Carrington Name Change

[Turenne]

The obituary of Lady Carrington promps me to ask a quick question:

I seem the remember that the Carrington family name is something of a
contrivance. Aren't the Carringtons actually Smiths? Didn't they
change their names from Smith to Smythe to Smith again then to
Carington (one 'n')?

Richard L

[Michael Rhodes]

The 1st Baron Carrington started life as Robert Smith. His son, the
2nd Baron, assumed the surname Carrington.His son, Charles,
the 3rd Baron started out as Carrington, then CARINGTON, and then WYNN
CARRINGTON. He was succeeded by his brother
the 4th Baron, who was a Carrington then Carington.His son the 5th
Baron started a Carington, and actually ended as a Carington.
The 5th and 6th Barons have been Carington too.

-==-

[marquess]

Wasn't there also something in the Complete Peerage that said that
originally that Geroge III objected to a peerage being given, on
"account of them being in trade"

On 18 June, 10:20, Michael Rhodes <mig73allenford2...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

[Turenne]

marquess wrote:

>Wasn't there also something in the Complete Peerage that said that
>originally that Geroge III objected to a peerage being given, on
>"account of them being in trade"

I seem to recall something similar; the family certainly were in
trade.I had no idea until recently that the third Baron was created
Viscount Wendover and Earl Carrington, in 1895, and Marquess of
Lincolnshire, in 1912.

Richard L

[marquess]

Yes the uncle of the current baron was a marquess, but had an only son
who died in first world war. Could anyone with access to the Complete
Peerage perhaps quote the footnote comments of George III concerning
his original objections to granting the Smiths a barony. I believe
also that might have had something to do with them intially only being
given an Irish barony.

[Richard R]

Extract from CP Vol 3, p63, footnote (a):

He was raised to the English peerage by Pitt, "not however,
as was well known, without experiencing a long resistance on the part
of the King"
on account of his being engaged in trade. Wraxall, Posth. Memoirs,
vol. i, p. 66-68.

The ODNB in it's entry for the first Baron say: According to Wraxall,
this was the only occasion in which George III's objections to giving
British peerages to tradesmen were overcome.

Here's a link to the original text in Wraxall's memoirs (courtesy of
Google):
http://books.google.com/books?id=3BkMAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA38&dq=long+resistance+on+the+part+of+the+King&as_brr=1

> > Richard L- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[marquess]

Excellent post thank you for the interesting link! I love reading such
memoirs concerning the peerage.

On 19 June, 22:39, Richard R <r_rut...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Extract from CP Vol 3, p63, footnote (a):
>
> He was raised to the English peerage by Pitt, "not however,
> as was well known, without experiencing a long resistance on the part
> of the King"
> on account of his being engaged in trade. Wraxall, Posth. Memoirs,
> vol. i, p. 66-68.
>
> The ODNB in it's entry for the first Baron say: According to Wraxall,
> this was the only occasion in which George III's objections to giving
> British peerages to tradesmen were overcome.
>
> Here's a link to the original text in Wraxall's memoirs (courtesy of

> Google):http://books.google.com/books?id=3BkMAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA38&dq=long+resista...

>
> On Jun 20, 6:38 am, marquess <marquessmarqu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Yes the uncle of the current baron was a marquess, but had an only son
> > who died in first world war. Could anyone with access to the Complete
> > Peerage perhaps quote the footnote comments of George III concerning
> > his original objections to granting the Smiths a barony. I believe
> > also that might have had something to do with them intially only being
> > given an Irish barony.
>
> > On 19 June, 06:18, Turenne <rick.lich...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> > > marquess wrote:
> > > >Wasn't there also something in the Complete Peerage that said that
> > > >originally that Geroge III objected to a peerage being given, on
> > > >"account of them being in trade"
>
> > > I seem to recall something similar; the family certainly were in
> > > trade.I had no idea until recently that the third Baron was created
> > > Viscount Wendover and Earl Carrington, in 1895, and Marquess of
> > > Lincolnshire, in 1912.
>
> > > Richard L- Hide quoted text -
>

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Hovite]

On Jun 18, 11:20 pm, Michael Rhodes

> The 1st Baron Carrington started life as Robert Smith. His son, the
> 2nd Baron, assumed the surname Carrington.His son, Charles,
> the 3rd Baron started out as Carrington, then CARINGTON, and then WYNN
> CARRINGTON. He was succeeded by his brother
> the 4th Baron, who was a Carrington then Carington.His son the 5th
> Baron started a Carington, and actually ended as a Carington.
> The 5th and 6th Barons have been Carington too.

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".

[Turenne]

Hovite wrote:

>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".

Welcome back Hovite. Haven't heard from you in a while!

The 'The Great Carington Imposture' was what I was thinking of when I
first posed the question. I had an idea that there was something dodgy
about the whole name/title thing...

Richard

[marquess]

Well the title ain't so dodgy as a peer is entitled to chose what he
likes, and it can represent a connexion even though it might be a very
pretentious one. The peerage is full of them, it is the name change
and the connexion with the "fictitious person" that is most
interesting. What I liked about the Wraxell link, were his thoughts on
the worth of an Irish peerage in the 1790's, something aobut one not
even being able to frank paper.

[Richard R]

Round did, I think, exonerate the Smiths in the latter part of the
long article, referring to a work by a member of the family which
revealed the true origins of the Carringtons/Caringtons. Round was
more scathing of the 'pedigree makers' such as Dr Copinger, who made
false claims on behalf of the family.

I don't think anyone can successfully accuse Peter, the present
incumbent, of grand delusions. I suspect it is enough to share a
common Smith ancestry with his Queen!

> > Richard- Hide quoted text -