Montigny-sur-Andelle, Normandy, France

Town in the Pays de Bray, Normandy, France (modern dept. Eure, on the river Andelle). Coordinates: 49.327, 1.352.

Historically a parcel of the great honour of Bray, the principal Norman possession of the senior Lords of Gournay. Its significance in the Gurney story is evidentiary, not seigneurial: William de Gournay I (G30) held Montigny-sur-Andelle in parage from the Dukes of Normandy — a tenure only available to blood relatives of the senior line. Daniel Gurney called this “incontestable proof” of William I’s descent from the Barons of Gournay [DG-I-278].

Why this place matters structurally

This is one of the most important proof places in the entire project. Unlike Gournay-en-Bray, it is not important because it was the family’s chief seat. Unlike La Ferté-en-Bray, it is not important because it preserves the earliest naming charter. Its importance is genealogical and argumentative: Montigny-sur-Andelle is the locality that underpins the case that Walter (G31) and William (G30) belonged by blood to the Barons of Gournay. [DG-I] [Hannay]

That means the file should stay tightly focused on parage tenure as evidence, not drift into overstating the place as a major landed centre of the junior line.

Gurney ancestors holding here

The parage tie was effectively severed in 1204 when King John lost Normandy to Philip Augustus. Matthew (G29), William I’s son, lived to see that loss; the English junior branch retained the family name but no Norman property thereafter.

Parage tenure — what it meant

From Hannay (pp. 116–117), citing the feudal legal convention: parage was “a tenure by which a younger son possessed a portion of the family property pari conditione with his elder brother.” Critically, parage required blood descent — it was not available to vassals or tenants.

The argument for Walter (G31) as Gerard’s son runs through this tenure: “As the severance of land in this case occurred at the time of the death of Gerard, when Walter, who profited by it, was alive, he cannot have been remoter from him than the degree of son.”

Interpretive caution

Montigny is powerful evidence, but it is still an evidentiary link mediated through later historical argument and a cited source reference. The project should continue to distinguish between:

1. the historical fact that Montigny-sur-Andelle was held in parage, and
2. the genealogical conclusion DG and Hannay draw from that fact.

The conclusion is strong, but the structure should preserve the logic rather than flattening everything into a single unsupported assertion.

Primary source

DG cites Registres Olim, par Le Comte de Beugnot (Paris, 1839) for Montigny-sur-Andelle naming William de Gournay I. The Registres Olim entry has not been independently verified in this project.

See also DG-I Appendix XLVI on parage tenure.

High-priority place-status note

Montigny-sur-Andelle should be treated as a high-priority proof-place for the G30/G31 transition. It is not high-priority because of scale or monument survival; it is high-priority because parage tenure is legal evidence of blood descent from the senior Barons of Gournay.

Coordinate caution

The current coordinate should remain medium precision. The project should not upgrade this to a high-precision place until the specific Registres Olim entry and modern place identity are verified. For now, the place functions as a historical fief / legal proof-place.

G30 / G31 significance

William de Gournay I (G30) held Montigny-sur-Andelle in parage. Because parage was a tenure available to blood relatives sharing in the family fief, this is a structural proof point for Walter de Gournay (G31) as a son, not remote descendant, of Gerard de Gournay.

Bois Gautier candidate

De la Mairie’s conjecture that Bois Gautier near Montigny-sur-Andelle may preserve Walter de Gournay’s name remains interesting but unproven. It should stay as a research lead until a toponymic or cartographic source confirms the place and its connection.

Third-pass status

No stronger external geolocation or heritage source was found in the latest place audit. The place remains high priority because of its legal value, not because of visible remains.

Open items

• [ ] Locate the Registres Olim entry (Beugnot ed., 1839) naming William de Gournay I at Montigny-sur-Andelle. This would be the strongest independent confirmation of his Norman holding.
• [ ] Confirm the modern administrative status of Montigny-sur-Andelle — the commune may have been merged into Amfreville-sur-Iton or a neighbouring commune in modern reorganisations.
• [ ] Once the primary citation is pulled, consider whether the structured detail text should mention the 1204 severance more explicitly.

Sources

• Daniel Gurney, Record of the House of Gournay, Part I (1848), p. 278 and pedigree p. 286. [DG-I]
• DG-I, Appendix XLVI (parage tenure explanation). [DG-I-App-XLVI]
• James Hannay, Three Hundred Years of a Norman House (1867), pp. 116–117. [Hannay]
• Registres Olim, par Le Comte de Beugnot, Paris, 1839 — cited by DG but not independently verified.

Crosslinks

• research/people/g30-william-de-gournay-i-fact-sheet.research.md
• research/people/g31-walter-de-gournay-fact-sheet.research.md (the “proved ancestor” argument rests on Montigny parage)
• research/places/gournay-en-bray.md
• research/places/normandy.md