Mounteney family - Norfolk, Suffolk & Essex

[pd...@peterdale.com]

Greetings,

My apologies if this e-mail is repetitive. I received a response from
the webmaster advising me my prior inquiry was too long so I have
abbreviated it. I am looking for any information to confirm the
paternity of Margery/Margaret Mounteney (b. approx. 1380 and d. post
1442). She was married to Sir John Jermy (b./d. dates similar to
Margery) of Metfield, Suffolk.

Margery's father was purported to be Arnold de Mounteney (also
referred to as Montney/Muntney, etc.) (d. approx. 1402) of Norfolk
(Beeston, Sprouston, Wroxham, Plumstede Parva, Catton, Freethorpe and
Hassingham, among others) & Essex (Mountnessing). Her brother was Sir
William de Mounteney (d. approx. 1428) who fought alongside Margery’s
husband Sir John Jermy at Agincourt. Margery also had a sister
Elizabeth who was married to John Chamberlain and a cousin/nephew
Robert Mounteney (b. approx. 1422, who was the heir of Sir William de
Mounteney who did not have any children) who married Margaret the
daughter of Edward Tyrrell of Downham, Essex.

I would like to try to more conclusively establish the parentage of
both Margery/Margaret and her purported father Arnold de Mounteney.
Many thanks in advance for any assistance.

Cheers,

Pete

[Wjhonson]

What sources are you using to prove to you that a person named Margaret Mounteney existed?
That's where you need to start. Firming up those sources to be more specific, and exact and finding their basis.

-----Original Message-----
From: pdale <pd...@peterdale.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thu, May 24, 2012 9:50 am
Subject: Mounteney family - Norfolk, Suffolk & Essex


Greetings,
My apologies if this e-mail is repetitive. I received a response from

he webmaster advising me my prior inquiry was too long so I have

bbreviated it. I am looking for any information to confirm the

aternity of Margery/Margaret Mounteney (b. approx. 1380 and d. post

442). She was married to Sir John Jermy (b./d. dates similar to

argery) of Metfield, Suffolk.
Margery's father was purported to be Arnold de Mounteney (also

eferred to as Montney/Muntney, etc.) (d. approx. 1402) of Norfolk

Beeston, Sprouston, Wroxham, Plumstede Parva, Catton, Freethorpe and

assingham, among others) & Essex (Mountnessing). Her brother was Sir

illiam de Mounteney (d. approx. 1428) who fought alongside Margery’s

usband Sir John Jermy at Agincourt. Margery also had a sister

lizabeth who was married to John Chamberlain and a cousin/nephew

obert Mounteney (b. approx. 1422, who was the heir of Sir William de

ounteney who did not have any children) who married Margaret the

aughter of Edward Tyrrell of Downham, Essex.
I would like to try to more conclusively establish the parentage of

oth Margery/Margaret and her purported father Arnold de Mounteney.

any thanks in advance for any assistance.
Cheers,
Pete

------------------------------
o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com
ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
he message

[pd...@peterdale.com]

On May 24, 12:58 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> What sources are you using to prove to you that a person named MargaretMounteneyexisted?
> That's where you need to start.  Firming up those sources to be more specific, and exact and finding their basis.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pdale <pd...@peterdale.com>
> To: gen-medieval <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Thu, May 24, 2012 9:50 am
> Subject:Mounteneyfamily- Norfolk, Suffolk & Essex
>
> Greetings,
> My apologies if this e-mail is repetitive.  I received a response from
> he webmaster advising me my prior inquiry was too long so I have
> bbreviated it.  I am looking for any information to confirm the

> aternity of Margery/MargaretMounteney(b. approx. 1380 and d. post

> 442).  She was married to Sir John Jermy (b./d. dates similar to
> argery) of Metfield, Suffolk.
> Margery's father was purported to be Arnold deMounteney(also
> eferred to as Montney/Muntney, etc.) (d. approx. 1402) of Norfolk
> Beeston, Sprouston, Wroxham, Plumstede Parva, Catton, Freethorpe and
> assingham, among others) & Essex (Mountnessing).  Her brother was Sir

> illiam deMounteney(d. approx. 1428) who fought alongside Margery’s

> usband Sir John Jermy at Agincourt.  Margery also had a sister
> lizabeth who was married to John Chamberlain and a cousin/nephew

> obertMounteney(b. approx. 1422, who was the heir of Sir William de

> ounteney who did not have any children) who married Margaret the
> aughter of Edward Tyrrell of Downham, Essex.
> I would like to try to more conclusively establish the parentage of
> oth Margery/Margaret and her purported father Arnold deMounteney.
> any thanks in advance for any assistance.
> Cheers,
> Pete
>
> ------------------------------

> o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com

> ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
> he message

Hi Will,

Good to hear from you. Margaret is referenced in the will of Edward
Tyrrell – please see below. She is also referenced multiple times in
the secondary literature (usually in connection with Sir John Jermy):

The book, ‘The Register of Henry Chichele, Archbishop of Canterbury
1414-1443’, vol. II, (1938), edited by E. F. Jacob, published by
Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 628-636, provides a copy of the will of
Edward Tyrrell of Downham, Essex. It states, with respect to the
Mounteney family, the following:

“SUMMARY: The document below is the will, dated 1 October 1442, 9
December 1442 and 14 December 1442, of Edward Tyrrell of Downham in
Essex. The testator states in the will that his parents were Walter
and Eleanor, and G. Andrews Moriarty, in “The Early Tyrrels of Heron
in East Herndon” (New England Historical and Genealogical Register,
vol. CIX, 1955, pp. 17-31), has made use of this will to correct an
error in the Tyrrell pedigrees and to demonstrate that both the
testator and his elder brother, Sir John Tyrrell (d.1437), Speaker of
the House of Commons, were the sons of Walter Tyrrell and his wife
Eleanor, the daughter and heir of Edmund Flambard. ...

The testator’s daughter, Margaret, married Robert Mounteney, nephew
and heir of Sir William Mounteney. ...

(fo. 489) Testamentum Edwardi Tyrrell. This is the last will of me,
Edward Tyrrell, squire, the elder, indented and made at Downham in the
shire of Essex the 9th day of December the year of Our Lord a thousand
four hundred forty-two, and the year of the reign of King Henry the
Sixth after the Conquest 21; ...

Also my will is that all tho[se] feoffees that stonden enfeoffed by me
at my denomination by the commandment of Sir John Tyrrell, my brother,
of whose soul God have mercy, in the manor of Mountnessing with th’
appurtenances to perform my said brother’s will and also the will of
Sir William Mounteney, knight, that dead is, make estate to Robert
Mounteney, cousin and heir of the said Sir William Mounteney, and to
Margaret, my daughter, his wife, of the said manor with the
appurtenance, to have and to hold the said manor with th’ appurtenance
to the said Robert and Margaret and to the heirs male that the said
Robert shall lawfully beget of the body of the said Margaret, and for
default of issue male by the said Robert of the body of the said
Margaret lawfully begotten, I will that the said manor with all th’
appurtenance remain to the heirs male of the body of the said Robert
lawfully begotten, and if the said Robert die without issue male of
his body lawful begotten, then I will the said (fo. 489b) manor with
th’ appurtenance remain to Elizabeth that was wife of John
Chamberlain, sister to the said Sir William Mounteney, and to her
heirs male of her body lawfully begotten bearing the name and the arms
of the said Sir William Mounteney after the form and the effect of his
last will, and if the said Elizabeth die without issue male of her
body lawfully begotten, then I will the said manor with th’
appurtenance remain to Margaret, the wife of Sir John German, knight,
sister to the said Elizabeth, and to the heirs male of her body
lawfully begotten bearing the name and the arms of Mounteney as it is
abovesaid, and if the said Margaret die without issue male of her body
lawfully begotten, then I will the said manor with th’ appurtenance
remain to John Mounteney of Yorkshire and to the heirs male of his
body lawfully begotten bearing the name and the arms of Mounteney as
it is above-written, and if the said John Mounteney die without issue
male of his body lawfully begotten, then I will the said manor with
th’ appurtenance turn to me and to them that stonden enfeoffed by my
said brother Sir John Tyrrell and to our heirs, the said manor by us
or by our heirs for to be sold and the money that shall come thereof
for to be disposed for the souls of the said William Mounteney and for
his father’s soul and his mother’s soul and for the souls of all his
good-doers and all Christian souls after the form of the last will of
the said Sir William Mounteney etc.; Also my will is that my feoffees
that stonden enfeoffed in certain lands, rents and tenements with th’
appurtenance called Porters lying in Rochford hundred within the shire
of Essex make estate of them to the said Robert Mounteney and to
Margaret, my daughter, his wife, when the said Robert cometh to the
age of 21 winter, to have and to hold the said lands, rents and
tenements with their appurtenance called Porters to the sai[d] Robert
and Margaret and to their assigns forever in satisfaction of the
r[ev]enues and profits that I have taken of the said manor of
Mountnessing and that shall be taken hereafter by mine executors of
the same manor, for my will is that mine executors have the governance
of the said manor hereafter, and not the feoffees, deduct of the said
profits and revenues the finding of the said Robert in time past and
the finding of him and the said Margaret, my daughter, hereafter till
the said Robert come to plain age, reparations and costs done or to be
done in the said manor, the expenses done and employed by me in suit
against my Lord the Duke of York for the ward and marriage of the same
Robert, and also expenses that hath be done against Sir Lewis John
while he lived, and against my lady, [h]is wife, after his death, or
that shall be done by me or mine executors against any other for the
said ward and marriage hereafter, and I will that all the revenues and
profits that shall come of the said lands called Porters till the said
Robert come till his age be done for my soul, etc.” (source:
http://www.oxford-shakespeare.com/DocumentsOther/Reg_Chichele_Tyrrell.pdf)

Regards,

Pete

[Wjhonson]

For future reference, the will is online

http://www.oxford-shakespeare.com/DocumentsOther/Reg_Chichele_Tyrrell.pdf

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

[Steve Riggan]

Thanks for posting this will! Great to have for the family records. I am descended from Edward Tyrrell's nephew, Sir Thomas Tyrrell who married Anne Marney from the Sergeaux family. This lineage comes down to Amy Moyle, grandmother of Amy Kempe Skipwith, mother of my immigrant ancestress Diana Skipwith Dale of Virginia. There was a lot of useful information there that explained a lot of intertwining family relationships.
Steve Riggan










> To: pd...@peterdale.com; gen-me...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: Mounteney family - Norfolk, Suffolk & Essex
> From: wjho...@aol.com
> Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 11:33:09 -0400

>
> For future reference, the will is online
>
> http://www.oxford-shakespeare.com/DocumentsOther/Reg_Chichele_Tyrrell.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pdale <pd...@peterdale.com>

> To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Thu, May 24, 2012 11:35 am

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

[Steve Riggan]

If my memory serves me correct, the Pashley line goes to the Lovelace family and Anne Lovelace Gorsuch of Maryland. One of her granddaughters Isabella Minor Todd married John Madison and were to become the great grandparents of President James Madison. I have a Lovelace line too in Virginia but haven't been able to connect it any further back than 1696. Also, I believe the Hautes were connected somehow via maternal lineage to Rev. Haute Wyatt of Virginia who tie up with my Kempes in Kent. Thanks again for posting the will of Sir Edward Tyrrell.

Steve Riggan






> To: pd...@peterdale.com; gen-me...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: Mounteney family - Norfolk, Suffolk & Essex
> From: wjho...@aol.com
> Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 11:33:09 -0400
>
> For future reference, the will is online
>
> http://www.oxford-shakespeare.com/DocumentsOther/Reg_Chichele_Tyrrell.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pdale <pd...@peterdale.com>

> To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Thu, May 24, 2012 11:35 am

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

[Peter G. M. Dale]

Hi Will,



Good to hear from you. Margaret is referenced in the will of Edward Tyrrell – please see below. She is also referenced multiple times in the secondary literature (usually in connection with Sir John Jermy):



The book, ‘The Register of Henry Chichele, Archbishop of Canterbury 1414-1443’, vol. II, (1938), edited by E. F. Jacob, published by Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 628-636, provides a copy of the will of Edward Tyrrell of Downham, Essex. It states, with respect to the Mounteney family, the following:



“SUMMARY: The document below is the will, dated 1 October 1442, 9 December 1442 and 14 December 1442, of Edward Tyrrell of Downham in Essex. The testator states in the will that his parents were Walter and Eleanor, and G. Andrews Moriarty, in “The Early Tyrrels of Heron in East Herndon” (New England Historical and Genealogical Register, vol. CIX, 1955, pp. 17-31), has made use of this will to correct an error in the Tyrrell pedigrees and to demonstrate that both the testator and his elder brother, Sir John Tyrrell (d.1437), Speaker of the House of Commons, were the sons of Walter Tyrrell and his wife Eleanor, the daughter and heir of Edmund Flambard. ...



The testator’s daughter, Margaret, married Robert Mounteney, nephew and heir of Sir William Mounteney. ...



(fo. 489) Testamentum Edwardi Tyrrell. This is the last will of me, Edward Tyrrell, squire, the elder, indented and made at Downham in the shire of Essex the 9th day of December the year of Our Lord a thousand four hundred forty-two, and the year of the reign of King Henry the Sixth after the Conquest 21; ...

Also my will is that all tho[se] feoffees that stonden enfeoffed by me at my denomination by the commandment of Sir John Tyrrell, my brother, of whose soul God have mercy, in the manor of Mountnessing with th’ appurtenances to perform my said brother’s will and also the will of Sir William Mounteney, knight, that dead is, make estate to Robert Mounteney, cousin and heir of the said Sir William Mounteney, and to Margaret, my daughter, his wife, of the said manor with the appurtenance, to have and to hold the said manor with th’ appurtenance to the said Robert and Margaret and to the heirs male that the said Robert shall lawfully beget of the body of the said Margaret, and for default of issue male by the said Robert of the body of the said Margaret lawfully begotten, I will that the said manor with all th’ appurtenance remain to the heirs male of the body of the said Robert lawfully begotten, and if the said Robert die without issue male of his body lawful begotten, then I will the said (fo. 489b) manor with th’ appurtenance remain to Elizabeth that was wife of John Chamberlain, sister to the said Sir William Mounteney, and to her heirs male of her body lawfully begotten bearing the name and the arms of the said Sir William Mounteney after the form and the effect of his last will, and if the said Elizabeth die without issue male of her body lawfully begotten, then I will the said manor with th’ appurtenance remain to Margaret, the wife of Sir John German, knight, sister to the said Elizabeth, and to the heirs male of her body lawfully begotten bearing the name and the arms of Mounteney as it is abovesaid, and if the said Margaret die without issue male of her body lawfully begotten, then I will the said manor with th’ appurtenance remain to John Mounteney of Yorkshire and to the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten bearing the name and the arms of Mounteney as it is above-written, and if the said John Mounteney die without issue male of his body lawfully begotten, then I will the said manor with th’ appurtenance turn to me and to them that stonden enfeoffed by my said brother Sir John Tyrrell and to our heirs, the said manor by us or by our heirs for to be sold and the money that shall come thereof for to be disposed for the souls of the said William Mounteney and for his father’s soul and his mother’s soul and for the souls of all his good-doers and all Christian souls after the form of the last will of the said Sir William Mounteney etc.; Also my will is that my feoffees that stonden enfeoffed in certain lands, rents and tenements with th’ appurtenance called Porters lying in Rochford hundred within the shire of Essex make estate of them to the said Robert Mounteney and to Margaret, my daughter, his wife, when the said Robert cometh to the age of 21 winter, to have and to hold the said lands, rents and tenements with their appurtenance called Porters to the sai[d] Robert and Margaret and to their assigns forever in satisfaction of the r[ev]enues and profits that I have taken of the said manor of Mountnessing and that shall be taken hereafter by mine executors of the same manor, for my will is that mine executors have the governance of the said manor hereafter, and not the feoffees, deduct of the said profits and revenues the finding of the said Robert in time past and the finding of him and the said Margaret, my daughter, hereafter till the said Robert come to plain age, reparations and costs done or to be done in the said manor, the expenses done and employed by me in suit against my Lord the Duke of York for the ward and marriage of the same Robert, and also expenses that hath be done against Sir Lewis John while he lived, and against my lady, [h]is wife, after his death, or that shall be done by me or mine executors against any other for the said ward and marriage hereafter, and I will that all the revenues and profits that shall come of the said lands called Porters till the said Robert come till his age be done for my soul, etc.” (source: <http://www.oxford-shakespeare.com/DocumentsOther/Reg_Chichele_Tyrrell.pdf> http://www.oxford-shakespeare.com/DocumentsOther/Reg_Chichele_Tyrrell.pdf)



Regards,



Pete

From: Wjhonson [mailto:wjho...@aol.com]
Sent: May-24-12 12:59 PM
To: pd...@peterdale.com; gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Mounteney family - Norfolk, Suffolk & Essex

What sources are you using to prove to you that a person named Margaret Mounteney existed?

That's where you need to start. Firming up those sources to be more specific, and exact and finding their basis.





-----Original Message-----
From: pdale <pd...@peterdale.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>

[pd...@peterdale.com]

On May 24, 1:24 pm, "Peter G. M. Dale" <pd...@peterdale.com> wrote:
> Hi Will,
>
> Good to hear from you.  Margaret is referenced in the will of Edward Tyrrell – please see below.  She is also referenced multiple times in the secondary literature (usually in connection with Sir John Jermy):
>
> The book, ‘The Register of Henry Chichele, Archbishop of Canterbury 1414-1443’, vol. II, (1938), edited by E. F. Jacob, published by Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 628-636,  provides a copy of the will of Edward Tyrrell of Downham, Essex.  It states, with respect to the Mounteney family, the following:
>
> “SUMMARY: The document below is the will, dated 1 October 1442, 9 December 1442 and 14 December 1442, of Edward Tyrrell of Downham in Essex. The testator states in the will that his parents were Walter and Eleanor, and G. Andrews Moriarty, in “The Early Tyrrels of Heron in East Herndon” (New England Historical and Genealogical Register, vol. CIX, 1955, pp. 17-31), has made use of this will to correct an error in the Tyrrell pedigrees and to demonstrate that both the testator and his elder brother, Sir John Tyrrell (d.1437), Speaker of the House of Commons, were the sons of Walter Tyrrell and his wife Eleanor, the daughter and heir of Edmund Flambard. ...
>
> The testator’s daughter, Margaret, married Robert Mounteney, nephew and heir of Sir William Mounteney. ...
>
> (fo. 489) Testamentum Edwardi Tyrrell. This is the last will of me, Edward Tyrrell, squire, the elder, indented and made at Downham in the shire of Essex the 9th day of December the year of Our Lord a thousand four hundred forty-two, and the year of the reign of King Henry the Sixth after the Conquest 21; ...
>

> Also my will is that all tho[se] feoffees that stonden enfeoffed by me at my denomination by the commandment of Sir John Tyrrell, my brother, of whose soul God have mercy, in the manor of Mountnessing with th’ appurtenances to perform my said brother’s will and also the will of Sir William Mounteney, knight, that dead is, make estate to Robert Mounteney, cousin and heir of the said Sir William Mounteney, and to Margaret, my daughter, his wife, of the said manor with the appurtenance, to have and to hold the said manor with th’ appurtenance to the said Robert and Margaret and to the heirs male that the said Robert shall lawfully beget of the body of the said Margaret, and for default of issue male by the said Robert of the body of the said Margaret lawfully begotten, I will that the said manor with all th’ appurtenance remain to the heirs male of the body of the said Robert lawfully begotten, and if the said Robert die without issue male of his body lawful begotten, then I will the said (fo. 489b) manor with th’ appurtenance remain to Elizabeth that was wife of John Chamberlain, sister to the said Sir William Mounteney, and to her heirs male of her body lawfully begotten bearing the name and the arms of the said Sir William Mounteney after the form and the effect of his last will, and if the said Elizabeth die without issue male of her body lawfully begotten, then I will the said manor with th’ appurtenance remain to Margaret, the wife of Sir John German, knight, sister to the said Elizabeth, and to the heirs male of her body lawfully begotten bearing the name and the arms of Mounteney as it is abovesaid, and if the said Margaret die without issue male of her body lawfully begotten, then I will the said manor with th’ appurtenance remain to John Mounteney of Yorkshire and to the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten bearing the name and the arms of Mounteney as it is above-written, and if the said John Mounteney die without issue male of his body lawfully begotten, then I will the said manor with th’ appurtenance turn to me and to them that stonden enfeoffed by my said brother Sir John Tyrrell and to our heirs, the said manor by us or by our heirs for to be sold and the money that shall come thereof for to be disposed for the souls of the said William Mounteney and for his father’s soul and his mother’s soul and for the souls of all his good-doers and all Christian souls after the form of the last will of the said Sir William Mounteney etc.; Also my will is that my feoffees that stonden enfeoffed in certain lands, rents and tenements with th’ appurtenance called Porters lying in Rochford hundred within the shire of Essex make estate of them to the said Robert Mounteney and to Margaret, my daughter, his wife, when the said Robert cometh to the age of 21 winter, to have and to hold the said lands, rents and tenements with their appurtenance called Porters to the sai[d] Robert and Margaret and to their assigns forever in satisfaction of the r[ev]enues and profits that I have taken of the said manor of Mountnessing and that shall be taken hereafter by mine executors of the same manor, for my will is that mine executors have the governance of the said manor hereafter, and not the feoffees, deduct of the said profits and revenues the finding of the said Robert in time past and the finding of him and the said Margaret, my daughter, hereafter till the said Robert come to plain age, reparations and costs done or to be done in the said manor, the expenses done and employed by me in suit against my Lord the Duke of York for the ward and marriage of the same Robert, and also expenses that hath be done against Sir Lewis John while he lived, and against my lady, [h]is wife, after his death, or that shall be done by me or mine executors against any other for the said ward and marriage hereafter, and I will that all the revenues and profits that shall come of the said lands called Porters till the said Robert come till his age be done for my soul, etc.”  (source:   <http://www.oxford-shakespeare.com/DocumentsOther/Reg_Chichele_Tyrrell...>http://www.oxford-shakespeare.com/DocumentsOther/Reg_Chichele_Tyrrell...)
>
> Regards,
>
> Pete

> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com

> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
> the message

Greetings,

Just a brief update that I have found a fascinating inventory of
Arnald Monteny of Mountnessing, Essex and Sprouston and Catton,
Norfolk dated 1386 in records of the Essex Record Office (source:
http://seax.essexcc.gov.uk/result_details.asp?DocID=440960). I highly
suspect that this is the father of Margery/Margaret Mounteney, wife of
Sir John Jermy. From my review of ‘An Essay towards a Topographical
History of the County of Norfolk’, by Blomefield, it would appear that
this Arnold may have died sometime around 1401-02. I also understand
that his son Sir William de Mounteney (or another relative) had an IPM
conducted in 1428 in Acle.

Any information on how I may learn more about:

1. Arnold Monteny of Mountnessing, Essex and Sprouston and Catton,
Norfolk and his parentage; and

2. The IPM of Sir William Mounteney d. approx. 1428 with the IPM taken
in Acle, would be most appreciated.

Many thanks!

Cheers,

Pete

[Wjhonson]

An Arnulf holding in 1319, was succeeded at Gipping Newton by 1329 by a Sir John

To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com

[Wjhonson]

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/A2a/records.aspx?cat=173-iveagh_3&cid=31-2#31-2

-----Original Message-----
From: pdale <pd...@peterdale.com>

To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sat, May 26, 2012 1:24 am

To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com

[Wjhonson]

John was the son of Arnulf / Ernulph

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/A2a/records.aspx?cat=173-iveagh_3&cid=31-1-5#31-1-5

-----Original Message-----
From: Wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com>
To: pdale <pd...@peterdale.com>; gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sat, May 26, 2012 9:30 am
Subject: Re: Mounteney family - Norfolk, Suffolk & Essex

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/A2a/records.aspx?cat=173-iveagh_3&cid=31-2#31-2

-----Original Message-----
From: pdale <pd...@peterdale.com>

To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sat, May 26, 2012 1:24 am

To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com

[TJ Booth]

On Saturday, May 26, 2012 1:59 AM, <pd...@peterdale.com> wrote

<Snip>

Any information on how I may learn more about:

1. Arnold Monteny of Mountnessing, Essex and Sprouston and Catton,
Norfolk and his parentage; and

2. The IPM of Sir William Mounteney d. approx. 1428 with the IPM taken
in Acle, would be most appreciated.

Many thanks!

Cheers, Pete

[Reply]

I've not been following this thread much, but have spent some time on the
Yorkshire Mounteneys. I think it likely the Norfolk/Essex family is related
to the Yorkshire Mounteneys primarily based on the fact that their early
ancestries share the unusual name 'Arnold'. Joseph Hunter's 1816
'Hallamshire' has a careful Mounteney of Cowley/Shiercliff pedigree that
starts with Arnold m. a dau of Gerard de Furnival and Maud de Lovetot (page
227 @ books.google.com/books?id=ML8-AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA227) .

The Cowley property came into the Mounteney family when Arnold's son Robert
m. Margaret de Reneville who was co-heir and eventual heir of that property.
This suggest that Robert was a younger son if his father was of Norfolk and
Essex. The Arnold noted in 'Hallamshire' was born perhaps 1200 or so based
on the dates for his wife's parents (see AR8 entry 148A-28) . AR8 also shows
Maud as a descendant of Louis IV Transmarinus of France.(148A-28 to 130-28
to 148-22).

I don't recall the contemporary evidence for the Mountenay/Furnival
marriage, but it is shown in the record of the Mountenay arms in the church
window of Ecclesfield as recorded by Dodsworth - see Hunter's description in
'Hallamshire' page 259. Clearly the family was proud of the Furnival
marriage, and one would think the Norfolk/Essex family might thus value have
valued the name 'Arnold' since he was responsible for the Furnival
connection.

Blomefield 'Norfolk' page 18 notes that "Arnold de Mounteney had also a
lordship here [in Frethorp Norfolk] and in Hassingham [Norfolk] in the reign
of Henry III [1216-1272] held it of Robert Fitz Walter by a quarter of a
fee. In the same family it was found in the 20th of Edward III (1346/7) and
in the 3rd of Henry IV (1401/02) Arnold de Mounteny and his parceners held
it. This sounds like the same family given that Maud de Luvetot's mother was
Maud Fitz Walter of Essex, sister of Robert Fitz Walter the MC Surety
[1162-1235]. The property descent and repeated use of 'Arnold' in later
generations also suggests a link to the Arnold who m. Furnival.

I don't recall if you noted that Blomefield contains some important
heraldric evidence regarding a Jermy Mounteney marriage. The monument for
John Reppes of West Walton d. 25 Mar 1561 contains several shields of his
ancestors including "Jermy, argent a leopard salient guardant gules with his
crest a griffin passant gules; Jermy impaling Mounteney azure a band with 6
martlets or; Jermy impaling Worth argent on a bend sable 3 lions heads
erased of the first crowned or." There is also a simpler shield for "Repps
impaling Jermy." I believe this indicates that the following ancestry :

the mother of John Reppes was a Jermy,
his maternal grandparents were a Jermy m. a Worth, and
his maternal gr-grandparents were a Jermy who m. a Mounteney.

These Jermy generations would seem to roughly match the dates for a Jermy to
Margaret Mounteney marriage, and the heraldry is reasonable evidence of
which Mounteney line she was from [not quite contemporary, but the shields
don't make wild claims either so likely valid]. Perhaps doing some research
on the Reppes family might add further information.

Hope this helps point in some interesting new directions.

Terry Booth
Chicago IL

[pd...@peterdale.com]

On May 26, 12:34 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
>  John was the son of Arnulf / Ernulph
>

> http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/A2a/records.aspx?cat=173-iveagh_3&...

>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com>
> To: pdale <pd...@peterdale.com>; gen-medieval <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Sat, May 26, 2012 9:30 am
> Subject: Re: Mounteney family - Norfolk, Suffolk & Essex
>

> http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/A2a/records.aspx?cat=173-iveagh_3&...

> ...
>
> read more »

Hi Will et al,

That is very helpful and assists in closing the gap I have. It would
appear that Sir Arnold de Montney (b. approx. 1247 (http://www.british-
history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=108120) and d. post 1325 -
http://www.the-orb.net/wales/esknights/genfr3.htm) had at least 2
sons:

(1) Sir John (who you have identified); and

(2) Arnold (see - http://seax.essexcc.gov.uk/result_details.asp?intThisRecordsOffSet=0&id=441689;
http://www.the-orb.net/encyclop/culture/towns/mc2_pt7.html).

The lands held by Sir John do not appear in my specific Mounteney
family so I am guessing that I descend from Arnold de Montney, son of
Sir Arnold de Montney, who did possess such lands, i.e. Beeston,

Sprouston, Wroxham, Plumstede Parva, Catton, Freethorpe and

Hassingham, among others, in Norfolk.

There is also an Arnold de Montney possessing the same lands in the
mid 1340s. I do not know whether he is the same Arnold or his son.
Thereafter, in Mountnessing, Essex (but not, to the extent that I am
familiar, referenced with respect to the Norfolk properties) there are
a Robert and John Montney mentioned (approximately 1375). My ancestor
Arnold Montney follows, in a timeline, referenced in the 1386
inventory and as deceased in 1401-02 in reference to the above
mentioned Norfolk properties. Thus (with full knowledge of a series
of assumptions necessary at this stage and certain dates
approximated), it would appear that we have with respect to my
purported ancestry:

(A) Sir Arnold de Montney – (1247-1325)
(B) Arnold de Montney (1295-?) brother of Sir John de Montney
(C) NN de Montney (1330-?)
(D) Arnold Montney (1360-1401/02)
(E) Margery/Margaret Montney (1385-post 1442) wife of Sir John Jermy

Contemporaneous with Arnold in (D) above is a Sir Robert who died in
1406 and is referenced likewise with respect to Mountnessing, Essex
and Stowe Market, Suffolk. I would like to clarify the above and
identify (C) who is the most critical missing link.

Lastly, one obtuse questions which I apologize in advance for, what is
the significance when an individual is referred to as, for example,
‘Arnulph son of Sir Arnulph de Mountney’ in a land record (i.e. see -
http://seax.essexcc.gov.uk/result_details.asp?intThisRecordsOffSet=0&id=441689).
Does this have any import, i.e. confirming the father is still alive?
Or, alternatively, may individuals be so referred to as but the father
is already deceased. Many thanks!

Cheers,

Pete

[Wjhonson]

In this book
https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=ML8-AAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&authuser=0&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA228

It is my belief (at the moment) perhaps it can be supported soon, that "Sir William Cave" father of the Elizabeth wife of this Thomas Mountenay there given, can be identified as Sir William Cave of Waterstock, co Oxon whose second wife was Eleanor Grey daughter of Thomas Grey of Enville by his wife Anne Verney

This Eleanor has royal blood as does William Cave far more anciently however, but to date I had not had the names of any of their children.




books.google.com/books?id=ML8-AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA227

-----Original Message-----
From: TJ Booth <tjb...@aol.com>
To: GenMedieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sat, May 26, 2012 10:16 am
Subject: Re: Mounteney family - Norfolk, Suffolk & Essex

On Saturday, May 26, 2012 1:59 AM, <pd...@peterdale.com> wrote

<Snip>

Any information on how I may learn more about:

1. Arnold Monteny of Mountnessing, Essex and Sprouston and Catton,
Norfolk and his parentage; and

2. The IPM of Sir William Mounteney d. approx. 1428 with the IPM taken
in Acle, would be most appreciated.

Many thanks!

Cheers, Pete

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com

[John Higgins]

On May 26, 11:11 am, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> In this bookhttps://play.google.com/books/reader?id=ML8-AAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontco...

>
> It is my belief (at the moment) perhaps it can be supported soon, that "Sir William Cave" father of the Elizabeth wife of this Thomas Mountenay there given, can be identified as Sir William Cave of Waterstock, co Oxon whose second wife was Eleanor Grey daughter of Thomas Grey of Enville by his wife Anne Verney
>
> This Eleanor has royal blood as does William Cave far more anciently however, but to date I had not had the names of any of their children.
>
> books.google.com/books?id=ML8-AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA227
>

Sir William Cave of Waterstock was not the William Cave who married
(as his 1st wife, not his 2nd) Eleanor Grey of Enville. The error has
been perpetuated because an 18th-century compilation including the
family confused the two - and is now available on Google Books.

The latter William Cave, of Pickwell, Leics, does not appear to have
had a daughter who married Thomas Mounteney. So perhaps this
Elizabeth was daughter of Sir William Cave of Waterstock, whose wife's
name was perhaps Margaret.

[pd...@peterdale.com]

Hi Terry,

Many thanks for your thoughtful and detailed post. It was most
interesting and, in particular, I was pleased to review your
elucidation regarding the Jermy, Worth [sic – Wroth], Mounteney, etc.
armorial descriptions. I had not, to date, identified this in
Blomefields’ work and it was gratifying to see that the Mounteney
description (‘Azure a bend between six martlets or’) is precisely what
I would have expected if my genealogical expectations were to be met!
With the foregoing in mind, I refer you to a more detailed description
of your interesting find (http://www.mbs-brasses.co.uk/Brass%20of%20the
%20month%20November%202009.html).

I’m quite hopeful that with diligence and luck I will be able to link
Margery/Margaret Mounteney/Montney and her purported father Arnold de
Mounteney/Montney (of Norfolk and Essex) with his interesting
ancestors. There is simply a gap in the mid 1300s which needs to be
filled. I’m hopeful that the I.P.M. of 1428 in Acle (likely of Sir
William de Mounteney/Montney) may prove enlightening. I have been
unable to determine if it has been published and is available for
review. With respect to Sir William, I note the following interesting
references which are contemporaneous and may be of assistance (http://
books.google.ca/books?id=8TUvAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA282-IA2&lpg=PA282-IA2&dq=
%22sir+william+monteny+knight
%22&source=bl&ots=l6EgdwbHCV&sig=Q0XZusXoZCx8rihBuToDbpeoTf4&hl=en&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=
%22sir%20william%20monteny%20knight%22&f=false and
http://books.google.ca/books?id=Y8myn0GX_pAC&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=%22sir+william+de+montney%22&source=bl&ots=vJZUPVXHYT&sig=zqV4vluGHvXzzsIrDSzgH63zfZY&hl=en&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22sir%20william%20de%20montney%22&f=false)
regarding the Barony of Homet in Normandy.

Lastly, to the extent that the anticipated ancestry of Margery/
Margaret Mounteney/Montney is established, there is corroborating
evidence which takes it back considerably further and links into the
family of Richard de Lucy. It is certainly interesting research!

I again, of course, most welcome any new information, clarifications,
corrections or other enlightenment. Thanks again to Will for his kind
assistance to date.

Cheers,

Pete

[pd...@peterdale.com]

> I’m quite hopeful that with diligence and luck I will be able to linkMargery/MargaretMounteney/Montney and her purported father Arnold de

> Mounteney/Montney (of Norfolk and Essex) with his interesting
> ancestors.  There is simply a gap in the mid 1300s which needs to be
> filled.  I’m hopeful that the I.P.M. of 1428 in Acle (likely of Sir
> William de Mounteney/Montney) may prove enlightening.  I have been
> unable to determine if it has been published and is available for
> review.  With respect to Sir William, I note the following interesting
> references which are contemporaneous and may be of assistance (http://
> books.google.ca/books?id=8TUvAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA282-IA2&lpg=PA282-IA2&dq=
> %22sir+william+monteny+knight

> %22&source=bl&ots=l6EgdwbHCV&sig=Q0XZusXoZCx8rihBuToDbpeoTf4&hl=en&redir_es­c=y#v=onepage&q=
> %22sir%20william%20monteny%20knight%22&f=false andhttp://books.google.ca/books?id=Y8myn0GX_pAC&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=%22s...)

> regarding the Barony of Homet in Normandy.
>

> Lastly, to the extent that the anticipated ancestry ofMargery/MargaretMounteney/Montney is established, there is corroborating

> evidence which takes it back considerably further and links into the
> family of Richard de Lucy.  It is certainly interesting research!
>
> I again, of course, most welcome any new information, clarifications,
> corrections or other enlightenment.  Thanks again to Will for his kind
> assistance to date.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pete

Greetings,

I trust everyone has had an enjoyable weekend. As an FYI, it has been
absolutely wonderful here in Toronto, Canada. I have had considerable
progress this weekend with respect to my ‘Mounteney’ quest. I attach
below 2 new items. The first is from ‘Inquisitions and Assessments
relating to Feudal Aids, with other analogous documents preserved in
the Public Record Office; A.D. 1284-1431’ which sets forth the
Mounteney relationship and ownership of certain Norfolk properties in
1347.

The second, ‘The Norfolk antiquarian miscellany’, sets forth a
description of the same properties 80+ years hence. I cannot help but
think that this may hold the key to clarifying my own Mounteney
descent. Unfortunately, I cannot adequately and/or accurately
interpret the aforementioned. I would be most grateful for any member
of this blog’s kind interpretation thereof and, in particular, how it
may clarity my own descent from Margery/Margaret Mounteney, wife of
Sir John Jermy. Many thanks in advance.

Cheers,

Pete

The book, ‘Inquisitions and Assessments relating to Feudal Aids, with
other analogous documents preserved in the Public Record Office; A.D.
1284-1431’, (1899), Vol. III – Kent-Norfolk, printed for His Majesty’s
Stationery Office by Mackie and Co. Ltd., states the following with
respect to John Jermyn and Margerie Mounteneye:

“p. 598. A.D. 1428. Hundredum de Blofeld. ... Johannes Jermyn, miles,
et percenarii sui tenent in Parva Plumpsted, Hasyngham et Frethorp
unum quarterium f. m. quod nuper fuit Ernaldi Mounteneye, inmediate de
heredibus domini Roberti filii Walteri.

[Hundred of Blofeld. ... John Jermyn, a soldier, and percenarii hold
in Little Plumpsted, Hasyngham and Frethorp one quarter of f. m. [a
knight’s fee] that was recently Arnold Mounteneye’s, directly from the
heirs of Sir Robert fitz Walter.]

p. 599. A.D. 1428. Hundredum de Taverham. ... Johannes Jermyn, miles,
de jure Margerie uxoris sue, tenet inmediate de heredibus Johannis
Mounteneye certa terras et tenementa in Sprouston, Catton, Beston,
Wroxham, Plumsted et Hasyngham, que nuper fuerunt Arnulphi de
Mounteneye per servicium trium quarteriorum j. f. m.

[Hundred of Taverham. ... John Jermyn, a soldier, in right of Margery
his wife, holds directly from the heirs of John Mountney certain lands
and tenements in Sprouston, Catton, Beeston, Wroxham, Plumstead and
Hasyngham, which had recently been Arnold de Mounteneye’s by service
of three quarters of a f. m. [knight’s fee]]” (source:
http://www.archive.org/stream/inquisitionsasse03grea/inquisitionsasse03grea_djvu.txt)

The book, ‘The Norfolk antiquarian miscellany’, (1873), Part I, edited
by Walter Rye, printed by Miller and Leavins, Norwich, states the
following with respect to Arnold and John de Mounteney:

“Contents. Extracts from the Liber Niger Scaccarii and the Account of
the Aid taken 20th Edward III. [Book of Aids taken on the occasion of
Edward III. making his eldest son a knight (1347)]], communicated by
John R. Daniel Tyssen, Esq. – pp. 1-106 ...

[Book of Aids taken on the occasion of Edward III. making his eldest
son a knight (1347)] ...

p. 33. Hundredum de Disce. ... Omnes dicunt per Sacramentum. ...
Johannes de Mounteney tenet tenementum suum in Disce per dimidium
feodi militis de Johanne filio Walteri et idem de Rege quod quondam
fuit Arnulphi Mounteneye.

[Hundred of Diss. ... All say the Sacrament. ... John Mounteney holds
his tenement in Disce for one-half a knight's fee of John fitz Walter
and the same of the King which once was Arnold Mounteneye.]

p. 97. Hundredum de Blofeld. ... Ernaldus de Mounteney et parcen sui
tenent in Parva Plumstede Hasingham et Frethorp de domino Roberto
filio Walteri pro uno quarteris feodi militis et idem de Rege.

[Hundred of Blofeld. ... Arnold de Mounteney and parcen hold in Little
Plumstead Hasingham and Frethorp of Lord Robert fitz Walter one-
quarter of a knight's fee for one and the same of the King.]

p. 98. Hundredum de Taverham. ... Arnulphus de Mounteneye tenet tria
quarta unius feodi militis in Sproustone Catton Weston Wroxham
Plumstede et Hasingham de Johanne Mounteneye et idem de herede Roberti
filii Walteri et idem de Rege.

[Hundred of Taverham ...Arnold de Mounteneye holds three quarters of a
knight's fee in Sproustone Catton Weston Wroxham Plumstead and
Hasingham of John Mounteneye and the same of the heir of Robert fitz
Walter and the same of the King]” (source:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=uTsuAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=%22regni+sui+vicesimo+concesso%22&source=bl&ots=bOablV9n53&sig=uv4xPMBDoc1PjUcOUSvtYaSabso&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QazCT-DOKOaz6QHvjcCvCg&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22regni%20sui%20vicesimo%20concesso%22&f=false)

[Matt Tompkins]

On May 26, 6:16 pm, "pd...@peterdale.com" <pd...@peterdale.com> wrote:
> Lastly, one obtuse questions which I apologize in advance for, what is
> the significance when an individual is referred to as, for example,

> ‘Arnulph son of Sir Arnulph de Mountney’ in a land record (i.e. see -http://seax.essexcc.gov.uk/result_details.asp?intThisRecordsOffSet=0&...).

> Does this have any import, i.e. confirming the father is still alive?
> Or, alternatively, may individuals be so referred to as but the father
> is already deceased.  Many thanks!

I don't think there is any universal rule which applies in every
case. I often suspect that someone styled 'Forename son of Forename
Surname' (in contrast to 'Forename Surname, son of Forename Surname')
probably has a still-living father, and even, since he is not himself
accorded a surname but is identified by reference to his father, that
he may not yet be independently established on his own landholding .
But it's only a suspicion and I would not make any firm assumptions
from it - you have to take each case on its merits, looking
particularly at the context. If, for example, the document relates to
landholding then the father may have been named only to explain the
son's hereditary right to the land.

Matt Tompkins

[Matt Tompkins]

On May 28, 8:11 am, "pd...@peterdale.com" <pd...@peterdale.com> wrote:
> I trust everyone has had an enjoyable weekend. As an FYI, it has been
> absolutely wonderful here in Toronto, Canada.

Thank you, yes, we did have a good weekend. It was a blazing hot one
here in England (by English standards - up to about 26 or 27C) and on
Sunday we went to Bolsover Castle to watch medieval re-enactments.
The high point, from my 3 year-old son's point of view, was the
jousting, done with a fairly high degree of accuracy, as far as I
could tell. He was particularly impressed by the splintering lances,
but disappointed that no one was un-horsed.

<snip>

> The book, ‘Inquisitions and Assessments relating to Feudal Aids, with
> other analogous documents preserved in the Public Record Office; A.D.
> 1284-1431’, (1899), Vol. III – Kent-Norfolk, printed for His Majesty’s
> Stationery Office by Mackie and Co. Ltd., states the following with
> respect to John Jermyn and Margerie Mounteneye:
>
> “p. 598. A.D. 1428. Hundredum de Blofeld. ... Johannes Jermyn, miles,
> et percenarii sui tenent in Parva Plumpsted, Hasyngham et Frethorp
> unum quarterium f. m. quod nuper fuit Ernaldi Mounteneye, inmediate de
> heredibus domini Roberti filii Walteri.

This would be:

Hundred of Blofeld. ... John Jermyn, knight, and his parceners hold in
Little Plumstead, Hassingham and Freethorpe one quarter of a knight’s
fee that was recently Arnold Mounteneye’s, directly from the heirs of
Sir Robert fitz Walter.

Co-parcenery was a form of landholding where two or more individuals,
called parceners or co-parceners, held land jointly and undivided. It
was often the result of an inheritance descending to co-heiresses - if
the properties were not divided and distributed amongst them, but were
instead kept undivided and held by them all jointly, then the result
was co-parcenery. It was also possible, though perhaps less common,
for co-parceners to include males (for example, Kentish gavelkind
tenure often produced male co-parceners).

In this case it looks, from the following 1428 entry relating to
Sprouston etc, as though John Jermyn has married a co-heiress who was
a co-parcener of this quarter knight's fee. Though it's curious that
the equivalent 1347 entry for Plumstead etc also refers to co-
parceners. I don't think co-parcenery usually last for long,
certainly not for generations - it generally ended fairly quickly with
a permanent division of the property or one parcener buying the others
out - so I think it is probably a case of the property falling into
co-parcenery on two successive occasions, rather than a single long-
lasting co-parcenery.

> [Hundred of Taverham. ... John Jermyn, a soldier, in right of Margery
> his wife, holds directly from the heirs of John Mountney certain lands
> and tenements in Sprouston, Catton, Beeston, Wroxham, Plumstead and
> Hasyngham, which had recently been Arnold de Mounteneye’s by service

> of three quarters of a f. m. [knight’s fee]]”  (source:http://www.archive.org/stream/inquisitionsasse03grea/inquisitionsasse...)

>
> The book, ‘The Norfolk antiquarian miscellany’, (1873), Part I, edited
> by Walter Rye, printed by Miller and Leavins, Norwich, states the
> following with respect to Arnold and John de Mounteney:
>
> “Contents.  Extracts from the Liber Niger Scaccarii and the Account of
> the Aid taken 20th Edward III. [Book of Aids taken on the occasion of
> Edward III. making his eldest son a knight (1347)]], communicated by
> John R. Daniel Tyssen, Esq. – pp. 1-106 ...
>
> [Book of Aids taken on the occasion of Edward III. making his eldest
> son a knight (1347)] ...
>
> p. 33.  Hundredum de Disce. ... Omnes dicunt per Sacramentum.  ...
> Johannes de Mounteney tenet tenementum suum in Disce per dimidium
> feodi militis de Johanne filio Walteri et idem de Rege quod quondam
> fuit Arnulphi Mounteneye.
>
> [Hundred of Diss. ... All say the Sacrament. ... John Mounteney holds
> his tenement in Disce for one-half a knight's fee of John fitz Walter
> and the same of the King which once was Arnold Mounteneye.]
>
> p. 97.  Hundredum de Blofeld. ... Ernaldus de Mounteney et parcen sui
> tenent in Parva Plumstede Hasingham et Frethorp de domino Roberto
> filio Walteri pro uno quarteris feodi militis et idem de Rege.
>
> [Hundred of Blofeld. ... Arnold de Mounteney and parcen hold in Little
> Plumstead Hasingham and Frethorp of Lord Robert fitz Walter one-
> quarter of a knight's fee for one and the same of the King.]

Hundred of Blofeld. ... Arnold de Mounteney and his parceners hold in
Little Plumstead Hassingham and Freethorpe from Sir Robert fitz Walter
for one quarter of a knight's fee, and the same [Robert holds] from
the King.

Matt Tompkins

> p. 98.  Hundredum de Taverham. ... Arnulphus de Mounteneye tenet tria
> quarta unius feodi militis in Sproustone Catton Weston Wroxham
> Plumstede et Hasingham de Johanne Mounteneye et idem de herede Roberti
> filii Walteri et idem de Rege.
>
> [Hundred of Taverham ...Arnold de Mounteneye holds three quarters of a
> knight's fee in Sproustone Catton Weston Wroxham Plumstead and
> Hasingham of John Mounteneye and the same of the heir of Robert fitz

> Walter and the same of the King]”  (source:http://books.google.ca/books?id=uTsuAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=%22r...)

[pd...@peterdale.com]

Hi Matt,

Many thanks for your clarification and information. Three follow-up
questions if you don’t mind.

1. I assume it is likely that Margaret was inheriting the listed
property, via her spouse John Jermy, from her father Arnold de
Mounteney. Is this, however, a certainty or could he have been, for
example, her uncle or other relative?

2. What is the significance of both Arnold de Mounteney in 1347 and
Margaret Mounteney (via John Jermy) in 1428 holding certain lands in
Norfolk from John Mounteney and from the heirs of John Mounteney,
respectively?

3. I, like you, thought that it may have been a coincidence that a
similar form of land holding, i.e. same names and type of tenure,
occurred 80 years apart. Any additional thoughts in this regard and
as to the nature of the expected relationship of the various parties
would be appreciated. My goal, of course, is to try to establish that
Margaret was the daughter of Arnold de Mounteney (referenced in 1428)
and that he, in turn, was a descendent of the Arnold de Mounteney
quoted in 1347.

Thanks!

Cheers,

Pete

[pd...@peterdale.com]

On May 29, 11:20 am, "pd...@peterdale.com" <pd...@peterdale.com>
wrote:

Greetings Matt, et al,

Further to my post above, after additional research, I would certainly
be very keen to learn anyone’s analysis and/or opinion regarding the
following. I thank Matt again for his considered view of the other
land record entries which appear nearly identical 80 years apart and
were earlier referenced:

1. Is it a certainty that Margaret Mounteney was inheriting the above
referenced property, via her spouse Sir John Jermy, from her father
Arnold de Mounteney, or could he have been, for example, another
relative? Would she necessarily have been a direct descendent of
Arnold or his father (I assume not from her mother given the fact that
the property has run in the Mounteney family for hundreds of years)?

2. What is the significance of both Arnold de Mounteney in 1347 and

Sir John Jermy (on behalf of Margaret Mounteney) in 1428 holding
certain lands in Norfolk from a ‘John Mounteney’ and from ‘the heirs
of John Mounteney’, respectively? Does this reveal anything regarding
their respective relationships?

3. I believe that it may have been a coincidence that a similar form

of land holding, i.e. same names and type of tenure, occurred 80 years

apart. I welcome any views as per the nature of the expected
relationship of the various parties that would give rise to such a
situation.

As aforementioned, my objective is to try and establish that Margaret

was the daughter of Arnold de Mounteney (referenced in 1428) and that
he, in turn, was a descendent of the Arnold de Mounteney quoted in

1347. I welcome all assistance. Many thanks again.

Cheers,

Pete

[Matt Tompkins]

On Jun 2, 9:13 am, "pd...@peterdale.com" <pd...@peterdale.com> wrote:
> Greetings Matt, et al,
>
> Further to my post above, after additional research, I would certainly
> be very keen to learn anyone’s analysis and/or opinion regarding the
> following.  I thank Matt again for his considered view of the other
> land record entries which appear nearly identical 80 years apart and
> were earlier referenced:

Peter, the following comments are based solely on the 1347 and 1428
information about knight's fees which you quote above - I have not
tried to combine that information with anything else which may be
known about the individuals mentioned.

> 1.      Is it a certainty that Margaret Mounteney was inheriting the above
> referenced property, via her spouse Sir John Jermy, from her father
> Arnold de Mounteney, or could he have been, for example, another
> relative?  Would she necessarily have been a direct descendent of
> Arnold or his father (I assume not from her mother given the fact that
> the property has run in the Mounteney family for hundreds of years)?

In 1347 Arnold de Mounteney held 3/4 knight's fee in Sprouston (and
other places), and, jointly with his co-parceners, 1/4 knight's fee in
Little Plumstead (and other places).

In 1428 both fees were held by John Jermyn, the Sprouston etc. one in
right of his wife Margery and the Plumstead etc. one in parcenery (it
seems likely that Plumstead was also held in right of his wife), and
were both said to have been late held by Arnold de Mounteney.

Perhaps the most likely interpretation of these facts is that Margery
was a Mounteney, and that she was the daughter of an Arnold Mounteney
(though probably not the same Arnold as held the properties in 1347) -
but this is far from certain. It is also possible that she was not a
Mounteney, or if she was that her her father was not called Arnold de
Mounteney. The properties probably passed to her by inheritance from
the Arnold de Mounteney who held them in 1347 (probably by more than
one stage), but might also have been transmitted to her by other
means, particularly by settlement.

> 2.      What is the significance of both Arnold de Mounteney in 1347 and
> Sir John Jermy (on behalf of Margaret Mounteney) in 1428 holding
> certain lands in Norfolk from a ‘John Mounteney’ and from ‘the heirs
> of John Mounteney’, respectively?  Does this reveal anything regarding
> their respective relationships?

There is no significance in the fact that the 1428 tenants of the
Sprouston etc. fee held from the heirs of the man who had been lord of
the fee in 1347. By 1428 the relationship between the tenants of the
fee and its lords was a purely feudal one (the same as the
relationship between the tenants of the Plumstead fee and its lords,
the heirs of Robert Fitzwalter), and any familial connection was
purely historic. It originated in the fact that at some point before
1279* a predecessor of John de Mounteney had subinfeudated the fee to
a predecessor of Arnold de Mounteney. Since then both interests, that
of the lord and that of the tenant, had been inherited, or perhaps
settled or even sold, but the feudal relationship continued between
the current lord and the current tenant, whoever they might be. One
might suspect from the fact that in 1347 both lord and tenant had the
same surname that the original subinfeudation had been made between
relatives, but that is as far as it goes - thereafter the relationship
had been a feudal one.

(* In 1279 the statute of Quia Emptores banned subinfeudation. Pre-
existing subinfeudations continued to exist, but thereafter it was
impossible to create new ones.)

> 3.      I believe that it may have been a coincidence that a similar form
> of land holding, i.e. same names and type of tenure, occurred 80 years
> apart.  I welcome any views as per the nature of the expected
> relationship of the various parties that would give rise to such a
> situation.

Not a coincidence, simply the continued existence of property rights
which had been created before 1279. This was entirely normal -
knight's fees were incredibly durable - many still exist today.

Though by 1428 the feudal relationship was clearly a weak one, barely
remembered by the parties - this is shown by the fact that the 1428
record could not iname the then current lord of either fee, but had to
refer to them as 'the heirs of Robert FitzWalter' and 'the heirs of
John Mounteney'.

Matt

[pd...@peterdale.com]

Hi Matt,

Many thanks for your detailed response. It was very informative and
provided information that I simply was unlikely to come across
otherwise which helps better explain the 80 gap in Mounteney land
records.

I can confirm that Margaret, wife of Sir John Jermy, was indeed a
‘Mounteney’ and sister of Sir William Mounteney (who fought at
Agincourt) and also sister of Elizabeth who was the wife of John
Chamberlain (Margaret, Sir John Jermy, Elizabeth and John Chamberlain
were all alive in 1442 – Sir William Mounteney was deceased). A
Robert Mounteney, b. approx. 1424, was the heir of Sir William
Mounteney and is described as his ‘cousin’ or, perhaps, ‘nephew’.

I have not yet determined whether the Arnold referenced in the
aforementioned records was Margaret’s brother or father. I expect
that the IPM which apparently took place at Acle in 1428 will shed
some light on this matter. I have been utterly stymied in determining
how to access this IPM. As I suggested, I suspect that it is for
either Sir William Mounteney or, perhaps, for Arnold Mounteney
(Muntney). This IPM, as I understand it, establishes Margaret’s
inheritance of property in Sprowston, Catton, Beeston, Wroxham, Little
Plumstead, Blofield, Freethorpe and Hassingham, all in Norfolk.

I would be very appreciative if anyone could advise whether an IPM in
the name of ‘Mounteney’ (and derivatives) from Acle in 1428 is
searchable and, if so, can they provide me with a reference for same?
I have access to the Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies which is
affiliate with St. Michael’s College, University of Toronto in the
event that the 1428 IPMs are published. Many thanks again to all who
have reviewed and/or contributed to this inquiry.

Cheers,

Pete

[Matt Tompkins]

It ought to be calendared in:

Claire Noble (ed.), Calendar of inquisitions post-mortem. 23. 6-10, Henry VI (1427-1432) (Woodbridge : Boydell, 2004.).

Matt

[pd...@peterdale.com]

Greetings,

I spent some time yesterday reviewing IPMs from about 1350 to the late
1430s. Unfortunately, I did not locate IPMs for any Mounteneys. I
did, however, come across the following entry which I am curious
about. I'm not sure if it helps explain the foregoing or is of any
assistance but I would welcome any thoughts and advice. Thank you!

The book, ‘Calendar of the Inquisitions Post Mortem, and other
Analogous Documents preserved in the Public Record Office’, (1974),
Vol. 16, 7-15 Richard II (1384-91), HMSO, London, p. 141, states the
following with respect to John de Mounteneye:

“Walter Fitz Wauter, knight
...

Writ de feodis &c., 6 January, 10 Richard II
392. Norfolk. Inq. (indented) taken at New Bokenham, 12 February, 10
Richard II. [1387] He held the under-mentioned knight’s fees, which
belong to the manor of Hemnale, jointly with Philippa his wife, who is
still living, of the king in chief as parcel of the barony of Fitz
Wauter, by gift and feoffment of Richard de Sutton, knight, Richard de
Upston, clerk, John Bataile and John Stowe, made with the king’s
licence to him and the said Philippa and the heirs male of his body.

Dysse, Tacolneston, Sprouton, Berton, Hasyngham and Neuton. 5
knight’s fees, lately held by John de Mounteneye.”

Cheers,

Pete

[Matt Tompkins]

This is the same holding as the Taverham Hundred one which was
mentioned in the 1347 and 1428 documents you quoted before, Pete,
except that this time, instead of looking at the chain of
subinfeudations from the bottom upwards (Arnulph de Mounteney holds it
from John de Mounteney, who holds it from the heirs of Robert
FitzWalter, who hold it from the king), it is looking at it from the
middle of the chain (Walter fitzWalter held it from the king, and John
de Mounteney held it from Walter fitzWalter - they could also have
added 'and XX de Mounteney held it from John de Mounteney').

Matt Tompkins

[pd...@peterdale.com]

Greetings,

I've found an interesting entry from 1428 in another volume of the
Feudal Aids (among a few others). It references William de Mounteney
holding land formerly held by Arnold de Mounteney. As you may
recollect, a William was the brother of my ancestor Margery/Margaret
Mounteney (wife of Sir John Jermy) and purported daughter of Arnold de
Mounteney. I suspect that this is a good sign!? I'm not sure how to
reconcile this with the information above from 1428 regarding Sir John
Jermy holding land in Norfolk on behalf of Margery Mounteney, his
wife, formerly held by Arnold de Mounteney? I welcome commentary and
thank you.

"The book, ‘Inquisitions and Assessments relating to Feudal Aids, with

other analogous documents preserved in the Public Record Office; A.D.
1284-1431’, (1900), Vol. II – Dorset-Huntington, printed for Her
Majesty’s Stationery Office by Mackie and Co. LD., states the
following with respect to the Mounteney family:

“p. 134, Essex. Hundredum de Chelmeresford. 1303. De Arnaldo de
Mountenay in Gyng Mounteney, pro. di. f. – xx. s.”

“p. 150, Essex. Hundredum de Huddlesforde. 1303. [Cristeshall.] –
[Walterus de] Langeton, Arnulphus de Mounteny [Mountey], et Petrus
Pycot (Picot), tenent manerium, de Johanne de Reins, per servicium
un.f.

[Elmeden.] – [Walterus de] Langeton, Arnulphus de Mounteny [Mounteyn],
Ranulphus de Monte Caniso, Johannes Spring, Alicia uxor ejus,
Isabella, que fuit uxor Walteri [le Peneter] ... manerium, de honore
Bononie, per servicium un. f.”

“p. 160, Essex. Hundredum de Chelmersford. 1346. Johannes de Mounteny,
chivaler, tenet di. f. in Gynge Mounteny, quod Arnaldus de Mounteny
tenuit – xx. s.”

“p. 179, Essex. Hundreda de Huddelesford et Frosshwell. 1346. Heredes
Johannis Doxenford, et Johannes de Genyngton (rectius Benyngton)
tenent un. f. in Crisshale, quod Walterus de Langedon, Arnulphus de
Mounteny, et Petrus Cok quondam tenuit (sic) – xl. s. ”

“ p. 216, Essex. Hundredum de Chelmesford. 1428. De Willelmo Mounteney
pro di. f. in Ging Mounteney, quod Arnaldus de Mounteney quondam
tenuit – xl.d.”

[p. 216, Essex. Hundred of Chelmsford. 1428. Of William Mounteney for
one half a knight’s fee in Ging Mounteney, that Arnold de Mounteney
formerly held - xl.d.]

“p. 425, Hertford. Hundredum Dacorum. 1303. Normymmes. – Dominus
Ranulfus de Monte Caniso et dominus Ernulfus de Mounteney [Monte
Niaco], Ricardus de Wathesworth [Batthesworth], Sarra de Castello,
tenent in Normymmes un. f. m. de comite Gloucestrie et de comite
Herefordie, et dicti comites de rege, per quod servicium ignoramus. ”

“p. 438, Essex [et] Hertford. Henry III. – Edward III. [1346? –
1402?]. De Tempore regis E. filii regis Henrici. Arnulphus de
Mountenay oneratur de xxv.s. pro quarta parte un. f. de honore Bononie
in Helieden. In momorandis de anno xviij, termino
Michaelis.” (source: http://archive.org/stream/inquisitionsasse02grea#page/438/mode/2up)"

Cheers,

Pete

[pd...@peterdale.com]

Greetings,

I would appreciate some advice and guidance with respect to how children are characterized in gifts to religious institutions in the mid 1100s. In particular, I am referring to the gift by Michael Capra, his wife Rose and Michael’s son and heir William that established Thoby Priory in Mountnessing, Essex. From my review of the description of the charter by Dugdale, it would appear that he is described as “"et Willelmus filius ejusdem Michaelis et haeres, salutem" [the son of Michael and heir of the same] (please see - http://books.google.ca/books?id=ZGKGPcFww8EC&pg=PA554&lpg=PA554&dq=%22michael+capra%22+%22Monasticon+Anglicanum%22&source=bl&ots=vBCY_DvzKj&sig=VlnBiOwHyOgPaYq5xMEw-HdCaK8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rgtcUKWwE4js0gH6l4DQBA&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22michael%20capra%22%20%22Monasticon%20Anglicanum%22&f=false) I have reason to believe that he was Michael’s son but not the son of Rose, wife of Michael. I believe Rose to be a second wife and wonder whether this charter provides any corroborative support with respect thereto. Any commentary is most welcome and appreciated.

Cheers,

Pete

[Matt Tompkins]

On Sep 21, 7:49 am, "pd...@peterdale.com" <pd...@peterdale.com> wrote:
> Greetings,
>

> I would appreciate some advice and guidance with respect to how children are characterized in gifts to religious institutions in the mid 1100s.  In particular, I am referring to the gift by Michael Capra, his wife Rose and Michael’s son and heir William that established Thoby Priory in Mountnessing, Essex.  From my review of the description of the charter by Dugdale, it would appear that he is described as “"et Willelmus filius ejusdem Michaelis et haeres, salutem" [the son of Michael and heir of the same] (please see -http://books.google.ca/books?id=ZGKGPcFww8EC&pg=PA554&lpg=PA554&dq=%2...)  I have reason to believe that he was Michael’s son but not the son of Rose, wife of Michael.  I believe Rose to be a second wife and wonder whether this charter provides any corroborative support with respect thereto.  Any commentary is most welcome and appreciated.

Hello Pete,

I would understand that to mean that William was Michael's son but not
Rose's. However, while it is certainly corroborative evidence, I
don't think you can use it as absolute proof that this was the case.
As a general rule you'd expect the charter to say William was the son
of both Michael and Rose if that was the case, but it is possible that
his relationship to Rose was not mentioned because it was legally
irrelevant. William is joining in the charter in order to confirm
that he gives up his prospective rights in the land - if these arose
solely out of the fact that he was Michael's legitimate son and heir
(which is probably the case, if Michael is the sole tenant and Rose
has no interest except her dower), then the clerk may have regarded
the additional fact that he was also Rose's son as unnecessary to
mention.

Matt Tompkins

[pd...@peterdale.com]

Many thanks Matt - much appreciated!

Cheers,

Pete

[Peter G. M. Dale]

Greetings,

If it may be of interest, you can find some additional research and information on the children of Richard de Lucy (particularly his daughter Rose - wife of (1st) William de Mounteny and (2nd) Michael Capra) and the de Mounteny and Capra families of Mountnessing, Essex, and Norfolk/Suffolk in a new article in the journal Foundations (Volume 6, June 2014) (http://fmg.ac/publications/journal/fnd-6) by Rosie Bevan (with some assistance from myself).

Cheers,

Pete

[Peter G. M. Dale]

Greetings,

Just a brief follow-up to my prior note. I have provided below a copy of the Abstract to the article I referenced FYI. I trust those who are interested will find the article informative.

Cheers,

Pete

"The proposition of this article is that Richard de Lucy, Chief Justice of Henry II, had another daughter named Rose whose existence has fallen into obscurity. She was wife first of William de Mounteny, progenitor of the Mounteny family of Mountnessing, Essex, and secondly of Michael Capra. Rose was also mother of Muriel de Mounteny, who with her husband, Jordan de Bricett, was patron of St Mary's nunnery in Clerkenwell, London."

I note also, that at pp. 17-19 of the article you will find a brief discussion regarding how Richard de Lucy or his wife Rose may have been related to and/or otherwise connected to the de Boulogne family.