Gurney Genealogy Library Updated 29 May 2026 by Allen Gurney

These research notes are provided as-is and contain supplementary working research.

William de Gournay II (G28) Notes

Research notes for g28-william-de-gournay-ii-fact-sheet.md. See .claude/rules/research-files.md for the paired-file rule.

Working Notes

Katherine’s identity — daughter or sister of Thomas de Ingoldesthorpe

2026-04-18; substantially revised 2026-05-29 after corpus re-read of DG-I p. 325 and Appendix LVI no. 3, and online cross-checks. Katherine, wife of William II, was almost certainly of the Ingoldesthorpe family. Both DG-I (1848) and DG-Supp (1858) reach this conclusion, and the inference rests on the wording of a contemporary 13th-century primary record (the 1243 North Wootton fine), not on later genealogical reconstruction. The “probably a Baconsthorpe” cell label that the project has been carrying forward is the outlier even within DG’s own 1848 volume.

The 1243 fine (DG-I p. 325, Appendix LVI no. 3). In the 27th year of Henry III, William de Gurnay and Katherine his wife levied a fine with Thomas de Ingaldestorp over forty acres of marsh at North Wootton, Norfolk. The Latin reads:

Haec est finalis concordia facta in Curia Domini Regis apud Westmonasterium … inter Thomam de Ingaldestorp petentem et Willelmum de Gurnay et Katerinam uxorem ejus tenentes, de quadraginta acris Marisci cum pertinentiis in North Wootton… predicti Willelmus et Katarina recognoverunt predictum Mariscum cum pertinentiis esse jus ipsius Thome, et illi ea reddiderunt in eadem Curia, et rem et quietclam de se et heredibus ipsius Katarine eidem Thome, et heredibus suis in perpetuum. Et pro hac recognitione, redditu, re, quietclam, fine et concordia idem Thomas dedit predictis Willelmo et Katarine quadraginta solidos sterlingorum.

The decisive phrase is “de se et heredibus ipsius Katarine” — the quitclaim runs from the couple and from Katherine’s heirs specifically, not from joint heirs of the couple. This is the standard medieval legal signal that the lands being conveyed traced through her family. Combined with the recipient being a Thomas de Ingoldesthorpe (Sheriff of Norfolk 8 and 21 Henry III, 1223–24 and 1236–37), the natural reading is that Thomas was Katherine’s father or brother. DG-I p. 326 reaches this conclusion directly: “From the circumstance that William de Gournay and Katharine quit-claimed to Thomas de Ingoldesthorpe these lands in North Wootton, for themselves and the heirs of the said Katarine, I think it likely she was of the family of Ingoldesthorpe.”[1]

DG-Supp Note 113 (1858, p. 786) restates and sharpens this, situating Katherine within the wider Ingoldesthorpe pedigree: Thomas “Redde Thomas” lived in the time of Richard I; his son was Sheriff of Norfolk in 1236; two later branches ended in heiresses — Ela m. Sir Hugh Jernegan c. 1250, and Isabel m. John Neville, Marquis Montacute, under Henry VI.[2] DG-Supp also reinforces the heraldic alignment (see below).

Why the “probably a Baconsthorpe” label is the outlier. DG-I’s pedigree table at p. 286 prints Katherine as “probably a Baconsthorpe.” That cell label contradicts DG’s own narrative two pages further on at p. 325 and is hard to defend on independent grounds:

  • No documented Baconsthorpe family of substance is known in Norfolk in the 1240s. The prominent Baconsthorpe surname figures in DG — Sir John Gourney V “styled of West Barsham and of Baconsthorpe” (d. 1407, DG-I p. 286); the Heydons of Baconsthorpe Castle (15th–16th c.) — all post-date G28 by 150+ years. Baconsthorpe-the-manor is famously a Heydon construction from the 1450s.
  • DG-I p. 286 also prints a Katherine, daughter of Edmund Baconsthorpe, as the wife of Sir William III (G26) — three generations downstream from G28. The most plausible explanation for the cell label is that the later G26 Baconsthorpe Katherine was retro-applied to G28 by surname-pattern reasoning in an earlier draft of DG’s pedigree, then was effectively superseded by the time DG sat with the 1243 fine for the narrative section.

The label-vs-narrative tension is entirely internal to DG-I 1848; DG-Supp 1858 only restates DG-I’s narrative-side reading. We carry forward the narrative reading. The G26 Baconsthorpe Katherine is a separate, documented, later person and stays where she is.

Heraldic corroboration. DG-I p. 326: “The Ingoldesthorpes bore for arms the same coat as the Gurneys, with the colours reversed, viz. Gules, a cross engrailed argent.” Gurney: argent, a cross engrailed gules. Colour-reversed engrailed crosses are a classic medieval signal of allied or kin families. DG-Supp Note 113 (p. 786) adds that all three engrailed-cross Norfolk houses — Gurney, Ufford, Ingoldesthorpe — sent named knights on the 1270 Edward I crusade (Sir John de Gournay G27, Sir Robert de Ufford, Sir John de Ingoldesthorpe).[3] Whether the shared coat pattern commemorates that expedition or pre-dates it, it ties the three families into one social/heraldic network and is consistent with a Gurney-Ingoldesthorpe marriage one generation earlier.

Online verification. The 1243 fine belongs to the Pedes Finium (feet of fines) for Norfolk, 21–41 Hen III — a class of record that survives at The National Archives in CP 25/1, independent of the Henry III fine rolls (which are lost for several relevant years per the FRH3 project).[4] DG’s transcription of the Latin appears trustworthy on its face. FamilySearch carries a “Sir Thomas I de Ingledesthorpe, High Sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk 1170–1228” tree, broadly consistent with DG-Supp’s “Redde Thomas” placement in the time of Richard I.[5] Wikipedia’s “Thomas Ingoldsthorpe” article is the later Bishop of Rochester (d. 1291) — a younger relative, not the Thomas of 1243.[6] The residual open question is whether the Thomas of the 1243 fine is the sheriff in his last years or a son of the same name (see Open Questions).

Clifford charter witness, 1220 (DG-Supp Note 111)

2026-04-18 — DG-Supp Note 111 (pp. 780–781) records: “The name of William de Gurney occurs as witness to William de Clifford to the abbey of Dore, in Herefordshire.” Source: Dodsworth’s MS. collections, Bodleian Library, No. 42, p. 134. Placita 4 Henry III (1220).

The witness list: “Testibus Willelmo de Breus et Willelmo filio suo, Willelmo de Gurnay, &c.”

DG also notes that William was a witness to a gift by Walter de Clifford to the same abbey (Dugdale Mon., vol. V, p. 555). DG comments: “This occurrence, and his being a witness to the gift of Walter de Clifford to the same abbey, is remarkable, and might have arisen from the marriage of Matilda, the widow of Hugh de Gournay IV., with Roger de Clifford of Bridge Solers, in Herefordshire.”

Significance: This places William II in Herefordshire in 1220, witnessing a charter for a monastery far from Norfolk. The Clifford connection (through the senior line’s marriage) shows that the junior Norfolk branch still maintained contacts with the senior line’s wider network. William de Breos (a major Marcher lord) witnessing the same charter places William II in elevated company.

Seal description (DG-Supp Note 110)

2026-04-18 — DG-Supp Note 110 (p. 780) discusses the seals from the Spelman MSS pedigree. For “William Gurnays III” (likely our G26 William III), the Spelman pedigree calls his seal “in an ovalle” but Henry Gurnay’s book corrects this to “seale manuelle” — a portable seal, not of large dimensions. William IV’s seal is also described as “manual.” These details matter for identifying surviving seal impressions.

Rotuli Hundredorum — warren claims, 1274

2026-04-18 — DG-Supp Note 114 (pp. 787) quotes the Rotuli Hundredorum (2 Edward I, 1274) for claims by both John (G27) and William III (G26) to warren rights in Hardingham. This implies William II was probably dead by 1274, as his son John and grandson William III are making the claims, not him.

West Barsham quartered/impaled arms (Armstrong 1781) — silence on Ingoldesthorpe, with one suggestive echo

2026-05-29 — The Armstrong 1781 survey of West Barsham church (worked up in research/places/west-barsham.md from Mostyn John Armstrong, History and Antiquities of the County of Norfolk, vol. 5, 1781) records an eight-family impaled/quartered display: Wauci · Calthorpe · Lovell · Holdich · Blennerhasset · Lewknor · Jernegan · probable Wentworth. Neither Ingoldesthorpe nor Baconsthorpe appears.

This is silence rather than contradiction. Each of the eight maps to a G15–G23 marriage (14th–17th century), and the West Barsham seat itself did not pass to the Gurneys until the 1372–73 Wauncy transfer. A 13th-century marriage would not naturally appear in those windows whichever family it belonged to. The Armstrong eight-family list does not bear on whether G28’s Katherine was a Baconsthorpe or an Ingoldesthorpe.

One indirect tonal echo: the Jernegan/Jerningham coat is on the West Barsham list, and the Jernegans are the family that absorbed the senior Ingoldesthorpe heiress — Ela, daughter of Sir Thomas de Ingoldesthorpe, married Sir Hugh Jernegan c. 1250 (DG-Supp Note 113, p. 786).[2:1] The repo’s documented Jernegan/Gurney link is the later G20 marriage to Margaret Jerningham of Somerleyton, and Armstrong does not describe the West Barsham Jernegan coat as quartered with an inherited Ingoldesthorpe sub-coat. Best read as a coincidence within the engrailed-cross / Ingoldesthorpe-orbit social network, not as fresh corroboration.[7]

Landholdings

Place Period Notes
Harpley, Norfolk fl. c. 1210–1250 Lord of Harpley manor, inherited from father Matthew (G29)
Hardingham/Swathings, Norfolk fl. c. 1210–1250 Inherited
Runhall, Norfolk fl. c. 1210–1250 Inherited

Open Questions

  1. DG-I p. 325 — the Ingoldesthorpe fine: What exactly does the fine between William II and Thomas de Ingoldesthorpe say? Resolved 2026-05-29. Full Latin transcription, the “heredibus ipsius Katarine” reading, and conclusion are now in the Katherine’s-identity section above.
  2. Two Katherines or one? Resolved 2026-05-29. Two different Katherines. G28’s wife was (almost certainly) an Ingoldesthorpe; the G26 “Katherine de Baconsthorpe, daughter of Edmund Baconsthorpe” is a separate, documented, later person. The “probably a Baconsthorpe” label on G28 was retro-applied from G26 in an earlier draft of DG’s pedigree table.
  3. Was Thomas de Ingoldesthorpe in the 1243 fine the sheriff himself or a son of the same name? DG-Part 2 p. 326 records Sheriff Thomas at 8 and 21 Hen III (1223–24 and 1236–37); the FamilySearch tree places “Sir Thomas I” at 1170–1228. If Thomas I died c. 1228, the 1243 fine party is likely his son (Thomas II), and Katherine is then most plausibly Thomas II’s daughter or sister. Investigation pull: TNA CP 25/1 Norfolk file, 21–41 Hen III. Availability: Unknown online (TNA Discovery has the catalogue; AALT may have CP 25/1 images for some county files).
  4. Dore Abbey charter (1220): Can the original charter be located in published Dodsworth collections or Dore Abbey records? Availability: Unknown online.
  5. 1234 record: What specific Norfolk record attests William II as living in 1234? DG-I pedigree p. 286 gives the date without citation. The 1243 date is now identified as the Ingoldesthorpe / North Wootton fine; the 1234 date remains unidentified. Availability: Unknown online.

Sources Consulted

  • DG-I, pp. 279, 286 (pedigree: “Sir William de Gournay, Knt. II. Lord of Harpley, &c.; liv. 1234 & 1243”; pedigree cell label “Katherine probably a Baconsthorpe”). [DG-I]
  • DG-I, pp. 325–326 (narrative on Katherine identifying her as probably of the family of Ingoldesthorpe, based on the 1243 North Wootton fine; transcript of fine at Appendix LVI no. 3). Read in corpus 2026-05-29. [DG-I]
  • DG-Supp, Note 110 (p. 780): Seal descriptions from Spelman MSS. [DG-Supp]
  • DG-Supp, Note 111 (pp. 780–781): Clifford charter witness at Dore Abbey, 1220 (Dodsworth MS. 42, p. 134). [DG-Supp]
  • DG-Supp, Note 113 (p. 786): Katherine identified as probable Ingoldesthorpe; Ingoldesthorpe family pedigree summary; engrailed-cross / 1270 crusade alignment of Gurney, Ufford, Ingoldesthorpe. [DG-Supp]
  • Anderson, House of Yvery (1742), p. 478: Compressed Norfolk pedigree mentioning Matthew with sons “Thomas and William.” [Anderson-Yvery]
  • Dodsworth’s MS. Collections, Bodleian Library — cited via DG-Supp. [Dodsworth]
  • Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, vol. V, p. 555 — Walter de Clifford gift to Dore. [Dugdale-Mon]
  • TNA CP 25/1 — Norfolk Pedes Finium, 21–41 Hen III (DG’s source for the 1243 fine; not yet examined directly). [TNA-CP25-1]
  • Armstrong, History and Antiquities of the County of Norfolk, vol. 5 (1781) — West Barsham church arms list, via research/places/west-barsham.md. [armstrong-norfolk-1781]
  • Henry III Fine Rolls Project (frh3.org.uk) — 21 Hen III roll page; confirms that roll is lost. Accessed 2026-05-29. [FRH3]
  • FamilySearch tree LRVH-S6H (“Sir Thomas I de Ingledesthorpe, High Sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk 1170–1228”). Accessed 2026-05-29. Tertiary compiler, used only as broad orientation. [FS-LRVH-S6H]
  • Wikipedia, “Thomas Ingoldsthorpe” (Bishop of Rochester, d. 1291). Accessed 2026-05-29. A later relative, not the Thomas of 1243. [wiki-bishop-thomas-ingoldsthorpe]

Conflicting Information

Claim Source A Source B Status
Katherine’s family DG-I pedigree-table cell label, p. 286: “probably a Baconsthorpe” DG-I narrative pp. 325–326 + Appendix LVI no. 3 (Latin transcription of 1243 fine, with the phrase “heredibus ipsius Katarine”) + DG-Supp Note 113 (1858, p. 786) Resolved 2026-05-29 in favour of Ingoldesthorpe. The pedigree-table label is the outlier within DG’s own 1848 volume; the narrative reading rests on the legal phrase “heredibus ipsius Katarine” in the 1243 fine, restated and sharpened in the 1858 Supplement, and is heraldically corroborated (engrailed-cross colour-reversed Ingoldesthorpe arms). No documented Baconsthorpe family of substance exists in Norfolk in the 1240s.
Which generation? G28 (former) fact sheet: Katherine prob. Baconsthorpe G26 fact sheet: Katherine de Baconsthorpe, daughter of Edmund Baconsthorpe Resolved 2026-05-29 as two different Katherines. G26’s wife Katherine Baconsthorpe is documented (DG-I p. 286 row for William III). G28’s “Baconsthorpe” cell-label was retro-applied from G26 in an earlier draft of DG’s pedigree table and is superseded by his own narrative on p. 325.

Fact Sheet Improvement Notes

  1. Katherine’s identity — recommend reframing from uncertainty to fact-statement. The current fact-sheet treatment splits Katherine 50/50 between Baconsthorpe and Ingoldesthorpe. The evidence is not a 50/50 once the 1243 fine and its “heirs of Katherine” language are read directly. Recommended posture: present Katherine as daughter or sister of Thomas de Ingoldesthorpe, on the wording of the 1243 fine, with a footnoted disclosure that DG’s own pedigree table at p. 286 reads “probably a Baconsthorpe” — a less-supported earlier reading by the same author. This matches how the project treats other primary-record-grounded identifications elsewhere in the line.
  2. Dore Abbey witness (1220): The 1220 Herefordshire charter witness is a specific, datable document that could be added to the timeline and narrative. It shows William II operating far beyond Norfolk.
  3. Ingoldesthorpe / engrailed-cross / 1270 crusade arms connection. With Katherine identified as an Ingoldesthorpe, the heraldic and social network around the engrailed-cross houses (Gurney, Ufford, Ingoldesthorpe — all on the 1270 crusade with Edward I, all bearing differenced versions of the same coat) becomes a substantive piece of context for G27 John I’s career as much as for G28. Worth a sentence in the G28 narrative pointing forward to G27.
  4. West Barsham eight-family arms list does not bear on this identification. Worth noting only as a “silence is not evidence” disposal point if a future reader asks the obvious question; not worth raising proactively in the fact sheet.

  1. Daniel Gurney, Record of the House of Gournay (London: J.B. Nichols, 1848), Part II, pp. 325–326 (narrative on William II’s marriage) and Appendix LVI no. 3 (Latin transcription of the fine of 27 Hen III between Thomas de Ingaldestorp and William de Gurnay and Katherine his wife concerning forty acres of marsh in North Wootton). Source: sources/corpus/daniel-gurney-part-2.md lines 2705–2711 and 2861–2917. Source ID: daniel-gurney-record-1848-part2. ↩︎

  2. Daniel Gurney, Supplement to the Record of the House of Gournay (London: J.B. Nichols, 1858), Note 113, p. 786. Source: sources/corpus/daniel-gurney-supplement.md lines 1876–1888. Source ID: daniel-gurney-supplement-1858. ↩︎ ↩︎

  3. Daniel Gurney, Supplement (1858), Note 113, p. 786 (engrailed-cross arms of Gurney, Ufford, Ingoldesthorpe; named participation of the three houses in the 1270 Edward I crusade). Source: sources/corpus/daniel-gurney-supplement.md lines 1873–1888. Source ID: daniel-gurney-supplement-1858. ↩︎

  4. Henry III Fine Rolls Project (King’s College London / National Archives), 21 Hen III roll page — confirms the 21 Hen III fine roll itself is lost. Note: this is a different record series from the Pedes Finium / feet of fines (CP 25/1) which DG quotes. https://finerollshenry3.org.uk/content/calendar/roll_004E.html. Accessed 2026-05-29. ↩︎

  5. FamilySearch tree entry “Sir Thomas I de Ingledesthorpe, High Sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk 1170–1228” (identifier LRVH-S6H). https://ancestors.familysearch.org/en/LRVH-S6H/sir.-thomas-i-de-ingledesthorpe-high-sheriff-of-norfolk-and-suffolk-1170-1228. Accessed 2026-05-29. FamilySearch is a tertiary compiler; cited here only as broad corroboration of the “Redde Thomas” placement, not as primary authority. ↩︎

  6. Wikipedia, “Thomas Ingoldsthorpe” (Bishop of Rochester, d. 1291). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Ingoldsthorpe. Accessed 2026-05-29. A later relative, not the Thomas of the 1243 fine. ↩︎

  7. Mostyn John Armstrong, The History and Antiquities of the County of Norfolk, vol. 5 (Norwich, 1781), Gallow Hundred — West Barsham parish entry (eight-family impaled / quartered arms list at West Barsham church). Source: research/places/west-barsham.md Armstrong 1781 section; sources/corpus_supplement/armstrong-norfolk-1781-selected-gurney-references.md. Source ID: armstrong-norfolk-1781. ↩︎