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

How likely is it that Carrington alias Smith, and Blount alias Croke, changed their names and kept them until after they returned to England? The only conspiracy in which they can possibly have been involved is the Epiphany Rising of 1400. Of the leaders who were executed and attainted, the Earl of Kent seems to have been succeeded very quickly by his younger brother, and the sons of the Earl of Salisbury and Huntingdon got their titles back in 1409 and 1416 respectively. What possible part could Carrington and Blount have played that they could not have got pardons, after a while? Why would they have kept false names when they got abroad? And how did one of them get hold of a manor in Buckinghamshire where he entertained his co-conspirator in great merriness?

Mark

Here's the story in Burke's 1833

https://books.google.com/books?id=-P4UAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA356&lpg...

Nicholas Le Blount, having taken an active part in the insurrection, which proved so fatal to his cousin Sir Thomas le Blount, was outlawed and forced to fly the kingdom. Repairing with other refugees to the court of Milan, he entered into the military service of the accomplished John Galeazzo Viscompti, who was then at war with the emperor, and who eventually, after routing them at Brescia, drove the imperialists out of Italy. The Duke acknowledged with gratitude the merits of the English, and the splendid rewards which he conferred upon them, were worthy of the magnificent house of Viscompti. Nicholas le Blount subsequently returned to England, but in doing so adopted the "precaution of changing his name, as did several other of his companions, amongst whom were John CarringTon, who took the name of Smith, the ancestor of the extinct Lords Carrington, and William Fitzwilliams, who assumed that of English; Blount chose the cognomen of Croke.* He M. Agnes, daughter and heiress of John Heynes by Alicia Athall, and was s. by his son,

• Harl. MSS. Rawlinsons MSS. in the Bodleian Library, &c. 4cc.

I presume this was their Milanese patron

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gian_Galeazzo_Visconti

Comment on the book

A genealogical and heraldic history of the commoners of Great Britain and Ireland

John Burke
1833

"This book has a GREAT MANY MISTAKES. While some genealogical citations are accurate, the mistakes and down-right ridiculous errors far out-weight them in terms of using this book as factual source. I would only recommend using this as a guide, not a source."

http://www.executedtoday.com/tag/epiphany-rising/

(caution: gruesome)

I have been unable to find any good sources proving the existence of this cousin Nicholas Blount (or le Blount). If his existence could be proved, it might lend some credence to the name-change story.

Looks like there was a John Carrington who was a mercenary from Rivenhall and wrote about it

http://deremilitari.org/2013/12/edward-iii-and-the-english-aristocr...

we learn in the fifteenth-century autobiography of John Carrington that his grandfather, Sir William Carrington, had been scalded in the face at the battle of Sluys.[55] 

https://books.google.com/books?id=FRzoAAAAIAAJ&lpg=PA245&vq...

War and Society in Medieval Cheshire, 1277-1403, Volume 3; Volume 34
By Philip Morgan page 175

John Carrington lived modestly for two years on the profits of a single ransom, battle of Brescia in 1402

https://books.google.com/books?id=kLhb69ulYYQC&lpg=PA443&ot...

John Hawkwood: An English Mercenary in Fourteenth-Century Italy
By William Caferro page 5

One obscure man of arms, John Carrington, wrote a brief diary of his experience.

That John Carrington who added the lady chapel to the church in Rivenhall appears to be our John Smith 1370-1446.

The link below also includes a few mentions of our Smiths, and specifically Clement, grandson of John Smith 1370-1446 and son of Thomas (search the page for Smyth).

Rivenhall Hall and its Sub-Holdings:

"The fields of Rivenhall Hall include some interesting topographical names which are worthy of comment.

Park Field is against the eastern parish bour~dary, and is so far removed from the post-medieval parks that it would appear to be a potential misnomer. This field was, however, relatively close to the south-eastern boundary of the early medieval phases of the park. Park Field must therefore be a pre-15th century naming. Next to it is Lady Field, a relatively common English field-name which is normally associated with endowments for the support of a church or chapel dedicated in honour of the Virgin Mary. This field has never been glebe land, and has no known connection with the support of the parish church. It must surely pertain to the endowment of John Carrington’s chapel and chantry of Our Lady,which he founded in Rivenhall churchyard"

Carrington held Lanham’s manor, and it is not clear what relationship he had with the manor of Rivenhall Hall. He died in 1446, and chantries were suppressed in 1547; Lady Field must therefore have been so named since the middle of the 15th century."

http://www.maximiliangenealogy.co.uk/Rivenhall/historyrivenhall2.html

John Smith, of Rivenhall

Erica,

The point, surely, is that close members of the leaders of the Epiphany Rising were forgiven and restored to their titles very quickly. Being outlawed because you had participated in the rebellion (as good feudatories to your lord) does not seem likely to have stopped you getting a quick pardon.

Burke's account is very tight on time. The Epiphany Rising took place in early 1400. By August 1402 Gian Galeazzo Visconti had contracted his final illness. It seems unlikely to me that English mercenaries who got to Milan in late 1400 would have so distinguished themselves as to get more than modest rewards. Moreover, Gian Galeazzo had dangled his cousin before Henry IV, and it was Henry IV who married her to Edmund Holland, 4th Earl of Kent (brother of the Earl of Kent whom he had executed for the Epiphany Rising), She could easily have got these people pardons if they had been important. Since John Carrington lived modestly on the basis of one ransome, and wrote an account about his experiences in his own name, it does not appear that he felt obliged to change his family name.

I'm not saying disconnect, necessarily, but their "about" sections should show a good deal of scepticism.

Mark

http://www.ebooksread.com/authors-eng/alexander-croke/the-genealogi...

In this unhappy situation of affairs, the English, who had continued in
Milan in the enjoyment of their wealth, and well-earned reputation, in
1404 resolved to leave Italy, and to return to England. They pro-
ceeded through France and Flanders. At Besancjon Robert New-
borough died, in consequence of a fall from his horse, and was buried in
the Grey Friers' Church in that city ; having bequeathed the greatest
part of his riches, obtained in Italy, to his friend Carrington. The others
passed through Burgundy, traversed France, and arrived in Hainault,
where they were entertained with great hospitality in the monasteries.
Here they met with two friers, lately arrived from England, from whom
they obtained information of many particulars relating to Carrington's
family, and of the state of matters in that country. From Hainault they
travelled through Brabant to Amsterdam. Being informed of the cruelty

which was exercised by King Henry the Fourth towards those who had
taken part against him, they thought it prudent to change their names
before they ventured to revisit their native land. John Carrington assumed
the name of Smith, Fitzwilliams of English, and Le Blount changed his
name to Croke. From Amsterdam they sailed for England, in a ship of
Ipswich, near which place they landed in 1404.

During the life of King Henry the Fourth, they kept themselves in con-
cealment, but after his death, in 1413, and they could appear in public
with safety, they purchased lands, with the riches which they had ac-
quired in Italy. Carrington, or Smith, settled in Essex, and dying in the
year 1446, at the mature age of seventy-two, was buried in the church-
yard of Reinshall Church, which was erected by himself.

"lots of riches" as compared with "lived modestly for a couple of years with monks" - an obscure man at arms, John Carrington.

Reinshall = Rivenhall (misread by the scanner).

It also seems to be an exaggeration to say that John Smith ("alias Carrington") built an entire church.

Coppinger only has it that he built the "Lady Chapel":

"John Smith died in 1446 aged 72, and was buried in the Ladye Chappell which he builded and founded in the churchyard of Lenham, in the parish of Rivenhall, Essex."

So does Erica get to remove the "Fraudlent" tag from Mr. Smith now? You all surely have what you need to do so by this point.

The details you've provided are quite vivid. This page should hopefully be a great internet source for this line.

Many thanks.

Chris

Chris, we have a coherent story to explain John Carrington, obscure 15th century English man at arms, apparently a mercenary for the Italians; apparently his diary excerpt is in Coplinger, would love to read it if it can be dug out from what apparently from an independent reviewer said was poorly organized.

From what I understand of the diary, Carrington was not wealthy, lived modestly in Italy. The story explains that by saying he acquired additional funds due to the death of Robert Newborough.

I'm not sure that we can say this John Carrington is the same person as the John Smith who died in 1446 in Rivenhall. (I am less skeptical than I was because we've acquired some data points. And it was great fun to re read about mercenaries, they're in Tuchman's "A Distant Mirror.")

Did he buy the land? Did he marry well and acquire through marriage? Was he landless to begin with or expand a small holding of the Carringtons?

I think we are far shakier ground with the story of an ancestral Michael Carrington, standard bearer to Richard the Lionhearted.

And I believe the coat of arms granted in Tudor times was dicey, along with other similar ones.

And we "must" take Horace Round seriously and be able to counter him solidly, or we on Geni look foolish.

I wish to suggest that a list be made of Round's arguments (please post them here) and they be addressed one by one. I say they're unsound and a critique will show that. I don't know why you're saying we're on "shakier" ground. Angus-Butterworth provides ample substantiated evidence that is independently verifiable (if you were to have access to the same primary records he did). Have you reached out to any researchers in England who may have physical access to primary sources for review? Many thanks to everyone for the hard work on all of this.

Please read J. H. Round "Peerage and Pedigree" vol. 2, pages 134 to 257, "The Great Carington Imposture," or at least through to p. 195.

https://archive.org/details/cu31924102029414

There are too many criticisms to list them all, even if we limit ourselves to the alleged link between Carrington and Smith.

Copinger thoroughly demolishes the document supposedly written by John Carrington, als. Smith, later "discovered" and accepted by the heralds, called "The Pedigree and Exploits in Foreign Countries of John Carington, Armiger, as related by himself to the year 1404."

The narrative of the Carrington document doesn't match known, established facts and dates that can be verified by available records. And it is written in such an amateurish way that even if the facts added up, the document wouldn't hold up as genuine.

A research fellow from Exeter (later Oxford), a Mr. Stevenson, analyzed the document for Round, and concluded that the language in the document is anachronistic (not of the time of the supposed author), inconsistent, and worst of all, includes "forms and usages that never existed." He opines that the author "may have read some Chaucer." He ultimately states that "the document bears the marks of spuriousness in every line."

It is difficult to conclude that the supposed narrative by John Carrington is anything but a forgery. And the entire Carrington case appears to rest on this document alone.

See p. 151:

"And on this document all depends : its opening words are the only evidence for Sir Michael's very existence ; its latter portion is the only evidence for the story that a John Carrington changed his name to Smith. The entire 'Carington' descent rests on this document; if its link breaks, the claim of the Smiths at once crumbles into dust.

My case is that the document is forged, and that the pedigree it contains is sheer invention, false at the beginning, false in the middle, and false at the end. And this I propose to prove by overwhelming evidence."

Round appears to have succeeded.

Central to our "quest": there is no proof that Sir Thomas Carrington had sons Edmund and John (John Carrington als. Smith, is alleged to have inherited the manor in Cheshire from older brother Edmund, and to have had it taken from him by his uncle George).

These are probably the most important points--see p. 171:

* The historians of Cheshire and the Cheshire records know nothing of Edmund or of John.
* Dr. Copinger does not produce record evidence for the existence of either.
* After Sir Thomas, who did not die until 1383, the next certain Lord of Carington is Sir George de Carington, who was undoubtedly in possession in 1402, and apparently so at least as early as 1397.
* Copinger claims that John succeeded his older brother Edmund, and that the manor was wrongfully seized by his "uncle" George.
* Then he claims that John returned to England, not as his brother's heir (George had two daughters), but as "he had byn made_executore_."
* Nor does the narrative know anything of his succeeding to the manor or of his uncle supplanting him.

Round shows, in excruciating detail, that Copinger took the forged document and made a bigger mess of things with more errors, exaggerations, amateurish bungling, and inconsistencies--again, he points out too many issues to list here. There are many details that are impossible (given the established facts and history), unproven, or unlikely (e.g. unlikely that John Carrington was sent to be raised by Neville, a busy general, when he was an infant).

It appears that our John Smith of Rivenhall could not have been John Carrington, son of Thomas Carington of Cheshire, could not have done what he is said to have done, and had many fictitious details added to his story.

Round also points to the similarities with the Croke-Blount story (pp. 191-194) as well as some jarring inconsistencies that call both narratives into question, and points out that the Croke and Smith families were founded by lawyers who rose in prominence under Henry VIII, became rich, and bought land. The pedigrees leading to Blount and Carrington appear during their grandchildren's generation, in the time of Elizabeth I, when many such false pedigrees appeared.

He also points out (p. 187) that the College of Heralds never approved the peacock arms.

I recommend taking some time to thoroughly read through "The Great Carington Imposture" before spending any more time on this project.

Full disclosure--I am from one of the Virginia lines, and would dearly love to prove the tale of our Carrington descent, but alas, it's a lost cause.

Please also note: Angus-Butterworth was criticized for accepting the Carrington Smith story, in this review from TRANSACTIONS OF THE HISTORIC SOCIETY
OF LANCASHIRE AND CHESHIRE, VOL. 123: http://www.hslc.org.uk/documents/PDFS/1971.pdf

Old Cheshire Families And Their Seats
By Lionel M. Angus-Butterworth
(E. J. Morten, 1970, xviii and 218 pp. Price £1 -75)

The reprinting of Lionel Angus-Butterworth's book, first published forty
years ago, provides further evidence of the growing interest in the history of
Cheshire. This book is intended for the general reader with an interest in the
county's past rather than for the specialist local historian. The author attempts
to encourage this interest in two ways. First, he describes the rise of some of the
great county families and, secondly, he gives detailed descriptions of the halls
and manor houses in which they lived.
The author takes ten of Cheshire's most famous families and traces their
history from their earliest mention in surviving records. With so much ground
to cover these ten surveys are necessarily brief ones, concentrating mainly on
the successive heads of each family. The danger of this approach is that the
book could become merely a lengthy and tedious list of names. The author
avoids this danger successfully by pausing frequently to deal with the more
illustrious members of each family in greater depth, while maintaining the flow
of his narrative by refusing to clog it with trivial or irrelevant information. The
serious student will demand more comprehensive histories of the families
treated but for his intended readers the author strikes a happy medium between
brevity and elaborate detail.

NEW BOOKS 171

Any arbitrary selection of families is open to the objection that some important
ones have been omitted. Certainly the author is on dangerous ground when
he claims for his families that their work 'largely makes up the history of the
county'. Several other families, like the Egertons, the Cholmondeleys and the
Wilbrahams, have made contributions of the highest importance to Cheshire's
history. The Fittons are another example of a possible omission. A long established
gentry family distinguished in many branches of local government
and royal service, they have an added claim for inclusion in this particular study
in that their fine residence at Ganesworth still stands, attracting a constant
stream of visitors. However, with the possible exception of the Moretons, who
probably owe their inclusion largely to their magnificent residence, all the
families selected by the author have played an important part in the county's
affairs and deserve to be considered in such a study.
The author's information on the families is generally sound, based mainly
on the outstanding nineteenth-century historians of Cheshire, notably Ormerod
and Earwaker. One error should be noted however. In dealing with the
Carringtons, the author accepts the legend that a male descendant of the family
settled in Essex under an assumed name in the fifteenth century and that from
him are descended several distinguished families. J. H. Round has proved this
legend to be false, being based on two elaborate genealogical deceptions
perpetrated in the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries respectively.
The descriptions of the halls and manor houses are a welcome addition to the
family histories. Cheshire can boast several buildings of outstanding historical
interest, notably some superb examples of sixteenth century domestic architecture.
Among the houses dealt with are Little Moreton Hall, probably the finest
instance of 'black and white' work in the North of England, and two of its
greatest rivals for that distinction, the halls at Bramhall and Adlington. Mr
Angus-Butterworth expresses the hope that visitors to the houses will find his
descriptions useful. The clarity with which they are written and the wealth of
valuable information which they contain ensure that they will be.
Attractively produced and reasonably priced this book deserves a successful
reception.

G. P. HIGGINS

Sorry, - my mistake reporting the last message as spam. There was spam messages, but not in this window. Customer service is asked to restore the message.

Angus-Butterworth was criticized for accepting the Carrington Smith story, in this review from TRANSACTIONS OF THE HISTORIC SOCIETY
OF LANCASHIRE AND CHESHIRE, VOL. 123: http://www.hslc.org.uk/documents/PDFS/1971.pdf

Old Cheshire Families And Their Seats
By Lionel M. Angus-Butterworth
(E. J. Morten, 1970, xviii and 218 pp. Price £1 -75)

The reprinting of Lionel Angus-Butterworth's book, first published forty
years ago, provides further evidence of the growing interest in the history of
Cheshire. This book is intended for the general reader with an interest in the
county's past rather than for the specialist local historian. The author attempts
to encourage this interest in two ways. First, he describes the rise of some of the
great county families and, secondly, he gives detailed descriptions of the halls
and manor houses in which they lived.

The author takes ten of Cheshire's most famous families and traces their
history from their earliest mention in surviving records. With so much ground
to cover these ten surveys are necessarily brief ones, concentrating mainly on
the successive heads of each family. The danger of this approach is that the
book could become merely a lengthy and tedious list of names. The author
avoids this danger successfully by pausing frequently to deal with the more
illustrious members of each family in greater depth, while maintaining the flow
of his narrative by refusing to clog it with trivial or irrelevant information. The
serious student will demand more comprehensive histories of the families
treated but for his intended readers the author strikes a happy medium between
brevity and elaborate detail.

NEW BOOKS 171

Any arbitrary selection of families is open to the objection that some important
ones have been omitted. Certainly the author is on dangerous ground when
he claims for his families that their work 'largely makes up the history of the
county'. Several other families, like the Egertons, the Cholmondeleys and the
Wilbrahams, have made contributions of the highest importance to Cheshire's
history. The Fittons are another example of a possible omission. A long established
gentry family distinguished in many branches of local government
and royal service, they have an added claim for inclusion in this particular study
in that their fine residence at Ganesworth still stands, attracting a constant
stream of visitors. However, with the possible exception of the Moretons, who
probably owe their inclusion largely to their magnificent residence, all the
families selected by the author have played an important part in the county's
affairs and deserve to be considered in such a study.

The author's information on the families is generally sound, based mainly
on the outstanding nineteenth-century historians of Cheshire, notably Ormerod
and Earwaker. One error should be noted however. In dealing with the
Carringtons, the author accepts the legend that a male descendant of the family
settled in Essex under an assumed name in the fifteenth century and that from
him are descended several distinguished families. J. H. Round has proved this
legend to be false, being based on two elaborate genealogical deceptions
perpetrated in the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries respectively.
The descriptions of the halls and manor houses are a welcome addition to the
family histories. Cheshire can boast several buildings of outstanding historical
interest, notably some superb examples of sixteenth century domestic architecture.
Among the houses dealt with are Little Moreton Hall, probably the finest
instance of 'black and white' work in the North of England, and two of its
greatest rivals for that distinction, the halls at Bramhall and Adlington. Mr
Angus-Butterworth expresses the hope that visitors to the houses will find his
descriptions useful. The clarity with which they are written and the wealth of
valuable information which they contain ensure that they will be.
Attractively produced and reasonably priced this book deserves a successful
reception.

G. P. HIGGINS

Has anyone considered that Round's mother was a Smith? Perhaps this may be a subconscious (or conscious) biasing element in his argumentation? If he can prove that a distant and foreign (to his experience) Smith line is not related to William the Conqueror, perhaps that would save his own line from being cast in a more tarnished contemporary light? I think Round's mother being a Smith may bias his findings.

Chris, Round's arguments have been accepted for the last 100 years because they ring true, not because he was biased or unfairly attacking.

remember that 15th century Smiths of Rivenhall did not call themselves Carrington Smith. how do you explain that?

Round was descended from the Neville family through his father, and his maternal grandfather Horace Smith was a poet and novelist of some note, so I don't see any motivation for sour grapes.

My main beef with Round is that he is an absolute bear to read--somewhat disorganized--he jumps around the timeline in a way that makes my head ache.

We could also fault him for being too self-indulgent in his snarky, sarcastic treatment of erring genealogists, historians, and heralds.

But I don't see him as biased toward anything but good genealogical practices.

Erica, perhaps, given the narratives you have provided showing that aides to Richard II's cause (Epiphany revolt?) ended up with their entrails cast into a fire while they were still alive might dissuade someone from showing that their father or grandfather was a man who escaped such a punishment. I know I'd be quiet about it.

We really need primary records for these early Carrington Smiths. I'd like to see their wills and what lands (if any) they held. I think if we dig into Rivenhall and Blackmore Priory history we will find what we're looking for.

Amy, your post is a solid counter argument. I'll retract mine.

One thing of note I found was that an Yves de Creil was a savior of Richard the Fearless, a onetime "Duke of Normandy". Here is is Wikipedia page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yves_de_Creil

Yves is interesting because he was a great-grandfather of Baron Hamon de Masci. I believe that this can show a close relationship between the suggested uncle of Hamon de Carrington and the original Dukes of Normandy.

Further, Hamon de Masci is said to have been a "brother-in-law" of William the Conqueror. I'd need to find a tree to find exactly how this relationship is derived.

Take a look at page 542 in the following periodical:

https://books.google.com/books?id=DYY1AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA543&lpg...

They discuss "the Bucklow Hundred" and the early Lords of The Manor of Carrington.
There was a George Carrington who held the Manor of Carrington, but did not have a son and as a result the manor was inherited by a "Hamon Carrington". It is interesting that we find the name "Hamon" again in the Carrington line. This was during the time of Henry VII or c. 1485.

I don't think that it is out of the question that Hamon de Carrington could be a younger son of a Marquis of Carentan in Normandy. Have you guys been able to counter the work of "The Historical Society of Normandy" as referenced in Copinger's book? I'd say these will be some very obscure records to get ahold of, but the internet has shrunk the world a bit, so fingers crossed.

There is so much information to look at. Geez.

Chris

"There is so much information to look at. Geez." :) :)

This stuff is addicting.

I read in fact a long discussion of how Round was counseled to temper his more personal attacks (he ignored it).

But his integrity as a researcher and archivist -- he's described as having an archivist's enjoyment of minutae -- is without question, and his findings hold up well.

If I were you I would follow Lancaster's lead and look at the Smith holdings in Essex around 1400. He's thinking the Smith's near Rivenhall were on the rise perhaps earlier than indicated.

We also need to think very clearly about why no Carrington connection was even alleged until long after John the mercenary's Carrington time. If he existed at all, or if his narrative was fabricated.

Can you point me to Lancaster's work?

See page 225

https://books.google.com/books?id=SgQVAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA226&lpg...

Re: Edmund Carrington.

Looks like he married Jane Ferres, daughter of Sir John Ferrers. Edmund and Jane had Catherine (m. John Trancham, Esq.) and Isabell (m. Thomas Nevil, Esq.). This is counter the claim of Round's on pg. 171 of his book that states "The historians of Cheshire and the Cheshire records know nothing of Edmund or of John"

Can we find good sources for the existence of Edmund Carrington? Looks like he has a family tree we can verify...

Chris

Here's the best source I can find for Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury.

http://www.avocadoridge.com/carney/getperson.php?personID=I6985&amp...

Looks like he may have had a son (Sir?) Thomas Neville. Interesting that in exploring this family (if these records are true) we're back to those folks who not just participated in the Epiphany Uprising, but planned it.

I'd want to research the provided sources to ensure there is no cyclic referencing.

Chris

Re: Who was John Carrington?

http://www.maximiliangenealogy.co.uk/Rivenhall/historyrivenhall2.html

It appears that a John Carrington held Lanham's Manor. This is in Essex. Unfortunately, the internet does not find any other reference to "Lanham's Manor".

It also appears that a John Carrington build a "lady chapel" referred to as "John Carrington’s chapel and chantry of Our Lady". The website says he died 1446, the same year as our John Smyth, Esq of Rivenhall.

https://books.google.com/books?id=FRzoAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA176&lpg...

This topic of who built the lady chapel should be investigated.

Chris

Here is a page in Andrew Smiths blog on Blackmore that details how a John Smyth came to possess the Manor of Blackmore.

http://blackmorehistory.blogspot.com/2010/01/blackmore-smyth-family...

Henry VIII gave the manor and lordship to John Smyth.

The above is for John Smyth, Esq. and was dated 22 Sept 1541. This John Smyth died in 1543.

Chris, one thing important to do now in investigating & evaluating source data is to "date" the citations.

One of Round's core points is lack of contemporary references, this applies to memorials erected some years after an event as well.

Lancaster is a contemporary medievalist, I believe it's his well sourced cite that is one of the first posts in this discussion.