[Bell Historians] Re: Benjamin Annable

[Richard Smith]

Edward Martin wrote:

> Trollope has it that: "[...] In 1713 his 
> wife, who meanwhile had born him another son, married 
> again.

Chris Pickford has already located this marriage (to Edward 
Smith on 5 May 1713 at St Vedast, Foster Lane).  The other 
son was Samuel Annable (baptised 23 April 1704, also at 
Foster Lane).  He appears to have had a half-brother from 
his mother's second marriage: Edward Smith (baptised 13 June 
1714, Foster Lane).  [All from the IGI on familysearch.org.]

> the name was a rather uncommon one in London."

Or maybe not.  There are two mariage records at appropriate 
times in the City: to Deborah Williams (6 Feb 1732 at 
Cripplegate) and to Elizabeth Hodgson (17 Sep 1734 at St 
Benet, Pauls Wharf).  Obviously this could be a single 
person who was widowed shortly after his first marriage.

However, a married Benjamin Annable also crops up earlier. 
Three daughters were baptised to a Benjamin and Elizabeth 
Annable at St Katharine by the Tower: Elizabeth (16 Feb 
1723), Isabella (15 June 1725, died 5 days later) and 
Elizabeth [the previous one having presumably died] (10 Jul 
1726).

I think the only sensible explanations are: (i) there was a 
third Benjamin Annable, in addition to the ringer and his 
father and son; (ii) the ringer married at three times.  (We 
could suggest (iii), that the ringer's parents divorced or 
had their marriage annulled, but that was probably beyond 
their means.  And (iv), that both the ringer's parents 
remarried bigamously, seems too improbable.)

If there were two Benjamin Annables of similar ages, this 
casts uncertainty on whether the 1702 baptism at Cripplegate 
was indeed of the ringer.  And that in turn would make a 
Cambridge origin seem more likely.  There were Annables in 
the Cambridge area (though no record that I can find of a 
Benjamin) in the early 18th century, so we shouldn't rule it 
out on those grounds.

> BA joined the CY in 1721 when he would have been 18, I 
> don't know if the Society has any specific details of 
> where he was living when he joined, but it might have been 
> Cambridge.

Nothing mentioned.  The first three members mentioned as 
coming from Cambridge are Stedman, elected 1664 (though the 
surviving version of the ASCY membership list is nowhere 
near contemporary with Stedman), and then Charles Mason, DD, 
FRS and Henry Mulliner, both elected in 1727 likely on the 
occasion of the ASCY peal at GSM.

There are other names who clearly had Cambridge 
associations, though which are not mentioned in the members 
list.  Assuming the DD given to him in the members list is 
correct, Samuel Scattergood (elected 1672, steward 1676, 
master 1685) is one.

> I know of no peals rung by Annable which were not College 
> Youths

See the third part of JAT's excellent series of RW articles 
on the 1756-1788 ASCY schism printed in 1931 for an example: 
"St. Leonard's, Shoreditch, 1754.  The Company rang a peal 
of 5040 changes of Bob Major in 3 hours 28 minutes.  John 
Underwood 1, Thomas Bennett 2, Benjamin Annable 3, Robert 
Holmes 4, William Underwood 5, Emmanuel Crouch 6, Robert Bly 
7, Joseph Monk Tenor.  William Underwood call'd Bobs." [RW 
1931/282]

Both Underwoods, Bly and Monk were Eastern Scholars and 
Bennett was a Cumberland.  JAT says Holmes was "a country 
member of the College Youths", though he does not appear on 
the ASCY membership list that's on-line.  Crouch doesn't 
either.

It's worth noting that, depending exactly when in the year 
this peal happened, it was either during Cundell's year as 
ASCY master, or just afterwards.  We know there was no love 
lost between Cundell and Annable.

> that the Cambridge records do not go back before the 
> rather critical year of 1724 is sad, they might have shed 
> some light on this.

In 1777 the Cambridge Youths refer to "the printed register 
of the society begining in the year 1667, and regularly 
transmitted down to the present time".  (1667 was the year 
in which GSM was augmented to eight.)  Sadly, whatever this 
document was, it has long since been lost.

> In his lifetime he established such a reputation as a fine 
> ringer that it is not surprising that Cambridge ringers 
> should have claimed at least a bit of him as their own.

It wouldn't be the first time Cambridge had appropriated a 
famous ringer with little evidence to back it up.  However, 
in this case, at least, the evidence is more-or-less 
contemporary.  I shall be interested to hear how Trinity 
College reply to your enquiry.

RAS