The Gunpowder Plot Society

The Gunpowder Plot Society

All Forums

A History of the Gunpowder Plot

Oh no ! Not again.

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

Screensize:

UserName:

Password:

Format Mode:

Format:

Message:

* HTML is OFF
* Forum Code is ON

Smilies

[quote][i]Originally posted by Administrator[/i]
[br]Hessper,
Not sure of the rebellion you are referring to with Catesby. He was involved in what was called The Poison Pommel incident in the mid 1590's when he and several of the other gunpowder plotters were temporarily imprisoned, plus he was an Essex rebel in 1601 for which he was also imprisoned.
He would certainly have been identified by the authorities as a malcontent as would several of the other plotters but to think they were being watched 24/7, there is no evidence. Cecil, Walsingham before him, and even Essex in the 1590's kept meticulous records of their spies and if indeed Catesby or his allies had been involved with them their names would have been documented. While true that many spies used an alias, almost all of these are known and neither Catesby nor the other plotters appear on the records.
Fawkes was indeed tortured, although in what way we can only speculate. The initial arrest warrants did not name all of the plotters but the general list was known because of the fact Fawkes said he was a servant of Percy, and Percy's allies were known, including Catesby, the Wright's and the Wintour's. The first arrest warrants actually had Percy named as the ringleader.
Foot work by the government in this first day or two revealed the movements around London of those involved or seen with those known to be Percy's allies, therefore by the time Fawkes finally gave up their names, most were already known. Also the Sheriff of Worcester knew of them and was thus able to pursue them to Holbeche House.
[/quote]

Check here to include your profile signature.

T O P I C R E V I E W
George Walls	Posted - 05/28/2006 : 16:09:20 Can someone refresh my memory ? Was the mother of James I Mary Queen Of Scots ? Was his father Lord DEARNLY ? Was not Lord DEARNLY found strangled after attempts to blow him up with GUNPOWDER ? I wonder if this irony was lost on James or the Plotters (or Cecil if a set up)? Did the Plotters think it aa apt way to kill him ? Was Cecil trying to frighten him and make him terrified of the Catholics ? I would like to have been in the room when James was given the details to see his face. History has a way of repeating itself, which throws up another irony, although both DEARNLY and James were threatened by Gunpwder, neither was destined to be killed by explosion. Also, MARY Queen of Scots was believed to have been involved in the murder of DEARNLY. The sins on the parent then being visited upon the child ?
15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First)
Administrator	Posted - 08/23/2006 : 17:27:08 quote: Originally posted by Hessper Right, but what were some of the restrictions that the catholics faced? Catholic Mass was banned and anyone celebrating it was immediately imprisoned, and towards the latter part of Elizabeth's reign, the priests who presented it were tried and executed. To be a Jesuit in England from 1581 onwards was treasonous, the penalty for which was death. Catholics were not allowed to travel more than 5 miles from their homes unless carrying a decree from the crown indicating otherwise. Catholics sending their children overseas for religious education were imprisoned. Catholics returning from such education from overseas were imprisoned and in several instances executed. Catholics who did not attend Protestant services were fined 20 pounds per instance. All scholars and public officials were forced to take the Oath of Supremacy and Oath of Allegiance before graduating or taking office. The oaths affirmed Elizabeth as their ruler and head of the church, which contravened their faith, hence few staunch Catholics in her reign graduated with degrees or served in public office. There are many more but these are those off the top of my head.
Kinsley	Posted - 08/23/2006 : 10:00:15 Thanks so much for the reply. Weldon's revenge was the motive I felt most accurate, but I wanted to get your opinion.
Hessper	Posted - 08/23/2006 : 05:33:10 Right, but what were some of the restrictions that the catholics faced? --Um... I'm desended from a convict who was convicted for stealing a blanket, just found that out and still getting used to the fact...
Administrator	Posted - 08/17/2006 : 12:57:55 quote: Originally posted by Hessper So, in truth there is eith little or no evidence that Cecil fabricated the plot, but some that he knew about it before sending an arrest? Correct. Cecil being behind the Gunpowder Plot is a theory, a theory that has very little in the way of credible evidence to support it. Most of that 'evidence' comes in the form of speculation on what didn't happen or doesn't exist, rather than on cold hard facts - things such as Catesby was shot to silence him, there are no confessions from those who would support Cecil's involvement because the government destroyed them, there was never any record of the mine they dug, because it never existed, etc. It is easy to put forward a case of conspiracy by using things that don't exist as your 'evidence'. There is a lot of motivation behind these people also to rebuke any image of the crown or its detailed spy network being incompetent and unable to uncover such a plot until the final moments. To do so would reduce the peoples confidence in the administration, so they put forward the grand theory that this was how it was intended, and that the whole thing was carefully orchestrated and they had known about it for ages. There are some stark contrasts here to today and the War on Terror. Remember that history is written by the victors and they can distort it to make it look however they want.
Hessper	Posted - 08/17/2006 : 04:56:55 Thankyou very much. Now it is time to get my freinds in England to sue the history teacher. So, in truth there is eith little or no evidence that Cecil fabricated the plot, but some that he knew about it before sending an arrest? --Um... I'm desended from a convict who was convicted for stealing a blanket, just found that out and still getting used to the fact...
Administrator	Posted - 08/17/2006 : 02:09:12 Kinsley, James' sexuality has been researched by several authors, but other than speculation, little evidence exists that he was homosexual. He certainly cast favours on Robert Carr and George Villiers and many have seen this as unnatural but on the other hand he reinforced the Buggery Act of Henry VIII and reviled against sodomy in his work Basilicon Doron. Much of the claim against James that he was a homosexual came from Anthony Weldon in the 1650's. Weldon had been ejected from the court and James' favour in the latter part of the King's reign and his writings were seen by many as revenge for the way he was treated. The fact Weldon published during the government of Cromwell when the monarchy was in tatters, and not in the previous twenty five years when James' son was King certainly supports this claim of revenge. Unfortunately the claim is similar to the one that surrounds Christopher Marlowe, another whose sexuality has come into question in recent years.
Administrator	Posted - 08/17/2006 : 01:53:20 Hessper, Not sure of the rebellion you are referring to with Catesby. He was involved in what was called The Poison Pommel incident in the mid 1590's when he and several of the other gunpowder plotters were temporarily imprisoned, plus he was an Essex rebel in 1601 for which he was also imprisoned. He would certainly have been identified by the authorities as a malcontent as would several of the other plotters but to think they were being watched 24/7, there is no evidence. Cecil, Walsingham before him, and even Essex in the 1590's kept meticulous records of their spies and if indeed Catesby or his allies had been involved with them their names would have been documented. While true that many spies used an alias, almost all of these are known and neither Catesby nor the other plotters appear on the records. Fawkes was indeed tortured, although in what way we can only speculate. The initial arrest warrants did not name all of the plotters but the general list was known because of the fact Fawkes said he was a servant of Percy, and Percy's allies were known, including Catesby, the Wright's and the Wintour's. The first arrest warrants actually had Percy named as the ringleader. Foot work by the government in this first day or two revealed the movements around London of those involved or seen with those known to be Percy's allies, therefore by the time Fawkes finally gave up their names, most were already known. Also the Sheriff of Worcester knew of them and was thus able to pursue them to Holbeche House.
Kinsley	Posted - 08/17/2006 : 01:26:21 Sorry for the change in subject, but I would like to get the administrator's insight. I posted elsewhere without any response and have another question. Has anyone looked into the allegations that King James was a homosexual? I have read such conflicting opinions on the matter and would like to hear what you have to say. I read that those such reports were not circulated until Anthony Weldon's publication came out after James' death to try to discredit James, since Mr. Weldon fell out of favor with the king. I have also read that there are actual "love letters" in the National Library which prove his affection for his "favorites". I've also heard that some have tried to obtained this information and that it simply does not exist. Whether he was a homosexual or not doesn't matter to some people, but I am exhausting all resources trying to find more of an answer. If you have read some type of historical "proof", I would be interested in knowing.
Hessper	Posted - 08/16/2006 : 06:15:51 Thanks, I still find the name 'John Johnson' funny though... Although, I did definately know that James I was a protestant, but I was almost certain that I had read something somewhere that said that he wanted it to be tolerated atleast, and that I read a quote somewhere, where he said they had flattered themselves with illusions of toleration or something like that... is that right? ugghh... I need to do more research into the topic... Then wasn't Catesby Fined and imprisoned for raising a rebellion against Cecil, sometime? Ugh, forgive me if that's another wrong thing... (sorry if this is wrong, but,) Wasn't Fawkes Captured and tortured, (although there is no proof of that, but the difference in his signatures may have revealed something, along with the fact that James comissioned it?) and that although he did not reveal the names of his fellow conspirators, Cecil sent an arrest naming a few of them a few days prior to Fawkes' confession? Thanks for your time! --Um... I'm desended from a convict who was convicted for stealing a blanket, just found that out and still getting used to the fact...
Administrator	Posted - 08/15/2006 : 00:48:09 quote: Originally posted by Hessper I, obviously have a lot more to learn about the plot, but couldn't Cecil have noticed it, and used it to his advantage? Let me get something straight-- James wanted to restore the Catholic religion, but there was such an uproar umong the Protestants, that he renounced his clames, saying something like "they had flattered themselves with illusion of accceptance," The man that shot Catesby was paid a pension of two shillings a day, or a week--not quite sure. Fawkes became involved in the plot, pulled out of the Spanish army, who were fighting at the Netherlands, because he was an explosive expert. They started to make a tunnel under parliment, when a cellar miraculously came up for lease. Percy, i think was the one to rent it, but he was already known to the government for murder of someone in a pub, fawkes pretended to be his servant 'John Johnson' (You'd think that he'd come up with something a little more realistic? "Yes, my name IS John Jonson, my father was called John, but he changed his second name, so that i would be 'John's...son..." riiiiggghhhttt....) How did they get 32 barrels of concealed gunpowder into a cell anyway, without being noticed? sorry if I'm wrong... Firstly, James was a Protestant, he did not wish to restore the Catholic religion, despite the fact his mother was previously seen as the figurehead for the Catholics' uprisings. He gave some tacit verbal agreement to stop many of the more harsh anti-catholic legislation, which initially he did. He needed the Catholic support when he came to the throne and once he was secure on the throne, he ditched them. The story of John Streete's reward is yet another horribly mangled one. With a single shot he mortally wounded both Catesby and Percy. Streete did not receive his 'pension' until he had spent several years petitioning the crown for it. He was not paid to assassinate Catesby as some hired gun like you are implying. Fawkes severed his ties with the Spanish forces in Flanders before he was drawn into the plot and believe it or not there is no actual evidence that he was an explosives expert. A sapper, or miner, perhaps. The vacancy of the cellar was certainly no 'miracle' that can be construed as having been intentional by someone trying to 'set them up'. You are listening to too many conspiracy theories. The story of Percy is yet another urban myth. There is no evidence that Percy killed anyone. It holds as much water as the claim that Percy had two wives. Nobody knows for certain the reasoning for Guy Fawkes using the name John Johnson. There may well have been some historical reasoning for it, such as Percy having a real retainer by that name. Also several references claim that Guy's mother's maiden name was not Blake but Johnson. Perhaps this is true and that her father was John Johnson. It also might have been used to prevent anyone actually trying to find out who he was - like calling yourself John Smith today. Again this is not as ridiculous as you want to make out. The 36 barrels of powder would not be as difficult to place in the cellar as you would think. These cellars were similar to lock-ups of today, places where merchants stored their wares, or locals stored their firewood, etc. Percy was a Gentleman Pensioner and would have been a recognised figure around the area (certainly not because of any previous 'misdeeds'). It would not have been unusual for him to be bringing in supplies for his own lodgings. Barrels were the most common form of transporting goods in those days, from wine and herbs to salted meats and other food stuffs. Again, reading too many conspiracy theories without actually reading facts. I'm surprised you missed the theory about the government having such a control over gunpowder that it would have been impossible to acquire 36 barrels of it therefore the government would have had to have given it to them, providing evidence of a set up. I'm sorry for the sarcasm in some of my responses but I get frustrated that 'microwave' history books, schools and other web sites actually teach or spread this stuff and call it history.
Hessper	Posted - 08/10/2006 : 04:48:14 I, obviously have a lot more to learn about the plot, but couldn't Cecil have noticed it, and used it to his advantage? Let me get something straight-- James wanted to restore the Catholic religion, but there was such an uproar umong the Protestants, that he renounced his clames, saying something like "they had flattered themselves with illusion of accceptance," The man that shot Catesby was paid a pension of two shillings a day, or a week--not quite sure. Fawkes became involved in the plot, pulled out of the Spanish army, who were fighting at the Netherlands, because he was an explosive expert. They started to make a tunnel under parliment, when a cellar miraculously came up for lease. Percy, i think was the one to rent it, but he was already known to the government for murder of someone in a pub, fawkes pretended to be his servant 'John Johnson' (You'd think that he'd come up with something a little more realistic? "Yes, my name IS John Jonson, my father was called John, but he changed his second name, so that i would be 'John's...son..." riiiiggghhhttt....) How did they get 32 barrels of concealed gunpowder into a cell anyway, without being noticed? sorry if I'm wrong... --Um... I'm desended from a convict who was convicted for stealing a blanket, just found that out and still getting used to the fact...
Storm	Posted - 07/24/2006 : 11:52:00 quote: Originally posted by MaxMarie I wouldn't exactly say there is NO evidence that Robert Cecil had a hand in the plot itself. It seems he was connected to two earlier plots. And there is his own testimony of knowing 'the papists activities' for some time.. The more I learn about this fellow, the more I understand the whole conspiracy theory that he had a hand in it. It's certainly tempting to believe that Cecil was behind it; I mean, it's just so Hollywood, isn't it? But that's also one of the reasons why it's very unlikely to be true. And I do stand by my words when I say there's no evidence. One of the main reasons why Cecil is often assumed to be the 'puppeteer' is that, yes, he was involved in other dodgy business all through his earlier career. He was the son of one of England's greatest-ever political conspirators, and he also inherited the spy-ring of Sir Francis Walsingham, who was another arch-conspirator of devious brilliance. In that light, it's tempting to hang, draw and quarter Cecil's reputation without trial. But the thing is, it's all background info, it's not evidence. Indeed, it's not even directly relevant to the Gunpowder Treason, and so it's a good idea not to let it become the focal point of our analysis. Ultimately, no matter how hard we might look at the physical facts surrounding what happened, no matter how long you look at the order of events surrounding how the conspiracy unfolded, you just won't find anything tangible to link them to Cecil until - at the most - only a couple of weeks before Fawkes was arrested. (And even those were simply about him uncovering the plot.) quote: Originally posted by Administrator It would have been inconceivable to believe that Cecil could have created a conspiracy on such a grand scale as this without at least one person talking. I would add to that by reiterating the point I made a few months ago; setting up something on as dangerous a scale as this just for the sake of framing someone would be unmitigated lunacy, and whatever else Cecil was, he was no lunatic. There were all sorts of less hazardous things he could've tried if he wanted to stir up anti-recusant feeling. For instance, why not just provoke Catesby into murdering a few lower-ranked figures in Government (maybe a couple of Cecil's own opponents?), and then blow the whistle on him?
Administrator	Posted - 07/23/2006 : 03:26:21 Cecil was connected to more than 2 earlier plots, yet there is no evidence that he was aware of the gunpowder plot, despite continual supposition that he was. There are many questions that have failed to be answered by those who advocate the Cecil conspiracy theory, crucial questions that require answers before any credence can be given to this idea. Cecil himself had been courting opponents of James VI for the English throne during Elizabeth's last years. Why would he not let the plot continue and then place who he wanted on the throne (he commanded the greatest faction in court). Why were no senior members of the Catholic community imprisoned as a result of the plot? Cecil wanted Catholics in any position of power removed. Why place your trust in "real" Catholics who were likely to inform on you as easily as they were to commit treason? Too many independent people were linked to the plot. It would have been inconceivable to believe that Cecil could have created a conspiracy on such a grand scale as this without at least one person talking.
MaxMarie	Posted - 07/21/2006 : 16:50:55 I wouldn't exactly say there is NO evidence that Robert Cecil had a hand in the plot itself. It seems he was connected to two earlier plots. And there is his own testimony of knowing 'the papists activities' for some time.. The more I learn about this fellow, the more I understand the whole conspiracy theory that he had a hand in it.
Storm	Posted - 06/05/2006 : 13:04:48 quote: Originally posted by George Walls Can someone refresh my memory ? Was the mother of James I Mary Queen Of Scots ? Yes, she was. quote: Was his father Lord DEARNLY ? Not quite. You've got the right guy, but correctly-spelt, his name was Lord Darnley. quote: Was not Lord DEARNLY found strangled after attempts to blow him up with GUNPOWDER ? Indeed. quote: Did the Plotters think it an apt way to kill him ? Well, they might have done, but as far as I can see, I think their choice of method had more to do with trying to find the largest, most spectacular, most devastating, and above all most total method of destroying the Government that was oppressing them. quote: Was Cecil trying to frighten him and make him terrified of the Catholics ? There is no evidence whatsoever that Cecil was behind the plot, although he appears to have known about it for a while before informing the King. He might have allowed the plot to simmer for the reasons you're suggesting, but again, he probably saw the method in itself as a way of playing on James' considerable paranoia; that it was similar to the way Darnley died was probably incidental - but useful. quote: History has a way of repeating itself, which throws up another irony, although both DEARNLY and James were threatened by Gunpwder, neither was destined to be killed by explosion. True, although the father came a lot closer to dying directly that way than the son. quote: Also, MARY Queen of Scots was believed to have been involved in the murder of DEARNLY. Well, I think Mary was one of the conspirators against her husband, although the evidence is not conclusive. quote: The sins on the parent then being visited upon the child ? Could be, although it's a little harsh on James if it's all Karma passed from mother-to-son. He was never Mary's strongest supporter.

The Gunpowder Plot Society

This page was generated in 0.14 seconds.