The Family de la Pole

The story of the de la Pole family – from ‘rags to rags’ over 6 generations between 1290 and 1525, is evidence that there were ways to escape the rigidity of medieval society. Their history is also evidence of the dangerous times in which they lived, and the curse of the blood of York. Not until the last of them was dead could the Tudors rest easy on their throne.

family-tree-de-la-pole

william-de-la-pole-baron-of-the-exchequerThe origins of the family are obscured by the destruction of their papers in the peasants revolt of 1381, but their fame was built on the foundations of the 14th century merchant class. William de la Pole (c.1290-1366) and his brother Richard (d.1345) built a wool business in Hull, Yorkshire. From there they became closely connected with the Royal court, lending large amounts of money which delivered interest as high as 22%. As Edward III’s finances suffered, so did the de la Pole’s, and indeed king and de la Poles fell out badly. But by the time of his death, William’s influence had seen the introduction of the staple and the royal and merchants monopolistic dominance of the wool trade; while the family fortunes rode high; William’s widow was living in comfort with over £200 a year, and his son William was called to parliament as a knight 5 months before William died, not doubt to his enormous satisfaction- the de la Poles had made the jump from Merchant to noble.

Michael de la Pole (1330-1389) behaved like a knight, and put his merchant background behind
him. He campaigned with Henry of Lancaster and Edward the Black Prince through the glory days of the michael-catherine-de-la-pole100 Years War. But it was under Edward III’s successor Richard II that Michael’s career really took off; his appointment as Chancellor in 1383 seemed to be completely uncontroversial, and in 1385 he was made Earl of Suffolk. But the war went from bad to worse; and royal finances went with it. Michael was fiercely loyal to the royal cause, and the Lords Appellant fixed on de la Pole as a proxy for the king. In the Wonderful Parliament of 1386, he was impeached, but none the less remained in royal favour, and so fell with the king when the Merciless Parliament of 1388 convicted him of treason, he was banished. Despite the height of his rise, de la Pole had not forgotten his roots in Hull, keeping a large house there and founding a house of the Poor Clares. None the less he died in Paris in 1389.

Parliament however had not declared his lands forfeit t his heirs, just his titles – and so his son, also Michael de la Pole (1367-1415) was able to inherit some of his lands. He kept close to the Lord Apellant, going on crusade to Lithuania with Thomas of Woodstock in 1391 for example; and he petitioned Richard to restore all his lands and titles. Richard didn’t like the company he kept – but finally in 1398 was allowed to become the 2nd Earl of Suffolk. He played little part in the early Lancastrian reigns, but in 1415 was part of Henry V’s campaign – a disastrous one for the de la Poles. Michael died of dystentary at Harfleur; his heir Michael became 3rd Earl of Suffolk super briefly before he died not long afterwards at Agincourt, ‘as strong, as active and as daring as any member of the court’.

His second son William de la Pole (1396-1450) rose to dominate the political life of the realm under alice-chaucerthe vacillating Henry VI from the 1430’s, and fought hard to serve his royal master, and was rewarded by being elevated to Duke of Suffolk. For a second time though, a de la Pole was to be sacrificed to save his king, and the angry lords sought a scapegoat for England financial and military failure. In 1450, Parliament impeached him, but it seemed as though Henry had repaid his loyalty by causing him only to be banished; but the lords took justice into their own hands, and William de la Pole’s head was found on the beaches of Kent. Accused of corruption and incompetence by contemporaries, in fact William seems to have been hardworking  and unlucky.

His son John, 2nd Duke of Suffolk (1442-1492) was a very different character, who seemed to spend most of his life trying to avoid the limelight; and being actively kept out of it by kings in Edward IV and Henry VII clearly none too impressed by his talents. None the less, his mother Alice Chaucer seemed determined to reconcile her family with the York family that had hounded her husband, elizabeth-of-york-duchess-of-suffolkmarrying John to Richard of York’s daughter Elizabeth in 1458. John followed her lead, loyal throughout to Edward IV  through Warwick’s campaign in 1470,and distrusted by the Readeption regime.

The trouble was that Suffolk had very little money – income from his estates in east Anglia and the Chilterns was well below the £1,000 needed for an earl. And also for some reason despite his loyalty to Edward, and despite his marriage to Edward’s sister, he never got much land or regard from Edward and was not part of the royal council.

One thing John and Elizabeth were good at though was having children – 11 as it happens, though not all of them lived to their majority. But through their mother, they all had a claim to the throne from the Yorkist side – though seemingly something of an irrelevance in 1471.

John de la Pole, earl of Lincoln (c.1460–1487) may have been made Richard III’s heir when Edward of Middleham died; but after Bosworth, appeared to be well favoured by and reconciled to the new regime under Henry VII. But in 1387 it was Lincoln who supported Lambert Simnel, and paid the price with his death at the Battle of Stoke.

Thereafter, the de la Poles – Edmund, 3rd Duke of Suffolk (1471-1513) and Richard ‘The White Rose’ (1480-1525) were the only remaining credible Yorkist descendants and threat to Henry VII. Edmund seems to have resented the mincemeat Henry VII made of his inheritance while a ward, and was anyway proud and impetuous. In 1499 he left the country, apparently seeking out Henry’s arch enemy Margaret of Burgundy – but was persuaded to return by the king’s agents. But in 1501 he left for good, going from place to place searching for a sponsor to allow him to launch an attempt on the throne of England, pursued relentlessly by Henry VII’s foreign policy and agents and running up massive debts. Eventually in 1506 Henry got his man, and incarcerated him in the Tower of London – there to lie until he was eventually executed when his brother Richard was recognised as king of England by Louis of France.

richard-de-la-poleRichard de la Pole seems to have been made of finer stuff than his brother. Richard was in exile with his brother, and in 1504 was left in poverty at Aachen as surety for his brother’s debts. But in 1506 he escaped to Hungary, and found a protector in King Ladislaus II, despite Henry’s demands for him to be handed over. Richard appears to have acquired a useful military reputation, and was a constant thorn in Henry VIII’s side as he had been in his father’s; in 1513 King Louis of France declared Richard king of England; in 1517 Richard was in Milan and Venice, and was rumored to be launching an invasion from Denmark. From 1522 he was back in Paris plotting with King Francis I. While the White Rose, as he was known, was at large, the threat of the house of York and the return of the wars of the Roses  was always credible. But at the Battle of Pavia in 1525, Richard died as his ally Francis I was defeated at the hands of the Emperor Charles V. The emperor’s messenger told Henry VIII how ‘The White Rose is killed in battle … I saw him dead with the others’, to which Henry responded in joy ‘All the enemies of England are gone’. 

 

 

 

31 thoughts on “The Family de la Pole

    1. I don’t think he was as it happens; he was descended from George Duke of Clarence, via Margaret Pole; who was executed by Henry VIII…

      1. Sorry for popping into this conversation years late, but they are actually distant relations! Both branches of the family are descended from the first Michael de la Pole.

  1. I have looked into this a great deal, and I am still confused how the de la Pole’s became nobility? They were rich, from Hull, and gave money to Edward III… So, how did they get that rich? Were they poor and were better fur trappers than other people in England? Were they scions of a noble family, just not males, hence they had money but no title? “how people became rich” or “how they became nobles” always confuses me.

    1. Hi Liam. The origins are a little obscure, but it seems that there were two brothers, William and Richard, who may have come from Ravenser. They originally seem to have made money in the Gascon wine trade – importing and selling wine. From there, they moved into the wool trade, and then, crucially for the family fortunes, he helped finance Edward III’s French campaigns. Actually as Edward defaulted on debts, this almost ruined him, but it had gained the family connections. One the basis of these connections, two of his sons were able to form knightly families. Michael was based in Henry of Lancaster’s household, became a solider, and by 1353 had been knighted. In reward for service to John of Gaunt, he was given land in fee, and he married a noble heiress, Katherine Wingfield. Given that he was a valued servant of royal masters (Gaunt) he became a royal servant to Richard II, Chancellor, and in 1385 was granted an Earldom by the king, of Suffolk. And thus the de la Pole’s had, through trade, service, and marriage risen to the top of the greasy pole (ha ha). Does that answer the question?

  2. Are there any descendants of the de la Poles around today?
    Why was Margaret of the de la Pole family in the reign of Henry 8 executed? Was it to do with her support for Katherine and Mary?

    1. I am sure there are descendants of the de la Pole around – but not in the main line of the family; that died out with Richard de la Pole in 1525 I believe. Margaret Pole, oddly enough, was not descended from the de la Poles, but from George Duke of Clarence. She may well have been executed for her descent from the house of York. Equally it may have had as much to do with her son, Reginald Pole who had become a fervent opponent of the king and his break with Rome.

      1. During a family holiday in the west country in about 1957 my older sister, then about 15, met a boy and had a holiday romance. He was probably about 18, tall, dark and very handsome. His name was Roger de la Pole, and he said he was descended from the Tudor de la Poles. The romance did not continue after the holiday, in spite of my sister really liking him, because our very strict father forbade it. I think he didn’t like the fact that Roger was Catholic!! I often wonder what became of that very romantic looking young man!

        1. My grandfather was called Roger de la Pole so this might in fact be him! Sadly, he died some years ago in his 60s I’m afraid so I didn’t know him all too well. I share the same surname though.

    2. I am a direct descendant of Isabella who was the sister of William, 1st Duke of Suffolk, and daughter of Michael de la Pole, 2nd Earl. Isabella became Mrs Kett and she is my grandmother 17 generations past

  3. Thanks for the resource and I love the podcast. But I can’t find any mention of a King Ladislaus VI of Bohemia/ Hungary and Croatia. Is it possible you meant Vladislaus II?

  4. Have you read (H. A. Napier, Historical Notices of ‘Swyncombe and Ewelme (Oxford, 1858) I think it has quite a bit of family history of the Earls of Suffolk.

    1. Good lord! I had not, but it is all available of Google Books and how wonderful it is. This is, as it happens, my ‘hood, so I am doubly delighted. Thanks!

  5. Descended from the Tudor De La Poles?
    Yes there are lots of them of which I am one.
    I am descended from Richard De La Pole uncle of the Ist Earl. You might wish to read the history of a Manor called Edworth, the ownership of which passed down my line until my ancestors the Piggot family sold it in 1614. The estate came to them via the Peverell family aka Langton. Margaret Peverell was Richard’s wife. Their daughter Catherine de la Pole married John Bulloc(k)and the Edworth estate was given to them by William after his wife’s death.It passed by marriage down the line until 1614. http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/beds/vol2/pp223-226
    End End

  6. But… where does the “de la” “of the” Poole come from. It sounds Spanish.
    Which, btw, the chief rabbi Marc of the Spanish and Portuguese Synagogue in NYC, has the surname ‘Angel de Sola Pool”.
    Makes me wonder if the origin of the name isn’t Sephardic..

    1. I do not know the original origin; but I imagine it’s French rather than Spanish – I could be wrong though, just guessing!

  7. I am a descendant of a a Sir Thomas of Cheshire De La Pole 1366-1429 whose wife was Lady Nanwich De La Pole 1374 to 1430. I am not sure that it is the same Thomas that you refer to or not. He was my 17th. Great-Great Grandfather. His father was Sir John De La Pole and his mother was Alice De La Pole. They De La Pole family goes back to at least France and Normandy prior to 1066. Have a great day.

  8. A publication which I came across 50/60 years ago in the library at Hull suggested that the family, when trading at Ravenser, were Powell and originated from Wales

  9. My family goes back to the 14th century in the french mountains named “Cévennes”. Between the towns of Puy en Velay and Uzès.
    There was an important medieval family based in the town of Bordeaux since the 12th century. The Colom/Colomb family. They were powerful merchants and sometimes mayors. They used to travel to London in order to lend money or some galées for the Plantagenet Kings, english Artistocrats or in another way to the Count of Toulouse. There’s a mention of a member of this family follower of a the king of England in an french expedition (Niort town).
    I can’t proove a familial connection between my Ancestors and this important family except the same name and the geographical proximity.
    My Ancestors lived with another family named “Folcher”. Few years ago, a Genealogist woman told me that this french family was related with the Plantagenet. Fulcher : Folc Fulk of Anjou…
    Then I’ve found your link about the De la Pole family. This is my first time I heard about this great family. You’ll find an extract below mentionning a man named Gilbert Colomb married with Catherine de la Pole Suffolk (16th century).
    Christopher Colombus had a poweful commercial network due to his familial background and partnerships and good friends across Europe.
    I can mention you the Caseneuve Casenove family mentionned in Bordeaux and domiciliated around the Court of the english Kings. They were bankers. Exactly like the two italian families less interesting than de la Pole family.
    This is so interesting to see that De la Pole family history looks like the Colomb/Colom family of Bordeaux.”Christopher Colombus was not this poor wool merchant of Genoa” said an Expert of this historical topic.
    Anyway William de la Pole with his trade of the wool and his successful ascention make me think to the Christopher Colombus profile and his Relatives.
    We’re ancientely related with the MacLean family and many other scottish, irish, english families. Some german families and northern italian families. Related with Prendergast people and also Berckeley people. Also with the Lynch family who used to deal with the wine trade in Bordeaux. An important medieval carrefour.

    Or, le fief de Brénieu était le fief de la famille de BRENIEU SUFFOLK. Les derniers représentants, Sibeud et Marguerite de La POLE SUFFOLK, eurent pour enfants :
    ‐ Catherine, ° 1540, mariée vers
    1555 avec Gilbert de COLOMB

Leave a Reply