Gurney Genealogy Library Updated 29 May 2026 by Allen Gurney

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

Matthew de Gournay (G29) Notes

Research notes for g29-matthew-de-gournay-fact-sheet.md. See .claude/rules/research-files.md for the paired-file rule.

Working Notes

DG-Supp Note 109 — critical death date correction (p. 780)

2026-04-18 — DG-Supp Note 109 corrects a significant error in the main text: “I have said that Matthew de Gournay probably did not long survive the year 1206, but this appears to be a mistake; he was living 2nd Henry III (1217), as is shewn by the following extract:”

“Fines 2. Regis Henrici III. Norff.—Mattheus de Gurney dat Domino Regi XX. pro habendo brevi de attingendo, &c., &c., in comitatu Norfolcie de tenemento in Swathing in comitatu Norfolcie.”

This Fine Roll entry proves Matthew was alive in 1217 — paying 20 marks to the king for a writ of attaint concerning his tenement of Swathings in Norfolk. This extends his documented life by over a decade beyond DG’s original estimate.

Impact: The fact sheet and ancestor table give dates “fl. c. 1180–1220.” The 1217 Fine Roll entry fits this range but the upper bound should probably be extended to at least 1217+ rather than the vague “c. 1220.”

Marriage to Rose de Burnham — the Harpley acquisition (DG-I pp. 278–279)

2026-04-18 — DG-I p. 278: “Hameline Plantagenet, Earl Warren, gave in marriage his kinswoman Rose, daughter and heir of Reginald de Burnham (Fitz-Philip), about the year 1183. Through Rose he acquired Gurney’s manor in Harpley, Norfolk.”

This is the foundational moment for the Harpley connection that would define the family for centuries. Key details:

  • Hameline Plantagenet (also Hamelin de Warenne, Earl of Surrey, c. 1129–1202) was an illegitimate half-brother of Henry II — a Plantagenet prince. He arranged Rose’s marriage to Matthew, giving his kinswoman to the junior Gournay as a calculated match. This is a royal connection at one remove: the King’s half-brother personally orchestrating the marriage.
  • Rose de Burnham was “daughter and heir of Reginald de Burnham (Fitz-Philip)” — the “Burnhams were a younger branch of the house of Warren” per the fact sheet companion notes from an earlier session. Through her, the Harpley manor entered the family.
  • Harpley would remain the Gurneys’ most important Norfolk manor for nearly two centuries, through G29 (Matthew) to at least G21 (Thomas I).

DG-I pp. 278–279 — additional Matthew details

2026-04-18 — DG records that Matthew “gave tithes of Hardingham to the church” (citing Harleian MSS. 970, Vitis Calthorpiana). He also held the manor of Swathings in Hardingham and Runhall (inherited from his father William I).

DG-I Appendix XLIX (p. 308) contains a deed witnessed by Matthew, which DG’s correspondent Mr. Norris dated to c. 1160. This is the earliest dated appearance of Matthew in any document.

DG-I Appendix LIII records a plea: Matthew v. Gilbert de Runhall — a key legal record for the early junior line. This suggests Matthew was actively litigating over his Runhall property, consistent with an engaged landholder defending his interests.

Pipe Roll appearance

2026-04-18 — The existing G29 companion (from a prior session) notes a Pipe Roll appearance for Matthew, but the details were thin. The fact sheet mentions this. DG-Supp Note 109’s Fine Roll entry (1217) is a separate and later record. Together they give two distinct dated documentary appearances: the c. 1160 deed witness (Appendix XLIX) and the 1217 Fine Roll payment.

1204 and the loss of Normandy

2026-04-18 — The senior Gournay line lost its Norman possessions when Philip Augustus conquered Normandy in 1204. Hugh V (senior line) was expelled. This event would have affected the junior branch too — William I (G30) had held Montigny-sur-Andelle in parage. If that Norman parcel was still held by Matthew in 1204, it was lost at this point. DG does not explicitly address this for the junior branch, but it’s the logical terminus of their Norman connection.

Matthew’s documented activity is entirely English after this date (the 1217 Fine Roll concerns Swathings in Norfolk). The family’s identity as purely English/Norfolk gentry, rather than Anglo-Norman, effectively begins here.

Rose de Burnham — the Warren-Burnham descent

2026-04-18 — Blomefield’s Harpley entry (vol. viii, pp. 452–459) should contain independent detail on how Harpley passed from the Burnhams to the Gurneys via Rose’s marriage. This is flagged as a priority Blomefield extraction in the places file for Harpley.

Landholdings

Place Period Notes
Harpley, Norfolk c. 1183 onward Acquired through marriage to Rose de Burnham. “Gurney’s manor” — the defining family property for the next two centuries.
Hardingham/Swathings, Norfolk fl. c. 1180–1217+ Inherited from father William I. Gave tithes to the church (Harl. MSS. 970). Fine Roll 1217 concerns Swathings.
Runhall, Norfolk fl. c. 1180–1217+ Inherited. Plea: Matthew v. Gilbert de Runhall (DG-I Appendix LIII).

Open Questions

  1. Blomefield’s Harpley: The Harpley entry (vol. viii, pp. 452–459) should document the Burnham-to-Gurney descent through Rose. Priority extraction.
  2. Harl. MSS. 970: The Hardingham tithe grant — can the British Library digitized Harleian manuscripts be searched for this?
  3. DG-I Appendix XLIX (p. 308): The c. 1160 deed — what does it establish? Full transcription needed.
  4. DG-I Appendix LIII: Matthew v. Gilbert de Runhall plea — what was the outcome? Was this a successful defense of Runhall?
  5. Montigny-sur-Andelle after 1204: Did the junior branch lose this Norman holding when Philip Augustus conquered Normandy? DG does not address this explicitly.

Sources Consulted

  • DG-I, pp. 278–279 (Matthew chapter): Rose de Burnham marriage, Harpley acquisition, Hardingham tithes, Swathings/Runhall holdings. [DG-I]
  • DG-I, p. 286 (pedigree chart). [DG-I]
  • DG-I, Appendix XLIX (p. 308): c. 1160 deed witnessed by Matthew. [DG-I]
  • DG-I, Appendix LIII: Matthew v. Gilbert de Runhall plea. [DG-I]
  • DG-Supp, Note 109 (p. 780): Death date correction — Matthew living 1217, Fine Roll 2 Henry III. [DG-Supp]
  • DG-II, p. 310: Matthew reference (per citation audit — correct as DG-II). [DG-II]
  • Harl. MSS. 970 (Vitis Calthorpiana): Hardingham tithe grant. Cited via DG. [Harl-970]
  • Blomefield, History of Norfolk (Harpley entry, vol. viii, pp. 452–459). Not yet extracted. [Blomefield]
  • Anderson, James, Genealogical History of the House of Yvery, Vol. II (London, 1742), p. 478: brief aside on Norfolk Gournays with a different pedigree from DG. Matthew placed “in the Time of Henry the First” with sons Thomas and William — does not match DG’s more detailed and better-sourced Walter→William→Matthew sequence. [Anderson-Yvery]
  • Supplément aux recherches historiques sur la ville de Gournay-en-Bray (1844): examined. Primarily local town history; confirms Daniel Gurney as a subscriber (establishing 1840s transatlantic scholarly communication). No specific content on the Norfolk junior branch. [Gournay-1844]

Conflicting Information

Claim Source A Source B Status
Death date DG-I main text: “did not long survive the year 1206” DG-Supp Note 109: living 1217 (Fine Roll 2 Henry III) DG-Supp corrects DG-I. Matthew was alive in 1217.
Norfolk pedigree sequence Anderson, House of Yvery (1742), p. 478: Matthew → William → John (3 Edw. I), placed “in the Time of Henry the First” DG-I (1848): Walter G31 → William I G30 → Matthew G29 → William II G28 → John I G27 (with Liber Niger, Les Olim, Pipe Roll, and Fine Roll evidence) Compatible, not in conflict. Anderson’s three-generation sequence corroborates DG’s G29→G28→G27 in names and order, and predates DG by 106 years. Anderson omits the two earlier Norfolk generations (Walter G31 and William I G30), explicitly admitting the link to the senior line is uncertain (“doubtless of the same Stock”). Anderson’s “Time of Henry the First” placement is too early — DG-Supp Note 109 has Matthew alive in 2 Hen. III (1217) and the John in 3 Edw. I (1274/5) fits G27’s documented activity (Lewes 1264, Crusade 1270, Rot. Hund. 1274). The “Henry the First” is most plausibly a slip for Henry III; Anderson’s narrative immediately preceding the digression had been on early-13th-c. events. Net: Anderson Vol. II p. 478 is corroborating evidence, not a competing pedigree.

Fact Sheet Improvement Notes

  1. Hameline Plantagenet: The narrative could emphasize that the man who arranged Matthew’s marriage was a half-brother of Henry II — a Plantagenet prince. This elevates the social context of the Harpley acquisition from “inherited through wife” to “a royal kinsman personally orchestrated the match.”
  2. 1217 Fine Roll: The DG-Supp Note 109 correction should be incorporated. Matthew was alive in 1217, paying 20 marks for a writ concerning Swathings. This extends his documented life and shows him actively managing his estate deep into old age.
  3. 1204 context: The loss of Normandy in 1204 effectively ended the family’s cross-Channel identity. Matthew is the transitional figure — born Anglo-Norman, died purely English. This is a significant narrative moment.
  4. Harpley significance: The narrative could draw out that this one marriage (Matthew + Rose) established the Harpley connection that would define seven generations of Gurneys. It’s the single most consequential marriage in the junior branch.

Armstrong 1781 — third independent witness

Mostyn John Armstrong, The History and Antiquities of the County of Norfolk, vol. 5 (Norwich, 1781), Gallow Hundred entry for West Barsham, opens its Harpley-rooted Gurney pedigree skeleton with “Matthew de Gourney lived in the reign of Henry II. and married Rose, daughter and heir of Reginald de Burnham.” This is Armstrong’s eighteenth-century printed witness to the Matthew + Rose de Burnham marriage already independently attested by Daniel Gurney Record (1848) pedigree p. 286 and Blomefield’s Harpley entry. Useful as a third corroborating citation; no new fact.[1]

  1. Mostyn John Armstrong, The History and Antiquities of the County of Norfolk, vol. 5 (Norwich, 1781), Gallow Hundred, West Barsham pedigree-skeleton paragraph. Internet Archive item bim_eighteenth-century_history-and-antiquities-_armstrong-mostyn-john_1781_5. Source ID: armstrong-norfolk-1781. ↩︎