Notes and Queries, Number 137, June 12, 1852: A Medium of Inter-communication for Literary Men, Artists, Antiquaries, Genealogists, etc.Various
History
Notes and Queries, Number 137, June 12, 1852: A Medium of Inter-communication for Literary Men, Artists, Antiquaries, Genealogists, etc.
Various
Questions and answers -- Periodicals
"Robert Pull, _alias_ Poole, _alias_ De la Poole, lord of Barretspoole,
8 Edw. I., by Elizabeth, dau. to Hugh Raby, had issue _Reginald_ and
others. Reginald had issue James, who died 1 Edw. II., leaving Robert
de Pull, his son and heir, who m., 2 Rich. II., the dau. and heir of
Thomas de Capenhurst. Sir John de Pull, Knight, his son, lived 8 Hen.
IV. and 3 Hen. V., and was father of Sir John _Poole_, of Poole, in
Wirrall, living about 19 Rich. II., who by a dau. of ---- Mainwaring,
of Peover, had issue, 1. Sir Thomas Poole, Knight, lord of Poole and
Capenhurst, 35 Hen. VI. 2. Robert Poole, who left posterity. 3. _Sir
Richard Poole, Knight_, who had progeny; and 4. James, grandfather to
John Poole, of Stratford in Essex."
Is anything known further of the above Sir Richard Poole, Knight, or of his
"progeny"? From a comparison of the dates before given with that of the
time in which the father of the Cardinal flourished, it seems not
improbable (in the absence of direct proof to the contrary) that he removed
into Buckinghamshire, and was father of "Geoffry Pole," who married Edith
St. John, as shown. Cardinal Pole, however, was born (in 1500) at Stoverton
Castle in _Worcestershire_, and the fact that he was named Reginald, as
borne by the son of Robert, the first ancestor of "Poole" (as shown in the
above extract), as well as by other members of the baronet family, would
tend to confirm the supposition of a common ancestry. The reasons for the
change in the family bearing suggested by J. G. N. seem highly probable,
besides being the usual course adopted by younger sons for difference. I
would here suggest another Query: Was Sir Richard, or his son Henry,
created Lord Montague? Burke seems to be at variance with other testimony I
have found on the matter. He says:
"Sir Richard Pole, K.G., [was] summoned to Parliament in 1553 [Query,
1503], as Baron Montague: he m. Lady Margaret Plantagenet, dau. of Geo.
Duke of Clarence, and left issue four sons and one daughter, viz.
Henry, _second Baron_ Montague (whose daughters and coheirs were,
Katherine, wife of Francis, second Earl of Huntingdon; and Winifred, m.
first to Sir Thomas Hastings, and, secondly, to Sir Thomas Barrington).
2. Geffery, Sir. 3. Arthur. 4. Reginald, the celebrated Cardinal. 5.
Ursula, m. to Henry Lord Stafford."
In a list of attainders appended to the 2nd volume of Debrett's _Peerage_,
the date 1504 is given as the creation, and 1538 the forfeiture of the
title. Wotton says (vol. i. p. 32.):
"Sir Thomas Barrington, high sheriff of Essex and Hertford, 4 Eliz."
1561, "m. Winifred d. and coheir of Henry Pole, _Lord Mountague_ (son
of Sir Richard Pole, _Knight of the Garter_" only), "by Margaret
Countess of Salisbury, dau. to Geo. Duke of Clarence, brother to King
Edward VI."
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account