I've built up a lot of notes on Wikitree about the East Anglian knightly family whose named evolved from Gisneto, Gennei, Gisney, Gyney, etc, towards later spellings with a "J" such as Jenney.

The top of the tree in the time of William Rufus is Roger, https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Gisney-4 Already at that time it appears that the family had Haveringland and Whitwell in Norfolk.

In case anyone is wondering I will already mention that I have not succeeded in linking them to the Knodishall Jenney family who did well as lawyers and politicians from the 15th century, but they may well be related. (It was not really my focus.)

Key "innovations" which are explained in detail on Wikitree (probably someone has put all this together before):

1. I think Blomefield caused a major distraction by starting the family with a Baldwin in the time of King John, in his article about Haveringland. There is indeed one record for such a person who apparently got in the way of Longueville priory's rights
in the church of Witchingham, which is a manor of this family. However, that's it for Baldwin. (Unless this Baldwin is one of the noblemen of that name from Guînes, in which case he is not even a member of the Norfolk family. Or at least not a close
relative.) There is sufficient evidence to show that the lord of Haveringland in the time of King John was a William, the founder of Mountjoy priory.

2. Once Baldwin is out of the way we are free to link with the 11th and 12th century information about the family which is to be found in the Stoke by Clare cartulary. Keats-Rohan made a slip in DD about the Stoke-by-Clare sequence. Roger clearly did not
die in 1166. I've handed in the details as a possible future Domesday Correction.

3. Moving ahead in time, Blomefield created a second confusion, I think, in his various different explanations about how the Brandeston branch connects to the main line. I believe the Roger who married the heiress of Pecche of Brandeston was also the
lord of Haveringland etc. So the two lordships were only divided after this Sir Roger died in the 14th century.

4. I've bitten the bullet concerning the Sir Thomas Ginney who is known as an ancestor of Harlings and Tudenhams and Bedingfields, as the man who married the heiress of Nicholas Bourne of Long Stratton, which they later held. I think Walter Rye (and
probably others) have been right to think that he must be the first Sir Thomas in a series of three, in the Brandeston line of the family. The daughter who was heiress of Bourne must have had a brother with a different mother who continued that male line
(which ended in 1420).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)