DE LA POLE FAMILY
David Hall
The early history of the de la Pole family before
William de la Pole has not been proven.
Dr. Rosemary Horrox in her book on the de la Poles
states "The de la Poles died out in the early sixteen
century, just before the great revival of interest in
geneaology which might have enabled their pedigree to
be traced and preserved. The modern historian of the
family can reach no further back than William of Hull,
in Paston's words, 'a worshipful man grown by fortune
of the world and he was first a merchant and after a
knight and after he was made banneret'.
William de la Pole died 1366, his wife Katherine died
1381.
Charles Frost in his article on the family thought
the de la Pole brothers (Richard and William) were
the sons of William and Elena, who subsequently
remarried John Rottenherring. However A.S. Harvey
"The de la Pole Family of Kingston-upon-Hull" published
Hull, 1957 proved neither parent correct.
William de la Pole's wife Katherine also presents a
problem. Frost and Harvey describe Katherine as a
sister of Sir John de Norwich (d. 1362) Earlier writers
make her the daughter. However no sources are given.
William and Katherine had three daughters, Katherine,
Blanche and Margaret. All three were still unmarried
in 1339, when the king promised to provide them with
suitable husbands. By May 1340 Katherine had married
Constantine, the son of Adam de Clifton. The second
daughter, Blanche, married Richard lord Scrope of
Bolton. Margaret, the third daughter, married Robert
Neville of Hornby. This marriage probably took place
around 1362. Dr. Horrox stated "Robert's father,
Robert senior, was then heavily in debt to William,
and had been imprisoned in the Fleet for non-payment of
two thousand pounds. Michael de la Pole obtained his
release in May claiming that the money had been repaid.
This seems unlikely; three days later Robert senior took out
another bond promising repayment of the two thousand
pounds."
Hope this helps.
Regards, Lyn Hall.
Floyd Reed
>William de la Pole died 1366, his wife Katherine died
>1381.
>problem. Frost and Harvey describe Katherine as a
>sister of Sir John de Norwich (d. 1362) Earlier writers
>make her the daughter. However no sources are given.
My records have Katherine as a daughter of Phillipa Beauchamp and Hugh
Stafford. Can anyone verify that?
Floyd
David Hall
Thomas de la Pole, father of Katherine, who married
Myles Stapleton, is now considered to be the son
of Michael de la Pole, the first earl of Suffolk, and
not the son of Michael the second earl and Katherine
Stafford. This research is based on the Calendar of
Close Rolls into the manor of Grafton Regis.
In a rare book at our State library it also states the
following: "Sir Michael de la Pole who in 28 Edward III
had a grant of free warren in Bliburgh in Lincolnshire,
Gresthorp in Notts. and Grafton. In 1359 this Michael
de la Pole with the king's permission acquired or had a
confirmation of this manor in fee, from the Abbot and
convent of Grestein and by line in 1383 settled it on
his younger sons William de la Pole, Richard de la Pole
and Thomas de la Pole successively in tail male remainder
to himself in fee (a) Cotton MSS Vesp. Exxij fol 96.
At this period he was Lord Chancellor of England and in
1385 he was created Earl of Suffolk, but the year following
fled the charge of treason and was outlawed. On an
inquitision of his estates in 1388 the above fine was
recited, by which the manor was secured to his son William
de la Pole; on his decease without issue in 1390 it
devolved by virtue of this settlement on his brother
Richard de la Pole a minor 12 years of age who also
dying issueless, was succeeded in 1403 by his brother
Thomas de la Pole then 26 years of age (Esc. Henry V no.
39) and afterwards knighted. He died August 8 1420
having three years before devised his manor of Grafton
to trustees, who after his death conveyed it to Lady
Anne his widow in tail male (Esc. 8 Henry V No. 56)
and her only son Thomas de la Pole dying during her
lifetime in July 8 Henry VI (1430) a minor and unmarried,
it was found by the office on his death, that Katherine
de la Pole his sister aged 14 years was his heir, but
the manor of Grafton ought, in the determination of his
mother's life interest, to pass to his heir male William
de la Pole, earl of Suffolk, afterwards, Duke of Suffolk."
Also Dr. Rosemary Horrox in her book "The De La Poles of
Hull" has Thomas who married Ann Cheney being the son
of Michael the first earl. Dr. Horrox has the Thomas
who was the son of Michael the second earl as a clerk
who died in 1433.
The Complete Peerage under "Ingham" has Thomas de la Pole
(the father of Katherine) being the son of Michael the
second earl. However no reference is given. I think
the problem arises from both Michaels having sons called
Thomas. I have seen in other books Thomas being called
the son of Michael the second earl, but no authority
is given. I would be interested to learn if anyone
has a source that has Thomas being the son of Michael
the second earl.
Regards, Lyn Hall
Marlyn Lewis
Floyd Reed wrote:
>
> >William de la Pole died 1366, his wife Katherine died
> >1381.
> >William de la Pole's wife Katherine also presents a
> >problem. Frost and Harvey describe Katherine as a
> >sister of Sir John de Norwich (d. 1362) Earlier writers
> >make her the daughter. However no sources are given.
> >Regards, Lyn Hall.
Catherine is daughter of Sir Walter de Norwich, Treasurer and Chief
Baron of the Exchequer. She died 28 Jan 1381/2 and was buried at the
Church of St. Michael, Kingston-upon-Hull, Yorkshire. Catherine's
mother was Catherine, daughter of Sir John de Hedersete (additional
ancestry unknown to me).
As far as I can tell, Catherine Norwich and William de la Pole (d. 22
Jun 1366 and buried at Trinity Church, Kingston-upon-Hull) had 7
children (perhaps, more). Those were Catherine, Blanche, Margaret,
Joan, Michael (Lord de la Pole and Earl of Suffolk), Sir Edmund, and
John.
> My records have Katherine as a daughter of Phillipa Beauchamp and Hugh
> Stafford. Can anyone verify that?
> Floyd
This is in error. This Katherine married Michael de la Pole, 2nd Earl
of Suffolk (new creation). This Michael is son of Michael de la Pole
who married Catherine Wingfield, daughter of Sir John Wingfield and
Eleanor Glanville. And that Michael is son of William de la Pole and
Catherine Hedersete.
Does that help clear things up?
Todd A. Farmerie
Marlyn Lewis wrote:
>
> This is in error. This Katherine married Michael de la Pole, 2nd Earl
> of Suffolk (new creation). This Michael is son of Michael de la Pole
> who married Catherine Wingfield, daughter of Sir John Wingfield and
> Eleanor Glanville.
That Eleanor was a Glanville is traditional, but Moriarty, in his NEHGR
article on the Wingfields suggested that she had a different origin.
> And that Michael is son of William de la Pole and
> Catherine Hedersete.
I am wondering if there is some confusion here. John Wingfield's mother
was named Hethersett in traditional sources. What is the nature of the
evidence for William marrying Hedersete.
taf
Marlyn Lewis
This data does come from some old sources, and they have always been
suspect with me in other lines. I'm not seeing anything that says that
they aren't correct. Just that they may be wrong. That about sums it
up?
Marlyn
David Hall
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
> That Eleanor was a Glanville is traditional, but Moriarty, in his NEHGR
> article on the Wingfields suggested that she had a different origin.
Todd, I would be interested to learn what Moriarty had to say on the
Wingfield family. Unfortunately here in Sydney we do not
have access to most of the journals that are quoted in this
newsgroup. None of the earlier pedigrees from Sir John
Wingfield, the friend of the Black Prince, that I have seen have
quoted any sources. Is there any substantiated parentage for
Sir John or his wife Eleanor?
Best Wishes from down under
Lyn Hall