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

re: 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 Heralds at the College of Arms certified pedigrees that have subsequently been shown as false, and are as a consequence not accepted by modern (20th and 21st century) medievalists.

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

I had posted that upthread, I thought.

War and Society in Medieval Cheshire, 1277-1403, Volume 3; Volume 34
By Philip Morgan page 176

"John Carrington's autobiography, so we are told by its 15th century copyist, survived in an autograph manuscript." (160.)

Footnote 160 cites Copinger's book.

This is the very same autobiography that Round had evaluated by a medievalist. I will try and find again the exact words, but it was something like: "the fabricator knew a little Chaucer."

----

If you can extract the text from Copinger you can probably get a middle English linguist to evaluate authenticity based just on the writing style.

The complete peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain, and the United Kingdom : extant, extinct, or dormant
"The Complete Peerage Of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain, And The United Kingdom : Extant, Extinct, Or Dormant". Published 1910. Archive.Org. Accessed January 13 2017. https://archive.org/stream/completepee page 62 - 63

https://archive.org/stream/completepeerageo03coka#page/62/mode/2up

(from the full text view)

"f) The title of" Carrington " was doubtless selected because the ancient family of Smith, alias Carrington (though in no way connected with the family of the grantee) had, under the latter name, been ennobled in 1643. " grantee's father (who
established the London Banking House) and grandfather, each named Abel Smith, were bankers at the county town of Nottingham. The grandfather of the last, with whom the pedigree begins, was one John Smith, of Cropwell Boteler in Titheby,
Notts, who d. 1641, whose son Thomas Smith (great-grandfather of the first Peer) was "a respectable draper at Nottingham," who, by keeping account of the "market transactions" of the farmers near there and by receiving their cash, eventually became a Country Banker. See F. Martin's Stories of Banks and Bankers. ....

.... of Abel Collin, of Nottingham, to which match apparently the family owed their greatness, as the griffin in the coat of Collin forms the chief charge in the coat of Smith granted in the 18th century to their more distinguished descendants. G.E.C. See J. H. Round's Peerage and Pedigree, vol. ii, pp. 213-220, where the true descent of this family is shewn to have been established by one of its own members, Augustus Smith, who describes it as "altogether plebeian in its source." Although retaining Carington as its surname, the family has now abandoned any claim to a Carrington descent. V.G.

-----

In other words, this Smith family walked back their claim to the Carrington name & coat of arms. Their descendant Augustus Smith believed their origin to have been plebian.

Peerage and pedigree, studies in peerage law and family history
"Peerage And Pedigree, Studies In Peerage Law And Family History". 2017. Archive.Org. Accessed January 13 2017. https://archive.org/stream/peeragepedig page xx - xxi

(from the full text view)

As I have demolished, once for all, the whole 'Carington ' story, I wish, in justice to the College of Arms, to point out that it has not accepted, in its corporate and official capacity, that story as
genuine.

It is indeed asserted in Burke's Landed Gentry, and the assertion is prominently cited in Dr. Copinger's book — that over 700 years of the descent has been " registered " in the College of Arms, but I am assured that the ' Carington ' descent has not been officially " recorded. "

And from soc.gen.med , the mailing list for working medievalists

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/peerage-news/oYLcNrrALYE/BOeK...

This is not a case of a simple name change, but a blatant fraud. For full details see J. H. Round "Peerage and Pedigree" vol. 2, pages 134 to 257, "The Great Carington Imposture".

A brief snippet:

"... the perpetrators of this huge imposture had two strings to their
bow: it is alleged that on two separate occasions Caringtons from
Cheshire settled in Essex, and assumed, for different reasons, the
same name Smith! It is strange enough that even one should have done it ..."

The fabricated pedigree was eventual carried back to a Hamo de
Carington, who supposedly came to England in the reign of William I, but

"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".

Sorry for the snippets! It's easier to digest that way, at least for me.

Thought I'd try this one, part of the story that went around.

From Leicestershire Pedigrees and Royal Descents
"Leicestershire Pedigrees And Royal Descents". 2017. Google Books. Accessed January 13 2017. Page 23

https://books.google.com/books?pg=PA127&lpg=PA127&dq=willia...

JOHN CARINGTON (11), Dugdale says he was bred up in Gascoigne under Sir Tho. Neville in the service of Richard II., and after the decease of his elder brother Edmund 1397 returned to England, still in the service of the King; but on deposal of Richard II. by Henry of Lancaster, being constrained to flee into France, after one year in Paris served in Italy, and then went to Brabant, where he met two English friars going to Rome, who informed him that his cousin William Curson was now Abbot of St. Osithe's, whereupon he hasted by Amsterdam to Ipswich in 14o4, he thence sped to St. Osithe's, where changing his name to Smyth and adopting for Arms a cross betw. 4 peacocks, made himself known to the Abbot, was by him courteously entertained and advanced with good means.

----

But here's the list of abbots of St. Osyth in Essex

Houses of Austin canons: Abbey of Chich or St Osyth's | British History Online
"Houses Of Austin Canons: Abbey Of Chich Or St Osyth's | British History Online". 2017. British-History.Ac.Uk. Accessed January 13 2017. http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/essex/vol2/pp157-162.

Abbots of St. Osyth's

John Story, died 1373. (fn. 82)

Thomas de London, occurs 1404. (fn. 83)

Henry Corton, occurs 1416. (fn. 84)

83. Privy Seals, Hen. IV, No. 4,103. Thomas de Berkyng, abbot of St. Osyth's, probably the same, was a member of the fraternity of the Holy Trinity, St. Botolph without Aldersgate, London, in 10 Henry IV (W. Hone, Ancient Mysteries Described, p. 80). Thomas, probably the same, occurs as abbot at various dates from 1386 (Close, 10 Ric. II, m. 28d. 25d.) to 1413 (L. T. R. Memo. R. Mich. 7 Hen. V).

----

I could be wrong, maybe there's another St. Osyth/ Osithe to be abbot of in 1404.

But British History on line has Thomas de London

From the same site: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/essex/vol2/pp157-162

Abbot Thomas de London joined the abbot of Colchester and others in the conspiracy (fn. 36) for the restoration of Richard II in 1403. When the plot became known in the next year a warrant was issued (fn. 37) for his arrest; but on 6 November he received a pardon, (fn. 38) with a grant of his forfeited goods. John Fowler, a canon of the abbey, was also pardoned (fn. 39) at the same time, most probably for connexion with the same affair.

I believe the sources footnoted are Cal. Papal Letters, v, 16, 21 & Patent Rolls for 5 Henry lV

36. See p. 96.
37. Pat. 5 Hen. IV, pt. 2, m. 16d.
38. Ibid. 6 Hen. IV. pt. 1, m. 25.
39. Ibid.

Don't find any Carington's on this site

http://condottieridiventura.it/ (google translate from Italian)

biography of War Captains and Lieutenants Ventura operating in Italy in 1330 and 1550.

Introduction page here: http://condottieridiventura.it/category/condottieri-di-ventura/intr...

I'm not sure how current the site is but there's a claim that each card is carefully vetted.

I feel I have countered Round sufficiently enough to be able to dismiss his work on this subject. What you have quoted doesn't even sound like a coherent thought to me to be honest. Round is saying Dougdale said (or didn't say) something, but does not have a source. Dougdale clearly explained his opinion of the Carrington/Smyth connection in his work and provided a source for his reasoning. End, done, finito.

You are mixing references to different Smith lineages. One of your quotes is regarding the connection from the Nottingham Smiths to the Smiths of Ashby Folville and Rivenhall. In this light, one can argue the Smith/Carrington lineage is fabricated. In regards to the Smiths of Rivenhall, it is legitimate. Be careful not to misrepresent what you're posting.

Regarding St. Osyth's, there were a number of individuals who resided there who were involved in the Epiphany Rising plot. It's documented:

(We should try to better identify who this William Curson was.)

Abbot Thomas de London joined the abbot of Colchester and others in the conspiracy (fn. 36) for the restoration of Richard II in 1403. When the plot became known in the next year a warrant was issued (fn. 37) for his arrest; but on 6 November he received a pardon, (fn. 38) with a grant of his forfeited goods. John Fowler, a canon of the abbey, was also pardoned (fn. 39) at the same time, most probably for connexion with the same affair.

Bah, reposted what you had already posted. I wanted to show that it said "and others". Need to see who William Curson was.

And just because some have found that one lineage vouched for by a herald isn't 100% accurate doesn't mean all others in doubt at the time are fabricated. Each lineage should be analyzed.

Also, you keep citing Round and no one else. I might suggest that no one else questions the legitimacy of the account of the hand written document of John Carrington Smyth.

The main issue with you quoting Round all the time is that you can't prove Round correct using Round's own work. You must find evidence that supports his arguments. I have been able to find sources that counter two of his arguments. You have not shown anything that support his claims other than his own words.

I've said from the the beginning of this conversation: it is not on me to re prove Round's case, one accepted by greater minds than either of us. You've already made a decision not to like him so it's a lost cause anyway.

But I don't need to persuade you. Rather, you would need to demonstrate that Michael Carrington became John Smith who died in 1446 in Rivenhall, and this you have not done. You have not proven Carrington's origin. You have not shown that he became John Smith, only that there were people later who said so.

The story published in "Leicestershire Pedigrees and Royal Descents" says that the Abbot of St Ogyth in 1404 was named William Curson (or Curzon) and that he was a cousin to Carrington. But the records of St. Ogyth do not show a Curson at all, and present clearly that the Abbott in 1404 was Thomas de London.

So that part of the story is in error. Is it wrong about the Priory? About the cousin?

At best it's garbled, and why you trust it I don't quite fathom.

I think this has already been posted, but here's a book titled "War and Society in Medieval Cheshire, 1277-1403" by Phillip Morgan. He mentions:

"Indentures make frequent reference to these irregular incidence of war in the form of ransoms, booty, and appatis, and clearly suggest that great importance was attached to them by the respective parties. John Carrington was able, albeit modestly and often in monastic guest houses, to live for two years on the profit of a single ransom taken at the battle of Brescia in 1401. Similar incidents of a like character are poorly documented in the surviving Cheshire evidence, and indeed much of our knowledge of the success of the military community comes, paradoxically, from the detail of their own ransoms."

Looks like there are records for John Carrington in Essex just after 1401?

https://books.google.com/books?id=FRzoAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA175&lpg...

The task you ask of me is an impossible one. Sir Michael (the standard bearer to Richard I) was an earlier ancestor of John Carrington Smyth of Rivenhall. They are undoubtedly different people. It is concerning you would ask of me this task and demonstrates you do not understand the relevant material.

I will agree that the identity of the Abbot of St Ogyth is in question.

Keep in mind, they did not have relational databases and indexed, automatically searchable archives back then. I am sure that, with a scrutinizing eye, modern capabilities can (and already have) offer many corrections to those who have (unintentionally or otherwise) re-recorded the events of history through the blurry lens of time.

Chris

Crud. Disregard my post at 12:39. Is says "Cheshire" not "Essex".

Chris

And you're also asking me to do an impossible task! :)

I can only defer to the more experienced in the field. For updates on the pedigree and a modern examination we have only to look at the work of Andrew Lancaster, his pages posted several times & quoted from, and an active working medieval genealogist of good reputation. He clearly does "not" accept the Carington pedigree and "has" updated Round's work as well as analyzed it.

Now this is interesting, from a find on the name Copinger in "War and Society in Medieval Cheshire, 1277-1403" by Phillip Morgan

https://books.google.com/books?id=FRzoAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA175&lpg...

Page 182.

And Chris - I do understand the story, I think.

The first problem John Carrington als Smith, a claim made for him many years after his death. The descent from John Smith of Rivenhall is clear enough (except when it gets muddled by being named Smith). The banking Smith family pedigree commented on by Cockaigne in The Complete Peerage is a different Smith family. However at one point they "also" claimed to descend from Carrington als Smith.

The second problem is that John Carrington was supposed to have descended from a Sir Michael Carrington, standard bearer to King Richard l of England etc .... who apparently no one can find any reference to "outside" genealogical studies like Burke's.

The third issue is that SIr Michael Carrington is supposed to have descended from a Hamo de Carington, accompanied William the Conqueror from France. But if you can find him in the Domesday Book or any other standard reference, I'd be surprised.

I'm reading through Round again and I'm puzzled by his logic regarding the existence of Sir Mychell of Carrington, the standard bearer. Part of his argument hinges on, oddly, the physical nature of the standard as it was used in battle. Copinger claimed it was a very large structure moved about as needed based upon the progress of the armies. He says since the large standard bearing object was so massive, no single man could have bore it. I wish to argue that such a contraption did not exist in a mobile form on the battlefield.

Here is one example, a painting of Peter the Hermit leading the first crusades. (scroll down about a 1/3 of the way)

https://www.britannica.com/event/Crusades

We can see clearly that a standard bearer leading the charge (at the head of the pack mind you) is a single lone man (a knight?) with a flag attached to his lance.

Here are some more examples:

https://www.britannica.com/event/Crusades/images-videos/Detail-of-a...

Image 11 of 14 does show what could be large constructions bearing various coats of arms. However, I think these could actually be objects attached to moving vessels, both ships and smaller boats. In this manner, these objects could be moved, but under the power of many people and while attached to a form of conveyance. I do not believe these objects would have been what Sir Mychell of Carrington (or any other standard bearer) would have been responsible for carrying into battle.

Image 8 of 14 shows a crusader with a standard and lance.

Image 12 of 14 shows a flag among troops in battle. This is an earlier Siege of Acre. (I think that city has been constantly involved in conflict throughout the centuries due to it's strategic value).

I feel the above cast at least one of Round's arguments against "Sir Michael of Carrington" in doubt.

Regarding Adam de Carington, I side with Copinger in his analysis of monetary matters. Round states that only a two shilling cost was incurred by a Matthew of Carrington, son of Sir Michael of Carrington. Clearly Adam de Carington sold his estate ("full half of the Parish of Sale") and his son gave his life for his cause. Perhaps Round is suggesting that these Carringtons were not as well to do as they claimed since they are not recorded as having paid a large sum on the money rolls. I suspect that they sold their estates and went off to war under their own funds. Who would sell their possessions, give everything to the crown, and then go fight in a war (with someone else's resources you were accommodated with) when you could have simply had oversight of your own money? Does Round expect that they would have been reimbursed?

Round goes on to state that (re: Sir Michael de Carrington, pg 160) "...the author proceeds to endow him with a father and two sons, not one of whom is so much as named even in that forgery itself! I believe Round is stating that the "Karington" men listed on the payment roll are not part of the pedigree found on the document found in the possession of The Nevills of Holt in the 1870's. I can only suggest that this does not invalidate the pedigree, but could be the result of there being too many people to remember in the tree. The individuals could also not be immediately relevant to the descent of John Smyth and were omitted for brevity's sake.

I'll continue reading...

Chris

Regarding Hamo de Carentan, see Butterworth's book "Old Cheshire Families and Their Seats" pg (25 and 26):

The founder of the house was Hamo de Carenton, a scion of the noble family of de Carenton in Normandy, who took their title from the place of that name.
Sir Bernard Burke says that “The family of Carrington derives its name from the Castle, town and port of Carenton in Normandy.The Chateau de Carenton was always a portion of the Ducal domains, and of much importance in the history of Normandy.” Carenton was known to the Romans as “ Carentonum Unellorum,” denoting possession of the place by the tribe of Unelli. In modern times the spelling of the name has become Carentan.

In considering the ancestry of Hamo de Carenton it appeared desirable to consult any records still available in France. It transpired, however, upon communicating with the Mayor of Carentan, that the official documents of the town date back only to the Revolution, the earlier ones having been destroyed at that time. The following details
are therefore based upon an early "Armorial General de France” deeds and other papers in the municipal archives of Rouen, and the publications of the “Société de l'Historie de Normandie".

Hamo was a younger son of the Marquis de Carenton, Lord of Carenton in Normandy. The family of de Carenton rendered distinguished service to the early French kings and possessed great estates in different parts of France.
Their name still lives in Charenton-sur—Cher, just south of Bourges, in Carentan and the River Charentonne in Normandy, and in Charenton—le—Pont,the suburb
of Paris.

Chris

Tagging the profile to this discussion

Hamo Lupas de Caryngton, Sir

I would call that story "legendary" and with the same problem of proving descent, link by link.

http://newsarch.rootsweb.com/th/read/Carrington/2005-10/1130702695

In this description of the legend Michael Carrington is called "sword bearer to Richard the Lionhearted" - not standard bearer.

I"m not taking sides in the Smith-Carington line, although I do find it suspicious that with pardons being handed out left right and centre that anyone should have found it necessary to change his name, somehow buy a new manor, etc etc.

I also took a fixed dislike in my adolescence to JH Round. But opinionated as he may have been he was one of the better English medievalists of his time. On standard-bearers Copinger must be in the wrong. There are plenty of people who are, with real sources, shown as standard-bearers. If I remember correctly, the Milanese did use something drawn about on a cart. But for Northern Europe there would have been no need. Standards were things that people could rally to at need from near distances.

But I do NOT believe that people generally sold their estates and went off to war for a cause. If they had money, they might go off to war without expecting funds from their leader (immediately). But to sell the estates? You might have to do so in a long civil war, but to do this just to go off fighting? It does not ring true.

Mark

How can you call the research of the Historical Society of Normandy (in France none the less) a legend?? You would discredit an entire organization because Round didn't know to look in France for information on Hamo? (Information which was clearly there to be found!)

(I actually think his name was Hamon, as was called Hamon de Masci in the Domesday book).

The "sword bearer" narrative appears to be present in a narrative unique to a researcher of individuals with the surname "Carrington" who reside in North America. Dugsdale, Copinger, Round, and Butterwoth all repeat "standard bearer", not "sword bearer".

I wouldn't think they sold entire estates, but perhaps large portions of their holdings.

Mark,

Pardons aside, John Carrington's compatriot Croke alias le Blount (I think that's right) had his insides burnt in a fire while he was alive, and this was after he was toyed with on the gallows. Someone did not like these guys and it was personal. Pardoned or not, I'd make sure that what happened to a fellow man at arms of mine didn't happen to me. Can simple prudence and caution be valid explanations?

And, yes, Copinger must be wrong about the design of the equipment of a standard bearer, but Round is even more so for using such an irrelevant detail as evidence against the existence of Sir Mychall of Carrington.

It was not Croke alias le Blount who supposedly went off to mercenary in Italy along with Carington & (the 3rd fellow), it was his cousin who was caught as a co conspirator & brutally killed. There are a few "cousins" in this story.

You'll have to show me Hamo de Carington as a companion of William the Conqueror from France. I had thought they'd been identified by now.