June 12. 1852.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES.: 



set 



life was first put into regular form by Fulcard, a 

 monk of Tliorney, who was made abbot of that 

 monastery in 1068. Fulcard tells us in hia preface 

 what his materials were : 



" Reperta sunt quoedam in veterlbus librls vitiose 

 descripta, quasdam ab ipso praecipuo praesuli in privi- 

 leglis c'jusdem eoenobli sunt breviter annotata, cajtera 

 «x relatione veterum ut ab antiquioribus sunt eis 

 «xhibita." 



An early MS. of this life is in the Harleian 

 collection, No. 3097. It was printed (somewhat 

 curtailed) by Capgrave in the Legenda Nova, and 

 seems to have furnished all that our antiquaries 

 know about St. Botulph. Camden indeed refers to 

 ■Bede, iv. 3., as containing some mention of him ; 

 but I can find no such passage, and I believe that 

 Botulph is nowhere mentioned in the Historia 

 Anglorum. TJie remains of Botulph were taken up 

 in the days of King Edgar, and his head was 

 allotted to Ely, while the rest of his bones were 

 divided between the abbeys of Thorney and 

 Westminster. The cause of his extended popu- 

 larity it is difficult to discover. His fame even 

 passed over to Denmark, and an office is allotted 

 to him in the Sleswick Breviary, Britannia Sacra, 

 vol. i. p. 370. It has been surmised that he was 

 a patron saint of seamen, and that his name indi- 

 cates this character, i. e. boat-help ! See Allen's 

 History of Lincoln, vol. i. p. 245. His brother 

 Adulf was made Bishop of Trajectum, probably 

 Utrecht. Your correspondents may be referred 

 to Capgrave; to Leland, Collectanea, vol. i. p. 217., 

 and vol. lii. p. 33. ; and to Ellis's Monasticon, vol. ii. 

 p. 596., and vol. vi. p. 1621. St. Botulph's day is 

 the 17th of June. C. W. G. 



SIR BICHARD POLJ!, THE FATHER OF CARCINAL 

 POLE. 



r (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 sujgested by your 

 correspondent I. J. H. H. Wott'on * 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 

 Ksue 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, 



* Bnglish Baronets, vol. ii. p. 546. ed. 1727, 



living about 19 Rich. II., who by a dau. of Main- 

 waring, of Peover, had issue, I. 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, grand- 

 father 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^ 

 Stovorton Castle in Worcestershire, and the fact 

 that he was named Reginald, as borne by the soa 

 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 differ- 

 ence. I would here suggest another Query : Was 

 Sir Richard, or his son Henry, created Lord 

 Montague ? Burke seems to b6 at variance with 

 other testimony I have found on the matter. He 

 says : 



"Sir Richard Pole, K.G., [was] summoned to Par- 

 liament 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 Har- 

 rington). 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 Harrington, 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 INIargaret 

 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. VUI. 

 (1524) : 



