D'Aubigny/D'Albini to Abney surnames
jkbrown92
father's maternal family is Abney, who held title to the estate of
Willesley in Derbyshire. The estate came into the family in about 1419
when John D'Abney, born c1400, married a daughter of William
D'Ingwardby. The Abneys are said to have descended from the D'Aubigny/
D'Albinis and more specifically from Robert son of William D'Albini
Brito and Cecelia Bigod. I have line of descent (see link below), but
am looking for proof and for more information about the family. Any
help will be appreciated.
I do have a point to discuss. My understanding is that the Belvoir and
Arundel branches of the D'Aubigny family are connected and that
William Brito was a son of William D'Aubigny who married Adeliza De
Bohun, who was a son of William D'Aubigny "Le Botellier" and Albreda
Du Plessis. In my research I have seen a number of very credible
sources who insist that the lines are not connected, but give no proof
of this. I will admit that I also have no proof that they are
connected, other than circumstantial evidence. For instance, it seems
very unlikely to me that given two families, each with a long string
of first borns named William, William D'Aubigny who married Du Plessis
would not name one of his sons William.
The story that I heard was that this William D'Aubigny who married
Adeliza De Bohun was disgraced in Normandy and fled or was banished to
Brittany. He was not among the companions of Duke William at Hastings
and not restored to favour and allowed lands in England until the
reign of William Rufus of Henry I.
I do not claim to be an expert and so would like to get your thoughts
on this.
John
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~opus/index.htm
wjhonson
As far as evidence for the more recent part of the Abney family you
could start with the sub-standard Burke's Commoners. It's better than
nothing, it's online in Google Books, and its five thousand times
better than 99% of online unsourced trees :)
He does cover the Abney family of which you speak, the same, but he
does *not* give this the ancestral connection you do, not exactly at
least.
Will Johnson
taf
> I do have a point to discuss. My understanding is that the Belvoir and
> Arundel branches of the D'Aubigny family are connected and that
> William Brito was a son of William D'Aubigny who married Adeliza De
> Bohun, who was a son of William D'Aubigny "Le Botellier" and Albreda
> Du Plessis. In my research I have seen a number of very credible
> sources who insist that the lines are not connected, but give no proof
> of this.
These sources are right - the two families are entirely unrelated,
coming from two different places. William 'Brito' was son of Main
d'Aubigny, of Saint-Aubin-d'Aubigné, Ille et Vilaine.
The Aubigny Pincerna group came from St. Martin d'Aubigny, Manche.
Also note: you suggested that given the long lines of Williams, it
would have been surprising were the first generation not to have a son
William. Remember, though, that at the time of this first generation,
there had yet to be a long line of Williams - they came to use this
name so frequently only after this time.
taf
jkbrown92
OK, but my question still is on what are you basing your statement
that the families are entirely unrelated? I don't doubt that the Brito
line were in Brittany before the move to Britain, but what is your
evidence that they weren't banished there from Normandy for instance?
I really don't mean to be argumentative I am just trying to find out
if what you say is fact or opinion.
John
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 1/26/2010 6:40:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jkbr...@gmail.com writes:
OK, but my question still is on what are you basing your statement
that the families are entirely unrelated? I don't doubt that the Brito
line were in Brittany before the move to Britain, but what is your
evidence that they weren't banished there from Normandy for instance?
I really don't mean to be argumentative I am just trying to find out
if what you say is fact or opinion.>>
John, the framing of your question is upside-down. We don't want to build
genealogies only throwing out statements when a source has flatly denied
they could be true. What we want to do, is build genealogist, based on
sources making positive statements of what occurred, not negative statements of
what did not.
I've already pointed you to one source, which *does not* have this
foundation myth in it. To me, this says that this foundation myth is more recent
than the last two hundred years. Thus it is suspect as a pious fabrication.
Will Johnson
taf
> OK, but my question still is on what are you basing your statement
> that the families are entirely unrelated?
Well, not entirely unrelated. Just not within recorded history. They
probably had a common ancestor some time within the previous 5000
years.
> I don't doubt that the Brito
> line were in Brittany before the move to Britain, but what is your
> evidence that they weren't banished there from Normandy for instance?
And just coincidentally happened to settle in a town with the same
name? They each derived their name from different places. To suggest,
with no evidence other than that both used the name William, that they
must be related in spite of coming from different places, is
desperation. Let me turn your question around. What evidence do you
have that there is the slightest relationship between these two
families?
> I really don't mean to be argumentative I am just trying to find out
> if what you say is fact or opinion.
Loyd's Anglo-Norman Families documents these differing origins. As to
evidence that they were entirely unrelated, you aren't going to find
an Anglo-Norman document which names William d'Aubigny Pincerna and
William d'Aubigny Brito, "who were not related". Rather, given that
the toponyms derive from different places, and we have no affirmative
evidence, they have no greater likelihood of being kin than any two
people chosen at random.
taf
jkbrown92
> In a message dated 1/26/2010 6:40:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
>
I did look up Burke's Commoners last night and have saved it, but I
did not see that it went back as far as we are talking about. It was
helpful though and I appreciate your telling me about it.
jkbrown92
OK, that is what I was looking for, your source that the Brito line
came from Saint-Aubin-d'Aubigné, Ille et Vilaine. I will check out
Lloyd's if I can find it.
Renia
On your web page, you say:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~opus/p92.htm
Paul ABNEY was born circa 1588 in Leicester, Leicestershire,
England, son of Edmund ABNEY and Catherine LUDLAM. He was a tradesman.
Paul married Mary BROKESBY, daughter of George BROKESBY and Ella
Goodwin, circa 1611.
Paul ABNEY entered pedigree in Harold's Visitation in 1634.
Paul ABNEY died on 10 June 1635 in Leicester, now Derbyshire, England.
What sort of a tradesman was Paul Abney senior? Tradesmen didn't usually
make it to a herald's visitation, unless they were armigerous, and
tradesmen weren't usually armigerous.
What do you mean by "Paul Abney died 1635 in Leicester, now Derbyshire"?
Leicester is in Leicestershire. These are two separate counties.
Leicester never moved to Derbyshire.
Have you confused two separate Paul Abneys?
Renia
Dr Keats-Rohan of the University of Oxford is head of the prosopography
unit there and has built up a huge database of people from the primary
sources of the time. From this, she has compiled two books: "Domesday
People" and "Domesday Descendants", both subtitled "A Prosopography of
Persons Occurring in English Documents, 1066-1166" parts I and II.
Of Willelm de Albini Brito I, she makes it quite clear he is a separate
person from the Norman namesake who used the same "cognomen" of Brito.
It is this confusion which has probably led to some genealogists
thinking the two separate families were related.
Willelm de Albini Brito I was a "younger son of the Breton seigneur Main
of Saint-Augin-d'Aubigne of (Ille-et-Vilaine) and his Norman wife,
Adelaide de Bohun. He married Cecilia, daugther of Roger Bigod and
Adeliz de Tosny (daughter of Robert de Tosny). Cecilia's younger sister,
Maud, married William de Albini Pincerna.
The son of William de Albini Brito I and Cecilia Bigod was Willeilm de
Albini Brito II. He was lord of Belvoir in Lincolnshire and married
Matilda de Senlis, daughter of Robert fitz Walter and Matilda de Senlis.
He died in 1168 and his wife and son, William (III) survived him.
Willelm de Albini Brito III was still a minor when his father died in
1168. He married a daughter of Odinel II of Prudhoe and had a son,
William IV. He had no children by his second wife, Agatha Trussebut. He
died in 1232.
The children of Willelm de Albini Brito I were, according to
Keats-Rohan, 2 daughters and 4 or 5 sons:
Matilda (married William de Albini Pincerna)
Basilia
William II (married Matilda de Senlis)
Ralph (married Sibil de Valognes)
others not named
Much information on the family, says Dr Keats-Rohan, comes from the
"Liber Vitae" of Thorney Abbey, in the British Library.
WJho...@aol.com
Burke's does not state this foundation myth, that is excellent evidence that the
foundation myth did not at that time exist, or at least that Burke had not
heard of it. If such a myth had existed then, he would have stated it.
Instead what he states there, is quite a bit looser. I think you're going
to find, should you persue this, some source, stating the myth as you have,
without underlying foundation, and that you cannot find any earlier source
stating it. That is, that that author, simply created it, out of thin
air. That would be most typical of modern or Victorian authors.
Will
In a message dated 1/27/2010 6:05:06 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
WJho...@aol.com
(http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~opus/p96.htm)
Red flag red flag red flag...
George "Henry" Abney sounds like someone's attempt to squash two men into
one man.
A George who was Lord of Willesley, and a Henry who was a common tradesman
:)
Am I right? Or just snarky?
Will Johnson
WJho...@aol.com
"An inscription reads: "Here lieth the bodirs of George Abney esquier and
Ellene his wife deceased the first day of Marche in the year of our Lord God
1578 and said Ellene deceased in the iii day of December in the year of
our Lord God McVclxxl."2 His estate was probated on 27 January 1578 in
Derbyshire, England.3"
The date of death of his wife is not in any standard form. This is not
the way the Roman numeral system works. At least I can't make head or tail
of it.
I'll assume it's supposed to be 1571 which should be MDLXXI
but I can't figure out how you get a "D" to be a "cVc" whatever that is.
Also the last figure should certainly be an "eye" not an "el".
Or perhaps the preceding "el" is a mistake, but certainly the "V" must be
an odd mistake.
Will
James Dempster
The only source for this MI is "Abney Family Researcher" which is a
recent secondary or tertiary source. The type of error looks like
faulty OCR to me so presumably "Abney Family Researcher" got it from a
scan of some earlier source book not mentioned rather than from
physical examination of the MI
Send three & fourpence, I'm going to a dance :-)
James
John Watson
Hi Will,
This looks like the source for the MI:
"Willesley: On the floor of the chancel are two alabaster slabs, the
figures and inscriptions of which are much worn. On the oldest one is
incised the figure of a man in plate armour, with his wife by his
side, and at their feet three girls and three boys. The following is
the inscription - that part of it in brackets is supplied from notes
taken in August, 1662, by Elias Ashmole:
(Hic jacet Johis Abney . . . et Maria) uxor ejus quiquidem Johes obiit
primo die mensis Decembris anno dni millimo (D quinto).
On the other one are the figures of a man in civilian's dress, his
wife in a French cap and brocaded petticoat, and nine children below
them, apparently three boys and six girls. The following is the
inscription :
Here lieth the bodies of (George) Abney esquier and Ellene his (wife
which George) deceased the firste day of Marche in the year of our
Lord God 157 (8 and the saide Ellene) deceased the iii day of Decembr
in the year of our Lord God M°V°lxxi.
John Abney, of the first of these monuments, was the eldest son and
heir of William Abney, by the co-heiress of Ingwardby ; George Abney,
of the second monument, was the eldest son and heir of John.
Charles J Cox, Notes on the Churches of Derbyshire, Vol. 3 (1877) p.
521
http://www.archive.org/details/notesonchurcheso03coxjiala
Regards,
John
WJho...@aol.com
watso...@gmail.com writes:
> Here lieth the bodies of (George) Abney esquier and Ellene his (wife
> which George) deceased the firste day of Marche in the year of our
> Lord God 157 (8 and the saide Ellene) deceased the iii day of Decembr
> in the year of our Lord God M°V°lxxi.
>>
Thanks that explains it. Some kind of scan-reader turned this odd symbol
"°V°" into a cVc.
Apparently this symbol which I've not seen before must mean "500" which
today we write as "D"
WJho...@aol.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals#Alternate_forms
The tiny symbols encasing a number evidently are meant to promote that
symbol into the hundreds, so (V) is "five in parenthesis" if you will which is
supposed to mean "five HUNDRED" instead of just five.
John Watson
> In a message dated 1/28/2010 2:50:31 AM Pacific Standard Time,
>
> > Here lieth the bodies of (George) Abney esquier and Ellene his (wife
> > which George) deceased the firste day of Marche in the year of our
> > Lord God 157 (8 and the saide Ellene) deceased the iii day of Decembr
> > in the year of our Lord God M°V°lxxi.
>
> Thanks that explains it. Some kind of scan-reader turned this odd symbol
> "°V°" into a cVc.
>
> Apparently this symbol which I've not seen before must mean "500" which
> today we write as "D"
Actually it's "M" superscript "o" followed by "V" superscript "c"
Mo meaning thousand
Vc meaning 5 hundred.
Regards,
John
jkbrown92
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks! I have been searching for confirmation on that text and also
for a better photo.
jkbrown92
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks, I bow to expertise of you, Dr. Keats-Rohun and to Mr. Lloyd. I
will be disconnecting the two lines in my data. Oh well, there goes
about 10 generations! <g> Now my goal is to try to prove the link
from William De Abney who acquired Willesley back to William D'Aubigny
Brito, and to try to trace the line back further. All of the Abney
lineage that I have comes from other researchers, and most of the
English line comes from a family researcher from back in the 1960s I
believe. I have only recently started trying to proof the links and
learn as much of their history as I can.
John
jkbrown92
George Abney I know is correct, he is included in Burke's Commoners
and other sources. Where the "Henry" came from I am not sure. I will
probably either strike it from my database or at least list it as an
alternant name with a note that it is suspect.
jkbrown92
>
> - Show quoted text -
No only one Paul Abney. The "now Derbyshire" was my error. WIlesley
was once in Leicestershire but is now in Derbyshire and I think that
in changing several of those I accidentally included this listing.
Notice that I have in correct in his birthplace. Regarding the term
"trademan." That is the information that is in the family history.
Note that his father, Edmund Abney, was younger son and Willesley
passed to his older brother. Edmund left Willesley and moved to
Leicester and went into "trade." He rose to freeman, then counsellor
and finally to lord mayor of Leicester. I do not know what the "trade"
was, but I am assuming that he was a lawyer. Perhaps tradesman is the
wrong term to use. Paul was probably also a lawyer or something
similar.
Renia
You have Edmund termed as a "tradesman" but he was also an Alderman and
later a mayor.
Do not confuse today's view of "tradesmen" with the members of these
Livery Companies, who were the local politicians of their day.
Tradesman is the wrong term. Tradesman was for the lower class, who
didn't become mayors.
Your Abney who was an Alderman and a Mayor would have belonged to one of
the trades guilds. See the Livery Companies at Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livery_Company
The corporation book for Leicester probably exists somewhere. I have one
for Dorchester which is extremely detailed. It is highly likely Edmund
Abney was a member of one of these London Guilds.
I expect you are aware of the township of Abney in Derbyshire. It is
just as possible your ancestors took their surname from the township,
and not from the earlier owners of the township.
jkbrown92
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thank you! This was extremely helpful, both the information on the
Guilds/Liverys and the links to the information on the township of
Abney, particularly the last link. I see that Yeatman concluded that
the name Abney came from Albini. I understand your statement that my
ancestors might have taken their name from the town rather than the
Albini family, but given that my direct ancestor, John De Abney,
married De Ingwardby and gained the estate of Willesley I am
concluding that they came from gentry (at least minor gentry). I think
this supports the link to Aubigny Brito although there are a lot of
steps in between to prove if possible.
I had prior found intormation about a Richard Abney, from Eyam, being
an archer at Agincourt so the mention of links to woodsmen and archers
was interesting,
Renia
Mr Pym Yeatman seems pretty determined to prove Abney and Albini were
the same name.
"The Archers" he says, "acted as if they were members of the Albini
family called by another name."
This is, of course, quite possible, and might account for their
possession of Abney - if Abney and Albini be indeed the same name. (So
says the writer of the second web page, below.)
The site mentions Amicia de Stoke.
She was daughter of Henry de Albini of Cainhoe and Cecilia de Caorces,
and became a nun of Sopwell. Henry was son of Nigel de Albini of Cainhoe
and Cecilia, daughter of Patrick de Caorces and had another son, Robert.
Nigel de Albingi (sic), ancestor of the Albinis of Cainhoe,
Bedfordshire, was seigneur of Saint-Martin-d'Aubigny, Manche. He married
Amice de Ferrers and had three sons, Henry, William and Nigel. This is a
different family to that of Albini Brito.
> I understand your statement that my
> ancestors might have taken their name from the town rather than the
> Albini family, but given that my direct ancestor, John De Abney,
If you are sure he is your direct ancestor.
I imagine it would be this John de Abney's family who took their name
from the village of Abney, rather than give their name to that village.
Other families from the same village may also have used the same
nomenclature at different times, but be unrelated.
The ancient name of the village of Abney in Derbyshire, was Habenai
which was the land of William Peverel at the time of Domesday. Thus the
name of the village is prior to the arrival of the surname of Albini in
England.
> married De Ingwardby and gained the estate of Willesley I am
> concluding that they came from gentry (at least minor gentry). I think
> this supports the link to Aubigny Brito although there are a lot of
> steps in between to prove if possible.
It cannot support that because they were two different families.
However, the Domesday landholders of Willesey, were the Ferrers and it
eventually passed out of that family and eventually to the Ingwardby family.
> I had prior found intormation about a Richard Abney, from Eyam, being
> an archer at Agincourt so the mention of links to woodsmen and archers
> was interesting,
That is a very long shot. Most soldiers were archers at the time. There
was a law that every adult male had to practice archery on a Sunday, so
serious was medieval archery. And, to some extent, most medieval men
were soldiers at some point or other, because of their obligations to
their lord or because they were the lord of the manor.
jkbrown92
Yes, I am fairly certain that he is my ancestor. The line up until the
acquistion of Willesley is well researched, not by me but I number of
well qualified researchers. They have had access to the Willesley
papers, etc. Their work is backed up by the work of Burke, Lloyd and
other authorities. It is beyond John De Abney who married D'Ingwardby
that there is much doubt.
>
> I imagine it would be this John de Abney's family who took their name
> from the village of Abney, rather than give their name to that village.
> Other families from the same village may also have used the same
> nomenclature at different times, but be unrelated.
>
> The ancient name of the village of Abney in Derbyshire, was Habenai
> which was the land of William Peverel at the time of Domesday. Thus the
> name of the village is prior to the arrival of the surname of Albini in
> England.
>
> > married De Ingwardby and gained the estate of Willesley I am
> > concluding that they came from gentry (at least minor gentry). I think
> > this supports the link to Aubigny Brito although there are a lot of
> > steps in between to prove if possible.
>
> It cannot support that because they were two different families.
That is not certain. I have a chart from one of these researchers
showing both the Arundell and Brito lines down till Willesley and
there are a number of family connections. I am NOT claiming that the
two d'Aubigny lines are the same, I am saying that certain families
like D'Ingwardby, Bigod and others connect to both lines. The mention
of Amicia de Stoke may or may mean that I am following the wrong line.
It is a good lead though.
>
> However, the Domesday landholders of Willesey, were the Ferrers and it
> eventually passed out of that family and eventually to the Ingwardby family.
>
> > I had prior found intormation about a Richard Abney, from Eyam, being
> > an archer at Agincourt so the mention of links to woodsmen and archers
> > was interesting,
>
> That is a very long shot. Most soldiers were archers at the time. There
> was a law that every adult male had to practice archery on a Sunday, so
> serious was medieval archery. And, to some extent, most medieval men
> were soldiers at some point or other, because of their obligations to
> their lord or because they were the lord of the manor.
Not sure I'm following you here. I did find a record of Richard Abney
of Eyam on a list of the archers at Agincourt. I also found other
records connecting him to the family. My sources are listed on my
website. I had only wondered how a local "farmer" would become so
skilled with the longbown, but now you have explained that.
Renia
I'm saying it's a long shot between the archer of Abney village and the
fact there was a Richard Abney who was apparently an archer at
Agincourt. The archer bit is the long shot. Not the Abney bit.
WJho...@aol.com
one particular family descent, not an area or something, have a *great*
tendency to make connections that are simply not supported by any credible
evidence.
That is why I do not trust sources that come from "family". I want to see
the evidence directly, myself. You have to understand that while *you*
might trust some unnamed researcher, we do not.
It's all well and good to talk about a certain person, or how a certain
person might connect to another near them in time, but once you start stating
baldly that a certain line is good over many generations, you're going to
have to start showing the evidence, not merely stating that some supposed
evidence exists.
So if you have the evidence, then show it. Otherwise you should be
scouring the sources FOR the evidence, not on here proclaiming that you have it,
but not showing it :)~~
Will "Cranky Puss" Johnson
jkbrown92
You are the one that told me to trust Burke. What I am saying is that
Burke supports the family history up until John D'Abney who married
D'Ingwardby. I'm saying that I trust the history up until that point.
Beyond that point I have said all along that I question the links and
am looking for evidence to prove or disprove the lineage. I said that
in my very first post. What evidence have I "proclaimed" that I have?
WJho...@aol.com
jkbr...@gmail.com writes:
> You are the one that told me to trust Burke. What I am saying is that
> Burke supports the family history up until John D'Abney who married
> D'Ingwardby. I'm saying that I trust the history up until that point.
> Beyond that point I have said all along that I question the links and
> am looking for evidence to prove or disprove the lineage. I said that
> in my very first post. What evidence have I "proclaimed" that I have?>>
If you scan again my email, I don't think you'll find the word "trust" in
it.
Burke is what he is. Somewhere between a fairly decent "family history"
source, and a mediocre-to-poor scholarly source.
One of the main advantages to Burke, in this area, is that he covers all or
most of the relevant families, and so you can build a line, by flipping
back and forth, instead of researching into a dozen other sources. Another
advantage, is that Burke's works have been out-there for 150 years and more,
and so IF there are corrections, it's quite possible you might find those sort
of notations, in the works of others. That is to say, something like
"Burke says blah blah blah, but this document shows us that he missed a
generation...." ETC like that.
"Trust" is not a good word to use in this case. Burke is evidence that
someone told him, or he thought, the line went that way, at that time. The
proper word here would be "evidence", it's not a religious dogma to be trusted.
What you proclaimed you have was in your last email. If what you have so
far is solely this Burke's entry, than you don't have much at all.
I would recommend, for one thing, adding the relevant Visitation entries at
the very least to your database. See if they also support the line, and
how or conflict and how and make the appropriate notes.
The A2A (Procat, etc) database is online, you should search it for the
relevant members of your family. Remembering that you're not *solely* looking
to push the line back behind what Burke said. You should be *also* looking
to confirm that line that he shows. His bald statements, are no better than
the bald statements of others without citing evidence, except for the
factors I mentioned above in his favor. Wide dispersal, liklihood of finding
corrections in the works of others, and particular disinterest in forcing a
connection where none have evidence.
Will Johnson
taf
> On Jan 28, 5:07 pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
>
> You are the one that told me to trust Burke. What I am saying is that
> Burke supports the family history up until John D'Abney who married
> D'Ingwardby. I'm saying that I trust the history up until that point.
Well, perhaps you missed the undercurrent of his comment. As I
understood it, it was not that Burke is a good source, it was that
Burke was so credulous that he would have repeated it had he heard
it. If it is absent from Burke, then it was probably concocted more
recently. Thus he was suggesting the use of Burke, not a a
genealogical source, but rather as a snapshot of the degree to which a
Abney origin myth had developed by Burke's time.
Essentially he is using Burke in the same manner that Sissam used the
earlier forms of the Anglo-Saxon royal genealogy - to show the stages
in the development of what became a full-fledged descent from Adam (oh
no, not that again). Along these lines, I just found on Google Books
an article that uses the genealogical information shared by Beowulf
and AEthelweard's chronicle, viewed in the context of Sissam's
reconstruction of the genealogical development seen in the ASC, to
present an alternative view on the dating of the epic than that
espoused by Whitlock. A good example of genealogy as something more
than a self-contained pursuit aimed at collecting and connecting
names.
taf
Renia
Nicely put, Will.
Alex Maxwell Findlater
Translate this back into Latin and you get Anno Domini M[illesim]o
quinque[centissim]o septuagesimo uno.
The numbers are adjectives and agree in case with the word "Anno", so
end in "o" which has been, as often it was in charters, written as a
superscript and very seriously abbreviated. It's not a small "c"
superscript, it's a small "o".
Matt Tompkins
> was once in Leicestershire but is now in Derbyshire and I think that
> in changing several of those I accidentally included this listing.
Actually Willesley was originally in Derbyshire but is now in
Leicestershire (it and several other nearby parishes were transferred
in 1897). The only parish to move the other way, from Leicestershire
to Derbyshire, was Netherseal and Overseal.
Matt Tompkins
jkbrown92
I have have evidence that Edmund's son, Dannett, was a maltster in
Leicester. Possibly he was in the Brewers Guild, but that is a guess.
I did find that Sir Thomas Abney, Lord Mayor of London in 1700, was a
member of the Fishmongers Livery in London. He got in via
apprenticeship. He was first elected Alderman and then later Lord
Mayor. Sir Thomas connects back to George Abney and Ellen Wolseley of
Willesley.