Mountjoy family - ancestors of the Blounts

[Gjest]

Following on from the recent thread where the wife of Ralph de
Mountjoy was identified as a daughter and coheir of Nicholas Meverel
of Gayton, Staffordshire, I thought I should open a new thread to
track the Mountjoy line.

We have seen that Ralph de Mountjoy was still living in 1300, while
his wife, Isolda Meverel, whom he married sometime after 1262, was
still alive in 1310.

There are some references to Ralph in Jeayes' Derbyshire Deeds; he
held the manor of Yeldersley, Derbys.

One of these tells us that his father was named Serlo de Mountjoy, and
that Ralph had a brother, Robert:

"Release by Robert fil. Serlonis de Munjoy to Ralph de Munjoy his
brother, of a rent of 40s in Yeldersley, and of 12 acres of land in
Urlewike, also of rent of half a mark from lands in Modinor, in the
fee of Mercinton [Marchington]. Witnesses: James de Shirley, Peter de
Touke, Matthew de Knyveton, and others" (dated to the reign of King
Edward I) (p 33, #2723).

It seems Ralph was dead by 1316, when his son and heir in turn was
named Serlo de Mountjoy; he was still living on 25 March 1317
(##2724-2725). Serlo's widow Margery is referred to in November 1317
(#2726; Nicholas de Marchington, knight, was a witness), so we can
state that Serlo died in 1325.

This gives us:

1. Serlo de Mountjoy; had issue:

2a. Sir Ralph de Mountjoy, died between 1300 and 1316; married Isolda
Meverel, living in 1310. Had issue:

3. Serlo de Mountjoy, died 1317; married Margery, his widow.

2b. Robert de Mountjoy.

MA-R

[Gjest]

On Feb 17, 7:23 pm, mj...@btinternet.com wrote:

This gives us:

1. Serlo de Mountjoy; had issue:

2a. Sir Ralph de Mountjoy, died between 1300 and 1316; married Isolda
Meverel, living in 1310.  Had issue:

3. Serlo de Mountjoy, died 1317; married Margery, his widow.

2b. Robert de Mountjoy.

And here - for Nat and Marilyn - we have what appears to be the
'smoking gun':

Coll. Hist. Staffs, vol 4, part 2, p 80:

"Isolda, daughter and heir of Thomas, son of Sir Ralph Mountjoy, first
wife (to) Sir John Blount" who died in 1358.

It is a curious thing that, according to this pedigree, the Blounts
who were afterwards called to Parliament as 'Lords Mountjoy',
descended from Sir John's second marriage [to Eleanor Beauchamp] and
thus did not themselves have any Mountjoy blood.

Cheers, Michael

[Gjest]

On Feb 17, 7:23 pm, mj...@btinternet.com wrote:

Following on from the recent thread where the wife of Ralph de
Mountjoy was identified as a daughter and coheir of Nicholas Meverel
of Gayton, Staffordshire, I thought I should open a new thread to
track the Mountjoy line.

We have seen that Ralph de Mountjoy was still living in 1300, while
his wife, Isolda Meverel, whom he married sometime after 1262, was
still alive in 1310.

Jeayes et al's 'Derbyshire Charters" p 342 allow us to go back a
little further with the Mountjoy line, since they provide deeds naming
'Serlo fitz Ralph de Moungay" (early 13th century):

1. Ralph de Mountjoy
2. Serlo de Mountjoy
3. Sir Ralph de Mountjoy, married Isolda Meverel
4. Thomas de Mountjoy
5. Isolda de Mountjoy, married Sir John Blount

The earliest of these family charters is "late twelfth century" and
refers to "Hugh fitz Ralph" and his brother 'William de Mungay"; the
former, who also states he has a son named William, refers to 'Serlo
de Mungay nepos meus" but it is not clear how these individuals relate
to 'Serlo fitz Ralph de Moungay".

MA-R

[Gjest]

On Feb 17, 12:23 am, mj...@btinternet.com wrote:

Following on from the recent thread where the wife of Ralph de
Mountjoy was identified as a daughter and coheir of Nicholas Meverel
of Gayton, Staffordshire, I thought I should open a new thread to
track the Mountjoy line.

We have seen that Ralph de Mountjoy was still living in 1300, while
his wife, Isolda Meverel, whom he married sometime after 1262, was
still alive in 1310.

There are some references to Ralph in Jeayes' Derbyshire Deeds; he
held the manor of Yeldersley, Derbys.

One of these tells us that his father was named Serlo de Mountjoy, and
that Ralph had a brother, Robert:

"Release by Robert fil. Serlonis de Munjoy to Ralph de Munjoy his
brother, of a rent of 40s in Yeldersley, and of 12 acres of land in
Urlewike, also of rent of half a mark from lands in Modinor, in the
fee of Mercinton [Marchington]. Witnesses: James de Shirley, Peter de
Touke, Matthew de Knyveton, and others" (dated to the reign of King
Edward I) (p 33, #2723).

It seems Ralph was dead by 1316, when his son and heir in turn was
named Serlo de Mountjoy; he was still living on 25 March 1317
(##2724-2725). Serlo's widow Margery is referred to in November 1317
(#2726; Nicholas de Marchington, knight, was a witness), so we can
state that Serlo died in 1325.

This gives us:

1. Serlo de Mountjoy; had issue:

2a. Sir Ralph de Mountjoy, died between 1300 and 1316; married Isolda
Meverel, living in 1310. Had issue:

3. Serlo de Mountjoy, died 1317; married Margery, his widow.

2b. Robert de Mountjoy.

A2A indexes "Gift by chirograph by Ralph son of Ralph de Monyoye
[Mountjoy] of Yhildersley [Yeldersley] to John, son of William of Aula
[Hall]" dated 1323, so presumably Sir Ralph had three sons, Serlo,
Ralph and Thomas.

.. . .

On further digging I find a motherlode of Mountjoy documents in
_Longstone Records, Derbyshire_

http://books.google.com/books?id=JS4QAA ... RA4-PT1,M1

Apparently this Ralph the younger left as heiress Isolda, wife of
Robert de Ireland, having (it would seem) sons Robert and John.

taf

[Gjest]

To add further documents, there are numerous charters, some the same,
but some novel, in _Descriptive Catalogue of Derbyshire Charters in
Public and Private Libraries_

http://books.google.com/books?id=8z4JAA ... #PPA344,M1

Regarding the earliest charter, of Hugh Fitz Ralph to William de
Mungay, with ratification of William son of Hugh and Serlo, his
nephew, from the context it seems pretty clear that Serlo is son of
William. It is an exchange, and just as they have brought in Hugh's
son to ratify the passage of Yeldersley from Hugh to William, they
appear to have brought in Serlo to ratify the passage in return of
Cratle lands from William to Hugh.

There appears to be an article which touches on the family in the
_Journal of the Derbyshire Archaeological and Natural History
Society_, but it is only available in snippet view and I have not been
able to 'walk' far enough to prove illuminating. See:

http://books.google.com/books?id=jsw1AA ... gay&pgis=1
http://books.google.com/books?id=AcU4AA ... gay&pgis=1

taf

[Gjest]

On Feb 17, 1:22 am, mj...@btinternet.com wrote:

Jeayes et al's 'Derbyshire Charters" p 342 allow us to go back a
little further with the Mountjoy line, since they provide deeds naming
'Serlo fitz Ralph de Moungay" (early 13th century):

1. Ralph de Mountjoy
2. Serlo de Mountjoy
3. Sir Ralph de Mountjoy, married Isolda Meverel
4. Thomas de Mountjoy
5. Isolda de Mountjoy, married Sir John Blount

Do we know that Thomas is son of Ralph? I know that is what the
traditional pedigree shows, but 'for what its worth' category, I find
the following of Isolda:

"The mystery of her parentage has not been solved. The release by John
le Blount in 1374 to his brother Walter of all his rights in lands in
Gayton, Yeldersley, Brushfield, &c. (Croke, op. cit., vol. ii, p.
171), which were Mountjoy manors in the 13th and 14th centuries
(Jeayes, Derbyshire Charters, no. 1608, et seq.), suggests that a
portion of the Mountjoy estates had descended by inheritance to John,
then eldest surviving son of John le Blount and Isoude. It was a
portion only, because (i) Gayton and Yeldersley, &c, descended through
the marriage of Isoude (da. and h. of Serle de Mountjoy, s. and h. of
Ralph de Mountjoy) to Robert de Ireland (Plac. de Quo Warranto, p.
155); the family of Ireland were still holding temp. Henr VII (Feudal
Aids, vol. i, p. 250 et seq.; Jeayes, op. cit., no 2731); (ii) the
receipt given by Madam Wake in 1359 for evidences belonging to Richard
Blount, the young heir of John and Isoude, refers to vint oyt feetes
en un boist del heritage le mere le dit Richard et ses parceners des
tenements en le Pek, &c. (Harl. MS. 6709, fo. 119 d).

http://www.renderplus.com/hartgen/htm/blount.htm


The we also have:

"Release by Thomas fil Roberti de Mountjoye to Ralph Gerard of
Wynster . . . ."

Given that Ralph seems to have been generous to his brother Robert, I
wonder if Isolda might have represented the line of this brother.
Does anyone have anything definitive? (For that matter, while widely
reported, do we *know* that Isolda was daughter of a Thomas?)

taf

[CE Wood]

Was Mountjoy an actual place, and, if so, where?

CE Wood

On Feb 17, 8:28 am, t...@clearwire.net wrote:

To add further documents, there are numerous charters, some the same,
but some novel, in _Descriptive Catalogue of Derbyshire Charters in
Public and Private Libraries_

http://books.google.com/books?id=8z4JAA ... de+munga...

Regarding the earliest charter, of Hugh Fitz Ralph to William de
Mungay, with ratification of William son of Hugh and Serlo, his
nephew, from the context it seems pretty clear that Serlo is son of
William. It is an exchange, and just as they have brought in Hugh's
son to ratify the passage of Yeldersley from Hugh to William, they
appear to have brought in Serlo to ratify the passage in return of
Cratle lands from William to Hugh.

There appears to be an article which touches on the family in the
_Journal of the Derbyshire Archaeological and Natural History
Society_, but it is only available in snippet view and I have not been
able to 'walk' far enough to prove illuminating. See:

http://books.google.com/books?id=jsw1AA ... gay&pgis=1

taf

[Nathaniel Taylor]

In article
<ebee8d94-84a1-426f-a26b-b2ce2087eaf7@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:

On Feb 17, 7:23 pm, mj...@btinternet.com wrote:

This gives us:

1. Serlo de Mountjoy; had issue:

2a. Sir Ralph de Mountjoy, died between 1300 and 1316; married Isolda
Meverel, living in 1310.  Had issue:

3. Serlo de Mountjoy, died 1317; married Margery, his widow.

2b. Robert de Mountjoy.


And here - for Nat and Marilyn - we have what appears to be the
'smoking gun':

Coll. Hist. Staffs, vol 4, part 2, p 80:

"Isolda, daughter and heir of Thomas, son of Sir Ralph Mountjoy, first
wife (to) Sir John Blount" who died in 1358.

It is a curious thing that, according to this pedigree, the Blounts
who were afterwards called to Parliament as 'Lords Mountjoy',
descended from Sir John's second marriage [to Eleanor Beauchamp] and
thus did not themselves have any Mountjoy blood.

Ah--but here the earlier sources (followed by Coll. Hist. Staffs.) seem
to be in error, which has since been corrected by CP (s.n. Mountjoy).
As CP shows, Sir John Blount (d. 1358) can only be shown to have had one
wife, Isolda de Mountjoy. Older sources assign him a second wife,
Eleanor Beauchamp (of Hache) who is made to be the mother of his younger
sons (including the one whose descendants took the peerage title
'Mountjoy'). On the alleged Blount-Beauchamp marriage, an article by
Cecil R. Humphery-Smith, "The Blount Quarters," _The Coat of Arms_ 4
(1957), 224-27, is corrected by G. D. Squibb, "The Heirs of Beauchamp of
Hatch," ibid., pp. 275-77, showing that the particular claimed marriage
cannot have happened.

More importantly, Isolda is documented as still wife of Sir John Blount
in 1352, well after the apparent birth year of Walter, ancestor of the
lords Mountjoy. Croke (in his Blount work back in 1823) quoted the 1352
charter but didn't realize the chronological implication, repeating the
two-wife fallacy.

I think the origin of the fallacious marriage is that the Blounts
quartered a chequy coat (like Beauchamp of Hache) whose origin was a
mystery for quite some time. I have more notes on this somewhere but am
busy. Prod me if curious.

Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://www.nltaylor.net/sketchbook/

[Nathaniel Taylor]

In article
<nltaylor-383268.13402617022008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Nathaniel Taylor <nltaylor@nltaylor.net> wrote:

I think the origin of the fallacious marriage is that the Blounts
quartered a chequy coat (like Beauchamp of Hache) whose origin was a
mystery for quite some time. I have more notes on this somewhere but am
busy. Prod me if curious.

Oops, I meant vairy, not chequy.

Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://www.nltaylor.net/sketchbook/

[Gjest]

On Feb 18, 3:28 am, t...@clearwire.net wrote:

To add further documents, there are numerous charters, some the same,
but some novel, in _Descriptive Catalogue of Derbyshire Charters in
Public and Private Libraries_

http://books.google.com/books?id=8z4JAA ... de+munga...

Regarding the earliest charter, of Hugh Fitz Ralph to William de
Mungay, with ratification of William son of Hugh and Serlo, his
nephew, from the context it seems pretty clear that Serlo is son of
William.  It is an exchange, and just as they have brought in Hugh's
son to ratify the passage of Yeldersley from Hugh to William, they
appear to have brought in Serlo to ratify the passage in return of
Cratle lands from William to Hugh.

I agree that is the likely interpretation - but then, not long
afterwards, we find Serlo fitz Ralph...

MA-R

[Gjest]

On Feb 18, 5:40 am, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:

In article
ebee8d94-84a1-426f-a26b-b2ce2087e...@d4 ... groups.com>,





 mj...@btinternet.com wrote:
On Feb 17, 7:23 pm, mj...@btinternet.com wrote:

This gives us:

1. Serlo de Mountjoy; had issue:

2a. Sir Ralph de Mountjoy, died between 1300 and 1316; married Isolda
Meverel, living in 1310.  Had issue:

3. Serlo de Mountjoy, died 1317; married Margery, his widow.

2b. Robert de Mountjoy.

And here - for Nat and Marilyn - we have what appears to be the
'smoking gun':

Coll. Hist. Staffs, vol 4, part 2, p 80:

"Isolda, daughter and heir of Thomas, son of Sir Ralph Mountjoy, first
wife (to) Sir John Blount" who died in 1358.

It is a curious thing that, according to this pedigree, the Blounts
who were afterwards called to Parliament as 'Lords Mountjoy',
descended from Sir John's second marriage [to Eleanor Beauchamp] and
thus did not themselves have any Mountjoy blood.

Ah--but here the earlier sources (followed by Coll. Hist. Staffs.) seem
to be in error, which has since been corrected by CP (s.n. Mountjoy).  
As CP shows, Sir John Blount (d. 1358) can only be shown to have had one
wife, Isolda de Mountjoy.  Older sources assign him a second wife,
Eleanor Beauchamp (of Hache) who is made to be the mother of his younger
sons (including the one whose descendants took the peerage title
'Mountjoy').  On the alleged Blount-Beauchamp marriage, an article by
Cecil R. Humphery-Smith, "The Blount Quarters," _The Coat of Arms_ 4
(1957), 224-27, is corrected by G. D. Squibb, "The Heirs of Beauchamp of
Hatch," ibid., pp. 275-77, showing that the particular claimed marriage
cannot have happened.  

More importantly, Isolda is documented as still wife of Sir John Blount
in 1352, well after the apparent birth year of Walter, ancestor of the
lords Mountjoy.  Croke (in his Blount work back in 1823) quoted the 1352
charter but didn't realize the chronological implication, repeating the
two-wife fallacy.  

I think the origin of the fallacious marriage is that the Blounts
quartered a chequy coat (like Beauchamp of Hache) whose origin was a
mystery for quite some time.  I have more notes on this somewhere but am
busy.  Prod me if curious.

Thanks Nat and look forward to anything further once you have the
opportunity.

This looks like a correction for Leo (sorry to give you more work!)

Cheers, Michael

[Gjest]

On Feb 18, 4:04 am, t...@clearwire.net wrote:

On Feb 17, 1:22 am, mj...@btinternet.com wrote:

Jeayes et al's 'Derbyshire Charters" p 342 allow us to go back a
little further with the Mountjoy line, since they provide deeds naming
'Serlo fitz Ralph de Moungay" (early 13th century):

1. Ralph de Mountjoy
2. Serlo de Mountjoy
3. Sir Ralph de Mountjoy, married Isolda Meverel
4. Thomas de Mountjoy
5. Isolda de Mountjoy, married Sir John Blount

Do we know that Thomas is son of Ralph?  I know that is what the
traditional pedigree shows, but 'for what its worth' category, I find
the following of Isolda:

"The mystery of her parentage has not been solved. The release by John
le Blount in 1374 to his brother Walter of all his rights in lands in
Gayton, Yeldersley, Brushfield, &c. (Croke, op. cit., vol. ii, p.
171), which were Mountjoy manors in the 13th and 14th centuries
(Jeayes, Derbyshire Charters, no. 1608, et seq.), suggests that a
portion of the Mountjoy estates had descended by inheritance to John,
then eldest surviving son of John le Blount and Isoude. It was a
portion only, because (i) Gayton and Yeldersley, &c, descended through
the marriage of Isoude (da. and h. of Serle de Mountjoy, s. and h. of
Ralph de Mountjoy) to Robert de Ireland (Plac. de Quo Warranto, p.
155); the family of Ireland were still holding temp. Henr VII (Feudal
Aids, vol. i, p. 250 et seq.; Jeayes, op. cit., no 2731); (ii) the
receipt given by Madam Wake in 1359 for evidences belonging to Richard
Blount, the young heir of John and Isoude, refers to vint oyt feetes
en un boist del heritage le mere le dit Richard et ses parceners des
tenements en le Pek, &c. (Harl. MS. 6709, fo. 119 d).

http://www.renderplus.com/hartgen/htm/blount.htm

The we also have:

"Release by Thomas fil Roberti de Mountjoye to Ralph Gerard of
Wynster . . . ."

Given that Ralph seems to have been generous to his brother Robert, I
wonder if Isolda might have represented the line of this brother.
Does anyone have anything definitive?  (For that matter, while widely
reported, do we *know* that Isolda was daughter of a Thomas?)

Agree. I have not been able to locate anything that places Isolda on
the basis of contemporary documents (or Thomas, for that matter). If
she was of the line of Robert brother of Serlo, then she wouldn't be
descended from Serlo's wife Isolda, which we would sort of expect from
her name - but of course, the elder Isolda could equally have been a
great-aunt and godmother.

MA-R

[Merilyn Pedrick]

I'm loving this!! Thankyou Michael and Todd for the ever-expaning
discussion of the Mountjoy family. Not having access to the records you
quote, I'm just enjoying the fruits of your efforts.
Merilyn

mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:

On Feb 18, 4:04 am, t...@clearwire.net wrote:

On Feb 17, 1:22 am, mj...@btinternet.com wrote:


Jeayes et al's 'Derbyshire Charters" p 342 allow us to go back a
little further with the Mountjoy line, since they provide deeds naming
'Serlo fitz Ralph de Moungay" (early 13th century):

1. Ralph de Mountjoy
2. Serlo de Mountjoy
3. Sir Ralph de Mountjoy, married Isolda Meverel
4. Thomas de Mountjoy
5. Isolda de Mountjoy, married Sir John Blount

Do we know that Thomas is son of Ralph? I know that is what the
traditional pedigree shows, but 'for what its worth' category, I find
the following of Isolda:

"The mystery of her parentage has not been solved. The release by John
le Blount in 1374 to his brother Walter of all his rights in lands in
Gayton, Yeldersley, Brushfield, &c. (Croke, op. cit., vol. ii, p.
171), which were Mountjoy manors in the 13th and 14th centuries
(Jeayes, Derbyshire Charters, no. 1608, et seq.), suggests that a
portion of the Mountjoy estates had descended by inheritance to John,
then eldest surviving son of John le Blount and Isoude. It was a
portion only, because (i) Gayton and Yeldersley, &c, descended through
the marriage of Isoude (da. and h. of Serle de Mountjoy, s. and h. of
Ralph de Mountjoy) to Robert de Ireland (Plac. de Quo Warranto, p.
155); the family of Ireland were still holding temp. Henr VII (Feudal
Aids, vol. i, p. 250 et seq.; Jeayes, op. cit., no 2731); (ii) the
receipt given by Madam Wake in 1359 for evidences belonging to Richard
Blount, the young heir of John and Isoude, refers to vint oyt feetes
en un boist del heritage le mere le dit Richard et ses parceners des
tenements en le Pek, &c. (Harl. MS. 6709, fo. 119 d).

http://www.renderplus.com/hartgen/htm/blount.htm

The we also have:

"Release by Thomas fil Roberti de Mountjoye to Ralph Gerard of
Wynster . . . ."

Given that Ralph seems to have been generous to his brother Robert, I
wonder if Isolda might have represented the line of this brother.
Does anyone have anything definitive? (For that matter, while widely
reported, do we *know* that Isolda was daughter of a Thomas?)


Agree. I have not been able to locate anything that places Isolda on
the basis of contemporary documents (or Thomas, for that matter). If
she was of the line of Robert brother of Serlo, then she wouldn't be
descended from Serlo's wife Isolda, which we would sort of expect from
her name - but of course, the elder Isolda could equally have been a
great-aunt and godmother.

MA-R

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

[Gjest]

On Feb 17, 4:14 pm, Merilyn Pedrick <merilyn.pedr...@internode.on.net>
wrote:

I'm loving this!! Thankyou Michael and Todd for the ever-expaning
discussion of the Mountjoy family. Not having access to the records you
quote, I'm just enjoying the fruits of your efforts.

Most of what has been introduced is available at Google Books, if you
use the right search terms.

taf

[John Watson]

On Feb 18, 1:59 am, CE Wood <wood...@msn.com> wrote:

Was Mountjoy an actual place, and, if so, where?

CE Wood

On Feb 17, 8:28 am, t...@clearwire.net wrote:

To add further documents, there are numerous charters, some the same,
but some novel, in _Descriptive Catalogue of Derbyshire Charters in
Public and Private Libraries_

http://books.google.com/books?id=8z4JAA ... de+munga...

Regarding the earliest charter, of Hugh Fitz Ralph to William de
Mungay, with ratification of William son of Hugh and Serlo, his
nephew, from the context it seems pretty clear that Serlo is son of
William. It is an exchange, and just as they have brought in Hugh's
son to ratify the passage of Yeldersley from Hugh to William, they
appear to have brought in Serlo to ratify the passage in return of
Cratle lands from William to Hugh.

There appears to be an article which touches on the family in the
_Journal of the Derbyshire Archaeological and Natural History
Society_, but it is only available in snippet view and I have not been
able to 'walk' far enough to prove illuminating. See:

http://books.google.com/books?id=jsw1AA ... gay&pgis...

taf

AFAIK Mount Joy is near Jerusalem and it was there that pilgrims got
their first glimpse of the holy city.

Regards,

John

[CE Wood]

Thank you. I do know about that one, but is that where the Lords
Mountjoy got their name? In this thread they are referred to as
Moungay, Mungay, et alia.

CE Wood


On Feb 18, 12:03 am, John Watson <WatsonJo...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Feb 18, 1:59 am, CE Wood <wood...@msn.com> wrote:



Was Mountjoy an actual place, and, if so, where?

CE Wood

On Feb 17, 8:28 am, t...@clearwire.net wrote:

To add further documents, there are numerous charters, some the same,
but some novel, in _Descriptive Catalogue of Derbyshire Charters in
Public and Private Libraries_

http://books.google.com/books?id=8z4JAA ... de+munga...

Regarding the earliest charter, of Hugh Fitz Ralph to William de
Mungay, with ratification of William son of Hugh and Serlo, his
nephew, from the context it seems pretty clear that Serlo is son of
William. It is an exchange, and just as they have brought in Hugh's
son to ratify the passage of Yeldersley from Hugh to William, they
appear to have brought in Serlo to ratify the passage in return of
Cratle lands from William to Hugh.

There appears to be an article which touches on the family in the
_Journal of the Derbyshire Archaeological and Natural History
Society_, but it is only available in snippet view and I have not been
able to 'walk' far enough to prove illuminating. See:

http://books.google.com/books?id=jsw1AA ... gay&pgis...

taf

AFAIK Mount Joy is near Jerusalem and it was there that pilgrims got
their first glimpse of the holy city.

Regards,

John

[Gjest]

On Feb 18, 4:59 am, CE Wood <wood...@msn.com> wrote:

Was Mountjoy an actual place, and, if so, where?

CE Wood

'Complete Peerage' skirts around this issue (vol v, 1893, p 398, note
e). It includes a reference found by Round, dated 1597, which
indicates its Tudor author believed 'Mountjoy' was in Spain. [The
note also includes the assertion that Isolda was the daughter and
heiress of Sir Thomas de Mountjoy, but provides no primary reference
for that statement.]

According to 'Patronymica Britannica', M.A. Lower, London, 1840, p
231, 'Mountjoy' was "a district of the parish of Battel [Battle,
Sussex]", presumably named because William the Conqueror was believed
to have erected a cairn of stones to commemorate his victory in 1066 -
a victory-cairn being called a 'Mountjoy'.

A Sussex origin for the Derbyshire family seems at least as likely as
other suggestions, e.g. a returned crusader, although it is also
possible that there were other geographical locations in England so-
called for similar reasons (it is also suggested that hills affording
a prospect of a religious house in England were called Mountjoy in
allusion to the place of that name outside Jerusalem).

Take your pick!

MA-R