Is this the crassest set of Visitation Errors?

Here's two pages from the Hampshire Visitations of 1530, 1575 and 1622-34. From internal evidence I would guess that the date was the 1575 visitation.

Poole_both_sm.gif - 21Kb

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:

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

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:

One conclusion of this is that the name should be pronounced as in "pool" and not as in "pole", medieval spelling being highly phonetic and with a dash of French for trailing "e"s.