Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jack McCarthy speech on Dorset Street

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    There’s little doubt that the John ‘Jack’ McCarthy who was MJK’s landlord was the father of Steve and father-in-law of Marie Kendal, boxing promoter, charitable contributer etc

    So little that it’s not worth any serious consideration.

    Denying it is Scott’s little quirk. Quite endearing in a way.

    Comment


    • #17
      This film connection is interesting. I remember as many of you probably do watching Genevieve. R.I.P Kay Kendall who I believe has a charity setup in her name. https://kklf.org.uk

      Comment


      • #18
        I’ve posted this before, but it’s a gem. Marie Kendall, Jack McCarthy’s daughter-in-law:

        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GkH1eEAk9PE

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
          I’ve posted this before, but it’s a gem. Marie Kendall, Jack McCarthy’s daughter-in-law:

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GkH1eEAk9PE

          Hello MrBarnett, not seen this before so thank you for sharing it!

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
            So little that it’s not worth any serious consideration.

            Denying it is Scott’s little quirk. Quite endearing in a way.
            So glad you find it endearing, Gary. Did Frederick MacKenzie mention the Austin murder? No. If the article was prompted by her murder, you'd think it would have been mentioned by him, or referenced in the follow-up speech by McCarthy.

            Your problem is you try to read between the lines too much. I like to take things a bit more literally.

            You'll forgive me if I question remarkable transformation in a few short years, from McCarthy, the slum landlord of 1888, to McCarthy, Esq., the landowner, sports promoter and entrepreneur from before then and into the twentieth century.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

              But he was someone who let out rooms with cheap furniture in them, wasn’t he?
              Did all lodging rooms come with cheap furniture in them? I don't know. Can you please address the fact that Jack McCarthy (the Esquire guy) didn't own Miller's Court?

              Comment


              • #22
                The Jack Mccarthy, boxing promoter had a jun. in his name, address 27 Dorset. St., so was the son of the rent collector. It was the son John in the 1881 census.
                Last edited by Varqm; 10-01-2021, 05:18 AM.
                Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
                M. Pacana

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post

                  Did all lodging rooms come with cheap furniture in them? I don't know. Can you please address the fact that Jack McCarthy (the Esquire guy) didn't own Miller's Court?
                  1. So what if he didn't? Why does it matter?

                  2. It's actually pretty difficult to prove he didn't. Deeds at the time are notoriously complex to nail down. Many of the properties in the area were copyhold, not freehold or leasehold (I'm not entirely sure if Millers Court was, but I know the properties on Great Pearl Street were copyhold, one of which was run by John McCarthy the boxing promoter).

                  3. Renting or purchasing a lease off of another is somewhat common. John McCarthy of Dorset Street, may have been the de facto owner of the lettings arrangements even if not the de facto owner of the property. He was certainly there for many years into the early twentieth century, so was somewhat settled.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by seanr View Post

                    1. So what if he didn't? Why does it matter?

                    2. It's actually pretty difficult to prove he didn't. Deeds at the time are notoriously complex to nail down. Many of the properties in the area were copyhold, not freehold or leasehold (I'm not entirely sure if Millers Court was, but I know the properties on Great Pearl Street were copyhold, one of which was run by John McCarthy the boxing promoter).

                    3. Renting or purchasing a lease off of another is somewhat common. John McCarthy of Dorset Street, may have been the de facto owner of the lettings arrangements even if not the de facto owner of the property. He was certainly there for many years into the early twentieth century, so was somewhat settled.
                    Thanks, Sean. I suspect Scott already knows this, but chooses to ignore it. I may be wrong, let’s see how he’d responds.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Varqm View Post
                      The Jack Mccarthy, boxing promoter had a jun. in his name, address 27 Dorset. St., so was the son of the rent collector. It was the son John in the 1881 census.
                      I don’t follow, V. The genealogy is fairly straightforward: the French-born JM was the father of the music hall performer, Steve. They were both involved in the boxing world. Does that tie in with your understanding of things?



                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post

                        So glad you find it endearing, Gary. Did Frederick MacKenzie mention the Austin murder? No. If the article was prompted by her murder, you'd think it would have been mentioned by him, or referenced in the follow-up speech by McCarthy.

                        Your problem is you try to read between the lines too much. I like to take things a bit more literally.

                        You'll forgive me if I question remarkable transformation in a few short years, from McCarthy, the slum landlord of 1888, to McCarthy, Esq., the landowner, sports promoter and entrepreneur from before then and into the twentieth century.
                        Why did you ask whether McCarthy mentioned the MJK murder in the speech?

                        There’s no transformation. McCarthy’s business was providing accommodation, food and other goods to the desperately poor denizens of Spitafields (and Limehouse). Do you somehow have the proprietor of a doss house on a higher moral plane than one letting out basic rooms?


                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I originally posted this over on JTRForums:



                          1. In 1885, we read:

                          ‘The recipient of the cup was Mr John McCarthy of Dorset Street, Spitalfields… This gentleman was also presented with Life governorships of both institutions*…’

                          *The Victoria Park Hospital and the Queen Adelaide Dispensary. The cup was awarded for collecting the most money for the hospitals.


                          2. In 1888, we read:

                          ‘Mr McCarthy is spoken of by the police as a most respectable man, and was recently awarded a prize for collecting money for the hospitals.’

                          3. In 1902, we read:

                          ‘Some years ago Old Jack won a massive silver cup in an open charity competition (32 entries) and several life governorships for several hospitals.’

                          4. In 1911, we read:

                          ‘Mr Jack McCarthy is a Life Governor of many hospitals, and was presented with a silver cup twenty-five years ago for collecting more money than any Life Governor.’


                          Two different men, one a dastardly slum-lord rent collector and the other a respectable gent (an Esq. no less) worthy of an invitation to Abberline’s retirement do?

                          Or just one?
                          Last edited by MrBarnett; 10-02-2021, 02:02 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Two different men. There may have been more than one McCarthy family at #27 (in 1888), as there was in 1891 (census). The rent collector could have been one of those men who was not an Esq.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
                              Two different men. There may have been more than one McCarthy family at #27 (in 1888), as there was in 1891 (census). The rent collector could have been one of those men who was not an Esq.
                              Two men with the same name living at the same address and with the same occupation who were both awarded prizes for collecting money for hospitals?

                              Why stop at 2? There could have been 3,4,5…

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                I found a photo of three generations of Jack McCarthies - French born, Steve and Steve’s son - unfortunately it’s a very poor image and so not comparable to the well-known PIP sketch of MJK’s landlord.

                                Some years back Fiona Kendall Lane revealed a photo of her illustrious ancestor at (I think) a Whitechapel Society meeting. Does anyone remember that?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X