Montigny-sur-Andelle, Normandy, France

Historic fief in the Pays de Bray / upper Andelle valley, Normandy, France. The Seine-Maritime topographic dictionary identifies the medieval Montigny as Montagny, a hamlet (formerly a parish and commune in its own right) of Nolléval, canton of Argueil, Seine-Maritime — citing Daniel Gurney’s Record as its authority for the twelfth-century forms (“R. de Montegni,” 12th c., “Gurney, p. 103”). Coordinates: 49.4879, 1.4807.^[1]

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

Daniel Gurney cites Les Olim (ed. Beugnot, Paris, 1839) for Montigny-sur-Andelle naming William de Gournay I. The entry was verified directly in the printed edition in July 2026: vol. 1, p. 85, entry XXII of the inquests of the Pentecost parlement of 1259, closing “Hæc fuit terminata in scacario” (concluded in the Exchequer of Normandy). Daniel Gurney’s transcription is exact. Extract: sources/corpus_supplement/les-olim-beugnot-tome1-p85-montigny-verification.md. Source ID: les-olim.

The medieval fief is independently traceable in the topographic dictionary’s attested forms: “E. de Monteniaco, dimidium feodum ad Monteniacum” (Norman feodal survey, c. 1210 — the family of the 1259 petitioner Eustace holding a half-fee); “Capella de Montigniaco” (16th c.); “fief de Montigny,” a half-fee in the castellany of La Ferté-en-Bray “extending into the parts of Argueil” (1503). Massy’s dependency on Montigny — Daniel Gurney’s “Montigny with its member Massy” — persisted into the records: in 1406 Massy was “a half-fief held of the half-fief of Montigny-en-Bray.”^[1]

See also Daniel Gurney, Record, Part II, 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 status

Both former verification conditions were met in July 2026: the Les Olim entry was read directly in Beugnot’s edition, and the modern place identity was established from the Seine-Maritime topographic dictionary (Montagny, commune of Nolléval, canton of Argueil — the dictionary itself citing Daniel Gurney for the medieval forms). The coordinate was corrected from the earlier placeholder (49.327, 1.352, which pointed ~18 km away in the lower Andelle) to the Montagny hamlet position (49.4879, 1.4807) and may be treated as high precision at hamlet level.

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 is now located but still unproven as an attribution: Bois-Gauthier is a real hamlet (formerly a parish and commune) of La Chapelle-Saint-Ouen, canton of Argueil, ~5 km north of Montagny/Montigny, attested “Bois-Gautier” on Hondius’s map of 1629. No medieval form (Boscus Walteri or similar) is recorded in the topographic dictionary, so the naming-for-Walter connection cannot yet be carried back to the twelfth century.^[1]

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

• [x] Locate the Registres Olim entry (Beugnot ed., 1839) naming William de Gournay I at Montigny-sur-Andelle — done July 2026 (vol. 1, p. 85, entry XXII; see Primary source above).
• [x] Confirm the modern administrative status — done July 2026: the medieval Montigny is Montagny, a hamlet of Nolléval (canton of Argueil, Seine-Maritime), formerly a parish and commune; it was never in the Amfreville-sur-Iton orbit.
• [ ] Consider whether the structured detail text should mention the 1204 severance more explicitly.
• [ ] Medieval form for Bois-Gauthier (see the G31 companion’s open questions).

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