The Gunpowder Plot And All That

It was just too long to fit on the list

In January 1999, there was a thread on the Gunpowder Plot, Guy Fawkes and associated matters. Rather than waste 13K of mailboxes, this is my contribution to the debate.

	It's a tabloid version of history, glossing over the substance for a slanted view.	January 15, 1999 First, let me address the historical inaccuracies. Then I'll turn my attention to the other matters raised. Sara go to this address: So it's come to this. Throwing URLs at each other. Regrettably, the URL cited here contains a number of divergences from most other sources (including the Encyclopaedia Britannica). Language such as The details of how the other conspirators were rounded up need not concern us here. [...] The show trial of the conspirators [...] is the sort I'd expect to read in a tabloid version of history, glossing over the substance of the matter in favour of giving a slanted view. Unsourced quote In some parts of England, children keep up an old tradition by walking in the streets, carrying the "guy" and beg passers by for "a penny for the guy." The kids keep the money - of course. It is equivalent to the American tradition of trick or treating. Sara It is not the equivalent of trick or treating - trick or treating is for *candy*, not for money to burn some guy. So, what is trick or treating, if not dragging round some grotesque caricature of humanity for reward?
	He was trying to commit an act of mass murder.	Sara If you read the page above about Guy Fawkes, you'll see that he was trying to do justice for the catholics The heck he was. He was trying to commit an act of mass murder, an act that would have destabilised the entire course of Western European history. Young Prince Henry gets the throne, and people do start caring about these matters of state, and there's some general "don't like you much" prejudice against Catholics. The on-off war with Spain flares up again - remember, the Spanish had tried to conquer England with their Armada just 15 summers before. It's possible that England joins up Bohemia, Denmark and Sweden to set up a united front, dragging the rest of Northern Germany with them to set up a far stronger anti-Catholic power bloc in Northern Europe. What wouldn't change is the need for Parliament to become involved in taxation. That's pretty much independent of who is on the throne. who had suffered for over forty years by people condemning them & the intolerance that was in the country. Ack! Confusing the role of the State (Government, Parliament, King) with day-to-day life. For the vast majority of people, an oath supporting the Queen is just a form of words. A bit like the Lord's Prayer, or the Pledge to the Flag. Relatively few people attached any weight to it, because the Queen didn't interfere in their lives.
	Few people attached any weight to it, because the Queen didn't interfere in their lives.	Just like how England taxed America extra (and why the revolutionary war started), they did the same to catholics. Care to cite any source for that? The Catholics were taxed in a manner no different from the Protestants. The only difference was that Catholics who refused to pledge allegience to the monarch were subject to a fine. Now, that may be taxation by the back door, but it's not an involuntary tax. Unsourced Was there really a gunpowder plot, or were the "conspirators" framed by the king? Why not ask Smoulder and Sulky to join with Dr What and investigate? There was no doubt an attempt to blow up parliament. But Guy Fawkes and his associates may have been caught in a Jacobean sting operation. This is almost too ludicrous to require further comment. Many of the plotters were known traitors. Many of the plotters were Known To The Authorities. They were, after all, people who had refused to swear an oath to the King, and had been fined for it. It would have been almost impossible for them to get hold of 36 barrels of gunpowder without the government finding out. Not particularly; even if the government knew they had the gun- powder, why should they have expected there to be an assassination attempt on the King?
	It's patronising not to give this level of sophistication to the 17th Century.	As for the secret warning letter, many historians believe it was fabricated by the king's officials. I would really like to see some sources for this. [T]he letter was in fact very vague. It said nothing about the details of the attack. Still, the king and his men knew exactly the where and when to catch the conspirators and stop the plot. Once tipped off, King James' men put into place some decent security provisions: ones we take for granted now. Simple things, like checking for bombs just before royalty visits. We're not exactly talking rocket science, and it's patronising not to give this level of sophistication to the 17th Century. Sara I think it is absolutely horrendous that little kids are going around and asking for 'pennies for the guy' or whatever, and then burning the guy!! talk about disgusting..these rae children, for gods sake!!! Fine. Then don't do it. The Catesby Plot remains an integral piece of English, and British, history, and something that all British children should have the opportunity to learn about. Now, lets compare the revolutionary war with guy fawkes. I think it is right that we celebrate our winning of the war. why? Because you won it?
	It's an integral piece of English history; something that all children should have the opportunity to learn about.	we SHOULD honor all the people that fought for our country to make it what it is today, Your country. As I mentioned last time, a strongly patriotic English person, who thinks that the USA should still be part of the Empire, would not like that. Such triumphalism, glorying in the one series that the US won against the British, when it all turned out to be a huge mistake. Not a position I support in any way, mind; I'm using it as an argument. I just think, winning the war was a GOOD thing. Ladies and gentlemen, we present American History 101 In A Sentence. Just like, if Guy had actually blown up the kind and parliament, that would have been a GOOD thing. No it wouldn't. if he had though, he would have made justice happen for the forty or more years that catholics had to leave horrendous lives because of the discrimination at the time. See the preceeding 100 lines or so. The conspiracy would have made things far worse for Catholics left behind. The removal of King James II in 1688 would never have happened; King William of Orange wouldn't have been transferred in; King George I wouldn't have come to the throne, neither would George III, and there would be no American War of Independence.
	The 1689 Bill Of Rights: the charter under which King William of Orange accepted the English throne.	Moreover, one of the aspects of the Glorious Revolution of 1688 was the following year's Bill Of Rights: the charter under which King William of Orange accepted the English throne. It lay out the duties of the King, the duties of Parliament, and the rights that each have. It was pretty much totally ripped off almost a century later by the revolutionaries in the USA, who have kept many of the concepts that the British discarded as unworkable. Like, impeachment... Now..when I celebrate July 4th, I am not discarding what people have done for me, and for our country - in fact, I am *honoring* it. The winners always write history. It's true for the Americans as much as it is for the English. And, of course, you are also honouring - albeit in a very roundabout way - the failure of the Catesby Conspiracy. The two holidays are not even remotely similar They both mark the anniversary of a historical event. One that divided people at the time and subsequently. we are not celebrating the deaths Neither does marking November 5. It's celebrating the lack of deaths coming from that plot. The conspirators were dealt with in the manner appropriate for the time; a manner that is still deemed appropriate in many US states. big, BIG difference. Not so big as you're making out.
	The conspirators were dealt with in the manner appropriate for the time.	let them...because what they say is wrong, and I DO have proof of it now. You have a contradictory argument. This is history. There is not always a right and wrong answer. Just different shades of opinion. Mark: The persecution of Catholics is wrong, Just as the persecution of witches (Salem), communists (McCarthy), blacks (the US Civil War), and Catholics (much of Puritan America) is also wrong. But it happened; remembering that it did happen is half the battle to ensure it doesn't repeat. On to other matters, beyond the narrow historical. Sara I would NEVER, ever let Toby do that - at least not as long as I can tell him what to do. It is part of his heritage, and of Ross'. To voice your displeasure about the means of marking the anniversary is one thing; to bar him making his own decision about whether to celebrate it in this or any other way is another. and I would never do it myself - play act to burn someone? As I say, that's your call. It may not be best to impose it on other people. they are still doing something as disgusting as pretending to burn someoe alive, It's better than burning someone really alive, as is sanctioned by many US states.
	Without this, the course of English, British, European and American history would be very different.	and they ARE giving credence to what the english people did hundreds of years ago. Without which, the course of English, British, European and American history would be far different. I am *especially* not going to teach my child to go begging for money to buy fireworks with He won't be able to. Right now, you need to be 18 to buy fireworks. By the time he's that old, I expect they'll only be available to organisers of public displays. its about teaching our children the right morals. Excuse me, my keyboard seems to be choking right now. [slaps side] Better? Good. Teaching them that it's right to judge without attempting to understand? That blind obedience is best? my opinion still won't change about it. That doggedly sticking to something in the face of evidence to the contrary is to be encouraged?
	It's the reaction to that - ignoring the counter-arguments, just re-iterating a position - that winds people up.	Sara, referring to Mark. You *were* wrong. I was right. This is exactly Mark's point. That Sara always appears to be condescending to other people. From my (non- objective) POV, Mark made some valid historical points, ones that Sara appeared not to consider in her opinion of the plot. It's Sara's reaction to that - ignoring the counter-arguments, just re-iterating her position - that does wind people up. Statements like this don't help. I don't know anyone that knows more about it than I do. Fine. That I've used subscriptions to Britannica Online and Encarta Online to cross-reference my historical rebuttal counts for nothing. This matter also came up: Remember that big long list of things that someone forwarded to the list, about America, and how America is? Do you have an approximate date, or some other topic under discussion at the time? My archives are open for your perusal. Comments are always welcome; constructive ones are preferred.

front	local	mscl	music	news	sport
mail me