SIR RICHARD POLE, THE FATHER OF CARDINAL POLE.
(Vol. v., pp. 105. 163.)
Without presuming to contravene the high authorities quoted by J. G. N. on the pedigree of Sir Richard Pole, the father of the celebrated Cardinal Pole, I am inclined to the belief that he descended from a common ancestor with the Cheshire family of "Poole," as suggested by your correspondent I. J. H. H. Wotton[[6]] says, in his pedigree of "Poole, baronets of Poole" (from whom, by the way, the Poles of Shute collaterally derived):
"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."
That "marvellous" historian, Sir Richard Baker, in his Chronicle (ed. 1696, pp. 246. 271. 286., &c.), records, under the reign of Hen. VII. (cir. 1503):
"Prince Arthur, after his marriage, was sent again into Wales, to keep that country in good order, to whom were appointed for councillors Sir Richard Pool, his kinsman and chief chamberlain, Sir Henry Vernon," &c.
I find no trace of the title till 15 Hen. VIII. (1524):
"All this while King Henry had play'd with the French, but now he seems to be in earnest, and therefore sends over the Duke of Suffolk with an army, the four and twentieth of August, attended with the Lord Montacute and his brother, Sir Arthur Pool, with many other knights and gentlemen."
On the knighthood of this Sir Arthur I find, farther on,—
"On Allholland (Query, All-hallows) day, in the chief church of Roy," (the Duke) "made knights, Lord Herbert (son of the Earl of Worcester), the Lord Powis, Oliver Manners, Arthur Pool, &c.
And now—
The 3rd Nov. (1538) Henry Courtney, Marquess of Exeter and Earl of Devonshire, Henry Pool, Lord Montacute, Sir Nicholas Carew, of Bedington, Knight of the Garter and Master of the Horse, and Sir Edward Nevill, brother to the Lord Aburgenny, were sent to the Tower, being accused by Sir Geoffry Pool, the Lord Montacute's brother, of high treason. They were indicted for devising to promote and advance one Reinald (Qy. Reginald) Pool to the crown, and put down K. Henry. This Pool was a near kinsman of the king's (being the son of the Lady Margaret, Countess of Salisbury, daughter and heir to George, Duke of Clarence). He had been brought up by the king in learning, and made Dean of Exeter; but being after sent to learn experience by travel, he grew so great a friend of the Pope's that he became an enemy to King Henry, and for his enmity to the king was by Pope Julius III. made cardinal. For this man's cause the lords aforesaid being condemned were all executed; the Lord Marquess, the Lord Montacute, and Sir Edward Nevill, beheaded on the Tower Hill the ninth of January; Sir Nicholas Carew the third of March; two priests condemned with them were hanged at Tyburn: Sir Geoffry Pool, though condemned also, yet had his pardon."
I give this last quotation entire (hoping to be pardoned for its length), as it affords a curious insight into the eventful history of the period; for, two years later, I find it on record that—
"Reynold Pool, Cardinal, brother to the Lord Montacute, was with divers others attainted of high treason; of whom Foskeue and Dingley the tenth of July were beheaded, the Countess of Salisbury two years after."
But I forbear quoting further the account of this same cardinal's pompous "absolution of these realms," and "reconciliation to the church of Rome," all which are given in "marvellous" detail by our worthy historian. I pass on to observe, in conclusion, that, from the fact (as recorded in the first of the foregoing historic extracts) that "Sir Richard Pool, chamberlain" to Prince Arthur, was sent by him into Wales, I gather your correspondent I. J. H. H. has been led to suppose him a Welsh knight. That he is called a kinsman of the prince is also some confirmation of the statement afforded by J. G. N., that he became so by his mother's near connexion with the Countess of Richmond, but his own alliance with the house of Plantagenet must have taken place about the close of the fifteenth century (and I own this offers some objection to my theory of his descent); it could not have occurred in 1513, as your correspondent states, since Cardinal Pole was, as I have stated, born in 1500, and was therefore fifty-four years old at the commencement of Mary's reign, viz. 1553-4, when proposals were made for his marriage with the queen; for, says Sir Richard, once more, in speaking, of "the marriages propounded for Queen Mary:"
"One was Cardinal Pool, of a dignity not much inferior to kings, and by his mother descended from kings; but there was an exception against him also, because four and fifty years old (as old a batchelor as Queen Mary was a maid)," &c. &c.
May I be allowed to suggest another Query as to the value of the aforesaid dignity of knighthood, since Lord Herbert and Lord Powis accepted it with men of plainer name and "lesser note." I should feel obliged to any of your correspondents for information on this point.
H. W. S. T.
Southampton.
Footnote 6:[(return)]
English Baronets, vol. ii. p. 546. ed. 1727.