GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-04 > 1081203665


From: Tim Powys-Lybbe <>
Subject: Re: CP Addition: Richard Pole's 1st marriage to Alice Stradling
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 23:21:05 +0100
References: <5cf47a19.0404011611.474a02b5@posting.google.com> <1f75cd994c.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk> <5cf47a19.0404050312.4ff94bff@posting.google.com>


Dear All (this is a public debate, though with no chairman; if it was
private, then it would be e-mail!), particularly those with some
competence in reading medieval wills,

In message of 5 Apr, (Douglas Richardson) wrote:

> Dear Tim ~
>
> My comments are interspersed below. DR
>
> 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.
>
> 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.

>
> > 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.
>
> 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.

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.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

This thread: