GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-04 > 1081022824


From: "An. Archer" <>
Subject: Re: CP Addition: Richard Pole's 1st marriage to Alice Stradling
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 21:07:04 +0100
References: <5cf47a19.0404011611.474a02b5@posting.google.com> <1f75cd994c.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk>


Tim et al,

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" <> wrote in message
news:...
> In message of 2 Apr, (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/
> 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
> For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org


This thread: