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

We can't cite Round to prove Round right! ::sigh::

The pedigree was entered into the College of Arms by Cooke in 1577(approx) (he served in this capacity from 1567 - 1592). There's an entire passage about it in Copinger's book. He talks about Dugdale mentioning (in his book Antiquities of Warwickshire) a passage written by Cooke and a few other heraldic authorities examining the original documents. They all agreed on the pedigree and entered the information into the heraldic archives. The issues Round mentioned were:

-the lineage before Adam de Carington (which later is proven)
-the link from Mr. Robert-Carington (the donor of the materials to Copinger) to the Smiths of Rivenhall (this doesn't exist according to the Heralds.)

Pg. 77 of Copinger's book:

"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,..."

One of these same documents was later found in the possession of The Nevills of Holt in the 1870's during a historical manuscript survey of the country.

To add to this, the herald who attended the funeral of another John Smyth who was a brother to the then Viscount Carrington was declared by the herald himself to be a descendant of the Carrington line.

Round immediately discounts this. The College of Arms accepts the Carrington lineage for the Smiths of Rivenhall.

The aforementioned Viscount Carrington being of the time of the 17th century, prior to the creation of the Barons Carrington of Bulcotte Lodge. The earliest Lords Carringtons of Chester were the 1st creation of the peerage seat, the 17th century Viscounts were the second creation of the Lords Carrington in the peerage of England (and Ireland?), and the 18th century Barons (and Marquessess in the peerage of Ireland) being the 3rd creation.

There is no rule (as far as I know) that says a title of Lordship needs to be hereditary, meaning it can be granted to different male lines.

I believe the first two creations were given to the same male line, but the 3rd was given to a different line.

I don't know about Robert Cooke, but William Dethick was infamously venal, as his father had been also. The Dethicks claimed descent from an old Derbyshire family - but were almost certainly upstarts from Holland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_Dethick

They were not apparently any more scrupulous with the pedigrees of others, and indeed Sir William Dethick was removed from office for overreaching his authority. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Dethick

Cooke was responsible for two of the disgracefully sloppy Visitations of Shropshire, which does not speak favorably for him either.

Chris, you can always just ask the College of Arms directly, if you don't want to accept that Round "enquired" and received a "no."

http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/contact-us

Maven will be shocked, simply shocked, to learn:

Robert Cooke (or Cook) (born c. 1535, died 1592–3)[1][2] was an English Officer of Arms in the reign of Elizabeth I. In the College of Arms, he rose to the rank of Clarenceux King of Arms, serving in that capacity from 1567 until his death in 1592–3. He served as marshal for the state funeral of Sir Philip Sidney in 1587. Cooke was accused by fellow officers of arms of granting arms to unworthy men for personal gain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Cooke_(officer_of_arms)

I bit more about the Elizabethan Heralds

https://books.google.com/books?id=5fb2qsnZozMC&lpg=PA129&ot...

The Social Circulation of the Past: English Historical Culture, 1500-1730
By Daniel R. Woolf Page 129

From http://www.baronage.co.uk/bphtm-02/moa-01.html#Introduction

"In Tudor times the scandalous reputation of the College was widespread ..."

Oh yeah, shocked :-D

Robert Glover (Somerset Herald) seems to have been the least bad of a scurrilous lot, and even he has a somewhat mixed reputation - often respected for his scholarship, but sometimes accused of gullibility and wild guessing. It must be said that those Visitations he had a direct hand in producing are, on the whole, among the more reliable ones.

Sounds like there may have been some professional conflicts occurring within their own ranks. Hmm.

This wreaks of snobbish high society trying to find reasons why they're better than everyone else.

It's about "new money" buying their way into a higher class. Shakespeare did it too.

Talk about fighting with each other!

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

Segar was promoted to Somerset Herald in 1589 and to Norroy King of Arms in 1593[9] During his tenure as Norroy, Robert Cooke, Clarenceux King of Arms, was encroaching on the traditional privileges of Garter King of Arms, Sir William Dethick. In 1595 Segar sided with Dethick, criticising Cooke for his inability to write clearly and for making many grants of arms to "base and unworthy persons for his private gaine onely."[10]

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

Biographers note that Dethick was embroiled in strife throughout his career to a degree notable even for his time period, including numerous accusations of physical assault.[2] In 1573 Mary White, the wife of Chester Herald reported that Dethick assaulted her with a coal basket and rubbed hot ashes into her hair.[3] He was also reported to have attacked his father with his fists, stabbed his elder brother, and stabbed another man while at a funeral in Westminster Abbey.

---

And you thought Round had a mouth on him .... :)

So then Dethick and Cooke, apparent rivals, actually _agreed_ on the John Smyth/Carrington pedigree? This should add even more credibility to the story since both of them are in agreement and not arguing about it.

Both of them were corrupt, Chris.

You have not proven that to me to any certain degree. Do you have specific examples, with proof, that these men attached fabricated trees to individuals to whom they also issued coats of arms? I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm just saying I have never seen hard evidence of this.

You didn't have to have a specific lineage to have been granted a coat of arms. You simply had to garner the favor of the crown. Of this I am almost certain.

Here's the College of Arms' website:

http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/services/granting-arms

"The first step in applying for a grant of arms is to submit a petition, or memorial as it is called, to the Earl Marshal. This will be drafted by one of the officers of arms. There are no fixed criteria of eligibility for a grant of arms, but such things as awards or honours from the Crown, civil or military commissions, university degrees, professional qualifications, public and charitable services, and eminence or good standing in national or local life, are taken into account. When approaching a herald with a view to petitioning for a grant of arms it is desirable to submit a curriculum vitae."

You literally have to submit a resume. That is all.

Now if people got upset because seemingly "common" lineages somehow rose to positions of significance, well, I can see a case for those snobby old aristocrats to question everyone's "claim to fame" as it were.

Here is another counter to your argument: Cooke and Dethick were not the men who issued the arms to John Smyth of Rivenhall. This herald's name was Christopher Barker.

Now surely you aren't suggested that multiple people employed in a heraldic capacity over a course of 100 years or so was corrupt? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I find all of this rather pretentious on your behalves.

The criteria you are citing (for issuing arms) are modern. The rules were a little different back in Tudor times - you had to prove either that you were sufficiently a "gentleman" to deserve arms, or that you had a right to existing arms. Shakespeare would never have been able to prove that he was "deserving" on his own account, but his father - an alderman, i.e. a town official - had actually initiated the request, and Will was able to come up with the money to get it reactivated. (Then as his father's heir he of course inherited the arms.)

There actually ARE confirmed cases of people "improving" their pedigrees, sometimes with the actual connivance of venal heralds, sometimes just pulling the wool over their eyes too. The Spencer/Despencer deception is infamous (the Spencers were "new money" and *not* connected to the Despencers in reality, but the College of Arms let them get away with it).

I have pointed out that the Dethicks - Garter King of Arms, father and son - falsified their *own* pedigree to make them less "new money".

This cat Richard Weston, 1st Earl of Portland is known to have upgraded the status of an ancestor in order to further justify his own importance - with the connivance of at least one member of the College of Arms.

As to reasons why the College might be so money-grubbing, a look at their history is instructive. Richard III established the College and gave them a residence in London - Henry VII dis-established them and turfed them out, preferring to make use of individual heralds on an ad-hoc basis. Henry VIII was no better, Edward VI didn't know any better, and it took Bloody Mary and her Spanish consort (Philip II) to get the College re-chartered and re-housed.

The various Visitations, begun while they were still unhoused, were an attempt to prove that they had a use besides court functions and diplomacy. (They are, as I think I noted, highly variable in quality depending on who put how much effort into which one(s) and/or took the fewest bribes.)

This is proving to be a futile effort. A modern investigation needs to be done.

Or perhaps this is all the result of someone wishing that their true ancestry never be known?

I'm done for now. Too many hoops to jump through.

If anyone is still monitoring this thread, I have found a record in the Essex Records Office that refers to "Rivenhall" as "Rewenhale".

https://secureweb1.essexcc.gov.uk/SeaxPAM/ViewCatalogue.aspx?ID=203604

I can't say that the John Smyth in the record is the one we are looking for. I present this to show how "Rivenhall" is spelled in the early original records. Thanks.

Another record:

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/en/download/CalendaroftheFineRollsPr...

John Smyth, father of an Edmund Smyth. Are these guys related to the Smiths of Rivenhall or Blackmore?

Order to t he escheator in t he county of Essex ,
— pursuant to
an inquisition taken before Clement Spice, late escheator, by
order of Richard II , showing that John Smyth of B radewell
held in hi s demesne as of fee on t he day of hi s death a third part
of a toft, 21 acres of land, a thi rd part of 4 0 acres of salt marsh ,
and 3s. 4d. of rent of Richard II as of t he honour of Haule by
service of a third part of a fourth part of a knight
’
s fee, and that
Edmund Smyt h his son is his next heir and of full age,
— to take
Edmund
’
s fealty and cause him to have full seisin of the premises ,
as the king for amark paid in t he hanaper has respited his homage
until Martinmas next .

Regarding the link to the ERO, I did not realize it had multiple entries on the page. There are some very interesting records listed. We find references to Hugh Smyth of Rivenhall, a brother of John Smyth "late of Cressing", Thomas Smyth "formerly of Rivenhall". These are definitely the guys to be researching. I think these records deserve some research. I'll see what I can find, but please feel free to add to the discussion.

Chris

I agree and more importantly, so does Andrew Lancaster.

From https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Smyth-471

"There is also evidence of more Smiths in the area in this period, as collected on the webpage of Andrew Lancaster.[4] In about 1396 there is an Inquisition Post Mortem for a John Smyth of Bradwell, and in about 1426 there was an inquisition post mortem for a John Smyth, son and heir of Edmund, of Bradwell: Essex C 139/29/37. C 1/17/393 and C 1/25/216 both in the early 1400s involve Joan or Jane, widow of Edmund Smyth of Coggeshall plaintiff in a case concerning messuages in Coggeshall. Edmund Smyth also seems to have an interest in land in nearby Terling and Witham. There seems to have also been a marriage to someone with the Terling surname, possibly Joan. For example in C 1/75/90 the plaintiff is John Terlynge, of Stanys, and it concerns lands in Terlynge and Witham, late of Edmund Smyth, uncle to complainant. About 1433 (C 1/39/146) John Smith, of Staines, son of John, brother of Edmund Smyth was complaining about a mesusage in Terling."

The National Archive record note is here

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9723914

Guys, here's the motherload. Direct from the ERO.

https://secureweb1.essexcc.gov.uk/SeaxPAM/Default.aspx?SearchDocs=1...

I'm finding stuff referencing the Smyths of Blackmore, Sir Clement Smyth, and a whole bunch else. Dig in.

It looks like there was a Stephen Smith of Blackmore and a John Smyth of [Great] Horkesley. Thinking about all the other records I've seen, I still don't have any info on the Gyles Smyth we find in John Smyth of Rivenhall's will.... something else to look for.

Info on Gyles/Giles Smyth.

https://secureweb1.essexcc.gov.uk/SeaxPAM/result_details.aspx?ThisR...

Why don't we find anyone researching this guy online? I can't find a single tree with him in it.

This is interesting. Does this suggest there is a link into the 18th century from a 17th century Thomas Smyth of Blackmore to The Manor of Blackmore?

https://secureweb1.essexcc.gov.uk/SeaxPAM/result_details.aspx?ThisR...

This is interesting as well. It refers to an "Arthur Smyth of Blackmore, gent."

https://secureweb1.essexcc.gov.uk/SeaxPAM/result_details.aspx?ThisR...

Is this the same Arthur Smyth that came to Virginia?

I don't see how we can link the earliest John Smyth of Rivenhall to the Edmund or John Smyth of Bradwell. Anyone care to show their work if they have done so? Andrew Lancaster states his idea as "...more Smiths in the area..." suggesting, to me at least, that there are other Smith families in Essex that may have been contemporaries to John Smyth of Rivenhall, but not related.

Here is the postmortem if anyone is interested. It shows who Edumund's father was.

http://www.inquisitionspostmortem.ac.uk/view/inquisition/22-751

The Bradwell Smith's line appears to go John Sr -> Edmund -> John. None of the families seem to be similar to the ones involved in the estate cases of John Smyth of Blackmore (I think that's right... the guy who laid a [failed] claim to the estate of a Sheriff of Essex?)

So maybe you need to collate the Smith records into little spin off trees and then see if there's a smoking gun anywhere, such as a marriage or clear property transfer, to link families. So far I'm agreeing with your assessment that they look different, but don't know that we have enough generations to say for sure. You're far more a Smyth expert than I am!