Powys-Lybbe Forbears - Person Sheet
Powys-Lybbe Forbears - Person Sheet
NameWinifred Poole 
[60, Montagu art, Vol IX, p. 94 seq], [107, Vol 2, p.8], [56, Essex of 1558, pub Harleian 1878, Parker, p. 87], [56, Essex of 1612, pub Harleian 1878, Barrington p. 148 and Vol 2, p. 549], [56, Essex visit'n pedigrees, pub Harleian 1878, Barrington p. 549]
[60, Montagu art, Vol IX, p. 94 seq], [107, Vol 2, p.8], [56, Essex of 1558, pub Harleian 1878, Parker, p. 87], [56, Essex of 1612, pub Harleian 1878, Barrington p. 148 and Vol 2, p. 549], [56, Essex visit'n pedigrees, pub Harleian 1878, Barrington p. 549]Birthca 1525, Ellesborough, Bucks
Death22 Feb 1602
Burial24 Mar 1602
GeneralCo-heir. 2nd dau. Always known as 'Lady Winifred Hastings', wife of Sir Thomas Barrington.
FatherHenry Poole Lord Montagu (1488-1538)
MotherJane Neville (ca1495-<1538)
Spouses
1Sir Thomas Hastings [97, Pedigree of Montacute, etc, Vol II, p. 76], [116, p.14], [60, Huntingdon art, Vol VI, p.655, note (d)], [78, Will of Thomas Hastings, pp. 750-2], [56, Essex visit'n pedigrees, pub Harleian 1878, Barrington p. 549]
[97, Pedigree of Montacute, etc, Vol II, p. 76], [116, p.14], [60, Huntingdon art, Vol VI, p.655, note (d)], [78, Will of Thomas Hastings, pp. 750-2], [56, Essex visit'n pedigrees, pub Harleian 1878, Barrington p. 549]FatherGeorge Hastings Earl of Huntingdon (1488-1544)
MotherAnne Stafford (->1544)
Marriagebef Oct 1553 [116, p.14 (The date of 1557 is erroneous)], [117, Hastings Report, Vol I, pp. 315-6]
2Sir Thomas Barrington [107, Vol 2, p.8], [60, Montagu art, Vol IX, p. 94 seq], [56, Essex of 1558, pub Harleian 1878, Parker, p. 87], [56, Essex of 1612, pub Harleian 1878, Barrington p. 148], [56, Essex visit'n pedigrees, pub Harleian 1878, Barrington p. 549]
[107, Vol 2, p.8], [60, Montagu art, Vol IX, p. 94 seq], [56, Essex of 1558, pub Harleian 1878, Parker, p. 87], [56, Essex of 1612, pub Harleian 1878, Barrington p. 148], [56, Essex visit'n pedigrees, pub Harleian 1878, Barrington p. 549]FatherJohn Barrington (ca1507-)
MotherElizabeth Bonham
Marriage1559 [107, Vol 2, p.8]
Notes for Winifred Poole
The 1612 visit'n said she was widow of "George Hastings Erle of Huntingdon"...
Her elder sister Katherine married into the current Loudon and St Davids families which before now claimed some of the honours of her grandmother, to be defeated by an enquiry of the Lords in the nineteenth centry, 1874, on account of the Act of Attainder on her grandmother...
In 1921 another attempt was made by these families resulting in a report by (on behalf of?) the Attorney General which says that Katherine married Francis Hastings Earl of Huntingdon.
His report also says "there would appear to be an heir (alleged to be William Selby Lowndes) of Winifred wife of Sir Thomas Hastings". Is this a descendant of Katherine or an earlier or later marriage of Winifred Barrington, neé Poole?
Ans: Hastings was her first husband.
________________________
Arthur Searle in his "Barrington Family Letters - 1628 - 1632" states:
Of Winifred Poole: "... More important by far, her first marriage had been childless, so that she also brought to the Barringtons her share of her grandmother's estates, granted to the two sisters when first Mary and then Elizabeth effectively reversed the attainder on the Countess." (p.5)
"Lady Winifred was able to add all of the estates granted to her in 1554 at the reversal of the attainder on her grandmother" (p.6)
Of Francis Barrington her son: "He is supposed to have converted his mother, who lived on until 1602..."
______________________
TFPL, 6th November 2002:
In the claim to the "Baronies of Pole of Montagu and/or Montacute" ... "The Case of Constantine Mary Joseph Lubienski-Bodenham, Esquire" printed in 1928 by Billinghurst, Wood & Pope of 7 Bucklersbury London EC4., they included on page 13:
"Sir Henry Pole left two daughters and co-heirs, the elder being Katherine, the wife of Francis Hastings, Earl of Huntingdon, and the younger being Winifred, wife successively of Sir Thomas Hastings and Sir Thomas Barrington. These ladies were in the first year of Queen Mary by Act of Parliament 24 October 1553 restored in blood that they--
'and their heirs may hereafter use and have any action or suit
'and make their pedigree and conveyance in blood as heirs as
'well to and from their said father as also to and from any other
'person or persons in like manner form and degree to all intents
'constructions and purposes as if the said Henry late Lord
'Mountague had never been attainted and as if no such attainder
'were or had been had : the corruption of blood between the said
'Henry late Lord Mountague and your said subjects Katherine
'and Winifred and their heirs or any other cause matter of
'judgement concerning the attainder of the said Henry late
'Lord Mountague or any other thing whereby the blood of the
'said Henry late Lord Montagure is or should be corrupted to
'the contrary notwithstanding.'
Later in the same volume there is, p. 20:
"Proposition XII."
"To prove that upon the death of the said Henry Pole, lord Pole of Montague, or Lord Montacute (No 14) his daughters and co-heirs were (a) Katherine (No 16) wife of Francis, earl of Huntingdon (No 15) and (b) Winifred (No 18) wife of Sir Thomas Hastings, knight (No 17), and that in 1553 the said Katherine, Countess of Huntingdon (No 16) and Dame Winifred Hastings (no 18) were restored in blood as the heirs of their said father.
"Act of Parliamennt, 1 Mary 1553, for the restitution in blood of Katherine, Countess of Huntingdon, and Winefride, wife of Sir Thomas Hastings, daughters and heires to Henry Poole, Knight, Lord Mountague [Document 23]."
The numbers after the various names refer to the pedigrees at the start of the booklet.
Looks pretty fair to me!
At the time of his execution, Henry Pole as son of his father definitely bore arms and had indubitably inherited all the quarterings of his mother, who was not executed until three years later. So his daughters were restored to what he had at his death, which undoubtedly included all his quartered arms. QED
The fact the Henry's mother was not attainted herself until 8th June 1539 (31 H 8) means that prior to his own attainder and death Henry Poole had all his honours entire and unsullied. So this has to be a complete restoration, if nothing else, of the right to use and carry the arms of Henry Poole.
________________________
In the Historical Commission's Report on the Hastings manuscripts in 1928, there is this entry on pp. 315-6:
'23 October 1553 -- "Petition in Parliament of Katherine Countess of Huntingdon and Dame Winifride Hastings to be restored in blood as daughters to Henry Pole, Lord Montague" - 23 October 1 Mary. Draft on paper, defective at end.'
There is a footnote on p. 315 saying:
'She [Winifride] married Sir Thomas Hastings, a brother of Francis, 2nd earl of Huntingdon, her sister's husband. The petition was successful.'
______________________
TFPL, July 2004: From Lipscomb’s “Bucks” she inherited the manor of Aston-Clinton and Aston-Chivery, which came from the Montacutes and which later went to her grand-daughter Mary who m. Sir Gilbert Gerard.
______________________
TFPL, January 2019: I have been re-reading the books I bought years ago on the various peerage claims by descendants of Katherine and Winifred Poole. In one of the Cases expressing a claim, that for Constantine Lubienski-Bodenham in 1928, is included the Attorney-General’s report that includes these words:
“The Barony the subject matter of this Petition together with others partly involving the same line of heirship came before the Committee for Privileges in the year 1874 upon the Petition of Edith Maud Countess of Loudon (46) (Reported as Montacute and Monthermer Peerages. L.R. 7 H.L. 305) and it was then held by their Lordships that the Act of 1 Mary (1553) restoring in blood the said Katherine (16) and Winifred (187 had no effect on the attainder of Margaret (13) which remained in full force and was a bar to the then Petitioner’s claim. Further it was the opinion of the Committee that the Barony of Montagu by which title Henry Poole (14) had sat in Parliament was probably one of those held by his mother in which he had been summoned vitra matris and that the Act obtained by his daughters was not a reversal of the attainder nbut only an Act for the restitution in blood of his heirs so as to enable them to make pedigree through him in respect of all inheritances coming after his death from his ancestors and traceable through him.”
Is a coat of arms an inheritance? Very probably.
_________________
Her elder sister Katherine married into the current Loudon and St Davids families which before now claimed some of the honours of her grandmother, to be defeated by an enquiry of the Lords in the nineteenth centry, 1874, on account of the Act of Attainder on her grandmother...
In 1921 another attempt was made by these families resulting in a report by (on behalf of?) the Attorney General which says that Katherine married Francis Hastings Earl of Huntingdon.
His report also says "there would appear to be an heir (alleged to be William Selby Lowndes) of Winifred wife of Sir Thomas Hastings". Is this a descendant of Katherine or an earlier or later marriage of Winifred Barrington, neé Poole?
Ans: Hastings was her first husband.
________________________
Arthur Searle in his "Barrington Family Letters - 1628 - 1632" states:
Of Winifred Poole: "... More important by far, her first marriage had been childless, so that she also brought to the Barringtons her share of her grandmother's estates, granted to the two sisters when first Mary and then Elizabeth effectively reversed the attainder on the Countess." (p.5)
"Lady Winifred was able to add all of the estates granted to her in 1554 at the reversal of the attainder on her grandmother" (p.6)
Of Francis Barrington her son: "He is supposed to have converted his mother, who lived on until 1602..."
______________________
TFPL, 6th November 2002:
In the claim to the "Baronies of Pole of Montagu and/or Montacute" ... "The Case of Constantine Mary Joseph Lubienski-Bodenham, Esquire" printed in 1928 by Billinghurst, Wood & Pope of 7 Bucklersbury London EC4., they included on page 13:
"Sir Henry Pole left two daughters and co-heirs, the elder being Katherine, the wife of Francis Hastings, Earl of Huntingdon, and the younger being Winifred, wife successively of Sir Thomas Hastings and Sir Thomas Barrington. These ladies were in the first year of Queen Mary by Act of Parliament 24 October 1553 restored in blood that they--
'and their heirs may hereafter use and have any action or suit
'and make their pedigree and conveyance in blood as heirs as
'well to and from their said father as also to and from any other
'person or persons in like manner form and degree to all intents
'constructions and purposes as if the said Henry late Lord
'Mountague had never been attainted and as if no such attainder
'were or had been had : the corruption of blood between the said
'Henry late Lord Mountague and your said subjects Katherine
'and Winifred and their heirs or any other cause matter of
'judgement concerning the attainder of the said Henry late
'Lord Mountague or any other thing whereby the blood of the
'said Henry late Lord Montagure is or should be corrupted to
'the contrary notwithstanding.'
Later in the same volume there is, p. 20:
"Proposition XII."
"To prove that upon the death of the said Henry Pole, lord Pole of Montague, or Lord Montacute (No 14) his daughters and co-heirs were (a) Katherine (No 16) wife of Francis, earl of Huntingdon (No 15) and (b) Winifred (No 18) wife of Sir Thomas Hastings, knight (No 17), and that in 1553 the said Katherine, Countess of Huntingdon (No 16) and Dame Winifred Hastings (no 18) were restored in blood as the heirs of their said father.
"Act of Parliamennt, 1 Mary 1553, for the restitution in blood of Katherine, Countess of Huntingdon, and Winefride, wife of Sir Thomas Hastings, daughters and heires to Henry Poole, Knight, Lord Mountague [Document 23]."
The numbers after the various names refer to the pedigrees at the start of the booklet.
Looks pretty fair to me!
At the time of his execution, Henry Pole as son of his father definitely bore arms and had indubitably inherited all the quarterings of his mother, who was not executed until three years later. So his daughters were restored to what he had at his death, which undoubtedly included all his quartered arms. QED
The fact the Henry's mother was not attainted herself until 8th June 1539 (31 H 8) means that prior to his own attainder and death Henry Poole had all his honours entire and unsullied. So this has to be a complete restoration, if nothing else, of the right to use and carry the arms of Henry Poole.
________________________
In the Historical Commission's Report on the Hastings manuscripts in 1928, there is this entry on pp. 315-6:
'23 October 1553 -- "Petition in Parliament of Katherine Countess of Huntingdon and Dame Winifride Hastings to be restored in blood as daughters to Henry Pole, Lord Montague" - 23 October 1 Mary. Draft on paper, defective at end.'
There is a footnote on p. 315 saying:
'She [Winifride] married Sir Thomas Hastings, a brother of Francis, 2nd earl of Huntingdon, her sister's husband. The petition was successful.'
______________________
TFPL, July 2004: From Lipscomb’s “Bucks” she inherited the manor of Aston-Clinton and Aston-Chivery, which came from the Montacutes and which later went to her grand-daughter Mary who m. Sir Gilbert Gerard.
______________________
TFPL, January 2019: I have been re-reading the books I bought years ago on the various peerage claims by descendants of Katherine and Winifred Poole. In one of the Cases expressing a claim, that for Constantine Lubienski-Bodenham in 1928, is included the Attorney-General’s report that includes these words:
“The Barony the subject matter of this Petition together with others partly involving the same line of heirship came before the Committee for Privileges in the year 1874 upon the Petition of Edith Maud Countess of Loudon (46) (Reported as Montacute and Monthermer Peerages. L.R. 7 H.L. 305) and it was then held by their Lordships that the Act of 1 Mary (1553) restoring in blood the said Katherine (16) and Winifred (187 had no effect on the attainder of Margaret (13) which remained in full force and was a bar to the then Petitioner’s claim. Further it was the opinion of the Committee that the Barony of Montagu by which title Henry Poole (14) had sat in Parliament was probably one of those held by his mother in which he had been summoned vitra matris and that the Act obtained by his daughters was not a reversal of the attainder nbut only an Act for the restitution in blood of his heirs so as to enable them to make pedigree through him in respect of all inheritances coming after his death from his ancestors and traceable through him.”
Is a coat of arms an inheritance? Very probably.
_________________