Abney-Hastings

21.  Philippa Plantagenet, born 16.8.1355 Eltham, Kent, died 7.1.1377/8, married after 15.2.1359 Queens Chapel, Reading, Berkshire, with Edmund “the good” Mortimer, born 1.2.1351/2 Llangoed Llyswen, Breconshire, Wales, died 27.12.1381 Dominican Friary, Cork, Ireland.

22.  Elizabeth Mortimer, born 12.2.1370/1 Usk, Monmouthshire, died 12.4.1417, married Sir Thomas de Camoys, who succeeded to the family estates in 1372. He was summoned to Parliament from 20.8.1383 to 26.2.1420/1 by writs directed Thome Camoys ch’r , whereby he is held to have become Lord Camoys. He died 28.3.1421 and was buried at Trotton.

23.  Alice de Camoys, married Sir Leonard Hastings, of Kirby, co. Leicester, and Burton Hastings, co. Warwick, died 20.10.1455

24.  Sir William Hastings, of Kirby, co. Leicester, and Burton Hastings, co. Warwick, born before 1431.  On account of his great sevices against Henry VI, the Earls of Pembroke and Wiltshire, and other rebels and traitors, he was raised to the rank of a Baron, thereby becoming Lord Hastings, and on 17.2.1461/2 the King granted him the lordship, barony and honour of Hastings.

25.  Edward Hastings, 2nd Lord Hastings of Hastings and Lord Hastings of Hungerford,  born 26.11.1466. He died between 4 Nov. And 15 Nov. 1506. Married before 18.2.1480/1 Mary suo jure Baroness Botreaux (1368), Baroness Hungerford (1426) and Baroness Moleyns (1445), daughter and heiress of Thomas Hungerford.

26.  George Hastings of Hastings, Lord Hastings of Hastings (1461) and Lord Hastings of Hungerford (1482), born 1488, died 24.3.1543/4 and was buried at Stoke Pogis, Bucks. Ne was created 8.12.1529 1st Earl of Huntingdon. He succeeded on his mother´s death, about 1533, as Lord Botreaux, Lord Hungerford and Lord Moleyns. Married about Dec. 1509 Anne, widow of Sir Walter Herbert and daughter of Henr Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham.

27.  Francis Hastings, 2nd Earl of Huntingdon, born about 1514, died 23.6.1560 and was buried at Ashby-de-la-Zouch. Married  1532 Catherne, daughter of Henry Pole, Lord Montague.

28.  George Hastings, 4th Earl of Huntingdon, born about 1540. He ded 30.12.1604 and was buried at Ashby-de-la-Zouch 25.3.1605. Married July 1557 Dorothy, daughter of Sir John Port, of Etwall, co. Derby.

29.  Francis Hastings, styled Lord Hastings, born 1560, died London 17.12.1595. Married before 1585 Sarah, daughter of Sir James Harington, of Exton, Rutland.

30.  Henry Hastings, 5th Earl of Huntingdon, born 24.4.1586 at Exton, died a Ashby-de-la-Zouch 14.11.1643. Married 15.1.161 Elizabeth, daughter of Ferdinando Stanley, 5th Earl of Derby.

31.  Ferdinando Hastings, 6th Earl of Huntingdon, born 18.1.1608/9 at Ashby and died at Donnington Park 13.2.16556 and was buried at Ashby. Married 7.8.1623 Lucy, daughter of Sir John Davies, of Englefield, Berks., by Eleanor, dr. of George Tuchet, 1st Earl of Castlehaven.

32.  Theophilus Hastings, 7th Earl of Huntingdon, born 10.12.1650. He died in Carlesstreet, St. James´s Square, 30.5.1701, and was buried at Ashby. Married 2ndly 8.5.1690 in Westminster Abbey Frances, daughter of Francis Leveso Fowler, of Harnage Grange, and widow of Thomas Needham, 6th Viscount Kilmorey.

33.  Theophilus Hastings, 9th Earl of Huntingdon, born 12.11.1696. He died of apoplexy 13.10.1746. Married Staunton 3.7.1728 Selina, 2nd daughter and co-heir of Washington Shirley, 2nd. Earl Ferrers. From this marriage:

• Francis, follows

• Elizabeth, follows Lineage Abney-Hastings Arms & Name

34.  Francis Hastings, 10th Earl of Huntingdon, Lord Botreaux, Lord Hungerforf, Lord Moleyns, Lord Hastings (of Hastings), Lord Hastings (of Hungerford), born 13.3.1728/9. He died unmaried, suddenly, while sitting at the table, in the house of his nephew, Lord Rawdon, 2.10.1789, aged 60, and was buried at Ashby-de-la-Zouch.

The Dutchess of Hamilton wrote in one of her letters, dated 29.5.1769, about the 10th Earl: "I can never believe Lord Huntingdon will marry. He holds women in such a contemptable light, that to be sure he never will, never trust one of us with his honour."

Nevertheless the 10th Earl had at least one illegitimate child:

35.  Lieutenant General Charles Hastings, 1st. Baronet, of Willesley Hall. He was  a distinguished Indian General, a colonel of the 12th Regiment of Foot, and Knight-Grand-Cross of the Royal Hanoverian Guelphic order and obtained a Baronetcy 25 febr. 1806. He was an Atheist, as he showed pretty plainly by his directions for his burial, his mind had given way and he ended his unhappy career by shooting himself. He died 30th September 1823, leaving an only son, the 2nd Baronet.

The 1st Baronet married Parnel Abney, of Willesley Hall, daughter and heir of Thomas Abney.   Lady Parnel Abney passed her days in seclusion at Willesley, afflicted by partial blindness. From this marriage two children were born:

• Charles, follows

• Frank Hastings, born 14th February 1794, died unmarried at Zante, on the 1st June 1828 of a wound received in action with the Truks.

36.  Sir Charles Abney-Hastings, of Willesley Hall in the county of Derby, born 1st October 1792. Succeeded to the title as second Baronet, upon the demise of his father on 30th Sept 1823, and obtained royal permission for himself and his late brother, Frank Hastings, Esq to assume the surname and arms of "Abney", in addition to those of their own family, as representatives of the ancient house of Abney, through their maternal grandfather, Thomas Abney, Esq of Willesley, in the county of Derby.

On 22.12.1823, to the memory of his maternal grandfather Thomas Abney, Esq, he received a grant to assume and use the surname of Abney in addition to and before that of Hasings and also to bear the arms of Abney quarterly in the second quarter with his patrnal arms[1].

As Sir Charles Abney-Hastings had always declared that at is death the estate should revert t the family (of Abney), he in 1844 settled it upon an entire stranger to the Abney family, who was the sister of the last Marquis of Hastings, who subsequently ruined himself and his family upon he racecourse. Sir Charles made it a condition, which the Clifton family had no option but to abey, since it was apparently in accordance with the wishes of his ancestors, from whom he derived the estates, that the holder of the Abney estate should take the name and arms of that family. Mr. Clifton, who married Lady Hastings, very properly assumed the Ingwardby coat, no doubt the Heralds employed arranging it legally for him, and Lord Loudoun and his descendants (see further on), although not inheriting a drop of Abney blood, upto this very day, remain burdened in perpetuity with their name and arms.

The story of this representor of the Abney family is a curious one. It is to be found in a report of an action, Kelly versus Abney, which was tried before the late Mr. Justice Wightman, at Derby, at the Summer Assizes of 1860. The Derby Courier of 4th August of that year has a full account of it.

It appears that Sir Charles Hastings, after he had deprived the Abney family of their inherentance by a settlement of 1844, purchased certain small properties which he did not mention in his will, and they descended to his heir-at-law, and Captain William Wootton Abney, the then owner of Measham, believing himself to be the heir, was induced to claim them. It was stated that he had been grievously misled by a pedigree at Willesley, compiled by Sir Charles himself, which emproperly disposed of he issue of Sir Edward Abney by his first wife Damaris Andrewes, by stating that all the children of Sir John Parker had died without issue. The judge (with the assent of Counsel on both sides) fully exonerated Captain Abney, as a man of high honour, from improperly contesting the claim, declaring "that it is quite evident hat ir Charles Hastings has misled those who were interested in knowing the true state of affairs".

It appeared from certain letters, put in evidence, that so far from the Wellesley family having been in ignorance of the existence of their relations, they were, in fact, upon bad terms, and these letters prove it.

In one letter Sir Edward was addressed by his son-in-law Sir John Parker (who was son of the Archbishop of Dublin and a man of position), as "Sir" and his son, Abney Parker, afterwards, in 1700, declined an offer made him to go onto the church, stating that he preferred the army as a career; five years later he entered as a barrister at Gray´s Inn, which must have been well known to Sir Edward Abney, wjo was also a barrister.

Sir John Parker had four sons and several daughters. John the second son was executor to Abney, his brother, who died in 1728; he left two daughters and coheirs: Mary, wfe of Francis Schuldham, and Jane, wife of John Sankey, of New Park, who died 1768, leaving by his wife, a son, Abney Parker Sankey, a barrister, who died without issue, and two daughters, who subsequently became soheirs of their brother; Lettice, the elder, the wife of Thmas Kelly, of Tabbervaddy, left a son, John, who, by Frances Cusack, left a son, Thomas, who was one of the plaintiffs in the above-mentioned action.

The other plaintiff was Edward Kelly, son of Denis Kelly, son of George Kelly, by Jane, sister and coheir with Lettice Sankey. This was so clear on the evidence that the verdict was, in fact, taken by consent; but there are very grave doubts whether it was correct, and whether it was properly fought out.

It was possible that Sir Charles Hastings had made the eroneous statement in his pedigree because he only intended to mention those of the family with whom he was on good terms; it was unfortunate that his misstatement should cause the family to waste money in costs, but that was the fault of their wn solicitors, especially as the existence of the Kellys´families appear to have been well known to the Cotton family, who, after the extinction of the issue of Sir Edward, would become next in succession. Abigail Cotton, sister of Sir Edward, aving married Ralf Cotton, of Bellaport, and thier son Rowland, by marriage with the daughter and heir of Sir Samuel Sleigh, became possessed of Etwall, in Derbyshire, from whom several families, now living, descend; Miss Constance Lilian Cotton is now Lady of Etwall, and her aunt, Lady Hannah Bertha, now of Hampton Court Palace, is the widow of the late General Palliser. Te Eyers of Router descend from one sister of Roland, and the Cottons (Viscounts Cornbermere) from the other. If the Kellys were inknown, the Cottons were in a very different position.

The question of the heir-at-law of Sir Charles Hastings raises a curious question of law. Could they prove through the mother, he was the son of an illegitimate father, and, as the law stood prior to the Wills Act, he could have had no heir-at-law, and the property would have escheated to the Crwn or to the Lord of the Manor. The then recent Wills Act makes no mention of illegitimate persons, but it declares that the heir to be sought for in the person last possessed who did not inerit, and as Sir Charles, himself, purchased these estates, they could not ave descended through hs mother, through whom alone he could have an heir.

Of course, if this had been old Abney property his mother might have been heit to it, even before the Act. The only justification for Capt. Abney´s defence was whether the entail created upon marriage of James Abney with Mis Mainwaring had been barred by Sir Edward. This was a fact which could have bee proved independently of the Willesley Muniment room, because such acts are on record, but, strange to say, the point was not raised at the trial, and the probability is that the entail had not been barred and therefore that Sir Edward´s disposition in avour of his youngest son was invalid, and this may account for Sir Thmas, the judge, not having executed his will whilst there was any male issue existing. Such a device would be somethng like a fraud, but, of course, if the issue of James were disposed of, it could be properly executed. The judge´s severe stictures upon the conduct of Sir CharlesHastings were, of course, intended for Mr. Clifton, for refusing access to his muniment room, since a man can hardly be responsible for an act which occurred after his death, if that settlement was in existance. Mr. Clifton could not be justified as a man of honour in retaining the estates, there was no sense in referring to the honour of Captain Abney (although the honesty or intelligence of his solicitors migh have been impugned), because, if the heir could be traced through a female, the Cotton family were next in the inheritance and they were actually assisting he Kelly´s, the plaintiffs in the action, as it was well known to all parties.

 It is clear herefore, that the action was fought o the assumption that the entail had not been barred, but counsel were either too timid or too stupid to raise the point. It is simply ridiculous to read how hey admitted fact after fact which ought to have bee contested; the appeared to be playing into the plaintiff´s hands-if not to be riding for a fall, a common practice at the Bar, when it is desired to retain fees or shield the solicitor.

Although Mr. Clifton was not before the Court, his conduct in keeping back Sir Charles´ false pedgree was most reprehensible, and to a judge lke Mr. Wightman, a man of the highest honour, suc a conduct would be so regarded, and, if the counsel had given him a opportunity of throwing the blame upon a living man, he would not have hesitated to do so.

Of course, if the truth had cme out, Mr. Clifton would have been comelled to give up the estates to the tre heir and his refusal to run this risk would expose him to the reprobation of the judge. It is now apparant why access to the Willesley Muniment room has always been refused; he discovery of this settlement would have preserved the estates to the family.

No doubt Captain Abney was in the difficult position hat his grandfather had accepted a legacy of £ 5.000 under the will of Sir Charles Hastings which he ought ta have cntested, but possibly he might have taken this as well as the estates, to which, if the issue of James, son of Sir Edward, had failed, he was clearly entitled.

It will be seen that the wil of Sir Thomas admits his position as next in title after himself and his issue, and, in fact, if the issue of James were out of the way he did no wrong. It was the accident of his sudden death which made it appear that he was breaking the law. In effect, unlike his father, he was respecting the entail.

• Sources:
• Burke's Peerage and Baronetage
• Cokayne's ' The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom'