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

Here's about J. Horace Round:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Horace_Round

And the Boddie article here explains the interest by Americans with Southern ancestry in this pedigree:

https://books.google.com/books?id=Z2AAvycdC94C&lpg=PA245&ot...

It would be useful to make a table that shows sources that are for and against this Smith/Carrington lineage. Round's arguments are weak at best in that he suggests that Hamo de Carentan and Hamo de Massey are one in the same, but he does not provide proof of this, only his word. Also, he claims that the Smith line recorded, by hand mind you, by the first John Smith, Esq. is inaccurate/fabricated because two transcriptions of the record differ. Let me clarify: because two people copied different information from an original source (from the Nevills), Round dismisses the handwritten record. This is unsound logic. I suggest that Round simply wrote about this topic as a means for supplying source material for a new book to sell and to attempt to bolster his position with the crown. He had a number of research topics dropped from editing, but keep in mind, this doesn't mean that he was right about everything he was challenging, only that it was not reasonable to continue the discussion. We know these Smiths existed and by the hand of the very man who changed his name from Carrington to Smith we have his ancestor's names, they being descended from Sir Michael of Carrington.

According to a periodical I found online, a Donald Lines Jacobus is "the father of modern genealogy". This is according to Ancestry Magazine, the official magazine of PBS's Ancestor series.

https://books.google.com/books?id=CJC0VRBblKEC&pg=PT22&lpg=...

And for the record, I have no southern ancestry in my Smith line. All (yes, all) of my very close yDNA matches (64/67-67/67) of mine do, however.

Here's a site reciting what Coplinger complied (that Round took issue with).

I notice an error in this part of the pedigree:

(15a) JOHN SMYTH 1585 from Hingham, England, d. 1649 Hingham, England.
(1) Grace SMYTHE b. abt 1591
(14a) Francis Smith
(2) ?Isabella Drake
Grace may be John's (15a) 2nd cousin being the daughter of grandfather's brother Clement Smythe (17c) listed above.

Isabella Drake marrid a John Smith perhaps already having minor children from a former marriage to a John Bland. Thus the son of a John Smith being a John Bland-Smith is identified in some family records being his step-son rather than issue.

This is not accurate, see the information in the profile for John Bland alias Smith

John Bland alias Smith was indeed a stepson of a John Smith - who apparently was Scots.

https://www.geni.com/people/James-Smythe-of-Ayrshire/52535688025900...

Here is current (2006) opinion of the Carington / Smith pedigree from a mailing list for medieval genealogists:

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/gen-medieval/2006-11/...

"I'd be wary of this particular pedigree of Smith of Cressing Temple. This
version simply repeats the Smith-Carington pedigree, well-known to be
fictitious in its connection of Smith to Carington. This is the pedigree
that J. H. Round took such great delight in demolishing in his article "The
Great Carington Imposture". According to CP [sub Carrington of Wotton and
Burford] the pedigree cannot be verified beyond the father [or possibly the
grandfather] of the Edmund you mention."

----

CP = Complete Peerage

Re: Donald Lines Jacobus

Of course Americans claim him as the father, we owe him NEHGS, where he served as editor. :)

Wikipedia says:

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

Donald Lines Jacobus, FASG (1887-1970) of New Haven, Connecticut, was widely regarded among genealogists as the dean of American genealogy during his lifetime.

---

Jacobus of course is a generation or two after Rounds, and concerned with US genealogy.

Here is a recent discovery (2015) that adds to the Smith line:

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/gen-medieval/2015-10/...

Walter Copinger (1910), "History and records of the Smith-Carington
family", as all too often in that infamous and entertaining work, used
his imagination to build from this. He converted the surname to
Trussell, a good family from the right general direction and starting
with "Tr". He found a branch less well-known, apparently found some
evidence for a Trussell having been an escheator (not auditor, which of
course is a word not used lightly in this time of Thomas Cromwell), and
mixed all these things up into a story. (Many similar cases, but not
this one, were noted by Round in his article on Copinger's "Carrington
Imposture" in Peerage and pedigree : studies in peerage law and family
history, vol. 2. Copies of both Copinger and Round can be found on
books.familysearch.org.)

Copinger also stated that Smyth's wife's first name was Dorothy, which I
think is widely accepted. His source for this is obvious. She is
mentioned in John's will, and was clearly his widow. But how do we know
this was the mother of his children? ....

(continues on ... will study more so we can add to Geni correctly )

Darn, the link fell off for my post at https://www.geni.com/discussions/163744?msg=1125620

The site is here:

http://www.trinity-aloha.org/smith/

The disclaim is for early 1600s connections.

The compilation tops with ECCEARD (ECCARD) SMYTH of Durham, circa 975

Here's the Dictionary of National Biography article for Walter Copinger, (1847–1910) antiquary

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Copinger,_Walter_Arthur_(DNB12)_

Here is the FamilySearch page that leads to digital versions of Copinger's two volumes of "Carington Smith"

https://familysearch.org/search/catalog/238722?availability=Family%...

Volume 1: https://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE1916532

Here's a contemporary review of the work when published, the reviewer is not named but he does not write like Round.

Notes on Books etc, Sept 28, 1907

https://books.google.com/books?id=PmEEAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA259&ot...

(copy / pasted from the book)

"A doubtful tradition has handed down a story that about the year 1404acertain John Carington, an alleged descendantof HamodeCareuton, of Carington in Cheshire, having been a strong adherent of King Richard II., was compelled, through fear of that monarch's successor, to flee the country, and while abroad relinquished his patronymic, and assumed the name and arms of Smith. That this legend, which rests on no historical basis, and which seems to have owed its origin to the fanciful imagination of the Elizabethan heralds, became an article of faith in the family is shown by the fact that when Sir Charles Smith, of Ashby Folvile in Leicestershire, was made an English baron and an Irish viscount in 1643, he assumed the title of Carington, which was borne in succession by two of his sons, and became extinct in 1706. This example was followed by Mr. Robert Smith, a member of the Cropwell Butler branch of the family, who was created Baron Carrington in the Kingdom of Ireland in 1796, though no relation of the former holders of the title. His son, the second peer, and father of the present Earl Carrington, went further, and by royal licence in 1839 dropped the name of Smith, and assumed in lieu thereof the name of Carrington, which in 1880 was changed into Carington.

"The President of the Board of Agriculture does not seem to have taken any i>art in the production of this book, which owes its origin to the genealogical zeal of Mr. Richard Smith, an eminent citizen of Worcester, who purchased the estate of Ashby Folvile, and in 1878 assumed by deed poll the name of Carington in addition to the name of Smith. Mr. Smith-Carington, we learn, devoted a considerable portion of his leisure hours to collecting materials for a history of his family, and at the time of his death in 1901 had printed about 234 pages of the present work. These materials were placed in the hands of Dr. Copinger, who rearranged them, and relegated to an appendix a considerable mass that did not immediately bear on the history of the family. .... "

You've posted quite a bit for review. I can immediately say that the trinity-aloha.org site is not credible. Further, I will agree that the Smiths (John Bland) of Hingham are not descended from the Smiths of Rivenhall and in that regard, any tree that connects the two families is errant, or dare I say, contrived. To use this to dismiss the Smith Carrington lineage as fraudulent is wantonly exclusionary. I feel that if Round were right there would be others who came to the same conclusion, but independently. Round appears to be a lone source for this argument. Do you have any other researchers who come to the same conclusion without using Round for a foundation? I would like better evidence that the Elizabethan Heralds fabricated the Carrington lineage. I would really like the 15th century hand written lineage created by John Smith, Esq. The post by Andrew Lancaster is actually a good example of how Copinger goofed, but it does not show that Sir Clement Smiths family was descended from a fabricated line. One should note that Sir Clement Smith actually married a sister of a wife of Henry VIII. Surely this would suggest these Smiths were no imposters? I'm typing this on mobile, a precarious choice in my opinion, so I will pick up on my desktop and send this...

Undoubtedly you mean Dorothy Seymour, sister of Queen Jane, who married Clement Smith.

However, the Seymours were not of the same class as the Tudors, and if we are going to judge them by the families they married into, we also have to consider the Cromwells.

"The Seymours were a family of country gentry who, like most holders of manorial rights, traced their ancestry to a Norman origin. One or two had been knighted in the wars of France, but their names had never emerged from the herald's visitation-rolls into historical celebrity. They increased their boundaries by fortunate alliances with heiresses, and the head of the family married into a collateral branch of the lordly line of Beauchamp. After that event, two instances are quoted of Seymours serving as high sheriff of Wilts. Through Margaret Wentworth, the mother of Jane Seymour, a descent from the blood-royal of England was claimed from an intermarriage with a Wentworth and a supposed daughter of Hotspur and lady Elizabeth Mortimer, grand-daughter to Lionel Duke of Clarence. Few persons dared dispute a pedigree with Henry VIII, and Cranmer granted a dispensation for nearness of kin between Henry VIII and Jane Seymour -- rather a work of supererogation, since the parties could not be related within the forbidden degree.

Although the royal kindred appears somewhat doubtful, ****yet it is undeniable that the sovereign of England gained by this alliance one brother in-law who bore the name of Smith, and another whose grandfather was a blacksmith at Putney. [Collins' Peerage].****

Lives of the Queens of England: From the Norman Conquest; with Anecdotes of ...
by Agnes Strickland, p. 217

The son of that Putney blacksmith was Thomas Cromwell, and the blacksmith's grandson was Gregory Cromwell, who married Elizabeth Seymour, another sister of Queen Jane.

Marrying into the Cromwell family is not a good recommendation for the Seymours!

https://books.google.com/books?id=PmEEAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA259&ot...

Copy / paste

"The descent of Mr. Smith-Carington is faulty because there is no proof that Robert. Smith, his alleged ancestor, was the seventh son of Thomas Smith of Charley. co. Leicester. That of Lord Carrington is equally defective because there is no. proof that John Smith of Cropwell Butler was the. son of William Smith of Cressin Temple in Essex. John Smith is said to have been in betWeen 1595 and 1600, but there are apparently no Smith entries in the baptismal register of White Notley (Cressing Temple) after 1584. We do not wish to slur over the act that the Smith-Carington descent has been registered in the College of arms, but we should like to see the evidences which are wanting in Dr. Copinger‘s ‘History.’ If the Heralds can fill up the lacunie to which we have iulverted from parish registers, wills, marriage settlements, and other authentic sources of information, we shall be well pleased."

https://books.google.com/books?id=4_FyR7sXCFcC&lpg=PA34&ots...

Page 34 of The Gentry in England and Wales, 1500-1700 By Felicity Heal, Clive Holmes. Stanford University Press, 1994 - History - 473 pages

(view only)

I should say the section is "The Manipulation of Lineage" and the Smiths of Cressing Temple are identified as smallholders of western Essex, who married well, moved up the social scale, "and then" (by 1590) presented a descent from Sir Michael Carrington.

There is also the similar story by an alleged descendant of Nicholas Blount, said to have fled England along with John Carrington, and to have changed his name to Croke at the same time as Carrington changed his to Smith. They were said to have traveled with a William Fitzwilliams, who changed his name to English, and did not survive long enough to return to England.

See if this works--p. 273:

https://books.google.com/books?id=Tu8KAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA274&lpg...

Also here, p. 75:

https://books.google.com/books?id=dGZHAQAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA77&...

Regarding the Michael Carrington at the Siege of Acre story--there doesn't seem to be anything to confirm that he was there, much less standard-bearer.

For what it's worth, other families make the same claim.

"Lord Simon Manning was said to be the royal Standard Bearer to King Richard the Lionheart. He carried the royal Standard to Jerusalem in 1190 during the First Crusade."

http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=jwebe...

http://manningmusings.blogspot.com/2016/04/simon-de-manning.html

Wikipedia shows Peter (or Pierre) de Preaux as Richard's standard-bearer, but doesn't include a footnoted source to back that up.

"Peter and [his brother] William accompanied King Richard on crusade in 1190. Peter was assigned the dignity of royal standard-bearer over the hereditary standard-bearer of England, Robert Trussebut. Peter and William were known to be with the King at Vezelay, Marseille, Sicily, the conquest of Cyprus, the Siege of Acre, the Battle of Arsuf, the march to Jaffa, the advance on Jerusalem, Darum, and last but not least, the Battle of Jaffa."

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

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

Pierre de Preaux, (Prouz)

Under the name Peter de Pratellis, one can find many old references to his being standard-bearer.

One family tradition is that the armor-bearer of the early kings of England was of this family. Peter de Pratellis, the Crusader, was hereditary standard-bearer and so beloved of Richard that the king kept him always by his side. Peter de Pratellis and his brother William were as gallant and loyal knights as ever bore the cross. As plain Peter and William Pratt, however, their exploits would certainly lose some of their romantic interest.

http://clickamericana.com/eras/1900s/variants-of-the-surname-pratt-...

"John de Pratellis was a favorite minister of Richard Coeur de Lion, and he and his brother Peter, hereditary Standard Bearer, with the Archbishop of Canterbury...."

Daughters of the American Revolution Magazine, 1921

https://books.google.com/books?id=aO1RAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA580&lpg...

The Dragon-standard, of which we have seen some examples in our first division, is still found among the Germans and the English. We have already observed its exact form in the pictures of Harold in the Bayeux tapestry. It accompanied the hosts of Richard Cœur-de-Lion. Richard of Devizes, in recording the attack upon the "Griffones" at Messina, says: "The king of England proceeded in arms: the terrible standard of the Dragon is borne in front; while, behind the king, the sound of the trumpet excites the army[231]." Hoveden, under date 1191, tells us that Richard "delivered his Dragon (Draconem suum) to be borne by Peter de Pratellis."

Ancient Armour and Weapons in Europe: from the Iron Period of the Northern ...
By John Hewitt

http://ocw.nust.na/gutenberg/4/6/3/4/46342/46342-h/46342-h.htm

Richard L being in the Holy Land, " tradidit Draconem suum Petro de Pratellis ad portandum contra calumniam Rob. Trussebut," &c. Claus. 28 Henry III. n. 7.

https://books.google.com/books?id=7LIRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA32&lpg=...

Certe inter Anglicorum Regum vexilla [] unum exstitisse, Draconem vocitatum, auctor est Rogerus Hovedenus ann. 1191. illudque a Ricardo I. et in ea, quam iniit contra Saracenos expeditione delatum :
Cum Rex Angliæ fixisset signum suum in medio, et tradidisset Draconem suum Petro de Pratellis ad portandum, contra calumniam Roberti Trussebut, qui illum portare calumniatus est de jure prædecessorum suorum, etc.

http://ducange.enc.sorbonne.fr/DRACO

So we can, at least, debunk the old "standard-bearer" chestnut!

Amy, these are great contributions. Many thanks.

The following work is based upon the verbatim text of the will of John Smyth of Blackmore, Essex, second son of Thomas Smyth of Rivenhall, Essex.

https://books.google.com/books?id=mlsQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA56&dq=s...

I submit this as the litmus test for any trees found within the visitation records (and elsewhere). If they include these individuals and the relationships are not correct, we can scrutinize the recorder's work. If the tree matches, the visitation record (or other evidence) can be considered more credible than someone's secondary or tertiary analysis/conjecture. The tree I have ascertained from the will is below:

(note I have omitted the Carrington line as I wish to only identify credible Smith sources for the time being)
(note2: I do not believe I have see "Gyles Smyth" listed on Geni before. If you have a link, please send it my way.)

--BEGIN--
Thomas Smyth of Rivenhall
Clement Smyth
Leonard Smyth (Shuldham, Canehyn in Norfolk)
Katheryne Smyth
John Smyth m. Dorothy (Owned Manor of Bathon)
Thomas Smyth
William (Wyllyam) Smyth
Gyles Smyth
Frances Smyth
Dorothy Smyth
Luce Smyth (m. Wyllyam Dyx)
--END--

I wish to enquire if anyone is aware of who "Morant" was?

Chris

Sorry, the formatting did not transfer. Thomas Smyth of Rivenhall is the patriarch. His sons were Clement, Leonard, and John. John's sons were Thomas, William, and Gyles.

Can either of you find authoritative sources for the Carrington lines?

Here's a link to the best source I can find on the Carrington origins. The author does not delve into the Smith story, but does infer that the Earls Carrington descend from this Smith/Carrington line.

https://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE8323508

I've never been able to find a primary source--only old histories and Burke's Peerage.

The narrative about the Blount-Croke and Carrington-Smith name change is also included in "The History and Antiquities of the County of Buckingham, Volume 1," by George Lipscomb, 1847, p. 153

https://books.google.com/books?id=Dt89AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA153&lpg...

"Nicholas le Blount, alias Croke, of Warwickshire, lived in the reign of Richard II. and being one of those conspirators who designed to replace that monarch on the throne after his abdication in favour of the Duke of Lancaster, whose person they intended to seize at a tournament at Windsor, the new Sovereign having timely notice of the plot, pursued those who had engaged in it with great resentment. Le Blount, however, contrived to escape to Milan, where he entered into the military service of that State, and at his return to England changed his name for that of Croke. He 'lived mostly in Buckinghamshire, at Essendon.' The narrative states, that Carrington and Fitzwilliams having been two of Croke's companions in exile, under the names of Smith and English, 'visited him at Easington, and had mickle mirth together.'"

A nearly identical version of the same is in "History and Topography of Buckinghamshire, comprising a general survey of ..." by James Joseph SHEAHAN, 1862, p. 354.

https://books.google.com/books?id=p9VUAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA354&lpg...

But these are all, of course, secondary sources.

Might be worthwhile for us to "widen the net" by seeking out Blount-Croke narratives, as they often contain references to Carrington-Smith.

I can think of at least one link between Blout and Croke, from the Tudor period. Elizabeth Blount's son with Henry VIII, Henry FitzRoy, had a tutor named Richard Croke--at one point Fitzroy was sent to live with him. Some sources state that Richard Croke was "related to the Blounts," but don't go into detail as to how.

The above narrative about the Blounts goes on to say that John Croke of Chilton, MP, is the grandson of this Nicholas Blount. This is that John Croke in the Geni tree--which shows him as the great-great grandson of Nicholas le Blount. However, there are no sources whatsoever until you get to the Crokes.

https://www.geni.com/path/Nicholas-le-Blount+is+related+to+Sir-John...

This is the Thomas Blount who was executed for treason for supporting Richard II, allegedly a cousin to the Crokes through the Sir Nicholas who allegedly fled and changed his name. (I added his History of Parliament Online profile to the overview tab.) Geni does not show a cousin relationship between Sir Thomas and Sir Nicholas, but Sir Thomas's tree doesn't go back far enough to show the relationship that Burke and others claim.

Sir Thomas Blount, MP

Burke's "Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Commoners of Great Britain...etc." shows the two men as cousins (for what it's worth):

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

It's worth noting that many families of this period (i.e., new money families of the Tudor era) produced false pedigrees to make it appear that they were from old Norman families.

Examples: Princess Diana's Spencer family made their money from wool, and when they made it big, they dropped their own newly-given arms and assumed the arms of the ancient Despencer family. They produced pedigrees showing their Spencer family to be descended from the ancient Despencers--this has never been proven to be the case.

The grandfather of Sir Francis Bryan (Henry VIII's "Vicar of Hell"), Sir Thomas Bryan, assumed the arms of Guy De Bryan (or De Brienne. Sir Thomas was most likely the grandson of a London fishmonger.

So this pedigree-padding seems to have been a somewhat common practice in the Tudor era.

Hmm. For some reason I'm not getting e-mails when Amy posts here. I might caution her about expanding the scope of this research topic too far. The documents that Lionel Angus-Butterworth references surely should be verifiable through some local research socities, yes? Perhaps we could attempt to contact some researchers in England who may have access to photocopies of some of these old charters? I know Cheshire has a rather active online research community. Here are a few links I found: http://www.cheshirehistory.org.uk/ https://www.fhsc.org.uk/ Let's take a look at what documents Lionel cites and see if we can persuade a researcher in Chester to verify their 1) existance and 2) the accuracy of Lionel's information. -Chris