Can someone help with Pre 1500 Profile for William Carrington?

+5 votes
276 views

[[Carrington-106|William Carrington]], I adopted this profile almost 2 years ago along with others that were stated as orphaned profiles of an ancestor, currently now showing no relation.  I feel that this profile is either a complete different individual than family linked to or in great need of a complete face lift to correct errors in bio and individual information. 

He is currently linked as brother to [[Smythe-579|Sir William of Carrington V formerly Smythe]] as brothers.  with 32 years difference in age.  but same name.

Need someone familiar with this family line to help either sort out correct relationship.

[[Smythe-579|Sir William of Carrington V formerly Smythe]]  has a son listed on his profile [[Caryngton-1|William Smyth Caryngton VI]], both of these profiles show same birth date of 1310, which shows an  error of them being father/son.  I am thinking that [[Carrington-106|William Carrington]] should be Carrington VI and Carynton VI is a duplicate of Carrrington V.

Please someone who has sources on this family please help sort this out.  I am finding I am very limited to viable sources and only finding information without dates.

Any and All Help is Welcome,

Respectfully,

Cheryl Stone Caudill

WikiTree profile: William Carrington
in Genealogy Help by Cheryl Caudill G2G6 Mach 1 (13.8k points)
retagged by Keith Hathaway
Try web site voyage in time covers all the family your looking for

1 Answer

+3 votes
There were no Smith-Carringtons.  It's a notorious 19th century fake.
by Living Horace G2G6 Pilot (572k points)
Appeals to authority in matters of research are not valid points of argument. It is a logical fallacy.

The Butterworth thesis on the etymology and origin of the  Caryngton/Carrington Place-Name  are discussed by Dr Charlotte Starkey (a local historian) here (it's a page I referenced earlier in the thread.)

Christopher you are right, but you should apply that logic to your own remarks. I mentioned Round's "authority" because of your repeated remarks implying that he did not research Norman documents, while Butterworth did. That is also not a logical argument.

My point was that it is furthermore very misleading because Round is one of the most famous researchers of this type of Norman documents of his time, or perhaps any time.
Hey Helen, thanks for that link. Very good resource.

I'll quote:

"Walter Arthur Copinger’s History and Records of the Smith-Carrington Family (pp. 70ff, esp. p. 76), using numerous unsupported statements, asserted that a Nottingham Smith banking family had a claim to the medieval Carynton dynasty."

On this matter, with Round I will not disagree, that the Smiths of Cropwell Tithby in Notts. are not in any ancestral proximity to the story of the Smiths of Rivenhall.

That said, proving the fabricated pedigree of the line of Abel Smith of Smith Bank & Co. to be just that, which I can do with what records I have, does not discredit the entirety of the story of the Smiths of Rivenhall.

The Smith-Carington story of the Smiths of Ashby Folville is different from that of the most recent Barons Carrington. They claim descent from the Viscounts Carrington temp. Charles I, and prior to that the Smiths of Cressing Temple. I'm working on finding sources for this pedigree outside of Round's works.

I believe I am the first to attempt to apply DNA research to this question.

I appreciate all of your concerns that I may be wasting my time. I will tell you that if it was not for the plethora of terrible quality research I have found on the internet, some even attaching DNA to prove their nonsense, and if not for my own DNA matching information, I would not be exploring this question as earnestly as I am, if at all. Round did not have search engines and digitized records to evaluate. Modern technology, especially DNA, can give us a different perspective of this story. Time will tell if things all agree.

I keep hearing "it's a 19th century fraud" or "its a 16th century fraud", or even "its a 15th century fraud". Which is it then? Able Smith's line is provably not connected. Interestingly, the claim of a 16th century fraud is dubious at best. Here's why.

https://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/resources/the-law-of-arms

"Between 1530 and 1689 the Kings of Arms were given Royal Commissions to visit English and Welsh counties, to establish that arms were borne with proper authority. Anyone found using arms without entitlement was forced to make a public disclaimer."

The claim of a 16th century fraud being perpetrated during a time of a crackdown on unlawfully used arms is questionable.

That said, I do have some questions about the pedigree found in the charter chests of the Nevills of Holt. There are some things that are proveably false, glaringly. They stand out so significantly that no one would be able to question their falsehood. Perhaps that was the intent. Treason is a common theme among the families involved in that story.

I've got some regular work to do and will continue my research in earnest in my freetime using what modern tools I have at my disposal.

I appreciate everyone's interest in this subject. As much nonsense as there is out there in the public online trees, it is good to have threads like this to hash out and consolidate what relevant information is available online. Not everyone can visit the ERO or Rouen, France on a whim.

Thanks.
Good luck with it Christopher. It is indeed a useful webpage which tracks a lot of the "family tree of ideas" we needed.

I think that where it says Dugdale was the first person to mention the Carrington-> Smith story it is however missing what Round said about the evidence for a 16th century first stage to the story.

See Round pages 146-148 which shows where Dugdale and the various heralds of his time said they got the story from.

Good luck, I myself think that you need to move away from secondary source but my interests are local (not family)  and  I'm in the position to research locally 

Just to add that false pedigrees were well  knownand some heralds sold them. 

Denis Bond was born in 1588;  an armiger and Member of Parliament. A brief pedigree is recorded in the 1623 visitation of Dorset and there is an original of this submission in the family records deposited in the county archives  ( His family  were merchants,  involved with exporting wool and textiles..They were privateers during the years leading to the Armada. They have  no known aristocratic ancestors). He was no fool and expressed his belief about a false  pedigree sold to his brother by a herald.(co-incidentaly in Rouen).The  fraudulent 'pedigree'  which  gives his family Norman ancestry and which he says was sold to his brother probably dates from James 1 as post gun-powder plot.

Big edit to expand and explain

I wanted to follow up in this thread with a counter to one of Round's arguments against the credibility of the arms of Sir John Smith, Baron of the Exchequer under Henry VIII and the arms of the Smiths of Cressing Temple.

Round states on page 185 of Peerage and Pedigree, Vol II:

"On investigation we discover that Sir John Smith, as "of Cressing", was actually granted a coat by Barker, Garter King of Arms (1536-1549), a fact which proves conclusively that he had not inherited, as alleged, from his grandfather, the cross and peacocks coat, but knew himself to be a novus homo with no hereditary right to arms.

This discovery is the key to the whole heraldry of the family."

Further, he quotes from Vincent's Leicestershire,

"I cannot but feare this descent from which ye Smiths of Ashby Folvill and others of that name derive themselves; because it is scarce know that , upon any occasion, both name and arms should be changed, and Sir John Smith, Knt., Baron of ye Exchequer gave first [as the armorial ensigns of this family] Argent, on a chevron sable 6 fleurs-de-lis or; on a cheif, of the second, a lion passant of the first and then, after many years, ye issue of him have [as such armorial ensigns] ye cross, between 4 peacocks proper; and now they flye to Carrington sed quo jure penitus ignoro [translation: but by what right I do not know]."

I have just received an e-mail from the UK College of Arms. I had inquired as to whether there were any rules or laws of arms, either historical or contemporary, that might prevent a man from being issued a different coat of arms than those to which he was hereditarily entitled.

Their response was, and I quote:

"The bearing and use of coats of arms is governed by the Law of Arms.  Where a man’s father has a demonstrable right to bear arms, any legitimate sons will inherit a right to the same arms.  These arms may be differenced by a mark of cadency; however, this is optional in England.

In certain circumstances, it may be possible for a person who has a right to arms to petition for a new grant of different arms in lieu of those to which he had an inherited right.  In many cases, illegitimate sons, who do not inherit a right to arms, have been granted arms similar in appearance to their father’s, with an additional element included for distinction."

Here we find that, in certain circumstances, a man can be issued different arms than those to which he is hereditarily entitled under the Law of Arms.

I hope it is clear that the weight Round attributes to his argument is significantly less than he suggests.

Round also makes this same argument when discussing the use of the Smith peacock arms by the Rivenhall Smiths, specifically stating some weight to the fact that they did not bear the Carrington lozenges. 

I do not think you understanding Round's point Christopher. He is saying that the first Smyth arms were granted as a NEW set of arms. There was indeed then a second set, which is effectively a claim to OLD Carrington rights. But the point is that this must have been because someone had come and given new information and claims which they had not previously known about. This is where it is important to turn back to p. 146-7 and see the evidence which shows who brought this new information to the heralds, and what information it was. (It was clearly brought by the Smyths, and revolved the document written in fake medieval English.)

If the Smiths had known they were heirs of Carrington earlier then this should have come up at the time of the first grant.

Again, NEW arms being issued does not mean the bearer's previous entitlement to his ancestral arms was non-existent. New arms being issued does not have an explicit thorough weight on the subject of the bearer's ancestry.

It is not an accurate premise upon which Round bases his arguments. 

From pgs 146-147:

  • "[the 16th century pedigree] was then in the possession of the Essex Smiths, but there is, we shall find, no reason to suppose that their earlier generations had advanced the pretensions it enshrined."

The two pedigree documents were presented 20 May 1577 to Robert Cooke, Clarencieux King of Arms

Contests to Cooke's integrity on Wikipedia cite the following:

Further, I will again mention this statement from the College of Arms website pertaining to the Law of Arms,

  • "Between 1530 and 1689 the Kings of Arms were given Royal Commissions to visit English and Welsh counties, to establish that arms were borne with proper authority. Anyone found using arms without entitlement was forced to make a public disclaimer."

1577 is well within this time period (1530 and 1689) of detailed scrutiny of rights to bear heraldic arms.

It appears that the "Heraldic Visitations" [link2]  were the documented efforts of record rights of families to their arms.

Do archives of these "public disclaimers" exist? Which families were identified to have been in violation of these laws? If a source for this information exists, it should be examined for the presence of the Smiths of Rivenhall et. al.

I'll see if I can find a source for the 20 May 1577 information.

Another interesting fact is that the College of Arms was founded in 1484. What source would one use for arms issued prior to that? (1403?)

Related questions

+11 votes
2 answers
336 views asked Jul 13, 2015 in Genealogy Help by Andrew Lancaster G2G6 Pilot (116k points)
+2 votes
1 answer
+2 votes
1 answer
66 views asked Sep 1, 2017 in Genealogy Help by anonymous
+2 votes
1 answer
135 views asked Aug 5, 2013 in Genealogy Help by Judie Samer G2G Rookie (190 points)
+2 votes
1 answer
211 views asked Oct 12, 2021 in Genealogy Help by Christopher Smith G2G1 (1.9k points)
+3 votes
1 answer
77 views asked Mar 12, 2021 in Genealogy Help by Steven Losey G2G6 (6.5k points)
+3 votes
1 answer
273 views asked Jan 15, 2018 in Genealogy Help by Kevin Nauta G2G1 (1.3k points)

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...