The Search For Our Lancashire Poole Family

The Family of Richard Edward Poole

Forward & Introduction by Warren & Leonard Poole

I had known of my brother Leonard’s interest in genealogy for many years. I had watched in 1967 when he had interviewed our maternal grandmother’s aunt about the extended family. He had kept me apprised of his recent efforts, and although I was vaguely interested, I never responded with anything much other than “uh-huh”.

However, when he told me that he had cracked the mystery of our great-grandfather Richard Edward Poole, that he now had a long list of names of our grandfather’s half brothers and sisters, and when I saw a census document our great-grandfather had signed so long ago, I became much more involved. I think those long dead people became more real then.

Leonard showed me how he had done the hard, tedious labour of searching through census records to find our great grandfather. Now that my interest had been piqued, I wanted to contribute something to the effort, and I thought it might be possible to use the internet to connect the names of those long ago people with people living today. People who would be relatives, albeit distant ones.

So around Christmas of 2010 I started putting names into Google. I had no idea what would happen, and I certainly didn’t know how obsessed I would become.

The following represents our co-operative effort. The first part is what Leonard wrote, which describes how he found Richard Edward Poole, and what assumptions he made to find him. I think Leonard is very Spartan with his story, and I know it only represents a tiny portion of the effort which went into it, and the research he continues to do.

My part is much longer. Not only am I more verbose, but because my part relates what we have learned about Richard Edward Poole’s children and their amazing story.

Except checking some specific facts, I have left finding official records to him. I concentrated on the social history aspects of the story, which I find more interesting. But almost every time I came to a dead end, Leonard used his searching skills to bail me out.

We hope you find this as interesting as we did.

Now before you start, a warning: This is a very long and involved narrative. Our ancestors appeared to have absolutely no imagination when naming their children, so there are numerous repeated names. I’ve done my best to make it clear who I’m talking about, but I have no doubt you will be cursing me in a few minutes, and likely flipping back to the lists of Poole children.

In addition, to understand the logic behind some of the assumptions we’ve made I have included a significant amount of background information about life in England between 1870 and about 1930. So, if you’re interested in learning about our great uncles, their families and the times they lived in, I suggest first you put the kettle on, make a cup of tea and find a comfortable chair. This will likely take a while.

Don’t say I didn’t warn you!

-Warren

Discovering Our Great Grandfather - Richard Edward Poole 1829-1912

For my brother Warren and I, the ancestral history of our grandfather, Thomas Poole, was shrouded in mystery. As children, we would hear various stories about where he came from; but he was never the one to tell the tale. He maintained a quiet demeanour, staying in the background as the rest of the family chattered around him.

Legend had it that his family of the early 1900's was so poor that when he went off to work in the coal mines of Lancashire at the age of 12 his mother had sold his bed by the time he returned home. We were told that he joined the British Army as an underage youth.We have since discovered that he entered the "Theatre of War" in France on June 13, 1915. Serving as a Lance Corporal in the Machine Gun Corp, he was wounded in battle, and gassed, but at least he did return, if only to work once again in the coal mines. There is a family picture of him with his mates. He is the one on the left, holding an over sized shovel with his over sized muscular arms.

We were all told that his father was about sixty years of age when he was born in 1899 and that he was the youngest of three children of Richard Edward Poole and Eliza Jane Bird. This, however, was supposedly the third marriage for Richard Edward. Little was known of these other families beyond there being numerous half brothers and sisters, many of whom had immigrated to America. Other than that brief wisp of history, no one seemed to know anything more of these ancestral siblings.

Over the years attempts have been made to piece together the story of our great grandfather Richard Edward Poole. Research was based on the assumption that he was born about 1839, probably in Lancashire. England has had a census every ten years since 1841 and the standardized collection of civil birth, marriage and death records have been maintained since 1837. That is where the search began.

He was relatively easy to find in the census records of 1881, 1891 & 1901. In this time period he lived at various addresses in the town of Golborne, Lancashire, employed as a tinsmith. From this initial research marriage certificates were obtained for two of his marriages. In 1883 he married Alice Speed with whom he apparently had at least two children, Richard Edward, born about 1882, and Alfred, born in May, 1888. Alice died in May, 1888, likely as a result of complications from child birth. In 1895 he married Eliza Jane Bird with whom he had three more children, Mary Jane, born in 1896, Herbert, born in 1897, and finally our grandfather, Thomas, born April 9, 1899. On both of the marriage certificates Richard's father's name is recorded as Robert. Robert's occupation is “joiner”(aka cabinet maker) and he is deceased. All records state Richard Edward's birthplace to be Salford, (part of Manchester), Lancashire.

Oddly though no reference to him could be found in any census prior to 1881, nor could records of a birth be found. Searches were made of military and immigration records for the time period, but there was no one that came close at all to matching the criteria. It was as if he simply “appeared” out of thin air as a 40 year old male working as a tinsmith in Golborne.

Another line of research opened up, however, when it became possible to search the 1911 census, which was recently released to the public. This record is distinct from any previous census in that it is completed by the head of the household, and signed by them. Each document can be downloaded and viewed. There was no record of a 70 year old Richard Edward Poole, but Thomas Poole, born April 8, 1899 was easy to find, living with his siblings and parents. The form was signed “Richard Poole” who recorded his own age as 82.

There was no doubt that this was the correct family as all of the names and ages perfectly matched what had previously been documented. The only oddity was the age of Richard Edward himself. In the three previous census records his birth year had been recorded by the census taker as 1840 or 1841. Now, when he completes the document himself, he reports his age as 82 making his birth year about 1829. At a loss to explain this discrepancy, it prompted further research to look again for earlier records of Richard Edward using this new birth date as a starting point.

Fairly quickly a new Richard Edward Poole was discovered by searching LDS records. A Richard Edward Poole was baptized at Manchester Cathedral on May 29, 1829. His parents were recorded as Robert and Hannah Poole. Records of two other children, James Henry, baptized 28 October, 1827, and Elizabeth Ann, baptized 19 June, 1825 were also discovered. A Robert Poole married a Hannah Saxton in Manchester on June 20, 1824. (Confirmation of her maiden name as Saxton is documented in the 1861 census where she is listed as a widow, and mother to the head of the household, James Poole.  Also residing there is Edward Saxton, listed as Uncle to James Poole.)  Although unconfirmed, Robert Poole quite likely dies sometime between 1829 and 1834 as on 27 April, 1834, there is a record of a Hannah Pool marrying James Cope in Manchester. Although no record or Richard Edward has yet been uncovered in the 1841 census, we do find, living on (back of) Thomson Street, Manchester, a ten or twelve year old James Pool recorded as a stepson, living with James and Hannah Cope.

It is the 1851 census record that is most revealing.  Residing at 5 Crowne Street, Hulme, Manchester, this document lists James Cope, age 43, head of the household, living with his wife Hannah, age 47, born in Nottingham, and sons James Poole, unmarried painter, age 23, and Richard Poole, married tinplate worker, age 22.  Also recorded are Mary Ann Wilsham (sp?), age 23, and Hannah, age 1.  A marriage of a Mary Ann Wilsham to a James Poole is found in 1853. Although Richard Edward is listed as married, his wife is not present.  A further search reveals an Eliza Poole residing at 9 Silver Street, Hulme, Manchester.  She is listed as a wife, married, age 23, living with a daughter, Elizabeth Ann, age 4 months.  It should be noted that no males are recorded at this address.
Extrapolating from the above data, we found a record of a baptism of a Hannah Saxton in Nottingham on January 22, 1804, listing her parents as John & Elizabeth Saxton.  As well, there is a record of a baptism of a Robert Poole in Manchester on November 6, 1803, recording his parents as Richard and Elizabeth Poole. Although somewhat speculative, it is quite likely that these people are Richard Edward's grandparents, or, our great-great-great-grandparents!

Richard Edward married Eliza Dodd on September 30, 1849. On the marriage certificate Richard's occupation is “Tinplate Worker” and his father is a “Cabinet Maker”. Census records of 1861 record the family of two adults and five children living at 28 Mallow Street, Hulme, Manchester. By 1864 they had moved to Halifax, Yorkshire where they had at least five more children as recorded in the 1871 census. In the 1881 census however, Eliza Poole is listed as a widow living with only three of her children. No other members of the previously large family can be found in the Halifax area.

However, no record of a death of a Richard Poole between 1871-81 who would have been born about 1829 could be found anywhere in England. Nor was there any evidence of another Richard Poole born in 1829 in Manchester who would have completed the 1911 document.

It was beginning to look like these two people were one and the same. Of course, to come to this conclusion required some unseemly assumptions. His first wife, Eliza, reported to the census taker in 1881 that she was a widow. Now, perhaps she thought this to be true, or, then again, maybe she didn't want to admit to the census taker that her husband had left. The storyline fits only if one accepts that there was a marital breakup that resulted in Richard abandoning his family in Halifax, starting up life again in Golborne, Lancashire by 1881 and ultimately committing bigamy!

We therefore must assume that once Richard shows up in Golborne, he starts to lie about his true age, and marital condition. In the 1881 census he lives at 71 Leigh Street. He is employed as a tinner in a cotton mill and his birth year is reported to the census taker as 1840. He lives with a boarder named Alice Speed, a cotton operative, birth year reported as 1856. On April 25, 1883 they are married. The ages on the marriage certificate record his age as 43, and she being 28. The question that must be considered is whether or not that is Richard's true age, or is he really 53, not 43 when he marries Alice? She is already marrying someone whom she thinks is fifteen years older than herself. Would Richard be prepared to admit that he is almost twice her age?

It is possible to explain these discrepancies without accepting that they are the same person. Perhaps the death of the older Richard was not recorded in the 1870s. Maybe he left the country. Maybe the younger Richard led a life of a vagabond and was never documented prior to 1881. One can make up all kinds of possible explanations. However, there is no denying the facts that do point to these two Richards being one and the same. They both have a father named Robert, employed in cabinet making. Each Richard is consistently employed as a tinsmith or tinware worker. They have the same middle name. They are both born in Manchester. And finally, the family story always was that Richard Edward had been married three times, and that our grandfather had numerous half brothers and sisters. Yes, a lot of facts do line up.

And, as Richard was possibly re-establishing himself, at least three of his young sons from his first marriage were keeping busy as well. By the 1870's they were in the process of making quite a name for themselves as acrobats in America known professionally as “The Poole Brothers”. But that is another story.

-Leonard

The Poole Family Story Becomes "Entertaining"

The Descendents of Richard Edward Poole

Having become convinced that the Richard Edward Poole whom Leonard had located living in Halifax in 1864 was indeed our great grandfather, we set about the task of attempting to learn all we could about his children with his first wife, Eliza Poole (nee Dodd).

Richard Edward Poole and Eliza Dodd married in 1849, and immediately began having children. By looking in the U.K. census, Leonard discovered the following eleven offspring:

Elizabeth Ann Poole, born 1850

Richard Edward (Ted) Poole, born 1852

Maria Poole, born 1854

Thomas Poole, born 1856

William James Poole, born 1858

Elizabeth Poole, born 1860

Harry Poole, born 1864

Charles Poole, born 1865

John Henry Poole, born 1868

Eliza Poole, 1870

Harriet Emma Poole, born 1873

Notice that some of the names repeat – We have two Elizabeths and an Eliza, as well as a Thomas Poole, even though we know that was our grandfather’s name. But wait – it gets worse. Soon I will be introducing you to another Thomas, two Flora’s, and two more Olives.

Although all of these children were born (and in some cases died) before our grandfather was born in 1899, they were his half brothers and sisters, and therefore our parents’ uncles, and our great uncles. Not so distantly related, in other words.

But who were these people? Were there any traces of them left? Any descendents who could be traced? Had there been any contact between Richard Edward Poole’s family with Eliza Dodd and his family with Eliza Jane Bird, which included our grandfather?

We knew the chances were remote, but we wanted to try. Since we had a name, Richard Edward Poole, which was at least slightly distinctive, we started by putting those words, in quotation marks, into the internet search engine Google.

The Google search provided us with a “Googlebook”, one of those out of copyright books which have been digitized by Google. This one is entitled “Report of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, January Term, 1875, to the September Term, 1876, inclusive”. If you want, you can see that case by following this link: Googlebook .

At first it seems like there cannot possibly be a link to our Richard Edward Poole. Beginning on Page 583 this book describes an American Court Case in which two brothers named Poole are accused of employing their 7 year old brother “Zanlo” Poole in their acrobatic show to the detriment of his physical and moral health. But further reading yields the following nuggets of information:

1. The two older brothers are Richard Edward Poole and Thomas Poole, the same as the two eldest sons of Richard Edward Poole Senior and Eliza Dodd.

2. “Zanlo” Poole’s real name is John Henry Poole, which matches the name of another brother.

3. John Henry Poole is described as being 7 years old (“in his 8^th year”) which matches the age of “our” John Henry Poole.

4. The brothers are described as being subjects of “Her Majesty Victoria”, and natives of “the County of Lancashire” (which was true – we knew they were born in Lancashire, but were now living in Halifax, which is in Yorkshire).

None of these things are conclusive – after all, Poole is a fairly common name, and coincidences do happen - but we began to look more closely at this trio. Searching for “Zanlo Poole” and “Zaulo Poole” (the typesetting of early books makes it difficult to tell which name was really being used), allowed us to discover that the court case was notorious in its day, including coverage in the New York Times and the Baltimore Sun. We also found another Googlebook about the history of tap dancing which indicates that the Poole Brothers were the first to introduce acrobatic clog dancing, as well as a reference in the famous London magazine "Punch" to “Poole, Zanlo, and Poole.” All this information was sufficient to make us want to investigate further.

Since the New York Times had indicated that the case had “attracted so much attention in this city and abroad,” we began to look in British newspapers of the period to see if we could learn enough about the Poole family of acrobats to prove or disprove the idea that they were our relatives. We thought one way of doing so was to discover if the Pooles of the court case were their origins in Halifax, Yorkshire, where we knew “our” family was living in the 1880’s. Even today Halifax only has a population of about 80,000, so the idea that there could have been a second family named Poole in the Halifax Yorkshire of 1889 who had sons named Richard Edward, Thomas and a John Henry born in 1882, had to be unlikely in the extreme.

In the newspapers we hit the motherlode of information, although not exactly in the way we had anticipated. We have found little information about the court case thus far, but a great deal about the Poole family, starting with “Poole, Zanlo and Poole”. We have now recorded over 800 references (and viewed and not recorded hundreds more) in contemporary newspapers. These references span over a hundred years, all the way from 1872 to 1977.

To end any remaining suspense, I’ll let you know right now: We believe that the American court case about Zanlo Poole concerns our great uncles being prosecuted for child abuse.

Here’s the evidence which convinced us:

1. We found an 1889 review of a show in which the reviewer gushed, “The reappearance of Poole’s Minstrels in their native town of Halifax after a long absence has caused great enthusiasm”.

2. When placing advertisements looking for work, the acrobat Pooles sometimes gave their address as “E. Poole, Halifax”.

3. The official documents Leonard uncovered show that Eliza, our great grandfather’s first wife, died in the fourth quarter of 1883; A December 15, 1883 newspaper indicated that “the mother of Edward Poole, of Poole, Zanlo and Poole” had died on December 9, 1883.

4. While there were numerous John Pooles in the 1881 census, there was only one who gave his age as 13 and his birthplace as Halifax – and he gave his profession as “acrobat.” He is recorded as a brother to the head of the household, Thomas Poole, born in 1857 in Manchester. He also is an acrobat.

That was all too much to be coincidence. We just had to conclude that the people in the 1875 American Court case were indeed our great uncles performed in England and America as acrobats.

So what did we learn about our relatives, the Pooles from Halifax? A tremendous amount and the rest of this lengthy narrative tells you what we found and how we found it.

The newspapers we looked at contained a great deal of information, but it required a lot of sifting through. I should note that these are original 19^th and early 20^th century newspapers which have been scanned and run through Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software, which makes them searchable, much like Google allows searching. However, we are dealing with newsprint over a hundred years old. The slightest smudge or other imperfection in the original ink or a spot on the paper can turn “Poole” into “Pode” or “Poule”, which means it isn’t returned to us in the list of articles when we search. Searching for “E.Poole” brings a different set of results than “E. Poole” or “E Poole”. Searching for Poole Brothers sometimes brings up a sentence containing a list of entertainers such as, “Smith Sisters, Poole and May.” Add to that we have to remember that there is a large town in England called “Poole”. All of this is to say that it is certainly possible that something definitive was missed, but we’ll probably never know.

Our searches found that our Poole family was mentioned in advertisements for upcoming shows, advertisements placed by the various Pooles seeking work, birth, death and marriage announcements, the occasional gossip column, and, as I noted above, reviews of various shows they were in. I should tell you that the “reviews” were not as we think of them today; they were essentially “puff” pieces in which everyone was wonderful. I think it likely that the “reviewers” were actually paid by the performers or the theatre managers. Sometimes the same “review” can be found word for word in more than one newspaper or in the same newspaper in consecutive weeks. In addition, often the various Poole groups were simply listed at the bottom of the article, under “also appeared”.

We were fortunate that there were two newspapers which catered almost exclusively to the theatre industry, called “The Stage” (which continues publication to this day) and “The Era”. Unfortunately archives of “The Era” are only available on line up until the end of the year 1900, so virtually all 20^th century references are from “The Stage”.

To understand some of the following discussion, it is important to place some of the information in context. For example, it should be remembered that in the days before the internet, radio, television, movies or even electricity use, theatrical shows were the popular entertainment of the day. An evening at the theatre would include a number of acts of various kinds – ranging from serious plays to low comedy, from brass bands to solo vocalists, from clowns to, yes, acrobats. Those of us old enough to remember the Ed Sullivan television show in the 1950’s and 1960’s can probably easily get the idea, except that the entertainment went on for four hours! Some of these shows had very cheap admission of sixpence or less. Every small town appears to have had several theatres.

To fulfil the need for cheap entertainment, there seem to have been literally thousands, if not tens of thousands of performers of various kinds. Since they were travelling constantly they couldn’t rely on the mails to reach them so it seems they used advertisements placed in one or both of these two newspapers to communicate with each other, with their agents, theatre operators, etc. Theatres would place advertisements indicating the various people for whom they were holding letters; rehearsals were organized by advertisements; we found one example of a theatre placing an ad to tell the Pooles “contract off”.

Using these newspaper clippings we learned that the “Brothers Poole” weren’t the only performers in the family. Indeed, we believe that the family, including at least two or three generations, were part of as many as sixteen different groups over the period from about 1870 all the way to 1930 or so. Some of this is speculative, of course; there were no formal written records, or at least none that can be found from this side of the Atlantic, so all of this has been inferred from secondary sources. It becomes like one of those logic puzzles you hated in high school: “John, Louisa and Mary are siblings. One is older than John by three years. John was born in 1962 ... which of them...” you get the idea.

I think a useful way of thinking of these various performing groups is to think of them like modern day rock bands. Think about someone like Eric Clapton; at different times he played guitar with the Yardbirds, Cream and the Travelling Wilburys. Jimmy Page and Jeff Beck both played guitar for the Yardbirds as well at different times, so it really isn’t possible to answer the questions who the guitarist of the Yardbirds was, or what group Eric Clapton played guitar for. Like the rock bands of today, troupes of entertainers in Victorian England seem to have formed, disbanded, reformed, and replaced one member with another and so on, all while keeping the same name or changing the name only slightly.

It also seems there was no copyright on the names of the groups. Groups sometimes placed advertisements indicating that they were the ORIGINAL group and all others calling themselves that were frauds. Combine that with the fact that our family seems to have a chronic shortage of names (ie. Richard’s son was named Thomas, and there were three Olive Pooles and two Florence Pooles in the family) and it is difficult to be certain about which members were performing in which groups when.

However, having been convinced that our great uncles were entertainers, specifically acrobats, we can make reasonable inferences. We can see the “Brothers Poole”, whom we know were for the most part Richard Edward (Ted) and Thomas, (although the ad I’ve shown above shows Edward and John) performing around the same time as “Poole, Zanlo and Poole”, whom we know to be Richard Edward, Thomas and John Henry. Sometimes the Poole Minstrels, whom we know included Richard and a Thomas, performed in the same show as the Poole Brothers. Did Richard and Thomas simply put on different clothes and makeup and perform in a different act in the same show (hopefully getting paid twice) or was the “Poole Brothers” act taken over by other members of the family? We simply can’t know for certain at this point.

Regardless, to the best of our ability and subject to change as further information becomes available, we believe the following were the main groups the members of our family were part of.

The Poole Brothers; Brothers Poole; Poole, Zanlo and Poole; Poole, Zanlo, Poole and Zala; Three Marvellous Pooles

These first five groups are taken together, for reasons which hopefully will soon become apparent.

The very first mention of this group that I can find is January 14, 1872. Richard Edward would have been almost 20, and Thomas 16. John Henry would have been just 4 years old, so I have to think it unlikely he would have been appearing with them at that time. In various advertisements and reviews over the next two years, they were described as “clog dancers, Tumbling Clowns &c”, “Acrobats and French Clowns” (I still don’t know what French Clowns are) and “Champion Acrobatic Boot and Clog Dancers”. While I think we should be careful not to take the puffery too seriously (after all, some of these descriptions were advertisements placed by the brothers, while others were descriptions written by reviewers apparently paid by the theatres) it can be seen from some of the notations that the Brothers Poole were excellent performers. An apparently more serious review of the brothers’ act includes the following:

“Undoubtedly the principal attraction of a program that was excellent throughout was the performance of the Poole Brothers, a pair of acrobats whose equal we do not remember to have seen on any stage. They seem to be made of India rubber, so elastic and recoverable are they. Starting out on a sixteen inch pedestal, they do the ordinary double dance business in concert, supplemented by somersaults that are marvels of precision and celebrity. The old business of turning a somersault on a handkerchief is here outdone with the addition that it is outdone (sic) on a pedestal, a fall from which would probably break the neck of the acrobat. Last night the Poole Brothers were received with rapturous applause and fairly earned it.” (Brooklyn Eagle, September 14, 1875, pg. 4)

In an advertisement on May 30, 1875, it is seen that the Poole Brothers have agreed to go to America for 12 months. In November of that year there is an advertisement which includes Zanlo for the first time; in early January of 1876 Reynold’s newspaper tells the story of the Brother’s arrest in Washington on charges of absconding with Zanlo, whom the court had placed under someone else’s custody for his safety. This confirms what we learned from the New York Times of that era, and the report of the Washington court case.

The farther in time we get from the certainty of that U.S. court case, the harder it is to be sure about the membership of the “Brothers Poole”. After the brothers’ return from the States there is the occasional mention of the same three by name. By the end of 1877 they are often referring to themselves as Poole, Zanlo and Poole, with just a couple of mentions as to which Pooles were accompanying Zanlo. In 1882 they appear to have gone their separate ways: an ad was placed, I suspect by Thomas, indicating that “the Marvellous Pooles (Thomas, John and Willie) (emphasis added) late Poole, Zanlo and Poole” had just completed a run at the People’s Music Hall, Manchester, and were now at Queen’s Palace. It appears likely that Thomas and John Henry, now aged 14, were joined by their brother William (Willie) who was about 24 at the time. Again, this is only reasonable speculation, not fact. It is also impossible to know whether their split with their brother Richard Edward (Ted) was amicable or not.

In September of 1882 there is a notice that the Three Marvellous Pooles would be relocating to Spain. By June of 1883, “Poole, Zanlo Poole and Zala” were back in England performing at the Star in Liverpool. Does this mean that the brothers were back together, with Willie assuming the stage name Zala? Could be. Or had Willie assumed Ted’s role and Zala was another member of the family or someone completely unrelated? No way to know.

The Three Marvellous Pooles appear to have done some serious travelling. On August 18, 1883, the announcements sections carried this: “in Bucharest Romania, August 7, (born to) the wife of Thom. Poole, of the Three Marvellous Pooles, a daughter” In February of 1884 there was a notice placed that they had just completed two months at the Smassy Orpheum, Budapest, Hungary and were now in Breslau (a city in south-western Poland now known as Wroclaw). Presumably they knew they would be returning soon, because the reason for the ad was to advise of their new London address.

The brothers Thomas and Richard Edward seem to have had a spat in August of 1885, when an ad was placed in The Era which stated “Wanted, Proprietors and Managers to know that we have no connection with the parties styling themselves as Poole Brothers as we are the original POOLE, ZANLO, AND POOLE, Lightning acrobats and Double Somersault Throws”. This was followed by an ad the following week “…I, Thomas Poole, for Ten Years late Director Correspondence and Artist of the Original Poole, Zanlo, and Poole, thank my brother Ted for his kind notice last week. This is brotherly love after my ten months illness….” Of course, this could all have been a publicity stunt to get people talking about the Brothers Poole.

By the late 1880’s the references are to the “Brothers Poole” are getting less common, but in June of 1887 the manager of a show placed an ad indicating that both “Poole, Zanlo and Poole” and the “Poole Brothers” were to appear. Whether that was wishful thinking by a theatre manager, an attempt by the brothers to get back together, or simply a mistake (either by the newspaper running an old ad, or by my being able to find other references to the Poole Brothers) it is impossible to know.

Regardless, at some point around 1887, the Brothers Poole in all their permutations stopped performing. Unless one of them wrote a book we haven’t found yet, we will never know why. The two brothers appeared to have had some disagreements, so perhaps they just decided to split the act up. I think one contributing factor might have been that by the late 1880’s, both Ted and Tom were married with children, and, as we will see shortly, both had brought their children into the family business. Remember too, that by 1887 the original brothers were 35 and 31, a little old for acrobatics. I should also mention that perhaps Ted’s zeal for his chosen profession may have been reduced somewhat by a tragic event which took place in 1884, in which a performer, fortunately not one of our relatives – leaped from his shoulder to perform a somersault, lost his balance and broke his neck on landing. This inquest laid no blame on Ted, but obviously it must have been upsetting, even in those more violent times.

Regardless, I can find no evidence that the brothers ever performed together again, although there are numerous places where the acts they were in appeared in the same show. Both brothers, and their families, continued to perform on the London and regional stages for many years to come.

Because the brothers seem to have split up after about 1887, this narrative now has to divide between the Ted side of the family and the Tom side. I’m going to start with what happened to Ted and his children first.

But wait! What happened to Zala and Zanlo? Sad to say, we simply don’t know. As I will relate shortly, there were a myriad of groups in which it is possible John Henry and / or Willie performed with their cousins, nieces and nephews, but we really don’t know.

Before moving on to the various groups formed by Ted Poole and his family, however, I should add a footnote that the Brothers Poole did have a revival in the late 1890’s; Several reports of shows are seen where the Brothers Poole are performing as “eccentric comedians”, “acrobatic clog dancers” and “acrobatic comedians”. Were these the original Brothers Poole, coming back for one last kick? Not likely, particularly since by then they were in their mid to late 40’s, hardly a prime age for acrobats. Perhaps the mystery has been solved: in January of 1896 can be seen an ad by the Brothers Poole “Sons of Ted Poole” looking for work. Since Richard Edward (Ted) Poole had sons Thomas Henry Poole (born in 1872) and Robert James Poole (born 1880) it is quite possible they were reprising the act their father and uncle had made famous.

Richard Edward (Ted) Poole Jr. (1852-1901)

Referring to Ted’s sons reminds me that before we get to the next group, we need to discuss the next generation of Pooles who entered the family entertainment business.

Richard Edward (Ted) Poole married Olive Hampstead on May 20, 1872. Together they produced the following seven children:

Flora Poole, born 1872

Thomas Henry Poole, born 1877

Charlotte Beatrice (“Lottie”) Poole, born 1878

Robert James Poole, born 1880

Sarah Olive Poole, born March, 1882

Ada Poole, born 1883

Hette Poole, born June, 1889

We also know that there was another boy, called, Richard Edward Poole, but he died in 1885, age 3 and a half. Although the death of such a young child is always sad, it must be remembered that mortality rates in Victorian times, particularly for children, were shocking compared to today. In the 1890’s, before public sanitation, antibiotics and vaccinations, diseases such as cholera, diphtheria, measles, and whooping cough killed many thousands every year.

Okay, on with the narrative!

The Poole Minstrels

As early as April of June of 1885 we see Ted (presumably Richard Edward) performing an acrobatic clog dancing act on his own. Then in September of 1887, the “Poole Minstrels (5 in Number)” placed an advertisement seeking work. By December of that year they were working regularly, spending a number of months in Dublin. They always identified themselves as being five in number, possibly to avoid confusion with another group with a similar name, and frequently specified that they were Ted, Olive, Tom, Flora and Lottie, probably for the same reason. Initially their act seemed to concentrate on things such as clog dancing and acrobatics, but later they seemed to include singing and comedy. Reading the reviews and advertisements, you can actually get a sense of the act, and presumably the people, evolving over the years.

We can see that the Poole Minstrels were popular and worked a great deal around the country. Between 1887 and 1897 we can see them travelling frequently to places such as Manchester, Brighton, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dublin, in addition to appearing in various London theatres.

The question for us of course is: Who were these people? How certain can we be sure that they were related to us?

I think we can be quite certain that these are “our” Pooles, because, as I noted above, in 1889 the Poole Minstrels were identified as returning to their home town of Halifax. It took a lot of research and piecing together various facts, but I am now confident that the Poole Minstrels were Ted and Olive and their three oldest children: Flora, Thomas Henry and Beatrice Charlotte, who were ages 15, 10 and 9 respectively when the troupe began performing. Don’t be dissuaded by the young ages of the Poole children when the act began in 1887. This was a time of weak child labour laws and young children often worked very hard, and in quite dangerous conditions. Remember that the Poole Minstrels began performing before the Jack the Ripper murders occurred in London, walking distance from where they lived. Think about the scary movies you’ve seen about those murders – that’s the time and place our family lived. Remember too, that our own grandfather, Thomas Poole, went off to fight in the trenches of World War I when he was just 15. Later on, I’ll relate an incident when one of our Pooles came up against the child labour laws.

The most important evidence for why I am convinced that the Poole Minstrels consisted of Ted, Olive and their children is that when Florence “Florrie” Poole died on New Year’s Day, 1896, she was identified in newspaper death notices as the daughter of “Ted and Olive of the Poole Minstrels”. For a long time, however, the duplication of the various names in the family made the identities of the others harder to ascertain with any certainty. In addition, in January of 1896, just a couple of weeks after Flora’s death, Lottie Poole took out an ad in the Era, which stated, "Lottie Poole, late Sisters Poole, (another group I will discuss shortly) will join her brother and be known as the Poole's (Tom and Lottie) Variety Entertainers and Acrobatic Dancers. Inquiries Ted Poole, Hull”.

Despite the advertisement, I have found no evidence that Lottie and Tom actually began performing together. They took out newspaper advertisements which stated their intentions, but no ads actually seeking work have been found. Instead, it seems as though the Poole Minstrels resumed performing after Flora’s death in 1896. Perhaps they continued as a quartet; perhaps the youngest, Ada, born in 1883 joined them; it wouldn’t have been surprising if she had already been doing so for some time.

I think it likely that Flora’s death precipitated the breakup of the Poole Minstrels. Although they apparently resumed performing for a while, the mentions in the newspapers became fewer and fewer, until by the end of 1898, they are no longer seen.

Before moving on, I should mention something about Beatrice Charlotte (Lottie) Poole. She led us on quite a merry chase – mostly because Ted Poole didn’t include her middle name (a shortened form of which she actually went by) in the census of 1881 – which meant that we didn’t know for a long time who “Lottie” was. We made a lengthy series of logical inferences which led us to the conclusion that she had to be Beatrice, which I spent about ten paragraphs explaining in an earlier draft of this epistle, but suddenly Leonard was able to find a reference to her middle name, and all was solved. I’ll talk much more about Lottie a little later.

Okay, on with the narrative!

The Women of the Family

Sisters Poole / Sisters Lorne / Three Pooles

The next three groups all seem to be quite intertwined, so I’m going to group them under one heading, although I’ll try to look at them sequentially.

Part I – The Sisters Poole

There is evidence that between the middle of 1890’s and about 1908 or so, a new group formed – “the Sisters Poole”. We have a real problem discussing this group for a couple of reasons – first, their individual identities are only mentioned a couple of times in advertisements and reviews, and second, because there were actually two groups calling themselves “the Sisters Poole” performing in London at the same time!

I think this is a good place to supply some more background. I’ll try to keep it brief.

One of the striking things about doing this research is just there were at least two (and possibly three) large Poole families in show business in London at this time. One of these families was apparently quite prosperous and owned theatres and shows, while the other included the manageress of one of the large London theatres. I don’t think I need to tell you that neither of those families was ours!

Joseph Poole seems to have been a very wealthy man who owned or managed a number of theatres in England. He died in 1906, and from the very deferential article about his funeral we learn that he had four brothers, George, Charles W., Harry and Fred. Charles W. Poole travelled around England with the “Myriorama” a contraption which projected pictures of famous events onto screens around the theatre in some way. It was famous at the time, and there is even a book about it by someone named Hudson John Powell. Because Charles W. Poole was quite famous, his descendents have posted his genealogy on the internet, so we are pretty sure that he was no relation to us. As a result we can safely forget about him except as a source of confusion to anyone doing research on the Poole family.

We have less information about the other Poole family. Joseph J. Poole was the owner of the South London Palace, a large theatre. That’s his name in big letters at the top of the poster on the cover of this article. After he died in 1882, he widow, Mrs. Ellen Poole took over management of the theatre. Sadly, it appears she was bankrupt when she died in 1895.

To make things more interesting (a.k.a. confusing), many of the acts of “our” Pooles, including the “Poole Zanlo and Poole” permutations I discussed above and all of the acts I will discuss below, performed at theatres either owned by Joseph Poole, or managed by Joseph J or Ellen Poole. To make matters yet worse for the researcher, they also sometimes performed as part of a show which included Charles W. Poole’s “Myroriama”.

Anyway, Ellen Poole’s daughters, Violet and Evelyn, appeared to have styled themselves as performers. This can be seen by an advertisement placed in January of the same year of 1895 in which there was an observation in the newspaper that “The Sisters Poole (Violet and Evelyn), daughters of the popular manageress of the South London Palace...” were performing. Since it was J. J. Poole’s wife who was the manager of the theatre, and we have no one named Violet and Evelyn in our family, those Sisters Poole aren’t ours – not that we know of, anyway.

However, there is considerable evidence that at least some of our Pooles did perform as the “Sisters Poole.” While it is very difficult to distinguish between the two groups calling themselves the Sisters Poole, in January of 1895, an advertisement appeared which stated: “the Original Sisters Poole, late of the Poole’s Minstrels...”. Later, in 1897, we have a single joint advertisement in which both the Poole Minstrels and the Sisters Poole are seeking work, giving the same return address. Based upon those advertisements, if we accept that the Poole Minstrels were “our” Pooles, then at least one of the two “Sisters Poole” teams have to have been ours too. Unfortunately, because of the difficulty of distinguishing between the two groups, it is certainly possible that some of the references to “Sisters Poole” which I have compiled thinking they were “our” Sisters Poole were actually Violet and Evelyn.

So, if the “Sisters Poole” were “our” Pooles, how many sisters were in the group? And which sisters? Unfortunately we really can’t be entirely certain. As usual, we’re going to have to try to use the few threads we have to knit a handkerchief. Also as usual, it may well be that there was a rotating roster of family members who went into and out of the group, as inclined or required. We also need to remember that these were young women, who during the time we’re talking about probably got married. Certainly we know that Florrie was married, because her husband, Ted Reed was mentioned in the newspaper articles when she died in 1896. We do not as yet know whether she had any children. Remember also that this was the Victorian Era, and that performing acrobatics and clog dancing while pregnant would have been particularly scandalous. Even the word pregnant was considered risqué.

A June 1895 description of a show indicates that “Last, but by far not least, come the Sisters Poole (Florrie and Lottie)...” However, we also know that Olive Poole also performed with the Sisters Poole, because she was identified in a 1905 review of a Sisters Poole performance as being “a fine clog dancer”. As well, a review of a March, 1906 Sisters Poole show said that Olive Poole, "sings and dances in fine style". Although she would have been only 13 in 1895, when we have the first record of the “Sisters Poole” group which we can be certain was placed by “our” Pooles (as opposed to the daughters of the theatre manageress – I told you this was complicated) Olive could easily have been performing right from the beginning. I should note that there is no specific mention of the youngest child, Hette, anywhere in the newspaper articles, although she was identified as a dancer in the 1901 census.

Part II Sisters Lorne / The Three Pooles

Here’s another group I can only make suppositions about. In 1897 we see a series of joint advertisements seeking work for both the Poole Minstrels and the “Sisters Lorne”. When I first saw this, I assumed it was simply a cost-saving measure between friends. I subsequently noticed however that the Sisters Lorne were being described as “clever clog dancers”. Sound familiar?

Most of the references were for two Sisters Lorne, but one or two referred to three. Then I found this August, 1899 advertisement: “WANTED, Known, Bob Poole, of Two Pooles, will Join his Sisters, the Sisters Lorne, and be known as the Three Pooles". I have no idea why Olive and Ada would call themselves the Sisters Lorne. Perhaps it was an inside joke; we just don’t know. Certainly The Sisters Poole name was taken!

Regardless, the discovery that “The Three Pooles” was another family group of course caused me to search for “The Three Pooles”, which resulted in this reference, also in August of 1899:

It’s a little hard to read, so I’ll translate: “THREE POOLES (OLIVE, ADA AND BOB), Variety Entertainment and Marvellous Acrobatic Dancers; also Little Star, Juvenile Wonder. Two distinct turns nightly. Liberty Sept. 11th and 18th. All letters to 37 King-Street, Hull, Yorks." 37 King Street, Hull, Yorkshire was Ted Poole’s address, so not only do the names Olive, Ada and Robert (Bob) match up with Ted and Olive Poole’s children but they use his address as their contact location. Olive, Ada and Bob were 17, 16 and 19 respectively in 1899. The Three Pooles did get some work, and we can follow them until the end of the century via various advertisements and reviews.

Searching for The Three Pooles (Olive, Ada and Bob) alerted me to another group of dancers also called “The Three Pooles” which was active between 1892 and 1894. The descriptions of their performances sounds like our family, but there isn’t any information I can find about their individual names, so whether they were our people or not, or whether they were related to Ted or Tom, or both, I just can’t tell. However, there is one review 1893 review which is so florid I can’t resist quoting it:

“...The Three Pooles, a trio of dancers consisting of two girls and a youth. In their final clog dance the eldest girl, whose shapely understandings are cased in tights, turns handsprings and goes over in the fashion made popular by Mr. J. W. Rowley, these little exercises being merely thrown in as adjuncts to some prettily executed and novel steps. The reception accorded to the Pooles was remarkably enthusiastic.” Editorial comment: What exactly are shapely understandings?

As a final note, I should mention that we catch occasional glimpses of Olive doing a solo clog dancing routine until 1906.

That brings us to the end of what I have learned about these groups. Compared to the Poole Brothers and Zanlo it’s a little thin on hard evidence, but perhaps we will be able to learn more eventually. So in the absence of facts, I’m going to tell what my active imagination tells me.

We know that Ted Poole died early in 1901. We can see that the performances of the Poole Minstrels tapered off fairly quickly after Flora’s death in 1896, and that the Sister Poole, Sisters Lorne and Three Pooles groups began performing about that time. Did Ted have a lingering illness which limited his ability to perform? If so, the others would have needed to step in quickly to support the family. In England at that time the “social safety net” was extremely limited – to a large extent you worked, begged or starved. So I think the Flora and Beatrice (Lottie) formed the Sisters Poole to take up that slack as their father fell ill. Distraught after their sister Flora’s death in 1896, Lottie and Tom briefly had plans to perform together, but did nothing other than place the announcements in the newspapers. Then Olive convinced her sister (and perhaps her parents) that she was old enough and a good enough performer to take Flora’s place and perform in the Sisters Poole with Lottie. Olive and Lottie performed as the Sisters Poole when Lottie wasn’t busy with other things, but that wasn’t enough work, so Olive and Ada formed the Sisters Lorne.

This is all just idle speculation, which I assure you is based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever. After all, what’s the point of doing all this work if you can’t have some fun with it?

On to more solid ground now.

More About the Men

The Brothers Poole (Slight Reprise)

This can be quick, since I said it before. In the late 1890’s; the Sons of Ted Poole placed ads looking for work. Since Ted Poole’s only surviving sons were Thomas Henry Poole and Robert James Poole it is pretty safe to assume that after the breakup of the Poole Minstrels, these two brothers briefly reprised the act their father and uncle had made famous.

Poole and Poole / T.E. Bates

Finally, a group I can discuss confidently. Poole and Poole were Richard Edward (Ted) Poole’s son Thomas Henry Poole (born 1877) and his wife Florence Victoria (nee Snow). Why am I so positive? Well first, we know from the records that Ted’s son Tom married Forence in 1901. Second, we know that Poole and Poole were a married couple named Tom and Florrie because in an advertisement they placed early in 1915 they identified themselves as “Poole and Poole (Tom and Florrie)”. There’s also some more evidence that Poole and Poole were named Tom and Florrie Poole, but I’ll leave that until later (I am a bit of a tease, aren’t I?)

We first see a reference to Poole and Poole in December of 1902. The list of acts describes them as “step dancers”. Later advertisements label them as “clog dancers” or “pedestal dancers”. In an advertisement seeking work in 1905, they call themselves “class comedy couple and Pedestal dancers”. In 1906 they were described in a review simply as comedians. In 1908, they described themselves as “Funny and Refined Comedy Couple and Trick Table Dancers". Finally, in 1913, their advertisement read "Wanted, Monday next, also 13th, Poole and Poole, Eccentric Act and Table Dancing. Finish Pantomime, Saturday (great success) Gaiety Theatre, Leith, Scotland" and “Wanted Known - If you want an Act full of Laughs for Monday, or Feb. 13th, wire, Gaiety Theatre Leith, Scotland".

From these ads you sort of get a sense of the evolution of their act from dancing to comedy, likely as they aged and clog and acrobatics pedestal dancing became too difficult. As I said above, while there is nothing which is guaranteed when doing this kind of research, I find it almost inconceivable that there could have been another couple unrelated to us in this era who were named Tom and Florrie Poole and who were in the Poole family business of clog and pedestal dancing.

Poole and Poole appear to have performed at least until 1915, when an advertisement was placed for them under “Calls”, which was a way of informing artists of rehearsal times. Although we know they had children, I can find no reference to any of them having performed.

So who was the “T.E. Bates” in the title of this section? He was Tom’s alter ego, his persona. We first see T.E. Bates in about 1910, when he is listed in a show which included Florrie Poole. By 1913, joint ads are being placed such as this one: "T.E. Bates Mad Comedian; Also Florrie Poole, Comedienne and Dancer One or Both". The address for both is the same. The last we see of T.E. Bates is a 1921 advertisement seeking work for “T.E. Bates, low comedian”.

Once again, I’ll tease you with an assurance that there is more evidence than this, which I will reveal later.

"Lottie" Poole - Actress, Dancer, Comedian

As I promised twice before, here is what we have found out about Lottie Poole. I should repeat that this lady led us a merry chase, and down several blind alleys before we reached the conclusion we did.

We first meet Lottie Poole as a member of the Poole Minstrels in the mid 1890’s, and again, briefly and temptingly, as a member of the Sisters Poole. We know therefore that she is one of “our” Pooles. But unlike the rest of the family, however, her career mostly develops not only as part of a family act, but as an individual actress and performer. Generally her work became comedic and musical in nature, but she seems not to have lost her roots in the family tradition of clog dancing, acrobatics and dancing. "Miss Lottie Poole received an encore for her clog dance." (The Stage, March 3, 1903.) She is also referred to as a singer, "Miss Lottie Poole makes a lively and vivacious Frowsy Fritters, and also contributes one or two good songs" (the Stage, January 12, 1899). Note that in this last review, she wasn’t part of a team, but was playing a role in a play.

There is a wedding announcement in May of 1896, when Lottie would have been about 18, in which she is said to have married Fred Villiers in Liverpool. Interestingly, not a single family member is included in the newspaper list of attendees. However, we could not find a formal record of a wedding between a Villiers and a Poole. The search should have been quite easy, since I had a specific date from the newspaper clipping.

The show reviews indicated that Lottie Poole was associated with two leading men. Between 1896 and 1900, she performs extensively (but not exclusively) with her husband, Fred Villiers. Suddenly, after the turn of the century, she ceases (with one exception) performing with Fred Villiers and begins extensively, but again not exclusively, performing with a man named Frank Weir. We also begin to see a Lottie Weir appear and begin performing, again almost exclusively with Frank Weir. Lottie Weir and Lottie Poole never perform in the same show.

There was also one very puzzling references which started me thinking, a 1903 review of a play in which the description is, “Miss L. Poole Weir gives an exhibition of neat clog-dancing". It’s clog dancing, so its probably our mysterious Lottie Poole, but what’s with “L. Poole Weir”? Did she marry her leading man? What happened to Fred Villiers? Thinking that perhaps Lottie Weir had been widowed and remarried, we looked for a death of a Frederick Villiers, but couldn’t find one.

I started searching for “Lottie Weir”, and found numerous references to a Lottie Weir appearing in circumstances similar to “Lottie Poole”, and including, “Miss Lottie Weir is very vivacious as Pollio Perkins, her dancing being particularly smart". The very first reference to Lottie Weir I have found is this October, 1900 announcement:

This was the only announcement of this type I had seen in all the time I had spent reading these old newspapers. What exactly were they announcing?

Lottie Poole, however, continued to be seen to perform, often in the same shows as Frank Weir. I also found (but did not understand the significance at the time) the following reference: "The following artists were due to sail yesterday (Wednesday) for South Africa, per the s.s. “Galway Castle" to fulfil engagements with the African Theatres Trust, Limited, Johannesburg, booked by the I.V.T.A.:- Frank Willats and Lottie Poole…"

Much later, I found the following very strange advertisement from 1921, “Frank Weir and Lottie Poole Thank H. Blackmore, Esq. for Offers. Sailing for Australia, Sept. 17, per S.S. Ceramic, From Liverpool" Comm., Opera House, Sydney". So, it looks like our Lottie has ditched Fred Villiers and taken up with Frank Weir, in an age when that kind of thing just wasn’t done, at least not so publicly.

Then another thought occurred to me: the name Frederick Villiers just might have sounded very foreign at a time of international tensions and a xenophobic England. Could Fred Villiers have simply changed his name? Could Lottie Poole and Lottie Weir be the same person?

I began to search for Fred Villiers. It turns out he was a comedian in a pairing called Villiers and Harman. In June of 1895, Fred Villiers’ mother, Mrs. F. Willats died. Remember who accompanied Lottie on the trip to South Africa three paragraphs up? Then Leonard began to search again for Lottie’s wedding, this time looking for a wedding between a Willats and a Poole. And there it was: Frederick Weir Willats married Charlotte Poole, in Liverpool. The witnesses included William Harman, Frederick Villiers’ partner. The bride’s father as shown on the marriage license? “Richard Edward Poole, Music Hall Artist”.

So, it looks like at the beginning of his career Frederick Willats used the stage name Villiers, and then for whatever reason began to use his middle name (Weir) instead, and changed his first name from Fred to Frank (perhaps he didn’t want to get new monogrammed towels).

We cannot find them in the 1901 census, but in 1911 Lottie and Fred Weir were living in Stoke Newington (an area of London) with their brand new, two month old son, Frederick. Don’t you just love it when things work out? They have apparently had three other children who were still alive, but they did not stay with their parents on the night of the census, so at first we couldn’t find out much about them; Ultimately Leonard’s diligent searching found a daughter. Her name? Olive. If you’re counting by the way, that’s Olive Number 3 - I told you our family had no imagination when it came to names.

I continued to search The Stage and other sources for mentions of both Lottie Weir and Lottie Poole and I was able to follow her well into the 20^th Century. I’ll tell you about that just a little bit later.

Tom Poole's Other Brother Tom

Thomas Poole (b. 1856) and his Entertaining Family

After the breakup of the “Brothers Poole” about 1887, Tom (b. 1856) and his family also continued to perform. We have not been able to find any information about when Tom married Lily, although we do know she was born in the mid 1860’s, and so she was a few years younger than Tom. Unfortunately we have had a great deal of trouble reconciling the various sources to confirm how many children they had together.

Figuring out Tom and Lily’s children will be important in a few moments when we discuss the troupes they performed with. What we know is a combination of newspaper and census records, so now is a good time for a brief description of the census records I’ve been referring to. Like Canada, England holds a census every ten years; theirs started in 1841, and records up to and including the 1911 census are available on line for public viewing. Searching the records however, is not easy. A search for “Thomas Poole” in the 1911 census yields 445 records. Since we know our Thomas Poole was born in 1856 we can reduce that to 23 people who were born between 1855 and 1857, inclusive. What you then get is a list of 23 records with name, year of birth, sex, town and county. If you think you have the right person, you can then receive something which looks like this:

That is a record of all of the people who were resident on the night of April 2, 1901 in the houses at 19, 21 and 23 Greengate Street, Barrow-in-Furness. I won’t ask you to try and read the sample above to find our relatives; here they are “zoomed in”.

If you squint hard you can just about see that Thomas Poole was a boarder in the house, he was married (m) age 44, and he listed his profession as “artist music hall”. Just below him you can see his wife, Lily. The “do” beside her name and along the rest of the row is meant to represent “ditto”. Farther down you can see that their two children “Tilly (M? W?) and Elsie are with them, and that their ages are 13 and 11 respectively. All three of the women are “Artists Music Hall”.

Our family is particularly hard to locate in the census because they were constantly travelling. You see, the census is a snapshot of the population taken as of a certain moment in time. You fill in the census wherever you happen to be; our family were probably at this boarding house in Barrow-in-Furness for a week or so because they were performing in a show nearby. The following week they might have been a hundred miles or more away. Unlike people researching other families therefore, we can’t rely on a location to help find the people we are searching for – our people could have been anywhere on the night of the census, or even abroad.

Their travelling also makes it more difficult because the census we have access to does not include Scottish or Irish records, although the various members of the Poole family travelled a great deal to both places. Scottish records are kept separately, and we haven’t looked there yet. Although the census was performed in Ireland prior to independence in 1922, the records were destroyed and are irretrievable. So whatever parts of our family were in Ireland, Scotland or elsewhere overseas on the day the census was taken are unavailable to us.

As you can see, the forms were handwritten; since the handwriting is identical, you can assume that the same person, presumably the census taker, filled in the entire form. He (women weren’t allowed to be census takers until 1911) asked the residents questions and wrote down whatever answers he was given – whether truth or lies. The residents might, of course, have just returned from the pub, been interrupted from something important or just generally not felt inclined to truthfully answer the census taker’s questions. You also have to remember, particularly with travellers such as our relatives, that regional accents could play a role. Even today when travelling in the U.K., I sometimes have a great deal of trouble understanding some of the accents, despite having grown up with them. A hundred years ago, before radio and television toned those accents down, I’m sure it they were much more unintelligible. The image of a cockney census taker trying to understand what Tom Poole, a Yorkshireman was saying, particularly if Tom had just come out of the pub, is pretty delicious. The upshot of all this is that while the accuracy of the information show in the census are pretty good, they must always be viewed with caution.

Enough of that. On with the story. I was writing about how difficult it is to reconcile the number of children Tom and Lily had. We have been able to locate Tom and Lily in the 1881, 1901 and 1911 censuses. To our great dismay, we have been unable to locate them in the 1891 census. If ultimately we are able to do so, it may go a long way to explain a mystery.

There is a birth announcement in October of 1880 in “The Era” which reads “On the 22d of October, the wife of Mr. Thomas Poole, of Poole, Zanlo, and Poole, of a daughter.” If you have good eyes you might have seen in the census above that Lily said she was 35 in 1901, so she must have born about 1865. That would have made her about 15 when she had that first child. Although that initially made we wonder if Thomas had been married before Lily, in the 1881 census she said she was 19, which would make her born no later than 1862, and therefore 18 when she gave birth. (Thus illustrating another problem with relying on census data – people lie, especially about their ages).

There is another birth announcement in August of 1883 which states, “in Bucharest Romania, the wife of Thos. Poole of the Three Marvellous Pooles, a daughter.” There is yet another birth announcement in 1888. Presumably that was the Tilly we see in the census I showed above, because she was age 13 in 1901. I couldn’t find a birth announcement in 1890, when Elsie was born.

I spent a lot of time explaining about the census and Tom and Lily’s children, because it will become important when explaining who he performed with after the breakup of the Poole, Zanlo and Poole partnership in 1887.

The Two Pooles

The first mention I can find of Tom and Lily Poole performing together is in May of 1887 when a reviewer said “Tom and Lily Poole excel as acrobatic dancers and duettists”. In January of 1888, an ad for them said “The Two Pooles (Tom and Lily) Character Duettists, and the greatest Acrobatic Clog and Skipping-Rope Dancers in the World, bar none. Tremendous success everywhere...” Apparently modesty wasn’t Tom’s forte!

Remember Tom placing an ad chastising his brother Ted? It seems Tom and Ted (or perhaps another family member) had another falling out, or maybe a continuation of the old one. In September of 1888, Tom placed an ad “Notice to Proprietors and Managers. - In consequence of a certain Agent representing that we, the TWO POOLES are working with Three others, which is not true. In future we shall be known as TOM AND LILL PELHAM.” They placed similar ads for the following two weeks. This makes it seem as though he was so mad at his family he was actually starting to use his wife’s name.

Despite what their advertisement said, I have not found any connection with the name Pelham. It doesn’t seem to have been Lily’s maiden name – in 1881 his mother-in-law Ellen Heming is living with them. Of course, If Lily’s father died and her mother remarried . . . Regardless, although there were numerous Pelhams performing in the theatre at that time, I can find no connection between the name Pelham and our family.

The Poole Pelhams / The Zednas / Laurette and Laurel

Sorry to say, the story gets stranger. Thomas placed yet another ad in the paper, in 1898, “Wanted, Everybody to know that the Poole Pelhams have not left the Profession, as some of our friends report. Going Strong as ever.” Our Thomas did seem to have a chip on his shoulder, didn’t he?

They continued to perform as Tom and Lily, and then about 1891 begin to perform as the Poole Pelhams, and in February of that year place an ad as follows: “The Marvellous Four Poole-Pelhams (Tom, Lily, Dave, and Fred) the greatest Black and White Acrobatic Specialty in the World, with Double Somersaults...” Who were Fred and Dave? I have no idea. We have tried every combination we can think of, and cannot find them in any records. They could be cousins we haven’t found, or simply been hired.

We do know they were children, because in March of 1892 an ad placed by the Poole-Pelhams quoted the Bolton Evening News as saying “The Four Poole Pelhams, I might say, man and wife and two children, work an acrobatic performance with much skill, combined with a musical entertainment. They were deservedly recalled.” In 1892 Elsie and Tilly would have been 1 and 3 years old, so I don’t think they were the children in the show.

Could Tom and Lily have had two children before Elsie and Tilly who were named Fred and Dave? Even though we have found no records of them, it is possible. Perhaps there were mistakes in both the 1880 and 1883 birth announcements, and both were sons, not daughters. If that is the case, then the oldest one must have been missed in the 1881 census, because he is not shown. The other option would be for them to have been born shortly after the 1881 census (say in 1882 and 1884, between the two daughters mentioned in the birth announcements, and then Fred and David both died or emigrated before the 1901 census. That scenario would make them about 10 and 8 when the Poole Pelhams started performing. If only we could find them in the 1891 census... we’ll keep trying.

I admit I am completely lost with this one. That being the case, are we certain that we have the correct Thomas Poole? Yes, beyond all doubt. When Flora Poole died, (Ted’s daughter) in 1896, the newspaper article identified her as the niece of Tom and Lilly of the Poole-Pelhams. The 1881 census shows that in addition to Tom and Lily, and her mother, the household includes John Henry Poole – Zanlo in other words. I am absolutely certain that Thomas Poole of Poole, Zanlo and Poole performed with his wife Lily first as the Two Pooles, and later as the Poole Pelhams. Now if we could just figure out where that Pelham name came from... Again, we’ll just have to keep trying.

We can continue to follow the Poole Pelhams until 1907, when references to them end. In the last review I can find of them, however, there is a trail... the review includes a reference to “The Zednas (Lily, Tilly and Elsie)”. I hope that sounds familiar, for those are the names of Tom Poole’s wife and two daughters. The Zednas don’t seem to have had a long career; they start performing in the same programs as the Poole Pelhams in 1907, and continue advertising for work into 1908. Sometimes they were the Zednas Sisters (Tilly and Elsie), sometimes the Three Zednas when Lily was included. The last reference we have is in May of 1908.

I don’t think that quite ended Tilly and Elsie’s show business career, however. Two chance references (which you will see later) led me to “Laurette and Laurel”, whom I believe were Tily and Elsie. The first reference we have to them is in 1913; the next-to-last is in 1925. They were dancers, contortionists, and, yes, acrobats.

Before we leave Tom’s side of the family for now, I promised a long time ago that I would tell a tale about children acting in plays in Victorian London. I can’t tell it better than The Era of October 22, 1898, so here goes:

“At Clerkenwell Police-court, on Saturday last, Thos. Poole of 12, New Church-road, Camberwell, was summoned for that, having the custody of a child – vis. Elsie Poole, under eleven years of age – did unlawfully cause such child to perform at Sadler’s Wells Theatre. Police-inspector Briggs said that he visited the theatre in question on the evening of the 10^th and saw the defendant, his wife and two daughters gambolling, skipping, rope dancing, and going through “other absurdities.” It struck (the) witness that the youngest child was not eleven years of age. Four times in ten minutes she ran on the stage, rolled over on a carpet, and made grimaces at the defendant, which caused “roars of laughter.” Altogether she was on the stage three and a-half minutes. After the performance witness saw the defendant at the wings, and asked the age of his youngest daughter. He “very frankly” said she was under ten. The officer said, “You know you should apply to the magistrate for a certificate for her until she is eleven,” and the defendant replied, “She is is on such a short time that I did not think it was necessary.” He added that she had been performing about a month, but he would at once withdraw her. The child, the officer added, was well cared for and happy. Mr. Horace Smith said that Poole had acted very properly, and he would be bound over for his good behaviour.”

Need I say more?