John Smith, of Rivenhall - is the Carington Smith pedigree fraudulent?

As far as claiming John Smith, Esq was fictional, or at least his affiliation with the Carrington line is, I get it. Lots of people mess up that info. It's easier for Geni to say his story is fake rather than deal with the myriad of folks who try to connect their tree to his. This is a major reason the info on SmithsWorldWide.org is so tainted. There are a lot of folks simply doing bad research (and I suspect they know it). I would also challenge anyone who cites John Horace Round to to try to prove him wrong if they wish to blindly accept his claims. If they try, they will succeed. I would like to see him removed as a source on here for the Carrington/Smith story based upon my findings. I will continue to insist that he is wrong in the Smith/Carrington matter as it pertains to the Smiths of Rivenhall specifically.

Scientists can demonstrate, clearly, that humans possess the genes of Neanderthal. I don't think proving shared DNA with two people whose TMRCA is 500-700 years would be impossible. You'll need scientific and academic precision, however. Not something AncestryDNA or FTDNA provides at the moment.

From what I've seen, the 5-7 generation limit for what is easily found by algorithms or simple searches of matches in a list. As for what can be found using the advanced tools on GEDmatch , I think 15 generations is easily achieved. Sound genealogical research techniques are also necessary to try to extend trees into the appropriate ranges to accommodate estimated TMRCAs of 600 years. This is where most automated matching systems fall short. They can match the DNA but don't know how to build papertrails to explain it. I doubt most people have any branch of their trees that goes 600 years back on paper. Some do, but I suspect it's the exception. My Smith line sat at a brick wall in 1783 for about 25 years until I picked up where my dad left off (based on recorded family history) and started my research about 14 years ago.

As far as proving out who Hamonis de Carington was, my suspicions are we will need someone in Normandy, France who can read middle age French or Latin. The Historical Society of Normandy should have the appropriate records, if they still exist after all these years. Butterworth mentions his source I believe.

Also, after doing a little bit of refining, I find that the person who descends from Jane Marler and matches on Cr15 with my cousins also shares 22.3cM on Cr1 with my cousin who has a TMRCA with me of 1783 (7 generations, same Smith line).

The right half of this very large segment on Cr1 (about 17cM) triangulates with my yDNA matched cousin whose TMRCA with my group is beyond 10 generations.

I wish I could post pictures on this thread. It'd make it easier to share what I'm seeing.

Essentially, the descendant of Jane Marler shares around 17.5cM of triangulated autosomal DNA with my cousins.

Cr1 - 88190037 to 107846098

I will admit this is only a little high for such a distant suggested relationship, so I will examine this match further.

The descendant of Jane Marler also matches my 3rd cousin 1R Smith at 6.3cM on Cr20. Lots of nice grouped matches in this info.

Endogamy can explain this situation as well. Lots of stuff that looks to be more than coincidence.

As far as Andrew Lancaster, he appears to have his mind made up as well about John Carrington alias Smith being fictitious. I've given him my arguments and some other information I have not mentioned in this thread in hopes that he will be able to knock through a brickwall in 18th century Essex. Still waiting to hear back.

We can evaluate Round's claims on their own merit. I believe I have demonstrated my ability to understand the subject matter at hand.

As far as working with medieval records, I have requested Andrew Lancaster's assistance on evaluating the ERO archives. I have yet to hear back from him.

Keep in mind, we have natural language search engines and more information at our fingertips than even the largest libraries Round may have had access to.

Where I have felt necessary, I have documented on my blog what sources I have used in my research. In my blog post "Countering the Carrington Imposture" I clearly set out which books I used to evaluate Round's claims as well as a point by point critique of his arguments, many of which can be demonstrated to be built upon false premises. There are some questions I continue to look into, however. Specifically, I believe, based upon my study of the family of Richard II, the rival of Henry IV, that the families of the included females may not be correct in John Carrington's ancestry. I do feel, though, that the male line information is correct. These latest autosomal DNA findings may shed some more light on that subject.

I do not clearly recall any discussion of the Carringtons ever being involved in such a matter as a purchase of a fraudulent pedigree. I'd be happy to read about it if you can provide me a link to a source. We have covered a lot that I do not easily recall from our previous discussions.

As far as scams go, I have put to stop at least two people who wantonly published provably false information linking their family trees to the Smith line of John Smith, Esq. of Rivenhall. Do you want to know the story of one of them?

There was a man misleading many people on WikiTree, SmithsWorldWide.org, and just about any other message board that may involve discussions where he could bring up the subject matter, into believing, contrary to yDNA evidence, that he and they were related. He plastered message boards and genealogy profiles with this mess and confused multiple members of at least 3 different unrelated Smith families. He tainted the yDNA databases. His were the most egregious actions I have come across, involving fabricating autosomal analyses which I was able to prove fraudulent. FTDNA Smiths ALL Group R-M269-7 that Amy mentioned was one of these groups involved, and I worked closely with their administrator to undo the irresponsible researcher's damage. Getting those changes published, however, appears to be a hurdle due to the technical limitations of people who have had their yDNA group admin role fall in their laps due to previous admins passing away and how the SmithsWorldWide.org site is managed.

I have found nothing more vocal than the arguments of John Horace Round that call into question the Smith/Carrington relationship. I will also state that lack of evidence for does not prove his stance against. Round's documented acrimony lives on this article of his.

As far as I know, no one has definitively linked John Smith, Esq. to any other Smith families. If there is a source for such information, I'd be willing to evaluate it. I just want the truth, wherever it leads. Round's work is not based in fact or truth and that is why I feel his work should be discarded.

Where I have taken the time to provide detailed and thoughtful retorts to Round's claims, and those of Andrew and yourself, I feel I have only been met with vague explanations and mild brow beatings, and I believe the only solid conclusion we ever came to was that there was no clear "smoking gun" linking John Carrington to John Smith other than the records at the College of Arms and the published words of the Heralds which found the two pedigree documents, and the records of the funerals of the Smith men who were declared by the Heralds to have been descended from Sir Michael of Carrington.

If you want to call into question the credibility of the Heralds, that's cool. The fact that the Smith arms were ever issued means there is a record of that event somewhere. Finding source info for it would be a good place to start. I can e-mail the College of Arms again to see if they have anything they can share.

I wouldn't say I'm trying to push the science anywhere. I am simply following where both the science and the paper trails have led me: Brunswick, Surry, and Isle of Wight Co, VA. I will have information that you do not. That said, I have shared my information with you privately but I suspect you have dismissed it. I will not discuss it here. My understanding of my yDNA matches is sound.

I should remind our readers of this thread that you had, at one time, self-coined the moniker of "the Disconnectrix" for yourself. I believe the spirit from which you derived this name comes from a place seeking to better clarify questionable claims of relation in various trees. I do a good amount of this myself. I'm just looking for facts, not the inaccurate conjecture and opinion of John Horace Round.