pole and his wife, Jane Neville, were surely the
same approximate age, yet C.P. shows that Jane Neville's supposed
mother, Margaret Fenne, died seven years before Henry Pole's birth.
If Jane Neville was Margaret Fenne's daughter, that would make her a
minimum of seven years older than Henry Pole, something which is
seldom seen. Clearly something is wrong. Beyond that, if you check
closely, you'll find that editor of C.P. sub Montagu gives NO
reference for his identification of Henry Pole's wife, Jane Neville,
or of her parentage.
I've only found one visitation which identifies Henry Pole's wife.
It is the Hastings pedigree in the 1619 Visitation of Leicestershire.
It reads as follows:
"Hen. Poole D'ns Montegue = Jana fil. Geo. Newell D'mini Bergaueni"
[Reference:. H.S.P. 2 (1870): 72-73 (1619 Vis. Leicester)].
As you can see, no indication is made as to which George Neville was
Jane Neville's father. I'm satisfied on chronological grounds that
Jane was the daughter of the younger George Neville, rather than the
senior George Neville. If this reassignment is made, it would provide
Francis Hastings and Katherine Pole with the necessary kinship in the
3rd and 4th degrees, as stated in their dispensation.
When Leo van de Pas has a moment, perhaps he would kindly share the
line(s) of descent from Henry and Jane (Neville) Pole down to Prince
Charles.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
leov...@bigpond.com ("Leo van de Pas") wrote in message news:<018401c24217$f8c2eb40$1e53fea9@old>...
Douglas Richardson
I just finished examining the will of George Neville, K.G., lord
Bergavenny (died 1535). The will is dated 4 June 1535 and was proved
24 Jan. 1535/6, in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury (P.C.C.)
[Reference: 35 Hogen]. The will is in good condition but quite
lengthy.
In his will, Lord Bergavenny refers to various relatives, among them
his current wife, Mary; his late wife, Mary; his unmarried daughters,
Katherine and Ursula (called youngest daughter); sons-in-law (not
named) and their wives his daughters; his brothers, Sir Thomas Neville
and Sir George Neville; George Neville son to his brother Sir Edward
Neville; and niece Margaret Neville daughter of his brother Sir Thomas
Neville. He also mentions in two places "Henry lord Mountagewe and
Jane the wife of the said Henry daughter to me." He names Henry Poole
kt. lord Mountague and his brothers, Sir Thomas Neville and Sir Edward
Neville, his executors.
Given the specific statements in this will, there can be no question
that Jane Neville, wife of Henry Pole, lord Mountagu, was the daughter
of George Neville, Lord Bergavenny (died 1535), and not of his father,
George Neville, Sr. (died 1492). Likewise, given the evidence of the
dispensation for the marriage of Jane Neville's daughter, Katherine
Pole, it is clear that Jane Neville was the daughter of Lord
Begavenny's first wife, Joan Arundel, which would provide Jane's
daughter, Katherine Pole, the necessary 3rd and 4th degrees of kinship
between Katherine and her husband, Francis Hastings.
This new arrangement in the Neville family tree gives the immigrant,
Mary Johanna Somerset, of Maryland, several new royal descents to add
to her already illustrious pedigree. The change will be reflected in
the forthcoming book, Plantagenet Ancestry.
Lastly, if Leo van de Pas has the time and opportunity, it would be
much appreciated if he could post the descent from Jane (Neville) Pole
Leo van de Pas
Congratulations, this also means that there is an other correction needed in
that footnote of Henry Pole Lord Montagu, the one about his wife's brother,
Edward Nevill----Edward has become his wife's uncle.
This means that George Junior is Jane's father, is there anything that makes
Joan Fitzalan as a irrefutable mother? If that is the case than the entry
for Henry Daubenay also needs amending as his wife is recorded as the only
child of Joan FitzAlan.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: Douglas Richardson <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Brad Verity
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> The dispensation for Francis Hastings and Katherine Pole clearly
> states they were related in the 3rd and 4th degrees of kindred [2nd
> cousins, once removed]. That's rather close kinship. The
> dispensation was not likely to have mistaken a 3rd and 4th degree
> kinship for a more remote one.
I think you're correct, Doug. The best I could come up with is this:
Isabel Despenser
Countess of Worcester, then Countess of Beauchamp
Elizabeth Beauchamp Eleanor Beauchamp
Lady Abergavenny Duchess of Somerset
George Nevill Margaret Beaufort
Lord Abergavenny Countess of Stafford
Jane Neville Henry Stafford
Lady Montagu 2nd Duke of Buckingham
Katherine Pole Anne Stafford
Countess of Huntington Countess of Huntington
Francis Hastings
2nd Earl of Huntingdon
Which is 3rd cousins, once removed.
Cheers, -------Brad
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for your good post. I've learned from past experience that
kinship in the 4th and 5th degrees or higher usually wasn't dispensed
(including 5th and 5th), only anything 4th and 4th or closer (3rd
cousins). The closest kinship I've seen dispensed in England is 2nd
and 3rd (Edward the Black Prince and Joan of Kent) (first cousins,
once removed). However, I understand that one of the French kings
allegedly married his first cousin (2nd and 2nd). Does anyone have
particulars on that?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
bat...@hotmail.com (Brad Verity) wrote in message news:<8ed1b63.02081...@posting.google.com>...
Tim Powys-Lybbe
<5cf47a19.02081...@posting.google.com>
royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote:
<lots of snips>
[Quoting the Winchester epsicopal register]
> Katherine Mountegue alias Poole
On 13th August in message
<5cf47a19.0208...@posting.google.com>
royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote:
> It is the Hastings pedigree in the 1619 Visitation of Leicestershire.
> It reads as follows:
>
> "Hen. Poole D'ns Montegue = Jana fil. Geo. Newell D'mini Bergaueni"
> [Reference:. H.S.P. 2 (1870): 72-73 (1619 Vis. Leicester)].
On 13th August in message <5cf47a19.02081...@posting.google.com>
royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote:
> I just finished examining the will of George Neville, K.G., lord
> Bergavenny (died 1535).
<snip>
> He also mentions in two places "Henry lord Mountagewe and
> Jane the wife of the said Henry daughter to me." He names Henry Poole
> kt. lord Mountague and his brothers, Sir Thomas Neville and Sir Edward
> Neville, his executors.
Interestingly in all of these the contemporary spelling of Henry Poole's
name was "Poole" and not the modern "Pole".
I have also found the spelling of Poole in the 1612 Visitation of Essex
(for Barrington, p. 148) and in the will of Henry's grandfather Geoffrey
Poole (Testamenta Vetusta, p. 338).
I have only found one contemporary document that use "Pole": Harleian
MS 1074, of which I have a transcript from Collectanea Topographica et
Genealogica, though I have yet to examine the original.
I wonder if, in the interests of broad historical accuracy and
certainly in the interests of how the name was pronounced, we should not
adopt the usual contemporary spelling?
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a patchwork of bygones: http://powys.org
John Steele Gordon
news:779b186...@southfrm.demon.co.uk...
> Interestingly in all of these the contemporary spelling of Henry Poole's
> name was "Poole" and not the modern "Pole".
>
> I have also found the spelling of Poole in the 1612 Visitation of Essex
> (for Barrington, p. 148) and in the will of Henry's grandfather Geoffrey
> Poole (Testamenta Vetusta, p. 338).
>
> I have only found one contemporary document that use "Pole": Harleian
> MS 1074, of which I have a transcript from Collectanea Topographica et
> Genealogica, though I have yet to examine the original.
>
> I wonder if, in the interests of broad historical accuracy and
> certainly in the interests of how the name was pronounced, we should not
> adopt the usual contemporary spelling?
The notion of "correct spelling" is a product of the age of the dictionary
and in Tudor times even proper names were spelled however the writer felt
like writing them that day. Shakespeare spelled his own name in at least six
different ways (to be sure, it's a name that lends itself to orthographical
variation). The OED prefers "Shakspeare" because that is the spelling
advocated by Sir F. Madden because that is how Shakespeare spelled his name
on a copy of Florio's Montaigue, although why that should be determinative
is quite beyond me. And, indeed, it is not determinative because as even the
OED admits, the name is now spelled Shakespeare whether they, or the ghost
of Sir F. Madden, like it or not. I haven't checked the new edition of the
OED to see if they've thrown in the towel in this regard.
So I think we should let sleeping orthographies lie as they are wholly
arbitrary in any event. In English, we spell words the way we spell them
because that's the way we spell them. Logic has nothing to do with it and
the name of this family has settled down to be spelled Pole. I suppose we
could poll the membership of SGM on the subject and pool the results, but
let's not.
JSG
Doug McDonald
John Steele Gordon wrote:
>
> So I think we should let sleeping orthographies lie as they are wholly
> arbitrary in any event. In English, we spell words the way we spell them
> because that's the way we spell them. Logic has nothing to do with it and
> the name of this family has settled down to be spelled Pole. I suppose we
> could poll the membership of SGM on the subject and pool the results, but
> let's not.
>
I think you should poll the membership of the people descended
from the people in question.
My name is McDonald. Some spell it MacDonald, and some
Macdonald, without the extra capital. Others claim to spell
it Kroc. :-) All except the last are equivalent, and
the latter does leave a bad taste in the mouth of
real McDonalds. :-)
Doug McDonald
John Steele Gordon
"Doug McDonald" <mcdo...@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:3D5E6169...@scs.uiuc.edu...
>
>
> John Steele Gordon wrote:
> >
> > So I think we should let sleeping orthographies lie as they are wholly
> > arbitrary in any event. In English, we spell words the way we spell them
> > because that's the way we spell them. Logic has nothing to do with it
and
> > the name of this family has settled down to be spelled Pole. I suppose
we
> > could poll the membership of SGM on the subject and pool the results,
but
> > let's not.
> >
>
> I think you should poll the membership of the people descended
> from the people in question.
As a matter of fact, I did poll the one person I know who is descended from
Sir Henry Pole, Lord Montagu.
As so often seems to be the case, I agreed with myself completely.
JSG
Tim Powys-Lybbe
"John Steele Gordon" <ance...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> "Doug McDonald" <mcdo...@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
> news:3D5E6169...@scs.uiuc.edu...
> >
> >
> > John Steele Gordon wrote:
> > >
> > > So I think we should let sleeping orthographies lie as they are wholly
> > > arbitrary in any event. In English, we spell words the way we spell
> > > them because that's the way we spell them. Logic has nothing to do with
> > > it and the name of this family has settled down to be spelled Pole. I
> > > suppose we could poll the membership of SGM on the subject and pool
> > > the results, but let's not.
> > I think you should poll the membership of the people descended
> > from the people in question.
>
> As a matter of fact, I did poll the one person I know who is descended
> from Sir Henry Poole, Lord Montagu.
>
> As so often seems to be the case, I agreed with myself completely.
But that poll is now 50:50.
Douglas Richardson
So you want Pole instead of Poole? Try the two suits below pulled
from the early Chancery Proceedings:
C 1/732/38 Humphrey Babyngton. v. Henry Pole, knight hospitaller,
commander of the commandery of Dalby-on-the-Wold.: Crops on land in
Dalby whereof the lease is expiring.: Leicester.
C 1/866/69 Henry Pole, lord Montagu, William Barantyne, knight, and
Jane, his wife, [late the wife of Sir Arthur Pole]. v. Roger
Lewkenour, knight.: Manor of Broadhurst (in Horsted Keynes and West
Hoathly), settled on the said Jane and Arthur, with annuity to
defendant.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote in message news:<779b186...@southfrm.demon.co.uk>...
Rosie Bevan
Henry Pole in the first record was a member of the Pole family of
Wakebridge, Derbyshire. He and Humphrey Babington of Rothley Temple, Leics.
were cousins.
This Henry Pole is not the same as Lord Montagu.
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 12:53 PM
Subject: Re: CP Correction: Jane Neville, wife of Henry Pole, Lord Montagu
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for distinguishing the two Henry Pole's. Much appreciated.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
rbe...@paradise.net.nz ("Rosie Bevan") wrote in message news:<052001c24764$4f27b820$de00...@mshome.net>...