Update: My second installment at chipping away at Round’s arguments can be found here:
Before I get to the heart of J H Round’s work, I wish to preface this writing.
Recently on Geni.com, I have been engaged in a discussion regarding the facts surrounding John Carrington alias Smyth who is said to have been buried in Rivenhall Churchyard in Essex in June of 1446. Contributions from everyone have been much appreciated.
I’ll start by listing my sources starting earliest to most recent:
William Dugdale – The Antiquities of Warwickshire, Illustrated [vol1] [vol2]
Philip Morant – History and Antiquities of Warwickshire
William Arthur Copinger – History of the Records of the Smith-Carington Family
(derived from the archives of Mr. Robert Smith-Carington*,**)
John Horace Round – Peerage and Pedigree
Lionel M. Angus-Butterworth** – Old Cheshire Families and their Seats
Clarke and Hodgeson – Leicestershire Pedigrees and Royal Descents
* I wish to make it known that Mr. Robert Smith-Carington adopted the hyphenated surname himself. He seemed determined, even if impossible, to connect his Smith line to the Smiths of Rivenhall.
** I also wish to state that it is my opinion that the Smiths of Cropwell, Tithby, Nottinghamshire, ancestors of the Smiths of Smith Bank & Co. are not likely descended from the Smiths of Rivenhall. All of the above authors will inevitably have conflicting opinions of things.
My primary “adversary” in this story has been a one Erica Howton (and more recently Andrew Lancaster), a woman who curates the Geni.com profile for a number of individuals I find myself researching these day, and stands firm with J H Round on his opinion that the Smiths of Rivenhall were not descended from the Carringtons of Cheshire. Erica has been a very active contributor on Geni.com and is a curator for many of the profiles that pertain to the individuals who were associated with John Smyth, Esq. of Rivenhall, Essex. Amy Nordhal Cote has also been a valued contributor by proving research avenues that may not be immediately obvious to someone who is, for the first time, seriously researching John Carrington alias Smyth. Both individuals have demonstrated their skill in finding obscure information on the internet regarding our subjects of research.
(I may periodically update this page with new or corrected information, so this is a disclaimer.)
Ok, to the heart of the matter! Fortunately for me John Horace Round did me the favor of organizing his points of argument in his book. Due to the volume of his commentary, I must post my analysis in two parts. Here I begin with the first half of my criticism of “The Great Carrington Imposture” by John Horace Round.
I have organized this list according to the talking points Round set out at the beginning of his work.
Please bear with me. This is a lot of information. Some entries are simply facts, others commentary.
–BEGIN–
Brown, Jones, and Smith
- Suggests for “Smith” lines there is no “hope” in proving a “noble” ancestry
- Calls Smith a “distressing” name
The two John Smiths
- Makes allusion to Smiths of Hill Hall and their suggested Plantagenet connection
- Admits that the two Smith lines’ histories are irrelevant to each other’s as a matter of proving either lineage credible.
- Suggests that John Smith of Hill Hall’s son, Sir Thomas Smith of Hill Hall (professor), fabricated a pedigree so that, after rising to the prominent position of Vice-Chancellor of Ely, he could inherit a coat of arms.
- He also suggests that the suggested narrative of how John Shakespeare’s coat of arms was obtained has a bearing on Sir Thomas Smith of Hill Hall. (I have no information on William Shakespear’s coat of arms.)
- He clearly is making assumptions about completely unrelated families and lineages based upon other completely unrelated families. Each line must be examined individually for any analysis of their lineages to be credible. He is comparing apples to oranges in my opinion.
Three Smith families claim to be ‘Caringtons’
- Begins with an attack on the Smiths of Cressing Temple by saying “It was not, as a rule, the founder of the house who indulged in these fantasies: he knew from what he had risen, and other knew it too.”
- This is incredibly smug of Round. I feel like it is him saying “You know you’re lying! Quit pretending!”
- His references to “Barker” are marked with an air of skepticism. I believe he is suggesting that this officer issued arms to fabricated lineages frequently enough to make anything attached to his name incredible.
[Here I digress, but the subject matter is not completely uninteresting or irrelevant. I wish to show the credibility of the individual Round is so ready to criticize. ]
- “Barker” appears to have been a Christopher Barker, son of William Barker of North Riding, Yorkshire. He started as a private officer of arms of Charles Brandon and was later made “Lisle pursuivant” in 1513, and “Suffolk Herald” in 1517. In 1522 he was made a royal officer of arms as “Richmond Herald” and later still was promoted to “Norroy King of Arms”. On 15 July of the same year, he was promoted to “Garter Principal King of Arms”. (from WikiPedia)
- Please note that Round was never directly involved with The College of Arms in any capacity and independently published all of his works, some resulting in a “level of acrimony [that] was sufficiently high [enough] that the editor was forced to close correspondence on the subject.”
- Barker’s evidence during the trial of Henry Howard, Earl of Surry was integral in the Earl being found guilty of a “charge of treasonably quartering the royal arms”.
- The Howards had little regard for “new men” such as Cromwell and Seymour. His trail and subsequent execution were during the time of Henry VIII, a man paranoid about the possibility of Henry Howard usurping the throne. You see, Henry Howard was descended from kings on both sides of his tree. His mother from Edward III, his father Edward I.
- Henry Howard was reared with the illegitimate son of Henry VIII, Henry FitzRoy (a man we later find was born at Blackmore Priory, a placed Henry VIII frequented to engage in extramarital affairs. Henry VIII referred to Blackmore Priory as “Jericho”, the same priory that became a possession of the Smiths of Blackmore, descendants of the Smiths of Rivenhall.
- Not to digress further, but Henry FitzRoy was a son of a Elizabeth Blount, a daughter of a Sir John Blount and Catherine Pershall.
- Is it not interesting we find a connection to “Jericho” and a Blount line in this narrative? [See the Smith, Croke, and English story]
- Round is saying that the man who provided evidence for the execution of Henry Howard granted arms to the Smiths of Cressing Temple, a family who Round is claiming were “new men” and supposedly would not have been liked by Henry Howard. Does Barker intentionally kill an Earl and forge some pedigrees for some folks who came into new money? Not likely.
- Round is trying to cast doubt on the credibility of the lineage of the Smiths of Rivenhall by pointing to a narrative involving a herald who helped to convict a (at least perceived) rival of Henry VIII (a much larger picture) and not the facts surrounding their Smyth lineage.
- Smiths of Cressing Temple were related to Smiths of Saffron Walden
- Sir Charles Smith is Lord Carrington in the year 1643.
- Round wishes to suggest that since there is more than one family making a claim to a descent of the Smiths of Rivenhall that the Carrington/Smith lineage is fabricated.
- A Mr. Richard Smith, a successful businessman, adopts the surname “Smith-Carington” in 1878.
- Richard Smith was the original possessor of the archives later entrusted to Dr. Walter Arthur Copinger, LL.D., F.S.A., Professor of Law at Victoria University.
- It can be shown, in agreement with Round, that the John Smith of Cropwell, Tithby in Nottingham is not descended from any Smith of Ashby-Folville, but an earlier John Smith of Cropwell, Tithby dying circa 1602.
- This John Smith is the progenitor of the Smiths of Smith Bank & Co, the ancestors of the most modern incarnation of The Lords Carrington.
- We must make sure we remember that Mr. Robert Smith”-Carington” not being descended from the Smiths of Nottingham, and they in turn not being descended from the Smiths of Rivenhall, does not itself discredit the suggested ancestry of the Smiths of Rivenhall.
- He prefaces his next section by stating that he can prove the Smiths of Rivenhall are not descended from John Carrington of Cheshire. Then, after “proving” this, he will discredit the other artificially affiliated Smith lines with the Smiths of Rivenhall. Again, proof of a lack of a connection from (A) the Nottingham Smiths to (B) Mr. Robert Smith-Carington, and from (A)/(B) to (C) the Smiths of Rivenhall does not itself discredit the claim of descent of the Smiths of Rivenhall from the Carringtons of Chester.
The Conquest ancestor
- Round first attempts to “disentangle” i) the (according to Round) “16th century fabrication” that is a personal account (by John Carrington alias Smith) of the ancestry of the Smiths of Rivenhall being descended from Sir Mychell of Carrington from ii) the descent of Hamo de Carington.
- Round first states that, after an enquiry to The College of Arms, there is no recorded descent from “Sir Mychell” to the family of Mr. Robert Smith-Carinton. I will agree with this, but this does not discredit the existence of “Sir Mychell of Carington”. It simply shows that Mr. Robert Smith-Carington does not have strong evidence to lay a claim of descent from the Smiths of Rivenhall.
- Further, an audacious claim made by Mr. H. H. Smith-Carington, that he is “the heir male of the senior line” is specious at best. We know this is not true.
- Round then goes on to attack the existence of Hamo de Carington himself by saying “Not a scrap of evidence is produced to show that this Hamo de Carington ever existed in the flesh, and I do not hesitate to say that he is a fictitious personage.”
- This claim can be solidly countered by the following evidence. After Round, a gentleman by the name of Lionel M. Angus-Butterworth authored a work on the Smith/Carrington pedigree. Regarding the matter of Hamo de Carington, he provided the following transcript of a record pertaining to Sir Jordan of Carington, a suggested grandson of Hamo of Carington.
- Taken from Butterworth’s book: “Upon the death of Hamo the lordship of Carington passed to his son and heir Sir William de Carington, who was succeeded by his son Sir Jordan, [described as] “ fil Willielmi fil Hamonis de Carington.” This Sir Jordan was one of the Knights of Ranulph de Gernon, fourth Earl of Chester, and was present at the battle of Lincoln, the 2nd Frebuary, II4I, when King Stephen was taken prisoner.
- This information will be easily verifiable. Further, Butterworth cites “an early ‘Armorial General de France’ deeds and other papers in the municipal archives of Rouen [in Normandy, France], and the publications of the ‘Société de l’Historie de Normandie’ ” as his source. This undoubtedly will prove to be credible.
- Rounds claim of Hamo de Carington being a “ficticious personage” has been strongly countered.
- Further, Round goes on to suggest that Hamon de Masci and Hamon de Carington are one in the same. This appears to be from an apparent lack of mention of Carington in the Domesday survey. An analysis of the relevant records show that “Carington” was indeed omitted from Domesday. However, the source for the lineage of Jordan de Carington shows that Hamo de Carington was not described as Hamo de Mascy (Hamon de Masci). Baron Hamon De Masci had his own heirs and is mentioned specifically as a variant of “Hamo de Massey” in these records. I cannot believe that one individual would be mentioned by two different names when describing lines of descent and matters of inheritance.
- Round then goes on to (again) make a comparison between the lineage of Mr. Robert Smith-Carington (specifically the lineage of his mother, a Hanbury) and the identity of Hamo de Carington and Hamo de Massy. The suggestion is that since one line is contrived, the whole of the identity of Hamo de Carington is fabricated. This is not sound logic. Again, each lineage must be exclusively analyzed for credibility. A failure of genuineness on the part of one line does not constitute a strong case for fabrication of another.
The 16th century document
- Round first sets out his vectors of attack. I) the Carington pedigree down to “John Carrington” and ii) the provenance of the origins of the Smith name as it came to be associated with a descendant of a Carrington of Cheshire.
- Round describes when the Smith/Carrington pedigree was first recorded, in 1577.
- Sir John Smith of [Little] Baddow in Essex brough to Cooke, Clarencieux of the College of Arms “two ancient writings”. One was provided by the aforementioned “John Smith of Baddow”, the other by “Henry Smith of Cressing Temple”. Henry’s heirs were “The Nevills of Holt”.
- Here is what we are having described to us on page 47 of Round’s book: in 1602, Rouge Dragon, a herald, wrote that on 20 May 1577, Cooke, the then Clarencieux, recorded a lineage for the Smiths of Rivenhall, from two sources, one being provided by Henry Smith of Cressing Temple, the other by Sir John Smith of Little Baddow. Later, in 1870, found in the charter chest of The Nevills of Holt [2] was one of these two original source documents used by Cooke in 1577. A Mr. Horwood appears to have been an employee of the “Historical MSS Commission” that rediscovered the record.
- Dugdale is cited as saying that one of the original documents was at one time in the possession of a William Smith, Esq. of Cressing Temple [likely a descendant of Henry Smith of Cressing Temple] and was certified by Sir William Dethick, Knight Garter, the other was in the possession of Sir Charles Smith of Wooten and Ashbye in Warwickshire [likely a descendant of John Smith of Baddow]. Robert Cooke in 1577 certified these documents originally.
- Round agrees that the two documents were “a homogeneous whole”, but insists on challenging the descent of the Smiths from the Carringtons. To restate this a different way, two documents, from two different but related families, agree on their descent from the Carringtons, but Round continues to challenge the claim.
- On page 150, Round “trees out” the John Carrington alias Smith tree.
- I wish to note that Round does not provide source quotations for his trees, but only cites the works that he has read the narratives from.
- What Round is arguing here is weak. He claims that because the lineage that Rouge Dragon recorded differs from what Dr. Copinger recited in his book, the whole of the lineage is fabricated. I will state that this infuriates me as Round dismisses all logic from his argument.
- Keep in mind, as these lineages have been studied, these trees have been changed from a chart of a pedigree into a narrative and back again. When working with very similar names of individuals who are related to each other, undoubtedly, from either strained eyes or an exhausted mind, transcription errors occur. Further, even in this 21st century, even with the introduction of computers, transcription errors in lineages exist.
- Round fails to research himself the discrepancies between Copinger’s and Rouge Dragon’s pedigree charts. If there was a genuine interest in finding the truth of what Robert Cooke recorded in 1577, Round should have investigated. Then again, I am assuming Cooke’s record still exists. Why not go in search of the original documents as recorded by Cooke?
- I will later address the matter of Round decrying the original and handwritten John Smyth of Rivenhall pedigree as fabricated.
All turns on it
- In his attack against the incorrectly recorded trees, Round states “And on this document all depends: its opening words are the only evidence for Sir Michael’s very existence.”
- To counter this, we find a record that an “Adam” or “Adae” of Carington existed. As the source document eludes me, I will refer to where I found the pertinent information, a Geni page that cites a Facebook group! (please don’t laugh…)
- https://www.geni.com/people/Guillaume-de-la-Fert%C3%A9-Mac%C3%A9/6000000003827883045
- This page states that there existed an “Adae de Carrington”, a one time lord of The Manor of Carrington. According to the narrative that Round is familiar with regarding Sir Mychell of Carington (findable elsewhere on the internet), “Adam” of Carrington sold “full half of the Parish of Sale, near Manchester”, lands that the Lordship of Carrington possessed, and funded Sir Michael of Carrington.
- It can be shown through secondary records (transcriptions of primary records) that a Mychell of Carington, a son of Adae of Carington existed. See “The Visitation of Cheshire in the Year 1580”.
- https://books.google.com/books?id=Q_wUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA170&lpg=PA170&dq=Adae+of+Carington&source=bl&ots=96AQT9GxEZ&sig=BicrS5J6pwvU515wl69kWdfwS9E&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjF_rK6mMzRAhVBsVQKHbPkDT0Q6AEIJDAC#v=onepage&q=Adae%20of%20Carington&f=false
- “Ego Hamon de Massy dedi Thoma …. Exclam’atem totu Bromi croftum. Testibus Wm de Venables, Hamon fratre suo, Alano de tatton, Rob’to de Massy, Adae de Carrington, Matheo de Massy, Joh’es de Massy”. (Sorry for lack of correct punctuation).
- I will accept as a concession that it is possible Sir Michel existed at one time and possibly had his story embellished. Evidence is required to prove this however.
- If you really want to, you can try to prove that this visitation record is inaccurate, but I highly doubt it is as we find just who we expect to be together, the family of Hamon de Massy and the Lords of the Manor of Carrington.
It is false
- I think I overlapped my arguments for this section somewhere above and below this line.
Sir Michael, the Standard-bearer
- Round states that at the funeral of John Smith, “knight”, in attendance was the then contemporary “Lord Carrington”, his brother.
- Also at John Smith’s funeral, it was proclaimed that John Smith’s Carrington line was descended from Sir Michael of Carrington, the standard bearer.
- This is according to The Somerset Herald.
- On page 154, Round again claims that Sir Michael the standard bearer is a fabrication, an amalgam of personalities of heroic narratives. The relevant sources have been found to show that the dismissal of the existence of Sir Michael of Carrington and Hamo de Carington is illogical.
- I would like to identify any other individuals who may have been “standard bearers” to Richard I. The Henry Tyes (Teutonicus) individual seems an interesting place to start.
- I need to better archive my findings from credible internet sources that pertain to Sir Michael’s profile.
His mythical existence
- Round on page 156 enters into his argumentation about the physical nature of an arguably unrealistic device that is claimed to have transported Richard I’s standard while on the battlefield.
- I feel that Round’s use of this topic as an attempt to dismiss the existence of Sir Michael of Carrington is poor logic. The more relevant nature of the estate records and the like could have been explored, but Round digressed.
- I will argue (as I may while I’m on the topic), in agreement with Round (and see my Geni.com posting under John Smith of Rivenhall) that Copinger is just simply wrong about the nature of the assigned equipment as it pertained to a “standard bearer”.
- There were very large wooden structures that would have been affixed to ships, or even used in an encampment, but as a mobile standard bearer on horseback, engaged on the battlefield, a lance and flag would have been the equipment. It is foolish to think that a lone man would have pushed a large wheeled wooden device around an active battle field.
- See “The Battle of the Standard”. It’s interesting.
- The account of “a car surmounted by a tower as high as a minaret” comes from Bohadin (an Arabic historian).
His ‘costly’ crusade
- Round criticizes the passage at the bottom of page 157.
- Quoting Copinger: “Very little remained after two years to compensate for the loss of Sir Michael de Carington’s life, and the squandering of the proceeds of half the parish of Sale, except a report in the Archives of the Heralds, and an effigy …”
- He states on page 158 “It should prove of the highest interest to historians the more so as Heralds’ College was not even founded till nearly three centuries after the date of the Crusade.”
- I feel that here, Round is arguing with semantics. Copinger perhaps could be referring to a, contemporary (to Sir Michael) report that had thus been, much later, archived with the Heralds’ College.
- Regarding the “debet duos solidos pro eodem”, I need to be careful here. Copinger states that two entries on “De Oblatis Roll” are brothers of Sir Michael: a Mathew and another unnamed sibling.
- So what is “De Oblatis Roll”? Let’s explore what the word “Oblatis” means.
- https://books.google.com/books?id=iepJAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT1003&lpg=PT1003&dq=root+of+oblatis+latin&source=bl&ots=cu3SJL4dXp&sig=_TvKaax6mOacIby1_8Jnn9K98_U&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-4ciqqszRAhWIr1QKHa6_Ab8Q6AEINDAF#v=onepage&q&f=false
- “An oblate is a young child offered (oblatus) to a monastery or nunnery by his or her parents. In ecclesiastical Latin the term evokes the idea of a sacrificial gift.” I believe it is the origin of the word “obligation”.
- The roll Round cites appears to be a list of people and how much money they either i) gave as an offering or ii) owe to the crown. The list’s name means either “Obligations” (monies due?) or “(The) Offerings”, or at least this is the best translation I can get from researching Latin on Google.
- I used Google translate to, well, translate “Matheus of Karington debet duos solidos pro eodem.” Google says it means “Matheu of Karington should have two shillings for the same.” I don’t think this is correct.
- After doing some refinement of this enquiry, I find that the sentence likely means something more along the lines of “Matheus de Karington owes (or should owe, or owes you) two shillings ‘for the same’.”
- The word “debet” is derived from the root word “debeo” which means:
- To have or keep from someone
- To owe something, to be under obligation to and for something
- To be bound. In duty, bound to do something; “I ought”, “I must”, “I should”.
- I think it is possible the latin phrase means “Matheus of Karington is obligated to pay two shillings [for the same]”. Whether or not he paid it, I cannot tell. I do not find the word “debeo” or “debet” used to indicate that something was paid for, but rather, only in the sense that something is owed or due. I would like to see the rest of this “De Oblatis Roll”. I welcome a counter argument as I am no expert in Latin but have studied formal Spanish for a number of years.
His alleged relatives
- The relatives of Sir Michael of Carrington are not immediately known to myself. Credible sources that are not derivative works are needed.
–END–
This is the end of my part one of my criticism of “The Great Carrington Imposture” by J H Round. I may even have to break it into three portions.
Update: I have posted my 2nd installment of my criticisms of Round’s work.
-Chris
Tracing my Smiths - by Christopher A. Smith - © 2021 
As a fellow Smith, I can’t wait to hear more! My grandmother told me her grandfather (yes, my grandmothers grandfather, this goes WAY back) would tell her stories about how she was a descendant of the Carringtons. I thought it was just family lore because of J H Round. Now that I’m doing my own research (and read your persuasive article) I think the ol’ Oxford educated genealogist might have gotten his conclusion wrong about the smith-carringtons.
LikeLike
I guess I should have stated I’m a Smith descendant. That explains why my last name isn’t Smith, ha ha.
LikeLike
Hey Cameron. This is the first I’ve heard of someone say that their grandparents knew of this story. Would you mind sharing the details of your Smith ancestry, starting with your grandmother? Thanks for reading!
LikeLike
For notes, Capt. John Smith of Virginia fame was not related to the Carrington Smiths of Rivenhall, Essex.
LikeLike
Being descended through “(Q12) William Carington” in Copinger’s volume, your arguments are of more than passing interest and look forward to parts 2 and 3.
However you should consult “Carrington the Impostor” in The Morning Post (London, England), Friday, 13 December 1822. It predates Copinger by 85 years.
LikeLike
You should also consult “Carrington the Imposter”, The Morning Post (London, England), Friday, 13 December 1822, which antedates Copinger by 85 years.
LikeLike
Thanks for this. I have just struck this line in my genealogical research and I was worried when I saw a note about the “Carrington Imposture” on someone’s tree when I got back to the 1390s Smyths (just before the Eley part started to be added). I struck a similar problem when I found early colonial settlers in America called Ogden. Descendants of that family had almost certainly employed a ‘fake’ genealogist to come up with a pre-American lineage and it has been a dreadful annoyance having to discard so many online trees and try and find the truth of their origin. I found a few leads and parish records for them, but my heart sank when I realised it might have happened somewhere else in my tree too.
LikeLike
Except for copies of original records, you MUST discount all online material, especially other family trees, for you should assume that they are inherently untrustworthy, if they don’t cite each and every original source for their “facts”. These, and that is the vast majority, are only good for research hints, as most family history researchers steal their research from others, and/or make unwarranted and unidentified assumptions, assertions and post-modern interpretations and conclusions. Sometimes, I wonder why they don’t just make it all up. It would be easier, and they’d end up with a more exciting story, but I suppose they want their illusion of reality to make sense of themselves.
Anyway, with regards to Copinger, I have extract all his text for each my “lineage” of (A) Hamo, (B) Sir William, (C) Sir Jordan, (D) William, (E) Adam, (F1) Sir Michael, (G) William, (H1) William, (I1) Sir William, (J1) John, (K1) Sir William, (L5) Sir George, (M4) Sir William, (N5) Andrew, (O6) John, (P11) John and (Q12) William, and their siblings. Out of the 478 identifiable “facts”, 185 are not cited at all, and something like 150 of the remainder are inadequately or erroneously cited. I’ve actually managed to find evidence for events in that lineage that he hasn’t cited, such as a petition for protection against cattle rustling, pardons for rape use as a means of compelling widows to sell their property, forced marriages, libel and slander, divorce proceedings etc., and I wasn’t looking very hard either.
If you’re interested, consult the:
1) Catalogues of The National Archives, and the Cheshire Archives and Local Studies Centre,
2) Yorkshire Feet of Fines,
3) Victoria County Histories,
4) Parish Registers in Yorkshire, Cheshire and Lancashire,
5) The Soldier in Later Medieval England Databases of the University of Southampton,
6) Calendars of Patent Rolls,
7) Proceedings in the Courts of Chancery and Star Chamber etc.,
8) Indices of the Wills and Probate Records in the York Registry,
9) Yorkshire Visitations of 1584/5, 1612 and 1665,
10) “The Royalist Army in Northern England 1642-45 – Volume 2” by Peter Robert Newman, PhD Thesis from the University of York,
11) “Diary of the Marches of the Royal Army during the Great Civil War kept by Richard Symonds”,
12) “A List of Officers claiming to the Sixty Thousand Pounds, &c. granted by His Sacred Majesty for the Relief of His Truly-Loyal and Indigent Party – Which List is made Publique by the Consent and at the Desire of the Honourable the Commissioners appointed by Act of Parliament for Distribution of the said Moneys”,
13) United Grand Lodge of England – Register of Admissions, and so on.
No, I will not do a look up for you. All these are available online in one form or another, and you should have the delight and trouble of sourcing them, reading them in the original script, spelling and grammar, for yourself. Thus you’ll know that all mistakes will be yours, and not someone else who you can blame, and I find that is most humbling and good for the soul.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Care to share your research Jon? Thanks for the great source list. I’ll dig in when the Holidays are over.
LikeLike
No can or will do, as my research has been previously stolen and/or misrepresented. These days I only point people to where they can do their own research. Besides which, my research concentrates on (Q12) William and his younger son Robert and his eldest son James and his son Pilley.
I do have a copy of the divorce/libel papers of Jane Carrington and George Booth from 1589, but there are copyright issues involved so I won’t provide the images, and I am having major difficulties reading the script spelling and grammar, and its Elizabethan Latin, so I can’t provide a transcript.
Otherwise I recommend you look at:
1) The National Archives: SC 8/40/1959 – Special Collections – Ancient Petitions – To King and Council – Matilda Caryngton, Widow of William de Caryngton – Regarding Purchase of the Wardship and Marriage of Thomas Wever – Chester 1378.
2) The National Archives: SC 8/70/3488 – Special Collections – Ancient Petitions – To King and Council – People of the Wapentake of Salford in Lancashire – Regarding Cattle Rustling by Hamon de Mascy, William de Baggele, William Boydel, Geoffrey de Werbeltone, Robert le Prayers, Robert de Wenynton, John de Carintone, and his brother Thomas de Carintone – Salford Lancashire ca.1311.
These two files are free downloads, so you can get your own copies which will be useful only if you can read them, of course.
LikeLike
Oh yes … What “holidays”? Summer doesn’t start until December, and the school year doesn’t end until the following Friday.
LikeLike
Well, I suppose that’s relative to that Aussie calendar of yours. I’m in Florida in the US so we’re just getting over Thanksgiving from last week and coming up on Christmas in December. On another note, I don’t suppose you’ve done autosomal DNA testing? If you’re certain you’re descended from John Smith of Rivenhall, I’d like to see who your autosomal matches are in the major DNA testing company’s databases. Also, I’m curious about the nature of modern genealogical research that is being published under copyright. Do you charge for your distilled findings? Are there academic institutions that still back genealogical research? How can original source documents from public archives be considered under copyright? -Chris
LikeLike
You are mistaken. I am not descended from, nor claim to be descended from “John Smith of Rivenhall”. I am not convinced that fellow’s ancestral lineage, as given by Coppinger, is necessarily valid, and as mine doesn’t intersect until before the purported split, I’m not concerned about the arguments for or against the same and therefore have no interest in any autosomal tests or analyses, though I understand their uses in such cases to prove or disprove his ancestral lineage and hope someone who is descended from him has taken steps to have those tests and analyses done.
I do not share my own personal research, as that has been abused in the past. However I do research on request and payment, and that is a nice little earner.
Documents from archives are under copyright. In Australia that’s for 70 years after the death of their originator, with certain exceptions. After that they are in the public domain, provided that the originator is appropriately acknowledged. Where the originator is a servant of a sovereign entity, republic monarchy etc., that copyright never ends until that sovereign entity ceases to exist. Then there is the matter of production copyright where an image of the document is copyrighted and that image cannot be reproduced without permission. For example an image of an apprenticeship indenture is copyrighted, though your private transcription is not. When I wanted an image produced by the local authorities covering the Calder Valley in Yorkshire to illustrate an article in Wikipedia, they refused me permission, so I sourced a similar image through a contact who owned a copy of the book from which that image had been made, which meant I did not violate the production copyright of the local authority, and as the author of that book had been dead for over ninety years I did not violate his copyright either. Of course you may think this is too much trouble, but to do otherwise is theft.
Anyhow let’s terminate this exchange here as it is getting rather off topic.
LikeLike
Jon, I just see that you are not a first time browser and have sent me a message back in Sept. 2017 regarding a newspaper article titled “Carrington the Impostor” in The Morning Post (London, England – 13 Dec 1822). I appreciate your dedication to the research of this subject and value your contributions to this discussion. You also stated back on Nov 26th (yesterday) that “…I have extract all his text for each my “lineage”…” and that led me to assume you were descended from John Smyth of Rivenhall in some way. Apologies if I muddled our discussion. Again, your source suggestions are placed at the top of my “to research” list. I’m curious, surely it wasn’t just rape and thievery these early records recorded of those early bearers of the Carrington name, yes?
LikeLike
True … but it does make 12th and 13th century Cheshire seem a lot like the American Wild West, though, come to think of it, the situation in 13th & 14th century Guangdong wasn’t any different, which is why I like to call it the “Wild East”. Most of the other references seem to have dealt with fighting for the king in France and the royal protection needed to prevent relatives and neighbours from stealing your property through the courts of the day while you were away. It caused me to research the evolution of land conveyancing, especially “Feet of Fines”, land registries and Torrens Title, which I’m pleased to say was a South Australian invention from the 1850s. (Look it up and you’ll see Florida uses essentially that system.) In doing so, I have come to the conclusion, that Coppinger’s observations about George Carrington’s land dealings could well be correct. At the other end, George Booth similarly stands condemned for the libelous accusations he made against Jane Carrington in order to retain the lands he received in dowry when he married her. Some original papers still exist in the Cheshire Archives and Local Studies Centre, but, be warned, they’re hand-written in Elizabethan Latin and early secretary hand, and, as such, are very difficult to decipher. If you manage to transcribe them I’d appreciate a copy to translate. Translation should be easy, as Latin is just another language like English, German, French and Spanish. Chinese, on the other hand, comes with minimal grammar and tenses, no punctuation, and long cobbled-together obsolete words with class-specific cultural nuances, and hand-writing scrawl that looks disturbingly like chicken scratchings, which make my eyes hurt, my shoulders pain and my brain burn. I tend to hire someone to translate Chinese, and even then I have to translate the translation into good English. I wish I had learnt Chinese (Toishanese) as a child.
LikeLike
Chris, you are so contentious and willing to fight off anyone else’s genealogy, major publishing at that, unless they DNA test (with your company?) that few will be interested to see your own. You seem to be very troubled in these issues. I recommend that if you are serious about the subject you must realize that the “last word” still allows everyone else to take in what posts came before. Everyone should keep in mind that there are some YouTubes reporting DNA testing is passed along to governments. Why would they be interested? Will you remove me from your forum now?
LikeLike
I am not contentious, only scrutinous and critical where necessary. Far too many people take what is published on the internet by (mostly) non academics at face value. (YouTube? Really?) I am not saying that there aren’t laypersons capable of such academic rigor, but the majority of modern genealogical “researchers” appear to only repeat that which was seemingly professionally presented to them without analytical verification. In some cases, we can find instances where genealogical claims were fabricated. For example, see my write-up titled “Smiths of Isle of Wight County, Virginia – Latest Consolidation Efforts”. We see that a previously published and, to many, credible researcher made a claim that later is proven, by way of a will, to be false. I find it odd that for so many years “Customer” Smythe has been used in this manner.
I do not own any stock or hold any financial interest in any genealogical DNA testing company. I have taken the time to go over the published claims of many people who are accepted to be “experts” in their specific area and only publish my critique of those findings that do not agree with the authors claims and conclusions. I’m only double-checking folks. The internet is unlike any previously available resource that those genealogical researchers before us have had. It allows us to quickly find key words that are hidden among the hundreds of pages of a book. If we are disciplined researchers, we can find that needle in a haystack.
There are very many who will tell you that the introduction of DNA testing into genealogical research has, quite simply, changed how things are done. Many of those trees that spliced in those assumed ancestors using only conjecture can now be tested. Let me make this clear: genealogical DNA testing can be used to test your hypotheses. If you have two Smith populations that are in close proximity to each other but have no common paper trail linking them, but a relationship is suspected, yDNA testing can be used to test the hypothesis that they are (or are not) related.
I read your words and only see someone who wishes to attack the credibility of genealogical DNA testing and sow distrust towards DNA based results. I will not let your words go unchallenged. There are many far more “in the know” than you and me that will attest to the validity and integrity of these tests and their founding principals. You can offer no evidence to cast doubt on the credibility of the science behind modern genealogical DNA testing. Have there been kit handling issues? Yes. However, using these statistically insignificant occurrences to gauge the credibility of the entire industry would be a fallacy.
So here’s how it works with yDNA testing results. With FamilyTreeDNA, you submit your order and are sent a vial within which you deposit a few milliliters of saliva. That is then sent to FamilyTreeDNA’s lab and they then use a chip to sequence your Y chromosome. Only males can have this tested as this chromosome is not present in females. When your results are in, only those people you closely match are notified, and even then only the information you voluntarily provide is shared with them. You can create a completely anonymous account and still get useful information from testing without disclosing anything to anyone.
Gary, you are no expert in my opinion, but if you wish to grow as a researcher, there are tools that you can use, at very little to no cost to you, that can help you refine your methods. FamilyTreeDNA has a very large and public Smith yDNA database. Researchers like yourself can freely search it for clues to possible relatedness to another Smith line. There is also the SmithsWorldWide.org project which has done an admittedly great job at providing a platform for chronicling the hundreds of Smith populations that have connections to North America, but they lack in quality controls of the paper trail info that people can freely attach to their yDNA results. As modern as the platform is, even it as an information source needs to be vetted.
Yes, you’ve failed. So have I. As of this writing, I need to go back and change some info I have up here about The Nathan Smith Settlement. If you wish to truly learn, you’ll see your missteps as an opportunity to grow. Doubling down when you’re proven wrong only casts doubt on your intentions.
I’m open to discussing my work as I hope you are open to discussing yours. I have taken the extra step to use DNA testing to further refine my understanding of the complexities that arise from genealogical research involving the surname Smith.
LikeLike
The London Post article in 1822 was a great disappointment. It has nothing to do with family trees or the Carrington/Smith issue. It is about a vagrant begging for money and using the name Carrington.
LikeLike
Would that vagrant mentioned in the London Post article of 1822 be James Carrington aged 47 of Walworthy London? While he was a pauper, he was really a Carrington who seems to be descended from the Lords Carrington of Spaunton in Yorkshire who were descended from the Lords Carrington of Carrington in Cheshire.
LikeLike
Jon,
Your comment is curious to me. I am not aware of the Lords Carrington of Spaunton in Yorkshire. A Google search for “Lords Carrington” and “Spaunton in Yorkshire” does return anything at all. Can you share your source info for this information?
My understanding is that the heir to The Lords Carrington of Chester was John Carrington, Esq. who changed his name to John Smith, Esq around 1403 after finding refuge (from losing his head) in Rivenhall in Essex. His offspring continued the use of the surname Smith, and appear to have been quite prolific. However, I see that the last male of the heir line of these Lords Carrington, Thomas Smyth b 1683, died issueless in 1720. I believe they were the Smiths of Blackmore, but I’d have to double check my sources to be sure.
Here’s a link on the early 18th century Smiths of Blackmore.
http://www.blackmorehistory.co.uk/blackmore_john_smyth_descendants.html
I believe there have been three creations of The Lords Carrington up to modern day. The most recent was created for the heirs of Able Smith of Nottinghamshire. Able and his brother Samuel Smith (founders of Smith Bank & Co.) were both descended from a Sir Thomas Smith of Cropwell Boteler (or Cropwell Tithby). According to my search of the census records, Sir Thomas is not descended from the Smiths who were descendants of John Smith, Esq. of Rivenhall. I believe this can be verified using the visitation records found in Google Books. I have done the necessary research and stand by this finding. The coarse details are within my blog postings.
edit: Correction, there have been three creations of Baron Carrington, not Lords Carrington. My mistake. There has been one creation in each for the Peerage of England, the Peerage of Ireland, and the Peerage of Great Brittian.
The current Lord Carrington, Peter Carrington, is one of the last surviving members of Churchill’s administration. He is descended from, going back a number of generations, Abel Smith of Nottinghamshire.
If any of this is incorrect, please reply with corrections and sources. Thank you.
LikeLike
I find reference to a James Carrington aged 56 in 1829. The source is a list of recent deaths in London and it’s vicinity. To quote:
Lately. Aged 56, Mr. James Carrington of Walworth, eldest son of the late Rev. James Carrington, of Topsham, Devon.
I know of no connections between the Smiths of Blackmore (and their kinsmen) and the Carringtons of Topsham, Devon.
I believe that the Smiths of Blackmore stayed in that general area for sometime, moving to Braintree and possibly Ongar or Chipping Ongar.
A side note, there were also The Nevilles of Holt who were descended from the Smiths of Cressing Temple and later adopted the surname Neville.
edit: source here -> https://books.google.com/books?id=QKpJAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA379&lpg=PA379&dq=Lately.+Aged+56,+Mr.+James+Carrington+of+Walworth,+eldest+son+of+the+late+Rev.+James+Carrington,+of+Topsham,+Devon.&source=bl&ots=DR-qgeEENG&sig=vMdBscCqXU8CSdg3XG_UZslPKtU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwju8MvOhdPZAhXyxlkKHQI5A5MQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=Lately.%20Aged%2056%2C%20Mr.%20James%20Carrington%20of%20Walworth%2C%20eldest%20son%20of%20the%20late%20Rev.%20James%20Carrington%2C%20of%20Topsham%2C%20Devon.&f=false
LikeLike
Look at Coppinger, and you’ll find that one branch of the Carrington family moved to Spaunton in Yorkshire, where William (Q12) Carrington set himself up as Lord Carrington of Spaunton in the late 1580s after marrying Anne Bonville, the sole legitimate heir to the Spaunton Manor. This is the same man who contested the claim to the Carrington estates by George Booth on his divorce from Jane (R15) Carrington in 1589. The divorce papers still survive in the Chester Archives, and much litigation survives in the National Archives at Kew, and, I am led to believe but haven’t checked it out myself, that there is more litigation in the Archives of the House of Lords.
This branch is separate to your Smiths and Smith-Carrinngtons, and was the legal line of the Lords Carrington of Chester until George Booth managed to gain the Carrington estates by medieval legal maneuvers. Land title was very insecure in those days, hence the feets of fine, and the expediency of infant marriages, a variation of which was the mechanism employed by George Booth to gain the estates.
Any claim by the Smith-Carringtons to the Lordship of Carrington in Chester, then or now, has, and had, no legal standing, as they did not litigate to claim the same in court, to have it legally recognized. As all lordships are at the pleasure of the Crown, as expressed through the various legal courts, it’s legal recognition that counts, so Coppinger’s assertion that the Smith-Carringtons had a moral right to the Lordship was, and is, irrelevant. Legality not morality was the qualifying criteria.
You might also like to consult pp.60-61 of “The Visitation of Cheshire in the Year 1580”, by Robert Glover, edited by John Paul Rylands, Harleian Society, London 1882, for some genealogical details, especially for Robert Carrington.
The descent for James Carrington of Walworth appears to be: William (Q12) (bef.1564-1626) > Robert (ca.1595-1654) > James (b.1629-bef.1689) > Pilley (ca.1667-1713) > James (ca.1694-1768) > James (1718-1794) > James (1744-1825) > James (1773-1829).
I say “appears”, as I haven’t proved every link to my satisfaction, and will need more research to do so, but I think that’s correct. It’s on the back-burner for a year or two, while I complete the chapters I’ve been asked to write on a completely different topic, time, place and people, and handle some complex personal affairs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In relevance to the legal proceedings involving George Booth and William Carrington, I wish to enter into the comments this link to a book titled “The Peerage of England; containing a Genealogical and Historical Account of all the Peers of that Kingdom…”.
https://books.google.com/books?id=IWdUAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA77&lpg=PA77&dq=%22Carrington+of+Carrington%22+-%22Carrington+Tours%22&source=bl&ots=o6s18IgiYf&sig=U_tcf8SjPRhxzG9ZP7DP1wZb4ow&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjRwJnZ-NLZAhXjpVkKHbsoClMQ6AEIWTAI#v=onepage&q=%22Carrington%20of%20Carrington%22%20-%22Carrington%20Tours%22&f=false
The above narrative, primarily concerned with a Booth line, describes how a Jane Carrington was the sole daughter (and only heir?) of a “John Carrington of Carrington in the county of Chester, Esq.”. I see on page 73 in the book that a John Carrington married an Ellen Booth.
What is more interesting is that there is mentioned a George Booth who married an Elizabeth Boteler or Butler of Warrington. George and Elizabeth had a son George who then had a daughter Ellen, who married John Carrington of Carrington.
I believe that these Butlers of Warrington were the ones to whom the Dukes of Ormonde were kin.
I mention this because my research shows that the Butlers and the Carringtons are both descended from The Dukes of Normandy by way of the immediate family of Richard the Fearless.
LikeLike
I will also add to this discussion my thoughts on the following passage taken from the aforementioned “The Carrington Imposture” found in Rounds’s Vol. 2 “Pedigree and Peerage”, pages 153 (bottom) and 154 (top).
To quote Round:
If “the College [of Arms]” disclaims any corporate responsibility in the matter, there is, I have shown, at least good heraldic testimony to the existence of Sir Michael, the standard-bearer. We cannot, therefore, be surprised that he even figures in the pages of the Dictionary of National Biography, within whose jealously guarded portals (as the champion of the Heralds’ College, Mr. Fox-Davies, might express it) there “cluster our national valhalla.”
I feel that, if there was a genuine connection between John Smith, Esq. of Rivenhall, to the Carringtons of Chester, and that said John Smith was involved (as a planned kidnapper or assassin of Henry IV) in the Epiphany Rising plot, then quite possibly it might be desired by some that these Carringtons (and their in-laws and families) be washed of any guilt-by-association of treason (either in the early to middle 15th century, or later) by discrediting the entirety of the Carrington alias Smith story. I can see possibly broadly sweeping political motivations to “prune the tree”, shall we say.
I feel that this would be a prime motivation for the fabrication of the pedigree found within the hand-written letter allegedly authored by John Smith, Esq. who claimed to be the son of a Thomas Carrington of Gascogne, France. John could preserve his paternal heritage and at the same time, by attributing a false pedigree to the rest, clear any collateral liabilities from his cousins and place the blame for his involvement in Epiphany Rising on the family that would have the most to gain from it, the kinsmen of Richard II, the direct challenger of Henry IV.
I’ve been wanting to get this idea into words for a while now. This scenario would prevent the idea that an agnate of William the Conqueror would engage in treason from entering into the “national valhalla”.
LikeLike
Thanks for this contribution. Here’s a link I found to Dugdale for William Carrington’s tree.
https://books.google.com/books?id=sz1SAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA66&lpg=PA66&dq=“William+Carrington”+Spaunton&source=bl&ots=XwSkNGgl4m&sig=OcXqLIhppQcsenkLzi1g2dP7aZE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjQyNqMztLZAhXoQd8KHeTNA6QQ6AEwAnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22William%20Carrington%22%20Spaunton&f=false
Being an American, I’d be pressed to say that I’d be even half versed in the entirety of English formalities. I assumed that the title “Lord” was reserved for members of the House of Lord’s, but I suspect this is incorrect. Are you suggesting that William Carrington of Spaunton retained for himself this title of Lord Carrington by simply aquiring a large manor? I was under the impression that lordships had to be bestowed to an individual by the monarchy.
Thanks for the posts. Great contributions to the discussion.
LikeLike
I’m an Australian … so I’ve had to learn these things by lots of reading and discussion.
A “lord” is not a title of nobility, as that’s reserved for “duke”, “viscount” etc. etc. Rather it’s a courtesy title, which denotes a position of legal and moral authority of any level. Hence there is the “lord of the manor” who held a manorial court or leet at regular intervals to rule on the issues delegated by custom or legislation or royal prerogative. Such could include, inheritance of copy-hold property, usage of the common, maintenance of local roads, by-ways, fences and hedges, payment of fines, duties and tithes, raising and maintenance of the local militia, misdemeanors, etc. etc.
This authority came with legal possession of the land, and, to an extent, its people, and was delegated from a higher authority, and so on, originating in the monarch himself. As such it was a feudal authority, and should be studied in enough detail to inform you of what records were kept, where they were kept, what they mean, and their limitations.
Hope this helps.
LikeLike
Oh yes … I cannot find any evidence that the Lords Carrington of Carrington in Cheshire ever sat in the House of Lords. If you can prove otherwise, I’d be pleased if you would detail the same here.
LikeLike
Can’t say that I’ve ever come across any documents that suggested this.
LikeLike
Also, my best archive of source material for the earliest “Carrington alias Smith’s” and their probable Carrington kinsmen (albeit loosely organized) is this Geni.com discussion thread.
https://www.geni.com/discussions/163744
We got into some pretty good secondary source material. Ironically, the individuals with whom I collaborated seem to try to steer me away from the George Booth documents. I personally do find them to be very relevant to the subject matter as a Thomas Smith is involved in the case.
LikeLike
Brilliant. Many thanks.
LikeLike
See Page 10 of This Book Antiquity of the Name Of Scott Published 1869, The Author Martin Bowen Scott must have known of some Connection, not that it was really important to His Scott Research. I myself have 2 Smith Y DNA Matches at FTDNA
My Suggestion would be to Hunt Down Carrington’s who have an accurate related Paper Trail who have done Y DNA Testing and Compare STR’S and SNP’S
LikeLike
Sorry here is the Link to Antiquity of the name of Scott under download options choose PDF
in the web viewer it is Page 16 of 50 Page 10 of actual Book
LikeLike
I’m not an expert, and only a novice compared to you two, but it seems to me that Dugdale, who was a heraldic official and historian, wrote a book (15th century) and gave an eye witness account that he viewed with his own eyes two separate ancient manuscript pedigrees (from the 13th century) that tie the Blackmore family to the Cheshire county family; each being in two separate counties from two separate visitations. That seems to me like it should be verification enough that the Smith family has roots in the Caryngton family in Cheshire County. It is Copinger’s trying to combine the varying information in the different visitations across different accounts in different counties into a single narrative that introduced errors from the perspective of one of the other visitations, from Round’s perspective, in the 19th century; that has caused all of the problems with this break in this family tree. From a general perspective, the visitations seem to be different accounts of the same information, which is what you would expect to see.
LikeLike
[…] Countering “The Great Carrington Imposture” […]
LikeLike