One point dazza, it was William Mackenzie - not James. The James idea is a Slemenism... Tom Slemen claims he did it so he could identify people who where stealing his stories... much like Leonardo Da Vinci included deliberate mistakes in many of his plans to foil thieves.
It doesn't help that Tom Slemen has never formally corrected the Haunted Liverpool book that it appears in or that for some time he was to be heard on the radio calling him 'William James Mackenzie'.
I think you are right that the pyramid was his brothers design, Mackenzie probably did want a memorial but I think it was more down to his brother than him. I'm trying to find out some sort of context for Pyramid memorials... I know there was an increased interest in Egypt during the Romantic Period... but Mackenzie's death was too late for that... similarly there was an interest in Egypt from the fin de siecle up until the 1930s but he would be too early for that. Maybe his brother just liked pyramids?
div>
We may be doing James MacKenzie a service, in quoshing the original rumour as false?
As for doing him a service, I think we are in correcting the slights on his name.
But I am more concerned about the service to history itself. It is a brilliant story but it has remained unchalledged for far too long - even guidebooks are quoting it.
He was clearly a man who loved Liverpool, it's clear to see that from his Will and the fact that he was known in business as Mackenzie of Paris and Liverpool.
Bookmarks