Tumblety and Ireland

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • lynn cates
    replied
    Dublin, 1883

    Hello Siobhan.

    "Now I wonder what was going on in Dublin in 1883 . . . "

    Well, the Phoenix Park trials were underway along with the hangings of Brady and Kelly.

    " . . . that would have been of interest to T...?"

    That might depend upon his political affiliations.

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • Siobhan Patricia Mulcahy
    replied
    You seem to be correct Simon.
    I hate when I get it wrong!
    For a man who doubts T ever came to Dublin, you are very interested in the dates (he wasn't here).
    Apologies all the same.

    Now I wonder what was going on in Dublin in 1883 that would have been of interest to T...?

    To all,
    I'm trying to access the full transcript of Tumblety's interview with New York World in 1889 (January) . Anyone got a link (that works) to the full text? It's not in reports or media section. There are some links in posts here that no longer work and small sections of the intereview appear in dissertations and other posts...but is there a full transcript on here anywhere?
    If so, a link would really be appreciated. Thanks.

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi Siobhan,

    July 1882 — McGarry employed by Tumblety.

    NYC - Niagara Falls - Rochester - Saratoga Springs [two months] - NYC [where we spent the winter].

    1883 - Rome NY - NYC - Boston - New Haven - Philadephia [three weeks] - NYC - Glasgow, Scotland [Dr. T only, 1 month] - NYC [three weeks] - Queenstown - Dublin [one week] - Inniskillen Falls.

    How did the Ireland trip suddenly move to between Saratoga Springs and NYC?

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • Siobhan Patricia Mulcahy
    replied
    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    Hi Siobhan,

    According to McGarry's whirlwind itinerary the alleged week in Dublin was 1883 at the earliest.

    Regards,

    Simon
    Read Wolf V's earlier post. It was late 1882.
    McGarry's quotes in the New York World article also imply late 1882 given that he and Tumblety hooked up in July that year.
    Late 1882 is exactly the time (October-December 1882) Parnell and his political handlers were located in Dublin's Harrington Hall, accepting donations for his new political party.
    Last edited by Siobhan Patricia Mulcahy; 05-26-2012, 04:29 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi Siobhan,

    According to McGarry's whirlwind itinerary the alleged week in Dublin was 1883 at the earliest.

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • Siobhan Patricia Mulcahy
    replied
    Tumlety's visit 1882

    Hi Mike,
    According to McGarry, they spent a week in Dublin in 1882. As Dublin was the slum capital of the world at the time, it is difficult to understand why they would stay a week but there may be a connection to Charles Stewart Parnell.
    Parnell was jailed in early 1882 (Kilmainham Gaol, Dublin) for criticising the British Prime Minister's new Land Act for Ireland. His incarceration would have made headlines around the world (including the US) as he was a member of the aristocracy, a landed gentleman with a stately home in Wicklow and was also a Westminster MP.
    Parnell was released from jail in May 1882 - again more headlines around the world which Tumblety would have known about - and in October 1882, he founded a new political party - the Irish National Land League in Dublin. Like all politicians trying to gain political support for themselves, Parnell hung around Dublin looking for donations and rallying support for his new party and the offices were based in Dublin's Harrington Hall (now the Harcourt Hotel). Would Tumblety have been vain enough to come to Dublin in the hope of meeting the great man - one of his heroes - in order to hand him a cheque in person? (Most Irish-Americans sent money by post). It is just a thought.
    As I said, nobody in there right mind would have wanted to "holiday" in Dublin in 1882, unless they had a specific reason for being there - and to stay a full week? Very odd.

    Leave a comment:


  • Siobhan Patricia Mulcahy
    replied
    Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
    Hi Siobhan. Do you have green eyes?
    Yup. Green eyes.
    What has this got to do with the price of onions in outer Mongolia?

    Leave a comment:


  • Scott Nelson
    replied
    Hi Siobhan. Do you have green eyes?

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi Mike,

    !

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • mklhawley
    replied
    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    Hi Mike,

    I'm far more concerned about Tumblety's missing luggage.

    According to La Bretagne's passenger manifest, Frank Townsend had "4 bags".

    And the New York Herald added the detail that Tumblety had "a small steamer trunk placed on the box" of the cab he took to Mrs Macnamara's house.

    Regards,

    Simon
    Oh, those two bags went over into the Atlantic with a few matrices of the female anatomy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi Mike,

    I'm far more concerned about Tumblety's missing luggage.

    According to La Bretagne's passenger manifest, Frank Townsend had "4 bags".

    And the New York Herald added the detail that Tumblety had "a small steamer trunk placed on the box" of the cab he took to Mrs Macnamara's house.

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • mklhawley
    replied
    Hi Simon,

    "He disappeared shortly after his release" is very interesting. I guess 'shortly after' is too general to get anything out of it.

    Sincerely,

    Mike

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi All,

    Tumblety stories come, and Tumblety stories go.

    Here's one, about Tumblety's transatlantic luggage.

    NY Sun, 4th December 1888—

    Click image for larger version

Name:	NY SUN 04 DEC 1888 TUMBLETY NO LUGGAGE.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	69.1 KB
ID:	663928

    Here's another, about his surveillance by NYC's finest.

    New York Tribune, 5th December 1888—

    Click image for larger version

Name:	NY TRIBUNE 05 DEC 1888 TUMBLETY'S NOT BEING FOLLOWED.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	17.4 KB
ID:	663929

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • mklhawley
    replied
    Originally posted by Lechmere View Post
    I did read it - someone scorned does not always respond with fury.
    "They [McGarry and Tumblety] parted amicably and McGarry became...McGarry remembered his time wiht Tumblety fondly and had only good, if somewhat deluded, thngs to say about him." Prince of Quacks by Tim Riordan page 161.

    Lechmere, there are not too many Tumblety experts who agree with you.

    Sincerely,

    Mike

    Leave a comment:


  • mklhawley
    replied
    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    Hi Siobhan,

    I get the impression you want McGarry's story to be true.

    Regards,

    Simon
    Hi Simon,

    Just as I get the impression you want McGarry's story to be false. My guess is because McGarry also states that Tumblety had a bitter hatred of women.

    When asked about Dr. Tumblety's aversion to women, McGarry said: "He always disliked women very much. He used to say to me: 'Martin, no women for me.' He could not bear to have them near him. He thought all women were impostors, and he often said that all the trouble in this world was caused by women."

    Kind of unusual if you think Tumblety was using McGarry to help him. It would seem logical for McGarry to conform to what Tumblety stated later that he has no issues with women.

    Sincerely,

    Mike

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X