Click on the image for a file of higher definition, giving a much larger picture.
But it's 134k so may take a little while to appear.

The bits in square brackets are inserted by the editor of this volume, No 64 of the Harleian Society Publications. It was published in 1913 with the short title "The Visitations of Hampshire 1530, 1575, AND 1622-34" being edited from manuscrips by W Harry Rylands, FSA. The editor's objective was to give as faithful a rendering of the manuscript text as he could. Without seeing the manuscripts, I cannot tell where the confusion started.

My sources for criticising this visitation record are given below.

Let's start at the top:

• The arms drawn only applied to "Sr Henery Poole knt, lord Montague" and his brothers. He inherited them from his mother. These arms, Pole apart, were not born by his father, Sir Richard Poole, nor by his grandfather Geffrey. But both he and his mother were attainted and executed, which singular events normally led to the inability of their descendants to inherit any honours including their arms. Unless the attainders were repealed, of course and which is as yet unclear. Various peerage claim cases refer to this issue.

• The arms holders listed by the editor are correct (see account from College of Arms documents) apart from:
  • 6 BEAUMONT which is Thomas de Holand, earl of Kent.
  • 7 HOLLAND which is Edmund of Woodstock, earl of Kent.
  • 8 GREY which is John Wake, lord of Cottingham and Lydell.

• One main confusion is between Geffrey Poole's two wives, Edith St John and Bona Danvers.

• The other main confusion is between Geffrey Poole and his grandson Sir Geoffrey Poole.

• Starting at the top of the pedigree, Geffrey Poole was not a knight (CP XIV, 567). The important thing about his wife was her mother, Margaret Beauchamp, who married secondly John Beaufort, duke of Somerset, and had a daughter Margaret Beaufort, mother of Henry VII. This is how Geffrey's son Sir Richard was (half-) first cousin to Henry VII.

• The next error on page 35 is in the last generation: First there was a son Henry, though he died young in the Tower of London. Second Winifred did not die as mentioned, it was her sister Catherine who died in 1576 and was buried at Ashby, the seat of the Hastingses. Third, Winifred in fact died on 22nd Feb 1601/2 and was probably buried at Hatfeild Broadoak, the seat of the Barringtons.

• The line A to page 36 starts the utter confusion. Sir Richard Poole did indeed have a son Geoffrey but this Geoffrey married Constance Pagenham as the note half way down page 35 says. The wife shown here, Bona Maria Dayers (in Geoffrey's will as "Bone"), was the second wife of the first Geffrey Poole and she had no children with him. The effect of this remarkable link is to show Geffrey Poole as his own grandson.

• The children shown on page 36 to Geffrey and Bona include one of the first Geffrey's children, notably his first son Sir Richard who was indeed cousin to Henry VII. The "Geffrey vide Sussex" is a son of Sir Richard and is the man who, under torture, spoke against his brother Henry who was then executed. Of the other 10, of 12, children shown, all except Edmond are to be found in the Sussex visitation, p. 89, for Sir Geffery Poole and Constance Packenham; though that visitation shows in addition a Galfridd Poole.

• Remarkably at least two of the children of Sir Richard Poole shown at the top of page 36 are correct: Arthur and Cardinal Reginald indeed existed. But I have seen no other record of a son George.

What is this account doing in Hampshire?

In 1530 Geoffrey and his son Sir Richard Poole were long dead; their caput had been in Medmenham and Ellsesborough in Bucks. Sir Henry Poole, lord Montague inherited those seats. Sir Geffrey Poole, Henry's brother was based in Sussex. So what's the connection with Hampshire?

The only clue lies in the manor of Swainston in the Isle of Wight, Hampshire which was in the posession of the Barringtons and which is strongly thought to have been given to Winifred Poole out of the estates of her executed and attainted grandmother, Margaret, Countess of Salisbury.

It is thus possible that some occupier or steward of Swainston gave to the visiting herald this garbled account of the family and with which he would hardly have been familiar.

Sources used in compiling the above

• On Margaret Beauchamp, baroness Beauchamp:
  • Complete Peerage (CP), vol II, p. 45, note (c)
  • CP, vol XII/1, pp. 47-8

• On Geffrey Poole who married Edith St John:
  • CP vol XI, p. 400, note (a)
  • CP vol XIV, p. 567
  • "The manor and Parish records of Medmenham, Bucks" by Rev Arthur H Plaisted, pub Longmans 1925, pp. 67-73
  • The will of Geoffrey Poole, "Testaments Vetusta", ed Nicholas H Nicolas, pub 1826, p. 338

• On Sir Richard Poole KG:
  • CP vol XI, p. 400
  • CP vol XIV, p. 567
  • "The manor and Parish records of Medmenham, Bucks" by Rev Arthur H Plaisted, pub Longmans 1925, pp. 67-73

• On Sir Henry Poole, lord Montague:
  • Dictionary of National Biography (DNB), his own article
  • CP vol IX, pp. 94-6
  • CP vol XIV, p. 483
  • "Montacute (1299) etc, Case of William Selby-Lowndes", printed by Hepburn & Sons 1928
  • "Baronies of Montacute, etc. Proceedings of The Committee of Privileges", pub Eyre & Spottiswode, 1929

• On the daughters of Sir Henry Poole:
  • Baronies of Pole, etc. Case of Constantine Mary Joseph Lubienski-Bodenham", printed by Billinghurst in 1928, page 13.

• On the family of Sir Geffrey Poole and Constance Packenham:
  • DNB, Geoffrey Poole's own article
  • Sussex visitation, p. 89

• On Cardinal Poole:
  • "Visitations of Oxford 1566, 1574 & 1634", p 96 by Harleian in 1871, ed by W H Turner: Arms of Poole Cardinall, p. 96
  • DNB, Cardinal Reginald Poole's own article

A note on the name of Poole

All the surviving documents and transcripts of the 16th century, as in the above, that I have seen use the name "Poole". It is only later documents that have changed this to "Pole" and thereby caused confusion with the de la Pole family as can be seen (from c. 1998 certainly to November 2002) in the site of the "Hull Royal Database" for Sir Richard Pole, where he becomes, totally wrongly, duke of Suffolk:

http://www.dcs.hull.ac.uk/public/genealogy/royal/gedx.html