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

Alex Lancaster's site

http://users.skynet.be/lancaster/Dorothy%20Burlingham%20Ancestry.ht...

How do we find this 15th century autobiography of John Carrington?

Bottom of pg 176

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

And does anyone know who "Morant" was? He appears to have done a study of the Smith Carrington pedigree.

Ok, WorldCat to the rescue. I did a search for authors of "Morant" and found a book on Essex originally published around 1763-1768. There appear to be two volumes.

His name was Philip Morant.

http://www.worldcat.org/title/history-and-antiquities-of-the-county...

There is supposedly an eBook format of this work, but it appears to be behind a login page.

More to come...

The login page is for "Interuniversity Library of the Sorbonne". This was formerly The University of Paris.

Maybe ya'll can find a login?

https://www.biu.sorbonne.fr/bius/ezproxylogin?url=http%3a%2f%2fgale...

Here's the non-obfuscated URL to the work. Looks like it's a pay-for-content provider for libraries. I'll see if my local library can access this document. (Feel free to see if yours can as well ;) )

http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/ECCO?c=1&stp=Author&st...

Sorry, I just realized I'm repeating some things Amy has posted. I found a work that details the Carrington Smith name change in some detail from c. 1868... see pg. 8

https://books.google.com/books?id=5gEIAAAAQAAJ&pg=PR7-IA8&l...

Here's an earlier work from 1844... see page 78

https://books.google.com/books?id=6pRMAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA77&lpg=...

Here is a great "play-by-play" source for the Carrington line. One should be able to verify what the author has attributed to each Carrington individual. (See middle of page 126)...

https://books.google.com/books?id=VpnC3wgof6gC&pg=PA127&lpg...

For Round to claim that the Smith/Carrington pedigree is a complete fabrication dismisses the fact that there were indeed Carringtons in Rivenhall, Essex at the same time John Smith would have made his name change (they left a history there by (re?)building the early church) and dismisses the fact that there are some very old documents that, unless they can be scientifically forensically proven (let's see the originals) to be anachronistic to the John Carrrington Smyth narrative, strongly suggest there was a man who was involved with, and had relatives who were involved with, The Epiphany Rising Conspiracy.

I have in the back of my mind that these 19th/early 20th century researchers who insist that this Carrington/Smith lineage is faux may have some (contemporary to themselves) political motivations or aspirations in making these claims. Though that war between Richard II and Henry IV was long over, the monarchy to whom Round was an honorary adviser (in matters of the peerage) was ruled by the direct heir to Henry IV, the immediate enemy of John Carrington and friends. Perhaps his attempt to discredit this Carrington/Smith lineage was to say "Look at me my leaders! Those who opposed your ancestor were imposters!" as an attempt to garner more of their favor. [This would have been during the time of George V.]

Perhaps they make that argument to help exclude those members of the peerage who claim descent from the Smiths of Rivenhall from a narrative that includes high treason?

I do not find any claims that the Smith/Carrington lineage is fraudulent in any works besides Round's and those who cite his work. None of the pre-20th century works state this either. (There may be one, but I can't think of who it might be.)

Round never married and appears to have had a chronic health condition. I can see how he could be so crotchety.

Augustus Smith, MP, ridiculed the Carrington claim in 1861, before Copinger wrote his book. Copinger criticzed Augustus Smith in his book, and Round noted this in his essay.

Please Google "ad hominem attacks" and stop making them.

Do you have a link to "Stemmata Smithiana Ferraria"?

As far as my comments being an ad hominem attack, perhaps only slightly. Knowing _who_ the man was is just as important as analyzing his arguments.

I feel that Round's association with the monarchy at the time (being their honorary expert on peerage matters and formal procedure) may be a legitimate reason he was persuaded towards his arguments. Further, those researchers who sided with him may have been swayed for political leanings as well. Additionally, his ailing health may have had an effect on both the soundness of his mind and disposition. As we have both agreed, and as have others, Round was prone to an argumentative persuasion.

Butterworth can solidly counter Round's claims that Hamon de Carrington and Hamon de Masci were the same individual, and the fact that John Carrington is affiliated with the Rivenhall Churchyard, near the same area as where John Smith (the first) is buried, is compelling evidence to suggest that the Smith/Carrington story is true. We also found that there were a line of Carringtons who were lords of The Manor of Carrington and separate from the line of Barons of Dunham Masci.

I have also provided links to sources that account for the absence of the Carrington lines in the Domesday Book. This further differentiates the de Masci and Carrington lines.

We also see how an ancestor of Hamon de Masci was affiliated with the family of William the Conqueror and, specifically Richard the Fearless. Further, Hamon de Masci is said to have been a brother-in-law to William the Conqueror. I feel that, given the research of "The Historical Society of Normandy", as cited by Butterworth, the descent of Hamon de Carrington from a Marquis of Carentan is not insignificant as, in those early days of Norman France, the peerage would have certainly been hereditary on the male line, meaning agnates of Rollo would have had a very high place the social structure. Hamon de Masci was family to William the Conqueror and I feel this can also suggest this was likely for this Hamon de Carrington.

Additionally, Round states that because a family tree was not copied correctly, the whole tree is fabricated. This is not sound logic. It appears it may actually be Morant who incorrectly (or correctly?) copied this tree. Let me make sure this is clear: multiple variants of a tree do not invalidate the whole of the lineage. Transcription errors occur and to ignore this fact, especially when working with primary sources (and not easily copy-able online trees or derivative works of tertiary sources), I feel, is overly discriminatory.

These are my counters to two of Rounds arguments that he says "demolish" the Smith /Carrington pedigree. I feel that the evidence suggests (if not proves) Round was wrong. There are a number of details that serve no purpose if they were simply conjured up by people with too much money. I welcome a more detailed rebuttal of my comments other than simply quoting Round and calling it a day. The evidence shows that there is (at the very least) a shred of truth to the Smith/Carrington line.

As for whether or not the Nottingham Smiths are descended from the Rivenhall Smiths, my opinion has not been made yet. I have seen multiple people attempt to counter this lineage (maybe they're an easy target for skepticism?), so an independent review of their lineage is necessary.

Regarding the Smiths of Nottingham, their descent from the Smiths of Cropwell Butler, Titheby, Nottinghamshire, is pretty solid. According to "The Great Houses of Nottinghamshire and their families...", the John Smith who purchased a farm from Sir Thomas Hutchinson died in 1641.

If this death date is correct, this is the John Smith who married Elizabeth Garton.

The aforementioned book also, skeptically, repeats that, allegedly, this John Smith was a son of a George Smith of Ashby Folville in Leicestershire. I believe that the Smiths of Rivenhall can solidly be connected to this Ashby Folville line, but I will need to double check.

I found a webpage that makes a claim (one I have found elsewhere as well) that this John Smith bap. 2 Oct 1593 d. 30 Dec 1641 was a son of another John Smith who died c. 1602. This older John Smith lived at (in?) Cropwell, Titheby.

Further, John S. Wurts writes in his book "Manga Charta" (pub. 1954) that the John Smith who married Elizabeth Garton was a son either "a William or a John Smith".

Additionally, but unfortunately without a source, the following PDF suggests that a "John Smith, Sr." b. 1573 d. 1602 was the father of John Smith who married Elizabeth Garton.

http://myhicksfamily.com/documents/Smith%20Family.pdf

At the risk of engaging in cycling referencing, I also present a parish marriage register for Titheby as was reproduced by Augustus John Smith in his book "A True and Faithful History of the Family of Smith, Originally Cradled at ..."

https://books.google.com/books?id=dtIWAAAAQAAJ&pg=PT37&lpg=...

We see here that the John Smith who died 28 March 1641 was a son of John Smith and a woman by the name of Frances.

No mention of a George Smith from Ashby Folville can be found in this lineage. Interesting. I feel this is pretty conclusive in demonstrating that the Smiths of Smith Bank are not descended from the Smiths of Ashby Folville and, in turn, not descended from the Smiths of Rivenhall.

Chris

In regards to the information you have on the main page of John Smyth of Rivenhall, I present the following:

First, you have only used Round's work as a basis for your framing of the Carrington/Smith line as fraudlent.

Second, you have contradictory information on this page. You state:

Concerning his wives, the old pedigrees name two: Anne Gernon, a widow, who had no children, and then John married Milicent Laynham (or Lenham) the daughter of Robert Laynham of Rivenhall and his wife Alice or Alison, a daughter of John Hende. This all seems confirmed by documents from the early 1500s (before the fraudulent pedigree) involving Thomas Smyth versus Bassett regarding the manor of Bradwell, for example C 1/356/89, and E 314/68/5.

The above is suggesting that the "fraudlent pedigree" starts after the 1500's and everything prior to that is in order. If this is the case, please remove the "Fraudlent Pedigree" attribution to the correct individual. Your own words here state that the descendants of John Smyth of Rivenhall were real and legitimate offspring of his. I will agree there are fraudulent pedigrees attached to his line.

Regarding Dorothy Burlington's analysis, the following quote is worthy of instigating an enquiry:

The details of the claims of the Smiths to be heirs of the Hendes do still seem to deserve investigation. ... It looks a bit like the Smiths might not be as "new" as Round thinks, and may have been holding other properties which they then lost. The claims of a connection to the Hendes might not originally have been so simple and should be checked.

One item of note, the Carrington/Smith name change (if it did happen) should have occurred after 13 Oct 1399, the date of the coronation of Henry IV. The Epiphany Rising plot took place between Dec 1399 and January 1400. The Amsterdam to Ipswitch narrative suggests the earliest name change would have occurred no earlier than 1404.

If we can _prove_ that the Smyths of Rivenhall were in Essex before 1400-1404 as Smyths, then perhaps we can lay this to rest.

Further, Round claims that John Smith, Baron of the Exchequer used a different coat of arms than the Smiths of Rivenhall. This is incorrect. Please see the following document and tree:

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/warks/vol3/pp196-205

Master Richard de Stanford m. Idonea
John Stanford
Maud m. Roger Harewall of Wooton
John Harewell
John Harewll
Roger Harewell
William Harewell m. Agnes Owgan
John Harewell m. Anne Midleton
Thomas Harewell (died)
Agnes Harwell m. *John Smith*, Baron of the Exchequor (Agnes inherited Manor of Lucies) (Agnes is sister of above Thomas Harewell)
Francis Smith m. Mary Morton m2. Elizabeth Brudenell

The arms of John Smith of Wootton Wawen are the same arms of John Smith, Baron of the Exchequor as _they are the same person_.

Round claims that the arms of this John Smith were (and I am no herald):

argent, on a chevon sable 6 fleurs-de-lis or, on a chief of the second, a lion passant of the first

silver, on a black chevron six gold fleur-de-lis, with a silver border, with a silver lion passant

Alternatively,

six gold fleur-de-lis on a black chevron on a silver background with a silver lion passant

This is my best translation. Online, try as I might, I find no Smith line to have bore these arms, nor can I find any reference to anything similar to these arms. If you can, please post a link.

This is the best I can do for now.

Chris

The project "Fraudulent Pedigree" applies to the ancestry, not the descent, of the profile tagged. I can make that clearer in the curator note.

Except for the first top paragraph of the profile John Smith, of Rivenhall it's all quotes from researchers (etc). I'm not going to rewrite someone else's words. :)

Personally I "do not know" about the possible first marriage so have nothing to say about it, except quote.

What is your response to my criticism of Round's two main arguments?

I feel that you stating that the Carrington ancestry was disproved places Round's work above all the other evidence available. You are not presenting the Smith/Carrington lineage fairly.

You are free to disagree. If you care to craft a brief counter argument I will add it to the profile overview.

An example of the suggested coat of arms for the Baron of the Exchequer can be found on Copinger's book cover. I have found it no where else.

https://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE1916532

If we are in the business of presenting information objectively, then I suggest you add the words "possible" to the words "fraudulent pedigree".

One side says John Carrington Smyth was a son of a Thomas Smyth, a steward to Edward III. Another side says John Carrington Smyth was a son of Robert Carrington, a man at arms during the time of Edward III. Hmm. See pg. 44,45 and 65 and of Copinger's book. This information should be heavily scrutinized.

https://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE1916532

Updated the curator note as follows:

Caution: an ancestral pedigree considered fraudulent by genealogist J. Horace Round in 1910 is still in circulation.

Here is what will put the John Smyth, Esq. debate to rest. This is found in Copinger's book:

(This is lengthy, but shows that two individuals, Sir William Dethick and Robert Cooke attest to John Carrington being one and the same of John Smyth, Esq. of Rivenhall. These guys were with The College of Arms. A John Carrington was indeed a John Smyth. Now, who was John's father? Robert or Thomas? ::sigh::)

Sir William Dugdale, Garter Principal King of Arms, in his "Antiquities
of Warwickshire," says : " I have seen attested by Sir William Dethick, Garter
Principall King of Arms, and Robt. Cooke, Clarenceux, of this John Carington
as to the Occasion that he changed his name to Smyth, they do specially
Certifie from the Credit of an antient Manuscript, then in the possession of
Henry Smith of Cressing Temple, Essex, Written with the proper Hand of
him the said John in K. Henry the Fourth's Time ; that in his youth he was
bred up in Gascoigne under Sir Thomas Nevill, in the Service of King Ric. 2,
and after the Decease of an elder Brother, called Edmund, that he returned
into England where he was likewise entertained in the said King's Service :
But afterwards, upon the Deposall of the said King Richard by Henry of
Lancaster, being constrained to flee into France, in Regard that he took
Part with the Earles of Huntingdon, Salisbury, and Kent, &c , against the
said Henry of Lancaster, after one Year's Abode in Paris, he travailed with
one Robert Arden, Esquire (of Alvanley co. Cest), his Companion, into Italy,
where they served under John Galeas, Duke of Millain against the Emperour
Rupert; and after the Death of the said Duke, returned into Brabant, where
they met with two English Friers going to Rome, from whom they received
Tidings that William Curson, a younger Son of Sir John Curson, and Cosin
Germain to the said John, was Abbot of S. Osithe's in Essex : Whereupon
he hasted towards England by Amsterdam, and arriving at Ipswich on a friday
Anno 1404, thence presently sped to S. Osithe's, where changing his name into Smyth, but privately making himself known to his Kinsman the Abbot,
was by him curteously entertained, who bestowed upon him good means,
and advanced him in marriage to Milicent, the Daughter and Heir of Robert
Leynham, by Alice the Daughter and Heir to John Hend, Mayor of London,
16 Ric. II.

Here is a PDF of Dugdale's work. It was originally published in 1656.

https://ia802704.us.archive.org/22/items/antiquitiesofwar00dugd/ant...

So are you going to take the word of the heralds at The College of Arms or J H Round? This is the decision.

The Carrington lineages need to be more thoroughly explored for accuracy. Butterworth does an adequate job in my opinion.

I think I have exhausted what I can on this subject. If this discussion thread was made to explore the identity of John Smith, Esq of Rivenhall in Essex, I believe it has succeeded. A handwritten account of the origin and story of John (Carrington) Smyth is said to have existed and been read by the heralds at The College of Arms in the mid 17th century. If we really want to scrutinize this any further, we'll need to get the actual document and have it forensically analyzed.

Everything points to this guy having been involved in the Epiphany Rising plot.

Chris

Here is a John Neville, 3rd Baron Latimer whose ancestor John Neville, 3rd Baron Neville de Raby lived in Gascogne, France for a time. He's old enough to have been a contemporary of John Carrington Smyth's father. The more recent Thomas Neville of Piggotts lived in Essex only about 5 miles from Colechester.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Neville,_3rd_Baron_Neville_de_Raby

This man's direct descendant Sir Thomas Neville of Piggotts Hall lived in Ardleigh, Essex. It may just be a coincidence. I'd like to verify the identity of who Sir Thomas Neville of Gascogne who raised John Carrington was.

Remember that the Copinger book has been criticized (at best) by other reviewers.

In regards to Dugdale 1646, this is what Round said:

https://books.google.com/books?id=-MZsAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA20&focu...

The authority of Elizabethan heralds was vouched for this story : "Of whose family I may not omit to observe what I have seen attested by Sir William Dethick, sometime garter principall King of Armes, and Robert Cooke Clarenceux; viz., that the said John Smyth (the baron) was grandson to John Carington; and the said John Carington lineally descended from Sir Michael Carington, knight, standard-bearer to the famous King Richard the First in the Holy Land" (Dugdale's Warwickshire, p. 601). Subsequently, however, in his Baronage, Dugdale only asserted not enough, the above modern family of Smith, though not even claiming connection with the descendants of the alleged standard bearer ...

----

In other words, Dudgale walked back his own claim in Warwickshire 1646.