GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-04 > 1081357877


From: (Douglas Richardson)
Subject: Re: CP Addition: Richard Pole's 1st marriage to Alice Stradling
Date: 7 Apr 2004 10:11:17 -0700
References: <5cf47a19.0404052115.45e1f23@posting.google.com> <cbf7689b4c.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk> <5cf47a19.0404070003.49300fb1@posting.google.com> <ae57e09b4c.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk>


Dear Tim ~

The Pole family records which I culled from the PROCAT catalog are
drawn from a variety of different classes of records. As such, I
think when you check the original records, you'll find that the
surname is spelled Pole just as the modern catalog indicates.

I might add that in addition to the records I reported for Geoffrey
Pole and his son, Sir Richard Pole, I also found around 30 records
involving Sir Richard Pole's three sons, Henry, K.B. [Lord Montagu],
Geoffrey, Knt., and Cardinal Reginald. The surname was spelled Pole
in all but four of these records. As such, I think we can safely
conclude that Pole was the predominate spelling of this family's
surname from at least the 1430's through the mid-1500's. Poole was a
recognized alternative spelling of the name.

As for why the later visitations spelled the surname, Poole, I can't
answer that question. There are many things which are not easily
explained in medieval and colonial records. This may be one of them.
When I find a family that uses an alternative spelling, I try to
reflect that in my records. When there is any question about the
spelling or style, I try to use records generated by the people
themselves, if at all possible. Richard Pole's response to Henry
Danvers' Chancery complaint in 1485 would be such a record. There the
name is Pole, not Poole.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

E-mail:


Tim Powys-Lybbe <> wrote in message news:<>...
> In message of 7 Apr, (Douglas Richardson) wrote:
>
> > Dear Tim ~
> >
> > Today I reviewed a variety of records pertaining to the family of
> > Geoffrey Pole (or Poole) (died 1479), of Medmenham, Buckinghamshire
> > found on the online PROCAT catalog (http://catalogue.pro.gov.uk).
> > I found five records pertaining to Geoffrey Pole himself, five records
> > pertaining to his son, Sir Richard Pole (died 1504), and three records
> > pertaining to Sir Richard's widow, Margaret Plantagenet, Countess of
> > Salisbury. The records (which I have posted below) range in date from
> > the 1430's to the 1530's. All thirteen records spell the family
> > surname Pole. I found no instances of any of these people as Poole.
> > I trust this answers your question as to when the family began using
> > the spelling Pole for their surname.
>
> I wish it did. (Thanks, by the way, for going to the trouble to look
> up this catalogue.)
>
> The problem, as you are well aware, is what you see on the site is the
> cataloguer's abstract of the deeds. They may very well have used modern
> spelling.
>
> We will only find out when someone gets hold of the originals. And I
> suspect then it will be ambiguous as multiple spellings will be found,
> as was the custom of those times.
>
> Meantime, we can be reasonably certain that the various editors of the
> Visitation series determined to copy the verbal content and spelling on
> the surviving documents and curiously these all use, universally, the
> spelling of "Poole". Why did the originals (or even the copies of those
> originals) have this if that spelling had died out at least sixty years
> previously?
>
>
> Has anyone got any suggestions of how to establish what Geoff Poole's
> style was at the time of his death? Had he been knighted within the
> six months between writing his will, when he was an esquire, and probate
> being given? Was there an IPM?

This thread: