Re:Margaret m William de la Pole
Millerf...@aol.com
mm
mj...@btinternet.com
Margaret Peverel married William de la Pole of Castle Ashby, son of
Sir Richard de la Pole and thus nephew of Sir William de la Pole (d
1366) of Kingston-upon-Hull.
MA-R
Millerf...@aol.com
Genealogies to have had a wife Margaret, previously married to Tudor ap Goronwy
(Acknowledgment to Brice Clagett for the quote).
The Oxford DNB mentions that Tudor ap Goronwy had a wife (unnamed), aunt of
Owen Glendower.
Staffordshire Fines 21-30 Edward III ( Staffordshire Historical Collections,
vol. 11 (1890), pp. 160-69) mentions "William de la Pole the younger,
knight", and his wife Margaret.
Does anybody know whether this Margaret was Glendower's aunt, and whether
she and her (second?) husband William de la Pole were the parents of John, Lord
Mawddwy, d. 1403?
MM
Douglas Richardson
I believe the William de la Pole, Knt., styled "the younger" and his
wife, Margaret, who you have indicated were involved in a
Staffordshire fine dated 1347-1357 are the Sir William de la Pole
(died 1366), of Kingston upon Hull, Yorkshire, Ashby David and
Brington, Northamptonshire, Grimston, Suffolk, etc., and his wife,
Margaret, daughter of Sir Edmund Peverel.
The first abstract copied below indicates that the de la Pole property
involved in the Staffordshire fine was the manor of Stretton,
Staffordshire. This fine is dated 1354. In the second abstract
below, it shows that Margaret (Peverel) de la Pole's mother,
Elizabeth, widow of Sir Edmund Peverel, sued for dower in several
counties including Staffordshire in 1334. The Sheriff of
Staffordshire replied that Adam Henry, of Stratton, Thomas, Vicar of
the Church of Stratton (Stretton), John, son of William de Draycote,
and William, son of Adam de Stratton had custody of the Peveral lands
in question in that county. Inasmuch as the vicar of Stretton was one
of the custodians for the property in Staffordshire, I assume the
property held by the Peverel family in that county was the manor of
Stretton, Staffordshire, and that it descended on the death of
Elizabeth Peverel's son, John Peverel, to his sister, Margaret
(Peverel) de la Pole.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + + +
#1.
Source: "Staffordshire Fines: 21-30 Edward III," Staffordshire
Historical Collections, 11 (1890): 160-169.
URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=52494&strquery=%22William%20de%20la%20Pole%22.
No. 41. At a month from the day of St. Michael. 28 E. III [1354].
Between William le Champion, of Saredon, complainant, and William de
la Pole the younger, Knight, and Margaret his wife, deforciants of the
manor of Stretton.
William de la Pole and Margaret remit all right to William le Champion
and his heirs, for which William le Champion gave them 100 marks of
silver.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
#2.
Source: 'Plea Rolls for Staffordshire: 7 Edward III', Staffordshire
Historical Collections, 11 (1890): 40-50.
URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=52483.
Staff., Bucks, Bed., Salop, Linc., Lanc, Hunt. In the suit for dower
which Elizabeth, formerly wife of Edmund Peverel, claimed against the
custodes of the lands of John, son and heir of Edmund Peverel, the
Sheriff of Staffordshire returned at Easter, 8 E. III. [1334], that
Adam Henry, of Stratton, Thomas, Vicar of the Church of Stratton
(Stretton), John, son of William de Draycote, and William, son of Adam
de Stratton, the custodes of the land of John in that county, held
lands and tenements of the inheritance of John to the value of 30s.
2d. annually. (fn. 1) m. 266.
mj...@btinternet.com
> Dear Michael ~
>
> I believe the William de la Pole, Knt., styled "the younger" and his
> wife, Margaret, who you have indicated were involved in a
> Staffordshire fine dated 1347-1357 are the Sir William de la Pole
> (died 1366), of Kingston upon Hull, Yorkshire, Ashby David and
> Brington, Northamptonshire, Grimston, Suffolk, etc., and his wife,
> Margaret, daughter of Sir Edmund Peverel.
Dear Douglas
If this is correct, then some of the usual sources for the de la Poles
of Suffolk are wrong. For instance, Roskell et al (HoP) in the
biography for the first Earl of Suffolk's brother, Sir Edmund de la
Pole (c1337-1419) states that he was the son of Sir William de la Pole
(d 1366) of Kingston-upon-Hull by his wife *Katherine*. It also
states that "following his father's death in 1366 he assisted his
mother..." These dates show that the editors of HoP believed Sir
William of Hull was married at least from c1337 until his death to
Katherine. Unfortunately, HoP follows the unhelpful practice of
lumping all its references together in a block at the foot of the
article.
This is backed up however by ODNB in their biography of Sir Edmund's
elder brother, Michael, 1st Earl of Suffolk, which states he was born
c1330 to Sir William of Hull (d 1366) and his wife Katherine. The
ODNB article on Sir William himself states that Katherine, his widow,
survived until 1382; it seems her origins are unknown.
It seems therefore the Sir William de la Pole and his wife Margaret ff
1354 must be found elsewhere in the family's pedigree. The Castle
Ashby branch is the usual attribution - I haven't looked for any
confirmation of this however.
Best wishes, the other Michael
(PS Good to see you posting again).
Millerf...@aol.com
<I believe the William de la Pole, Knt., styled "the younger" and his
<wife, Margaret, who you have indicated were involved in a
<Staffordshire fine dated 1347-1357 are the Sir William de la Pole
<(died 1366), of Kingston upon Hull, Yorkshire, Ashby David and
<Brington, Northamptonshire, Grimston, Suffolk, etc., and his wife,
<Margaret, daughter of Sir Edmund Peverel.
Welcome back, Douglas, and thanks for this interesting contribution.
Strong support for your proposed connection
between Sir William de la Pole's his wife Margaret and
the Peverel family is afforded by a deed cited in Coll.
Top.and Gen, p228. It deals with land which Isabella,
wife of John Peverel, holds in dower ...of the
inheritance of Sir William de la Pole, and which after
the decease of Isabella ought to revert to the said
William and Margaret, and to the heirs of the said William.
Dame Margaret's seal is described: "De la Pole, two bars
wavy, impaling a fess between six crosslets".
This shows that Sir William was not a member of the de
la Pole family of Powys, who bore a lion.
If you right, it would I think follow that the de la Poles of Saredon,
Staffs, were entirely distinct from the de la Pole Lords of Mawddwy, and we would
have to look elsewhere for
the identification of the parents of John "Mouthe", whose IPM I have just
traced at C137/44/34, dated 5 Hen IV, disguised under the name of "Mouche".
Whoever his father was, he must also surely have been the subject of an IPM,
but I have yet to trace one. Unfortunately most of C135 for Edward III's
reign has yet to be listed in the online catalogue.
MM
Louise Staley
who has been previously discussed on the newsgroup as marrying Katharine
Norwich, daughter and heiress of Thomas Norwich? My understanding is the
Katharine has traditionally been assigned as the mother of all the
children but that this assignment has been called into question because
Katharine Norwich was an heiress but her heirs were her Ufford cousins
not the children of Sir William de la Pole. Katharine Norwich was first
married to Richard Breuse of Stinton and took the veil before her death.
I was not aware of any evidence naming the unknown wife of Sir William
de la Pole ho was the mother of the children.
However the posts below suggest two discrepancies with the account I
have given above. Firstly, the origins of Katharine are presented as
unknown and secondly Margaret, daughter of Edmund Peverell is presented
as the wife of Sir William and the mother of the children.
Could anyone clarify this please?
thanks
Louise
CE Wood
1. William, son of William & Elena, married Katherine de Norwich,
widow of Robert or Richard de Breuse.
2. William, grandson of William & Elena and son of Richard & Joan,
married Margaret Peverel.
CE Wood
On Mar 30, 8:56 pm, Louise Staley <cara...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> Correct me if I am wrong but isn't this Sir William de la Pole the one
> who has been previously discussed on the newsgroup as marrying Katharine
> Norwich, daughter and heiress of Thomas Norwich? My understanding is the
> Katharine has traditionally been assigned as the mother of all the
> children but that this assignment has been called into question because
> Katharine Norwich was an heiress but her heirs were her Ufford cousins
> not the children of Sir William de la Pole. Katharine Norwich was first
> married to Richard Breuse of Stinton and took the veil before her death.
> I was not aware of any evidence naming the unknown wife of Sir William
> de la Pole ho was the mother of the children.
>
> However the posts below suggest two discrepancies with the account I
> have given above. Firstly, the origins of Katharine are presented as
> unknown and secondly Margaret, daughter of Edmund Peverell is presented
> as the wife of Sir William and the mother of the children.
>
> Could anyone clarify this please?
>
> thanks
> Louise
>
Louise Staley
> Are these not two different Williams?
> 1. William, son of William & Elena, married Katherine de Norwich,
> widow of Robert or Richard de Breuse.
>
> 2. William, grandson of William & Elena and son of Richard & Joan,
> married Margaret Peverel.
>
Williams dying in 1366, one on 21 June and the other about 1 October and
both being buried in the Holy Trinity Church at Kingston-upon-Hull,
Yorkshire.
CE Wood
Nov 2003, goes into great detail on the family and which William
married Margaret Peverel, and why.
CE Wood
mj...@btinternet.com
> Brad Verity, in his post, Cobham of Cobham Corrections - Part 1, on 26
> Nov 2003, goes into great detail on the family and which William
> married Margaret Peverel, and why.
Ah, the archives - thanks for that. I had never imagined that two
knights of the same name should have died the same year and have been
connected with the same place. In fairness. Douglas did specify that
he was speaking of the Castle Ashby man. Apologies for not having
checked the archives myself first.
MA-R