GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-04 > 1081360917


From: Tim Powys-Lybbe <>
Subject: Re: CP Addition: Richard Pole's 1st marriage to Alice Stradling
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 19:01:57 +0100
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> <5cf47a19.0404070911.6e1e848@posting.google.com>


In message of 7 Apr, (Douglas Richardson) wrote:

> 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.

Let's try this:

There is a Suffolk family to whom one of my mother's aunts was married.
I always heard them as "Pooley" and, indeed, spelt them as such. Then
I discovered that the usual spelling for at least the last three hundred
years was "Poley". On the other hand the same name from that part of the
world is found in some visitation records as "Pooley".

This could instance an early example of the illogicality of English
spelling, where some people have decided to spell a name "Polxx" where
the pronunciation is "Poolxx".

I have also been told that some current English Pole families pronounce
their name to this day as "Pool".

> 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.

I wonder if this started as a clerical confusion with the far more
prominent de la Pole family? (This confusion is still to be found
within Tompsett's "Hull" pages where he continues to refer to "Richard
Pole" as "Duke of Suffolk" though notes an anomaly in the death dates.)

<snip>

> >
> > 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?

Anyone?

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

This thread: