Has there ever been someone who would be considered a de facto king of the city? Lots of people both in real life and the media seem to want to be considered that person and taking on and winning against NYC does have a cultural theme in the US, but has there ever been someone who pretty much ruled the public and/or private sector in NYC?
Boss Tweed? He died in jail though.
It probably had a real king when it was owned by the Dutch.
I don’t think there was ever a community over 10,000 people which had one dominant hearty figure as the unofficial leader who arbits all and is the person to suck up to for favours. Mass brings it’s own diversity of problems and creates it’s own rivals.
Difficult being the unofficial dominant personality of a pub.
And the Dutch didn’t have a King back then. Between the Sea Beggars and the foundation of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in the 100 Days, they may have had Stadtholders sometimes, but these were not rulers, more like Hetmen.
Charles II & James II of England were NY’s only Kings.
I guess I’m thinking post revolutionary war ‘kings’, preferably 19th or 20th century types. Business tycoons, politicians, criminals (or all 3).
I know that, in the last I was replying to boffking. Who may be King of the Boffs.
The unofficial boss of a place or district is more likely in Cowboy Westerns than back east.
( Although the chief employer pretty well owned New England mill towns. Then again this was a function of the position [ as companies later owned Company Towns in the 20th century ] rather than of personality. )
Robert Moses maybe?
Well if you watched the making of the mob it was Lucky Luciano who made the mafia into a corporation. It was his call to have a commission, of heads of five families, etc. After that there could be no king, of the underworld anyway. He was a public figure. Politicians haven’t had much power since tweed.
I was gonna mention Moses, but I’m not a new yorker.
Boss Tweed seems the obvious candidate.
The Rockefeller Dynasty.
Donald Trump.
And he’s about to become King of the USA.
My first thought, and I can’t think of a good second choice. Most of the reasons why have already been listed.
He operated in that brief time when power *could *be pulled together, and maintained. Not sure the combination existed before or since.
Trump is probably even more of a laughing stock in New York than he is in the rest of the country.
If ever a guy comprehensively controlled the city and what went on within it, it was Tweed.
Robert Moses is also the first person who came to my mind.
Trump probably isn’t still relevant enough in NYC to be a laughingstock.
New York City has had a large, powerful central government for a long time, so no- there hasn’t been anyone outside city government who was “really” running the city.
On the other hand, until quite recently, Dallas had no strong city government, and a small number of local businessmen pretty much got together and made all the important decisions. Until a few decades ago, no matter who was nominally the mayor of Dallas, the city’s most powerful man was Stanley Marcus (as in Neiman Marcus department stores).
Surprisingly, this SOMETIMES led to progressive decisions. If Dallas had a strong, powerful elected government, segregation probably would have lasted a lot longer. But once the local businessmen saw the writing on the wall, they conferred, decided integration was inevitable, and made it happen.
The Netherlands were a Republic back then. Well, they called it that, it was more of an oligarchic plutocracy in the vein of the Republic of Venice but still. No kings yet.
Robert Moses. The most powerful man in the USA for decades.
But only within his domain. Yes, he controlled the (re)development of NYC, but he didn’t run the city or anything like it.
He was more powerful than mayors and govorners. He ignored them. He had his fiefdom in the city and the state that was independent of over site. He even successful ly disobeyed FDR. Read The Power Broker.