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

One other thing that immediately stood out to me was Round's apparent disdain for the name Smith. He introduces Jones and Brown as names that still can be "redeemed" as he may put it in a genealogical sense, but he clearly makes it known that the surname Smith is one of the low class, a name given to those who come from nothing. If Round were alive today, he would surely be surprised to know that there is yDNA evidence to show that there is a Smith line directly descended from Nial of The Nine Hostages, a King of Ireland around 379 CE - 405 CE. From nothing they came? Round is wrong, and prejudiced against the name Smith as well.

Chris,

Then leave Round behind, and do this in the standard genealogy way.

- who were the parents of John Carrington and what evidence do you submit?
- who were the wives of John Carrington & what evidence supports?
- when & how did he die & what can you demonstrate for it?
- who was he? What was his character, activities, occupation, status, associates? What is there to show this?

Repeat same for John Smith.

Hamon de Carington was suggested to be a nephew of Hamon de Masci. I'm trying to tree this out and you're welcome to try to do so as well. As I have posted previously, Hamon de Masci's ancestor (great-grandfather?) rescued Richard II from his assassination when he was still a young boy. I feel this is one reason why Hamon de Carrington was related to William the Conqueror and would have likely been involved in the conquest of England. Another is that Hamon de Carrington is said to have been descended from a Marquis of Carentan and, the peerage of Normandy at the time being heriditary on the male line, it makes sense that agnates of Rollo would have stayed within their clique to benefit from the spoils. I'm sure there was infighting too. We need to tree out William the Conqueror's extended family to three degrees of separation: (siblings of (spouses of (siblings of (Wiiliam the Conqueror))) and (spouses of (siblings of the (spouse of William the Conqueror))). (Forgive me if this this doesn't make immediate sense. It appears the term "brother-in-law" can be quite broadsweeping.)

I'll need to re-read the will of John Smyth, Esq of Rivenhall. I think it was argued that the legal proceedings regarding an inheritance of an estate cast some light on the John Smyth, Esq. family.

Yep, nope, that will isn't in Copinger's book. Darn it.

I've at least been able to show Round is not credible in this matter. The remainder of the evidence not derived from his work suggests the Smith/Carrington lineage is real.

We know that John Carrington was fighting (as a mercenary to an Italian Duke?) in Italy in 1401 based upon his rent records in Cheshire. Given that the hand written document follows the narrative and chronology, I think this sufficient evidence to consider the lineage credible. I'd really like to have a modern forensic specialist analyze the document, wherever it may be. I think there is a "Historical Manuscript" archive in England that currently possess it. Then again, the heirs to The Nevills of Holt may still have it. I think it'll prove to be either a 15th century original or a 16th century transcription of a 15th century document.

I've been thinking about one other item. What if you wanted to prove who you were, but the only way you could do that was by explaining how you avoided capture by the king's men? If you explained how you were provided refuge, you'd expose your network of allies.

Fudging the names of the people in the events may have been a way to provide a pedigree to The College of Arms and preserve the secrecy of the names of those who sought to overthrow Henry IV. This is wholly speculation on my part. There could also be missing records (like the suppliment to the Domesday records) that would explain everything.

Chris

So let's take this in pieces.

"We know that John Carrington was fighting (as a mercenary to an Italian Duke?) in Italy in 1401 based upon his rent records in Cheshire."

Can you link again that evidence?

". Given that the hand written document follows the narrative and chronology, I think this sufficient evidence to consider the lineage credible."

The handwritten document was called by "an outside authority" a fabrication and forgery. That is strong language that was published.

I had suggested extracting from Copinger the language of the "diary" for analysis by a medieval linguist. This is not "forensic" of course but they may be able to say something like, "took a college literature survey class" versus "this is consistent with what we know of the English language in 1404."

More than that, from what I understand of the diary, the reference was to his grandfather, William Carrington who fought at Sluys. No further.

Re: "What if you wanted to prove who you were, but the only way you could do that was by explaining how you avoided capture by the king's men? "

What is the evidence that John Smith of Rivenhall between 1404 and his death in 1446 tried to reclaim his heritage? As I understand it, the diary of John Carrington was not found until long after his death. As I understand it, in his lifetime John Smith of Rivenhall never called himself anything other than .... John Smith.

Upon the death of Hamo the lordship of Caring­
.ton passed to his son and heir Sir William* de
Carington, who was succeeded by his son Sir
Jordan, “ 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.

The handwritten document was called by "an outside authority" a fabrication and forgery. That is strong language that was published.

These are Round's opinions and he can not be factored into this discussion moving forward. I have shown him to be errant in a number of ways and his credibility in the matter is non-existent in my opinion.

A different matter you discuss:
"What is the evidence that John Smith of Rivenhall between 1404 and his death in 1446 tried to reclaim his heritage? As I understand it, the diary of John Carrington was not found until long after his death. As I understand it, in his lifetime John Smith of Rivenhall never called himself anything other than .... John Smith."

To say this is to say that the Henry Smyth of Ashby Folville, whose heirs were the Nevills of Holt, had in his family a forger, or at least someone willing to hire one. I don't think this argument holds water as the Smith (of Rivenhall)/Nevill kinship is upheld in a cited will.

Show me someone other than Round (or a Round-ite) that calls the original document a "forgery". I think it would be an excellent academic exercise to compare the language of the handwritten document to others of the period. Any volunteers? I think this is beyond my scope.

Regarding the lineage to Sir Mychael of Carrington:

"This pedigree was copied 1st September, 1870, from a large sheet of parchment
in the Charter Chest of the Nevills of Holt, by A. J. Horwood, Assistant
under the Keeper of the Public Records. Its title is—" The Pedigree and
Exploits in Foreign Countries of John Carington, Armiger, as related by himself
to the year 1404."
The first part consists of a blazon of fifteen shields of arms in colours
belonging to his ancestors and their alliances.
' Then follows a quaint pedigree commencing with " a belsire ycleped
Sir Michael Carington, whome sometyme was standard berer of King Richarde
the first in the holley land."

This starts on page 72 of Copinger's book. "A belsire ycleped..." translates to "A grandfather named..." If the descent from Sir Mychal of Carrington is correct, the relationship to John Smyth (the author) would actually be 3x-g-grandfather.

Reposting of requested citation:

[From] 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."

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

I believe the elevation of first Viscounts Carrington to the peerage were an example of this Smyth line reclaiming their heritage. Their heir line (legitimate descendants from Smyths of Rivenhall) died out in the 18th century. Theirs is the coat of arms we have attached to this family on Geni. See pg. 41 of Butterworth's work.

Unfortunately, Butterworth has included the Smiths of Bulcot Lodge. Tsk.

One crucial piece I left out was that Butterworth connected John Smyth's lineage to Sir Mychael of Carrington using additional records other than the hand written document. This shows the two narratives are parallel.

Clarification, Butterworth connected John Smyth's father, Sir Thomas Carrington who married Margaret Roos, to Sir Mychael of Carrington using sources other than the handwritten document.

A note: Butterworth published his book in 1932, Round in 1910, and Copinger in 1907.

https://books.google.com/books?id=xxE_CgAAQBAJ&lpg=PT194&ot...

Footnotes to History: The Personal Realm of John Wilson Croker, Secretary to the Admiralty (1809–1830), a “Group Family” Nigel Harris Sussex Academic Press, Nov 1, 2015 - Biography & Autobiography - 240 pages. "Dubious Claims About Early Origin"

"The document on which Copinger placed most reliance ... " Was composed at the end of the 16th century.

I'm not sure but I believe this is saying the diary was a fabrication.

Unfortunately, I can not access the whole of Harris's book. Can you copy/paste the whole of his argument? If he is simply taking Round's word that the document is fabricated, this argument falls flat.

I want to share something with you that is going to severely complicate matters as they pertain to applying modern yDNA findings to solving this matter. See the following link:

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Carrington/default.aspx?sectio...

I first wish to show that there are multiple Carrington yDNA lineages that do not match each other. How they all received the surname Carrington, I am not sure and it would require a moderate amount of time and effort to ascertain.

Additionally, as prolific as this Smyth/Carrington story is (and believe me it is prolific), there are others that have attached themselves to the Carrington yDNA project in hopes of making their claim to John Carrington of Rivenhall. For example, kit 364732 is most assuredly not descended from Theobald Butler, son of Hervey Walter. If this project's results were truly from the Carringtons of Cheshire, descended from Hamo of Carentan, the Butler line and Carrington line would be a 12/12 match at a minimum.

Hervey Walter was a patrilineal descendant of Richard the Fearless, a great-grandson of Rollo. The Marquis of Carentan was likely an agnate of Rollo as well.

The Butler and Carrington lines in this project do not match and therefore are unrelated in any significant way.

Allowing the general public to attach unverified genealogical information to DNA results is muddling up the works. I have contacted the project administrator to have the matter corrected.

I can't see any more of the book https://books.google.com/books?id=xxE_CgAAQBAJ&dq=butterworth+c... than you can - it's in copyright.

There is an Elizabeth Carrington married into the Croker family mid 1600s it looks like. Hey, haven't we seen the Croker family before? So the social biographer covers her supposed ascent. I would doubt he undertook original medieval research as that was not his intent.

I am curious about something. Wouldn't Carrington, as most surnames, arise independently? My own surname is the exception that proves the rule (and only in America).

You might enjoy this review of Round's work

https://www.jstor.org/stable/550090?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

From "History And Records Of The Smith-Carington Family, From The Conquest To The Present Time : With Full Account Of The Various Seats And Places With Which Its Members Have Been Connected, Including Carrington In Cheshire, Ashby Folville In Leiches, Vol. 1". 2017. Dcms.Lds.Org. Accessed January 15 2017. https://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE1916.... Page 75

This should be findable. If it can't be found, something is wrong.

----

<Snip>

William Curssone, a younger sonne of a Knighte cleped Sir John Cursone was, and he had byne Abbott of Sant Ooses in Essex a yeare and more which tydinges was to him great joye for cause this Abbott was a sonne of his fathers elder Suster cleped Elleyne, somtyme wife of Sir John Curson both whom waren deceassede long before. But John Carington bethoughten howe he mowton gett him into Englande without perill for he harde ofte sayen how Kinge Hennery of Lancaster was
full fell and cruell to all whome hade trespassed him againste ....

That narrative about William Curssone is from the original handwritten document (found in the records of the Nevills of Holt) by John Smyth of Rivenhall.

From what I understand of the origin of the surname, it appears to have been that some people could call themselves "from Carrington". To further confuse matters, there were two places called Carrington, one in Normandy (Carentan) and one in England after the conquest called "Carrington" in Chester. So you could have people say they were "from Carrington" and that could mean two very different places.

Mr. Tait hits the nail right on the head. Round digresses from an analysis of the main facts that pertain to the origins of the characters in question by making discourse on things simply not pertinent to the primary matter he attacks. I also feel Round's strong language is an attempt to compensate for weak arguments. Thanks for that link.

After researching the tree of William the Conqueror (using a summary written by Gary Ray Smith as a starting point [a modern internet researcher I have mixed opinions of]) I have been able to refine the claim of Hamon de Masci being a "brother-in-law" of William the Conqueror to Hamon being "a half-nephew" of William the Conqueror. The suggested relationship is that Hamon de Masci was a son of Murial de Conteville (an individual who herself needs more researching) and William de Ferte'-Mace'. Murial's mother is suggested to have been Hervela, the mother of William the Conqueror. Murial's father is suggested to have been Herluin de Conteville.

So, to put it another way, a half-sister of William the Conqueror had a son with William de Ferte'-Mace' who was Hamon de Masci.

Anyone want to verify this for me?

Sources;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herleva
Guillaume de la Ferté-Macé

And a note to any future readers of this thread, not all of the replies are in chronological order.

I'm curious as to why you aren't referencing the geni profiles.

I'm not familiar with that process, apologies.

It looks like it's automatically linking profiles on the left side of the discussion.

Interesting discussion but then so many records were omitted or expunged for some members of aristocratic families for whatever reasons that it is difficult to prove any truth in ancestry. I would think that perhaps DNA tests could change all that but only if everyone submits to these tests.

Janice,

With the advent of the internet and digital documents, we have overcome one of the largest hurdles genealogists before us had (and still have to some degree). The volume of information is now manageable and searching it is only requires a few keystrokes to find the relevant portions of a book or long essay. It is my hope any questions of the past can be resolved by using modern information management resources.

Regarding DNA, it's almost a game of chance. The real useful connections to a yDNA's line's distant origin can only be made if the relevant individual(s) decide to participate in a test and have the necessary paper documents to prove their line's origins. Some people get lucky that way, others are left to ponder.

Again, with the old lines in England, it is a matter of chance that someone's ancestors were fortunate enough to be recorded in a unique court record or have some pedigree filed with The College of Arms.

Don't be discouraged :) Be sure to vet your sources before you jump to any conclusions and your research efforts should be fruitful.

Chris

@Chris Smith Sadly I will never know or be able to prove my Aristocrat great great Grandfather Charles' pedigree and thereby give him a place in history and that tends to make me not have too much faith in digital documents etc. I have spent hours searching and nothing so I am discouraged which is exactly what Charles' descendants want. I will have my day in the sun for him though when I write my book about him and a screenplay.

Found an interesting document. This may have been already been posted. (Amy has made some great contributions but mostly silent in the discussion).

http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archiveDS/archiveDownload?t=arc...

This document appears to shed light on who the Cursson (Curzon) folks were. See page 108.