(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):