Talk:Gunpowder Plot/Archive 1

Popular Culture: V for Vendetta
The Gunpowder Plot was an important reference in V for Vendetta. Should this be mentioned in a Popular Culture section?

Government
Added part in intro about possible government involvement APAULCH 02:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

36
I think there were 36 barrels of gunpowder. Childprodigy12

poem
In the poem for Guy Fawkes Night it says that there was 3 score, or 60, barrels of gunpowder:

"Remember, remember, the 5th of November

The Gunpowder Treason and plot ;

I know of no reason why Gunpowder Treason

Should ever be forgot.

Guy Fawkes, Guy Fawkes,

'Twas his intent.

To blow up the King and the Parliament.

Three score barrels of powder below..."

-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.124.99 (talk • contribs) on 21:59, 5 December 2006


 * see Houses of Parliament factsheet on event. 20 were stored in a house in Lambeth, but 36 were described as being discovered. Kbthompson 00:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Torture
I think "popular legend", while better than the immediately previous phrasing, is still a bit of a whitewash; torture is strongly indicated by secondary evidence (the timeframe of the information received from Fawkes, and the almost-illegible condition of his signature on the confession). - Hephaestos 00:32, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Feel free to remove my comment - I just stumbled over the signature comparison on Google, and I'm convinced.  The King's order did not require torture, but he had to personally order it for it to be legally allowed, and I really doubt that, given the scale of the plot, it would not have been used.  -- Pakaran 00:41, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Oh, and Guy Fawkes has a good-sized paragraph about the torture. Might be good to include?  Or just make the torture discussion here a "see also?"  I need to get some stuff done tonight, or I'd take care of it.  -- Pakaran 01:26, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I think a "see also" would do it, although I'm not really sure about how to word it right at the moment (which is also the reason I didn't change the article, the only wording I could think of was way too verbose). - Hephaestos 02:25, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

How many?
This article contains contradictory information, on one paragraph it states that there were 20 barrels of gunpowder, and in a later paragraph states that there were 36 barrels of gunpowder. They cant both be right, can someone check to see which is correct, and properly merge the different bits of the article together G-Man 11:53, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * For the time being I will standardise on 36 barrels unless someone finds evidence to the conrary G-Man 12:19, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Guy Fawkes day
Why are there no references to the celebration of "Guy Fawkes Day" in Great Britan? Isn't this a major oversight? Boetron 15:19, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Attributed?
The large part of the text in the section "The plot" has obviously been taken from some source. Can anybody identify this so that it can be properly attributed? --Spudtater 16:15, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Weasel Words
"Some maintain the conspirators were justifiably waging war against a government which outlawed their faith, executed their priests and persecuted the faithful." We need an etiquette that disallows this form of comment, since you can write pretty much any opinion after "Some maintain that.."

Merging from the Guy Fawkes article
I've just been merging some information from the Guy Fawkes article into this article, following a brief query on Talk:Guy Fawkes that didn't seem to raise any objections. They both seemed to be duplicating a lot of information, so the plan is to place most of the information about the Gunpowder Plot over here, and then remove most of it from there (but point it here for more detail). Hopefully I've caught everything important and haven't messed up any context, but if anyone concerned has time to check it, I'm sure it wouldn't hurt. Izogi 05:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

the popular verse
What is this 'popular verse' that's listed? The one I know is: Remember, remember the fifth of November, Gunpowder, treason and plot I see no reason why gunpowder treason Should ever be forgot.

Which, despite being the verse that everyone in England knows (and the one on the Guy Fawkes page), doesn't even have its second half appear anywhere in the 'expanded' verse listed!


 * Good spotting. It was vandalism that appeared about 3 days ago.  Now removed.  Izogi 10:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

About Old Style and New Style dates
I think that the date "November 5, 1605" must be annotated, because that is in the Gregorian calendar, adopted on "November 15, 1605". (Sorry, I don't speak English)

(日本語のわかる方へ:記事中の「1605年11月5日」は、ユリウス暦での日付ではないかと思います. 出典がすぐには思い出せませんが、講談社が刊行した本(書名は忘れてしまいました. 「世界全史」のような名だったと記憶しています)に記述がありました. もしこの本に書いてある通りならば、「グレゴリオ暦では11月15日となる」という注釈が必要ではないかと思います. 詳しい方がいらっしゃいましたら教えてください. )--202.224.242.66 10:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Good point. Izogi 05:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism
While the parliament may have represented a legitimate military target, the conspirators were not an organized and identifiable military force engaged in a declared war. Therefore, the act was close to terrorism. Geoff NoNick 15:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If calling the conspirators "terrorists" is a "dysphemism," as the article currently suggests, the article embraces a non-neutral point of view in that it consequently implies that a "revolutionary" is a better thing to be than a "terrorist." Who's to say if that's true or not? Certainly not an encyclopedia. Sean Parmelee 04:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, absolutely. I mean, I find the idea of being killed by terrorists completely horrifying. However, if an organised and identifiable military force came and shot me and dropped bombs on my house, I would actually be quite delighted. What a load of bollocks you all talk.....


 * The assertion that Fawkes does not constitute a "terrorist" under the modern sense of the word is far from neutral. I am changing this assertion in the introduction to reflect a more neutral point of view.Valkyryn 09:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Without intending humor, the assertion that "The assertion that Fawkes does not constitute a 'terrorist' under the modern sense of the word is far from neutral." is itself very far from neutral. Injection of a comparison with acts of terrorism itself introduces a theme with political overtones into what should be a historical discussion. As such, it legitimizes a view that is clearly at variance with the current wikipedia discussion of terrorism, which generally requires an intention to inspire public terror. For similar reasons is at variance with the views of most historical discussions (which do not describe it as terrorism). This theme was introduced into the body of the text by 71.35.71.145 at 4:08 21 Oct 2005, nearly 4 years after the article's origination, although a month prior to that, Johndarlington had categorized the page as belonging to "Terrorism in London". While it may be good to advise people to form political views in the light of historical events, it goes a bit overboard to start to including highly controversial judgements in each historical page. I have introduced an edit that attempts to improve the neutrality of the discussion by presenting the historical view. Against my better judgement but in an attempt to accommodate relationships to other classifications, it also suggests reference to the discussion of terrorism elsewhere in evaluating whether or not it may be considered terrorism. I am trying to avoid speculation on whether it is considered terrorism by "many", "one", or "some" (which is especially ambiguous since it merely implies "at least one"). CSProfBill 16:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

What if the plot had suceeded?
Who else apart from James I would have died, and how would the history of the would have changed?
 * Try this BBC page, and hopefully the page will be able to answer your question soon. violet/riga (t) 15:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, but do read that with a pinch of salt - there are a few errors in it. violet/riga (t) 21:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

400 Years
This isn't relevant to the article at all, and I apologize to purists who may see this as an intrusion, but I'd just like to point out that today is, in fact, the 400th anniversary of the Gunpowder Plot. Happy Guy Fawkes Day. Teflon Don 08:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Which parts of the USA?
I am 76 years old, and have lived in New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, California, and Washington. I have, or had, relatives living in South Carolina, Florida, Louisiana, Texas, Illinois, and Maryland. I have never heard of Guy Fawkes Night being celebrated anywhere in the USA. But I may be wrong. If no one can provide more information, I plan to correct the article. Too Old 16:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * This question has been answered: Guy Fawkes Night was celebrated in the colonial period, primarily by protestant colonists, was later an expression of anti [Irish] Catholic sentiment, and has persisted, sporatically, divorced from its original inspiration, as an excuse for a bonfire and a party. Too Old 04:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * That may be true, but the article makes it sound like it still IS celebrated in the USA. I'm not as old (no offense!) or well traveled as Too Old, but I've never heard of anyone celebrating this in the contemporary USA with the possible exception of British expats living here.  Rhesusman 01:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So I deleted that reference. Until the movie V for Vendetta, I don't think the majority of Americans had even heard of the plot, let alone celebrated its anniversary. Sean Parmelee 04:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Guy Fawkes Day is, to this day, celebrated in Westerly, RI, USA. As far as I know, the annual celebration will continue into the future.  Also, Guy Fawkes and the Gunpowder plot are referenced in Dianna Wynne Jones' novel Witch Week.  01:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)md

Modern re-enactment; would the plot have killed the king ?
[The ITV programme (quoted in the article)] stated that anyone within 100m of the explosion would be killed.

It should be remembered that the earlier gunpowder plot which killed King James's father, Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, involved a proportionately violent blast which reduced the house at Kirk o'Field in Edinburgh to rubble, such that "not one stone stood upon another". Nevertheless, one of the five people in the house at the time survived. This was a servant named Nelson who had been sleeping in a gallery on the top floor. When the explosion occurred, he was thrown onto the town wall, a few feet below the gallery. However, two other servants sleeping in the same gallery died, as did two grooms sleeping adjacent to the stables on the ground floor. The conspirators had made such a noise setting the fuse that Darnley and his valet Taylor were able to flee the house before the explosion. Unfortunately, they ran into the arms of Darnley's waiting enemies, who promptly hanged or strangled them. It was noted that although their bodies were within a few feet of the smoking ruins of the house, they bore no obvious injuries. (The intervening town wall may have shielded them from the blast).

On the other hand, the ITV reconstruction was graphic enough. Of the green dummy which represented Francis Bacon, standing about eighty feet from the seat of the explosion, only a leg was found. The purple dummy representing King James had been immediately above the seat of the explosion. All that remained was the top of the head.

It is possible that some servants or other inconsequential people in remote parts of the House of Lords might have survived, through the same sort of circumstances which spared Nelson at Kirk o'Field. Outside the House, some people would certainly be killed by flying debris, but the blast would no longer be confined and would not be lethal.

The reconstruction did show that everyone in the chamber attending the opening of Parliament would almost certainly have died.

HLGallon 05:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

It was a pretty dramatic reconstruction. You could see from the reaction of the experts that even they were flabbergasted at the power of it. Furthermore the walls of the reconstructed House of Lords were new. The original walls were not and so may have been weakened through old age, poor maintenence, damp, etc. So if anything a far smaller explosion could conceivably have had the same effect. Television reconstructions are ten-a-penny, and most are questionable in terms of their presumptions. This one seemed extremely rigorous and professional. Anyone with any doubts as to the likely impact of the explosion would have have them blown away (no pun intended). It was one of those TV moments were those watching would have been stunned. It showed that what would have happened far exceeded the worst predictions of historians over the centuries. King James and the entire House of Lords would not have stood a chance. Indeed not merely would they not have survived; the force was such that their bodies might not have either. Some of the dummies were far tougher physically than a human body, and as explosion dummies they would have been designed not to melt in heats below that that would destroy a human body. Yet all that survived of 'Bacon', as HL mentioned, was a leg. All that was left of the 'King' was the of his skull. Full marks for ITV for a programme that quite literally changed history. No-one writing about the possible exposion will ever be able to suggest that perhaps the King would have survived, or the deteriorating powder would not have gone off. Clearly it would, and all would have been killed instantly. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 05:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone had a right to be surprised about the extent of the explosion. Besides calculations have been done before and published in academic journals. see: S. Middelboe, ‘Guy certainly was not joking’, New Civil Engineer, 5 (Nov 1987)

Parliamentary factsheet and copyright?
Parts of this article are taken verbatim from the parliamentary factsheet given in the external links section. This is copyrighted and is only reproducible for purposes of private study or research, so we'd seem to be breaking copyright. As a relative newcomer to wikipedia, I don't know what we do here - rewrite or remove the relevant sections? Moray McConnachie 6th November 2005

Hugh Owen
This page links to a (Welsh educator) Hugh Owen who wasn't born until 1804. I would suggest editing this to a link to a missing page (as is the case for Hugh Owen on the Guy Fawkes page.)

The Pope
I was perhaps wondering if Robert Ctesby and the other conspericers had backing rom the pope or if they did this on their own. Also what were they. Were the conspericers noble men or pesents or middle class merchants. (69.150.209.25 19:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC))

They had no backing whatsoever. Megastealer 05:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Discrepancy in tone
Have a look at the first paragraph and compare it to the 'modern theories' section -

"was a desperate but failed attempt by a group of provincial English Catholic extremists" "The conspirators had then planned to abduct the royal children, not present in parliament, and incite a revolt in the Midlands"

vs

"Many modern historians think that Cecil's agents had infiltrated the plot early on" "Another theory is that King James, searching for greater acceptance of Catholics, desired a test case with which to demonstrate Catholic loyalty to Parliament " "A darker supposition is that Cecil helped to arrange the Gunpowder Plot himself"

I'd say that bearing this in mind the first paragraph is a bit too sure of itself. The facts of the case and motivations of the people involved are disputed but this makes it sound like there is a consensus. --Sachabrunel 14:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The conspiracy theories should be removed. Every wikipedia article seemes to be thick with conspiracy theories. I do not really think that anyone in the government set up this plot or allowed it to continue when they had discovered it. Would you let someone ship eighteen hundred pounds of powder in to the centre of the capital city if you knew about it? This really is one for the meths drinkers and the corn circle society.

I am removing the conspiracy theories. They fail to advance any credible motives or produce any evidence and have been throughly disproved by academics upwards of 150 years ago. They are not 'modern theories' but are as old as the plot itself.


 * Yeah, I agree. Nonsensical conspiracy theories on wikipedia must be stamped out! john k 01:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Gunpowder
There were 36 barrels of gunpowder discovered. In 'Bonfires and Bells' by David Cressy they are recorded as containing 1800 pounds of gunpowder. I think this is a pretty standard figure to quote. In the Oxford dictionary of biography (under Guy Fawkes) it says that Sir Thomas Knyvett Keeper of the Palace of Westminster discovered Guy Fawkes fully cloathed late at night and 'Thinking him oddly dressed for so late an hour Knyvett had the suspect arrested, while his men hauled away the faggots and brushwood, uncovering thirty-six barrels—nearly a ton—of gunpowder.' 1800 pounds is about 800 kilos. This is 200 kilos short of a metric ton and about 2/3 of an imperial ton. Where did the figure 2.5 tonnes come from? This is more than twice as much as I can find in any of the literature. 1800 pounds is the most usually quoted figure.

I have found a source that says there was 18 hundredweight of gunpowder, in two hogsheads and thirty-two barrels. A barrel is 36 gallons and a hogshead is 54 gallons.

Terrorists?
The question of whether the word "terrorism" is or is not an appropriate desciption of the plot is a contentious one, and is not likely to go away. However, it really is not introductory material. Therefore I suggest that third paragraph in this article be moved further down the article to its own subsection. jmd 07:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories
I don't think theories that Cecil was the ultimate mastermind should be dismissed in the article as abruptly as thay are, especially on the basis of a book published under the government of one of his dynasty. This is not my personal WP:OR. If my memory of my schooldays serves me rightly, I was taught in History that Cecil was ultimately behind the plot "so that he could become more popular with the king". By ordering the search at the appropriate moment, he was able to play the hero whose alertness saved the king and his realm, and subsequently use the events to justify taking up more powers. Viewfinder 05:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The case is far from closed. I've just edited the conspriacy section. I'm not saying my version is perfect, and not open to revision, but what was before was too dismissive. If it gets put back word for word, I'm slapping an NPOV tag on the article. Its true schoolkids in England are exposed to the opinion Cecil was likely to have been behind it. For example:


 * http://www.schoolhistory.co.uk/year8links/gunpowder_plot.shtml

Links to.........


 * http://www.historyonthenet.com/Stuarts/gunpowder_plot.htm

Timharwoodx 11:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Which books by historians that have teaching posts at universities say this? What positive evidence are they using to support this? Just saying - well that was funny, it would be in his interest for this to happen... therefore he did it, is not enough. These are the same arguements that people use for creationism. Well this fossil is missing. Isn't it funny that this isn't there. The most likely explanation is that it happened as everybody thinks it happens and Cecil took advantage. If you open up the conspiracy section again it will just grow and grow. Its Gods doing. He saved England from the wicked Catholics. It was James the first. It was my grandmother. The French. George Bush. Moon Aliens......................................


 * Are people actually suggesting that the book by Gardiner, one of the great English historians of the 19th century, are suspect because Robert Cecil's however many great-grandson was prime minister at the time? That's completely absurd.  Lord Salisbury wasn't a dictator.  In fact, he couldn't have done much of anything if someone had wanted to write a book saying that his ancestor had been behind the Gunpowder Plot.  Moreover, Gardiner was a good Gladstonian Liberal, and would've had no reason to want to curry favor with Salisbury.  Given that Salisbury was PM for most of the 17 years between 1885 and 1902, it is not surprising that there would be books about his famous ancestor published during one of his governments.  Here's the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article on Cecil:
 * However, in the inflamed atmosphere after November 1605, with wild accusations and counter-accusations being traded by religious polemicists, there were allegations that Cecil himself had devised the Gunpowder Plot to elevate his own importance in the eyes of the king, and to facilitate a further attack on the Jesuits. Numerous subsequent efforts to substantiate these conspiracy theories have all failed abysmally.
 * "have all failed abysmally." Obviously, we cannot be quite so blunt in our assessment, but nonetheles.... john k 03:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no suggestion that Salisbury was a dictator, but despite political differences, the possibility that it could have been in Gardiner's interest to discredit Cecil's alleged part in the plot cannot be ruled out. Even the most eminent historians are liable to be influenced by the need to please gentlemen in high places, especially gentlemen like Salisbury (descendant of the said Cecil). Viewfinder 09:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is completely ridiculous. You can't just insinuate this with absolutely no evidence.  If there's actual evidence that Gardiner's account was unduly influenced by his desire to please the government of the time, then present it, but the mere fact that Salisbury was the prime minister when Gardiner's book was written indicates absolutely nothing.  I'd imagine that on this basis anything that Conrad Russell wrote about the Civil War is suspect because his ancestors were involved in important roles?  Is Pauline Croft, the author of the ODNB article, also suspect?  john k 14:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect I do not think it is helpful to dismiss the comments of other Wikipedians in intolerant tones like "completely ridiculous", or to claim that because Gardiner dismisses conspiracy, it should be dismissed by all. Viewfinder 15:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

If there is no evidence for something it shouldn't be presented in an encyclopedia article as an alternative to the recognised interpretation. It should be said that people thought this at one time but it is totally unsubstantiated. I don't see why we cannot say that be so blunt in our asessment to say that attempts to prove these theories have failed abysmally. The ODNB work is a standard refernce work written by the achnowledged experts. There are few who know more about Cecil than Croft. If she can find no evidence for this conspiracy theory I think we can dismiss it safely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.72.245 (talk)

I agree that if conspiracy cannot be substantiated then this should be pointed out, but conspiracy has been, and continues to be, widely alleged, and this is not unworthy of mention. I do not think conspiracy can be "safely dismissed" because eminent historians have not been able to substantiate it. Not all truth can be substantiated. The Croft quotation above does not dismiss the allegations that Cecil was involved, only that attempts to substantiate his involvement have failed. Viewfinder 17:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that conspiracies have been alleged is significant, and should be mentioned. They should not be given credence. Certainly we shouldn't add our own ridiculous conspiracy theories about Gardiner's attempts to ingratiate himself with Lord Salisbury. john k 01:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I cannot accept that the conspiracy theories should be dismissed as not credibile on the basis that they have never been substantiated. Did the historian writing at the time when Uncle Bob was in power completely disprove Cecil's part in conspiracy? August authorities do bend facts in their own interest, even sub-consciously. Viewfinder 08:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Whether by noble means or otherwise, Cecil sure succeded in establishing a powerful dynasty... Viewfinder 09:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

"I cannot accept that the conspiracy theories should be dismissed as not credible on the basis that they have never been substantiated" - You must be joking. That is exactly the reason for not finding something credible. It seems we do not disagree about the details but the very nature of truth. Something cannot be proved therefore it is likely not to be true. I cannot prove that there is not a teapot orbiting the sun right now, that is not a good reason for believing it actually to be the case. Just because someone might have something to benefit from something does not mean they did it. We should consider the monumental odds against Cecil actually organising this. He was a man of principle, not to mention the enormous insurmountable practical difficulties of such an undertaking. The really odd thing about the plot was that there were no members of the aristocracy involved. Cecil and James the first always thought the plot went out wider than it did, which was typical of the paranoid nature of James, but they could never prove involvement of anyone who really mattered. If anyone in a university position were to suggest such a theory or any undergraduate did in an essay they would be laughed at. Gardiner’s work is now considered pedestrian and full of the sort of assumptions of late Victorian liberalism. He often had to subvert legitimate historical arguments in favour of maintaining a clear narrative. However he did have a commitment to so-called 'scientific history'. There is no question that he would have such a deliberate bias as that which is alleged. Indeed one of his proudest claims was standing above the debate to look down on history from an unbiased viewpoint. So although Gardiner's work is full of mistakes he was one of the first to comprehensively dismiss the theory of Cecil’s involvement. His view on this matter is now the orthodox one (indeed this is one of the few parts of his writing that stands the test of time). I am willing to believe that there is an argument here. Yet no one has given me any historians who are supporters of this theory or any evidence which we could debate. I would feel much happier if we could say most hsitorians have dismissed this theory however X has said it might be true because of this evidence Y. Not a list of slightly desperate non-happenings which is what we have now. --86.20.247.253 15:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I endorse 86.20's statements in their entirety. john k 16:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to debate the detail, but I reject the above claim that "something cannot be proved therefore it is likely not to be true". That is false reasoning. There is plenty that is considered likely to be true but which has never been proved. I also consider the loose, colloquial comment "you must be joking" to be unhelpful in the above context. There seems to me to be a reasonable case for adding some summary passages from Gardiner's book could be added to the article. In particular, let us see the passage, if it exists, in which Gardiner dismisses the theory as something that could not possibly be true, as opposed to merely stating that, despite attempts, it has never been substantiated. If such a passage does not exist, then the theory, however unsubstantiated, should not be dismissed. I concede that all the evidence that could substantiate the theory may have all been destroyed or has vanished into thin air, but it seems to me that that does not render the theory incredible unless there is firm evidence that refutes the theory. Viewfinder 19:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I cannot actually quote from the book because it is out of print and not in the library. However I will quote from an article that sums up the debate. Dodd, A. H. 'The Spanish Treason, the Gunpowder Plot and the Catholic refugees'. English Historical Review, 53 (1938), 627-50. I’m sorry its so old, but no one has seriously debated this for years and its simply what I could put my hands on at this minute. It begins by going over the historiography.

'Controversy about the real character of the gunpowder plot has now slept for some years. In the famous contest between S.R. Gardiner and Father John Gerard during the years 1897-8, the weight of Gardiner’s authority carried the day and subsequent writers have generally followed him in exonerating Cecil from the charge of having manufactured the whole story while admitting that (like Shaftsbury), “the wished occasion of the plot he takes” '

So he admits that Cecil was an opportunist. He may have even known about it for a few days before hand, but no-one seriously thinks he concocted it. The article then continues tracing the links with exiles on the continent and that part in the plot.

You will of course notice that the man who was Gardiner’s opponent was a Catholic, indeed the namesake of a Jesuit priest of that time no less. The namesake of the man who was unwittingly the last to give the gunpowder plotters communion. A man who was undoubtably wishing to remove the stain on the loyalty and character of English Catholics that was the gunpowder plot. So we should be careful before we accuse anyone of bias, and if we chose to point the finger it should not be in the direction of S.R Gardiner. Gardiner could have simply dismissed Gerard, instead he fairly devoted a book to counter argument. Father John Gerard was particularly keen to prove that Father Henry Garnet (a Jesuit) was not involved in the plot. I will not call him biased for doing so, because I believe that it would be too simplistic. No doubt his background sparked his interest in Jesuit history but it does not mean he ignored reality because of it. He was probably right about Father Garnet. However he went too far in involving Cecil in the plot for whatever reason. This may make it clear to you why I find your claims about S.R Gardiner laughable.--86.20.247.253 21:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * First, I regret your use of the dismissive term "laughable", which, like your earlier "you must be joking", is not conducive to harmonious Wikipedia discussion. I do not expect you to change your position, but please re-consider your attitude to adverserial Wikipedians.


 * Your information, particularly that Gardiner's view was opposed, is interesting but I am unable to see how it makes your position "clear". I do not make any "claims" about Gardiner and Salisbury, but it is not outside the bounds of possibility that, even only sub-consciously, Gardiner could have wanted to write what Salisbury's friends would have wanted to read, and I do not think it is out of order to point out that the latter was PM at the time of publication. These were jingoistic times (note the subsequent khaki election which Salisbury won). I am not sure who Gardiner does point the finger at, but if it was foreign Catholics then the book was probably well received among, and promoted by, powerful jingoistic elements of the day. This may, repeat may, have contributed to the reasons why Gardiner "carried the day". Viewfinder 22:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't see how Sailsbury, a tory prime minister, and S.R Gardiner are connected. Had they even met? I read Gardiner was, if anything a 'classic victorian liberal'. I doubt he even voted for Sailsburys party. You are assuming that Sailsbury -a Tory, and Gardiner, who has liberal progressive, even whiggish views (particually on the writing of history) cared one jot about each other. Gardiner wrote his book in response to a work by a Catholic, Father John Gerard who wrote a book in 1897 alledging that the plotters were framed by Cecil thereby absolving themselves and English Catholics of whom he was one. (I mentioned his namesake was connected with the plot). I put it to you that Father Gerard had more of himself invested in his arguement so to speak. S.R Gardiner, a man committed to the scientific method wished to refute what he thought was wrong. What I am trying to make clear is that Gardiners book was a response to Father Gerard not Sailsbury. I apologise for calling your connection with Sailsbury laughable. I only said it because it made me laugh at the time.

I think I know where you get this idea that Cecil was behind all this. There was a book in by Francis Edwards that does alledge Cecils involvement.Francis Edwards, Guy Fawkes: The Real story of the Gunpowder Plot, (London 1969)). I'm afraid its largely been sumarily dismissed by historians ever since.

I have a quote from Wormald on the development of the debate.(the brakets are footnotes or my notes)

Wormald, Jenny. 'Gunpowder, treason and Scots'. Journal of British Studies, 24:2 (1985), 141-68. ‘It was not Salisbury’s plot. Gardiner, a magnanimous as well as a great scholar, paid his opponent the complement of debating with him rather than torpedoing his book (father Gerards book) with an explosive review; he well understood the desire of the descendents of that multitude of English Catholics who hated the plot and loathed the plotters to “wipe away the reproach” (Gardiner, What Gunpowder Plot Was p. 1-4) even when it took the extreme form of trying to clear the name of the plotters themselves. Yet Gardiner was unable to stifle debate at this level, as is evident by the work of Francis Edwards (Francis Edwards, Guy Fawkes: The Real story of the Gunpowder Plot, (London 1969)). There is, as we shall see another level on which Gardiner may be challenged. But here he was surely impregnable.’

it then goes on to challenge other conclusions of Gardiner but not the one that Cecil was not involved in the plot.

Even Christopher Marsh (2002) in his book on the English reformation takes the time to mention in a footnote that there are alternative views to Cecils involvement mentioning Francis Edwards work then saying 'that the plot was planned by James's chief minister Salisbury to discredit English Catholics are improbable, though it seems likely that Sailsbury knew about it sometime before the arrest of Fawkes on the night of 4/5 November'


 * I thank you for the provision of helpful information, but I reject your point about Salisbury the Tory and Gardiner the Liberal. The fact that the book was written by a liberal would have made it all the sweeter to Salisbury's men, who no doubt did much to help it win the day against Gerard. Similarly, a recent book by left wing environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg critical of the Kyoto Protocol went down a treat with the plutocracy, which ensured that it got well publicised. Also, you admit that Cecil (also, like his descendant, aka Salisbury, in case anyone is cofused) likely knew about the plot sometime before the arrest. This suggests (although it does not prove) that his role was not a wholly noble one, and that he was out to further his own ends, even if he was not the ultimate mastermind behind it. Viewfinder 08:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The claim that the Gunpowder Plot was a frame-up arranged by Cecil is a view held only by a small minority, but it is attributable, and should be mentioned in the article as a minority view, widely rejected by the historical consensus for the last century (since Gardiner, that is, took the trouble to write a full refutation of it). Your idea that Gardiner in writing the book was attempting to curry favor with Lord Salisbury is completely unsupported.  You have not provided any evidence to back this up, and certainly no secondary sources which make such a connection.  As such, this is a textbook case of original research, and we should not be debating it any further.  There is absolutely no reason to think that Gardiner was trying to curry favor with Salisbury in writing his book, and as far as I'm aware, nobody has suggested this before.  Certainly you've presented no evidence that anybody has suggested this before.  It is a coincidence, and not even a particularly interesting one, that Gardiner's book was written during Salisbury's ministry. john k 12:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. The idea of a prime minister having influence in the writing of a historical text at this time is bizarre. I believe also that Gardiner was simply restating and expanding on ideas that he had expressed in an earlier history under a different prime minister. However I doubt that if we will dissuade you from this idea given your firmly expressed belief in it. The only person in the last century, who I can find to support the idea that Cecil was behind this plot is Francis Edwards in Guy Fawkes: The Real story of the Gunpowder Plot, (London 1969). It is certainly an opinion, but one only very occasionally put forward by academics. The section now needs re-writing in this context, with no lists or speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.247.253 (talk)

People keep adding to the conspiracy section. Someone has just used the words 'sudden and mysterious death'. Its getting like a cheap paperback of the sort sold in airport book shops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.247.253 (talk).


 * In future, 86.20.247.253, please sign your comments. All you need is four tildes.Viewfinder 10:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Please explain how the death of John Whynniard was neither sudden, nor mysterious. You will need to show the following:


 * 1) The death was expected and anticipated
 * 2) The death has an obvious explanation

If you can not evidence BOTH those two points, your objection is failed. Timharwoodx 10:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not going to contest the article as it has been currently rewritten other than to correct grammatical errors. I observed the fact (fact, not opinion or OR) about Salisbury being PM in the year of Gardiner's publication in response to the then version of the section, which summarily dismissed the conspiracy theory on the basis of thet publication. The article is now more balanced, reducing the case for the observation in the main article. But I am sorry that John Kenney and his evident carbon copy 86.20.247.253 find the observation uninteresting and imply that it had no place on Wikipedia. To suggest that what is verifiable and relevant has no place in Wikipedia discussion because it has not been pointed out by an eminent source is elitist. Even if Gardiner himself had no biased motives, can we be sure that Salisbury being PM contributed nothing, directly or otherwise, to the fact that Gardiner carried the day against Fr Gerard? Viewfinder 10:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

We can be sure. Historians simply do not work like that. The fact of Sailsbury being primeminister is correct but irrelevent. I do however find the observation you made interesting. It has prompted an engaging discussion. I do also find your suggestion deeply odd at the same time. S.R.Gardiner 'carried the day' because he was the more respected historian, Gerards motives attempting to clear the plotters were obvious, and most importantly Gardiner was right. Have a little faith in your fellow human. Not everybody writes things to please other people or looks for advantage all the time. Besides if it was patronage from primeinisters you are looking for I believe Gardiner was put on the civil list and granted a pension of £150 by none other than that most archetypal of Victorian liberal primeministers William Gladstone (at the behest of Lord Acton). So what was Gardiner looking for. He had money, he had respect from the establishment. He could do nothing other than damage his reputation among his friends by cosying up to a tory. Politicians are transient. You write something that pleases one lot and the next thing you know the other lot, the ones you have insulted by praising the tories are in power and they are upset with you. Not that they can do anything. Victorian politicians could not and did not persectue individuals. This is aside from the fact that people did not write history to please primeministers or politicians. You would lose respect by doing so. If you believe this, you don't have a very good feel for the era. The things positions and posts that Gardiner sought were not in the power of a priminister to give. Ceratinly he gained from people who admired his views who apointed him to teaching positions. But Lord Sailisbury. A man who said that it was terrible that two day labourers could outvote a Roschild. Gardiner was an old man at the time. If he was influenced by politics it was his own whig liberal beliefs influenced by the society and culture of his own time.--86.20.247.253 12:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I strongly resent the implication that I am the same person as 86.20.247.253. This is a serious claim, and very offensive. Just because two users disagree with you does not mean that we are the same person. Once again, your claims about Salisbury have no support. You can't just throw this stuff out there out of nowhere and claim it should be in the article. Of course we can't prove a negative, but you need to provide an actual scholar who has argued this about Salisbury. john k 82.124.167.30 12:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In addition to the above, which I did write, I will admit that

86.240 knows a whole lot more about this than I do. john k 12:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I did not say that you were the same person. I used the term "carbon copy" because I could see no difference between your positions. That "Gardiner was right" is your POV even if it is the majority view among "experts". Even if all historians are 100% sincere, even democratic governments can and do promote what they find the most tasteful. Viewfinder 16:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Why did you put experts in inverted commas? These people work for universities, teach students and write in peer reviewed journals. They write, read and teach history full time. They are experts by any definition of the word. Aside from this I just wish you would give me a reason for believing that Cecil was involved in the plot or that Gardiner was biased. I give you a dozen reasons why it wasn't so and you say "democratic governments can and do promote what they find the most tasteful" or "it is not outside the bounds of possibility that, even only sub-consciously, Gardiner could have wanted to write what Salisbury's friends would have wanted to read". What spectacular inanity will you come up with next. Very little is outside the bounds of possibility yet something being possible does not prove it was so. These are generalities. Plattitudes. Address the facts. We have proved that Gardiner had nothing to benefit from writing what he did, yet you still confront us by saying that this bias is worthy of noting in an encyclopedia article. We are all altered by the political climate in which we live but not in the crude way you suggest. Give me some evidence or happening that would suggest Gardiners bias or Cecils involvement in the plot.--86.20.247.253 20:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "Completely ridiculous", "You must be joking", and now "spectacular inanity". Expressions like these may make some editors feel better but they do not contribute to useful discussion. I wrote that "it is interesting that Salisbury was PM at the time of publication", which is true and I considered it relevant. It does not necessarily accuse Gardiner, and anyway the article has since been rewritten and I am not trying to re-insert it. As for Cecil's involvement, you have supplied two (albeit minority) references in support of that, so it is a view that has definitely been taken seriously, even if it has not been generally accepted. Viewfinder 21:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I would not dispute what you have just said other than that who was prime minister at the time was relevant to the writing of this work in any way. I still wish you would try and debate by providing some evidence for your own cause rather than re-stating your own position which has softened somewhat in the face of overwhelming evidence. As for your indignation over what you perceive as insults I will say this. Your position was most ridiculous to me. It may not have been so to others. Simply restating an accusation of bias based on a weakly circumstantial observation is to me inane. It may not have been so to others. It is simply my opinion. It was not my intention to offend. You are, however, right in one respect. It did make me feel much better. I have contributed the historical basis for this discussion. You would not even be dimly aware of these historians if I had not pointed them out to you. You have simply stated that Salisbury was prime minister, therefore Mr Gardiner was clearly biased and then continued to be righteously indignant about being contradicted.--86.20.247.253 22:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * With all due respect that is not what I stated. I went no further than to suggest that Gardiner might have been biased. I also suggested that Salisbury being PM could have influenced the fact that Gardiner won the public debate against Gerard, so even if Gardner was completely objective it still does not necessarily render my PM observation irrelevant. I am not indignant that you contradict me, only the unhelpful manner in which you do so. Making yourself feel better at other editors' expense is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Viewfinder 23:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the above posters should sit down and read the WIKI terms sometimes. Its obvious they have never done this, yet they edit. See Verifiability. Content does not have to be produced by a world famous historian to be suitable for inclusion. Thats more like the WIKI 2 proposal thats been made recently. WIKI 1 content simply has to be externally verifiable. I can verify thousands of school kids across generations in England, have been taught the plot was likely the work of Cecil. Materials can be obtained to this end from schools sites, some of it even for free and unrestricted. I posted one such example. This is proof the conspiracy view is externally verifiable and therefore can not reasonably be wholly excluded from the article. If excluded, the article becomes NPOV. Timharwoodx 10:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Websites are not published material. Published usually means printed publication. I quote from the guidelines

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."


 * Websites are published material: to quote your extract above personal websites... are largely not acceptable.--Bilbo B 18:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Updated URLs
I noticed two of the external links were broken. The 404 page it leads to says the BBC History site has been redesigned. I've located the new links and will change them now, but I thought I'd leave a note here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/state/monarchs_leaders/gunpowder_hutton_01.shtml (What if the gunpowder plot had succeeded) has moved to http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/civil_war_revolution/gunpowder_hutton_01.shtml

and

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/games/gunpowder/index.shtml (The Gunpowder Plot Game) has moved to http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/civil_war_revolution/launch_gms_gunpowder_plot.shtml

- square_pear | talk 03:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC) == antichrist does anyone else see Guy Fawkes in V is for Vendetta as being the antichrist, or.. ? divine (mason symbolism), doesn't show face, dance with the devil... and seeming to be the good guy - while pushing the gay agenda pretty hard.

I just removed what appears to be a spam external links to http://www.spadeadam.net/, beyond that, authoritative article overall 81.78.94.102 17:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)MatGB

Did Guy fawkes really do it??
Everyone belives that Guy fawkes was the leader of the gunpowder plot. But that is not true. He was actually smuggled in to the plot because he was an expert on explosives. (by darrion888)

Counter Reformation
Many belive the gunpowder plot to have been part of the counter-reformation.

This strikes me as being a very vague statement. How do we quantify many? Is there perhaps a reference that can suport this claim? How are we defining Counter-Reformation?

Iron Ghost 01:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The counter reformation was something comletely different. It was the internal re-adjustment of the Catholic church to address the protestant threat as epitomised by the council of Trent. --86.20.247.253 14:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag added
Its is a widely taught view in British schools, that Cecil may very well have been behind the plot. Other posters above have confirmed they were taught at school it was Cecil, like I was. You can go to English schools history websites, and download such material readily enough. I even posted a link to an example above. To exclude such well established and widely taught views from the article, is a blatant violation of narrative neutrality. The views are externally verifiable in their claims, a key criteria of WIKI inclusion. My work on filling out doubts that exist about the official story has just been deleted. People can go over the page history and see what I added. I now invite consensus and discussion. But to have no reference to the alternative theories is simply absurd, when they are so widely taught. WHY THE CENSORSHIP? WHY ARE PEOPLE AFRAID OF THE FACTS ABOUT SOME 400 YEAR OLD STORY? The WIKI must reflect these views, even if they are not advanced as part of the main narrative of the article, otherwise the NPOV tag must stay permanently. '''It is not for editors to decide what is and is not 'true,' rather to report the range of externally presented opinions on the matter. OPINION = POV''' Timharwoodx 09:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

As is the case today when dramatic events occur, various conspiracy theories rapidly took hold among the general public, which advocated versions of events that differed from the official government explanation. Certainly Cecil himself was known to be intensely anti-Catholic, and the plot provided the perfect excuse for a subsequent crackdown on Catholic rights, as well as assuring the new King of widespread Protestant support and sympathy. These alternative explanations remain presented in historical texts up to and including the modern period, and tend to fall into one of two categories:


 * Some thought that Cecil's agents had infiltrated the plot early on but allowed it to continue shaping its outcome for political gain and to aid Catholic persecution.
 * Some believed that Cecil himself had arranged the plot, with the mercenary Guy Fawkes a paid agent of Cecil himself, subsequently setup as the "patsy".

A notable attempt to refute such arguments was S. R. Gardiner’s 1897 book What Gunpowder Plot Was. Although it is interesting to note that at the time of publication Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury was Prime Minister. Issues commonly cited by those skeptical of the official government explanation include the following:


 * The night Lord Monteagle received the warning letter was the only night in 1605 that he stayed at home.
 * The authorship of the letter has never been definitively resolved, but is commonly attributed to Francis Tresham, brother-in-law of Lord Monteagle. Tresham subsequently died of a mystery illness in the Tower of London on December 23 1605.
 * Gunpowder was a government monopoly in this period, and the Tower of London was the only location authorized to hold the large quantities of gunpowder planted under parliament (36 barrels - many of which were replaced with fresh ones, after they decayed).
 * The relevant 1604 Tower of London gunpowder store log book is inexplicably missing.
 * No evidence for the claimed tunnel actually exists. No digging noise was ever reported in Parliament. No earth seen being moved.
 * The cellar was rented to William Percy by a John Whynniard, a government officer and close friend of Robert Cecil. Just as the plot was discovered, John Whynniard died a sudden and mysterious death.
 * Robert Cecil immediately deduced the plot was to blow up parliament from the rather vague warning letter, yet a search of Parliament was only undertaken on the afternoon of the 4 of November, by the Lord Chamberlain, Thomas Howard, Earl of Suffolk, accompanied by Monteagle and John Whynniardone, a mere day before the opening of parliament on the 5 of November, and a full 9 days after the so called warning letter was received. The 9 day delay in searching Parliament has never been explained.
 * Fawkes was in the cellar at the time of the initial search, and claimed the pile as belonging to Thomas Percy. After warning Percy, he supposedly returned to the cellar, when just before midnight, a second search led by led by Sir Thomas Knyvett, a Westminster magistrate and Gentleman of the Privy Chamber, arrested him in possession of a watch, slow matches and touchwood. Why Fawkes would return when he suspected the plot was discovered is unclear. Further, it is unclear why Fawkes would choose to carry around such incriminating items after the earlier search, as they could have been readily hidden anywhere in the cellar.
 * The cellar was hired in March 1605. By August 1605 Fawkes had to replace spoiled barrels of gunpowder, indicating gunpowder went off after 3 months kept in those conditions. The plot was supposedly for November 5, another 3 months on. Subsequent Tower of London records confirm at least some of the powder was once again spoiled ("decayed").
 * On 7 November Holbeach House was surrounded on the orders of Robert Cecil, even before Fawkes had "confessed" and named his claimed associates.
 * Catesby and Percey were shot dead, supposedly by a single bullet, even though they did not resist arrest. The officer responsible was given a life pension.
 * The almost illegible signature of Guy Fawkes is widely taken as evidence he was tortured, and therefore his signed confession may not be wholly reliable. This is in-line with the instructions given by King James in a letter dated 6 November that "The gentler tortours are to be first used unto him, et sic per gradus ad mia tenditur [and so by degrees proceeding to the worst], and so God speed your goode worke".
 * Because all the conspirators were killed, and other relevant parties such John Whynniard (the cellar owner) had near simultaneous deaths, it subsequently became almost impossible to get real answers to many of the above questions.


 * I think that there is a good case for putting some of the above back in the article, but it may need to be better referenced. Still, the present article is an improvement on what earlier versions, which simply dismissed the whole idea on the basis of an 1897 publication. Viewfinder 12:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I take your point about the age of this work; though I would say that I believe the most recent comprehensive work (Antonia Fraser's (sp?) book) has the same basic argument on this matter (though I admit to not having read it). I think I may have heard somewhere that she exonerates fully most of the Jesuits from involvement which gardiner did not do - tesimond, garnett etc were indicted along with the plotters, which I don’t think we could argue with It is just that this work is always quoted, even by modern publications as the originator of a strand of thought and the most authoritative dismissal of Cecil’s involvement. Again I would wish to point out that I have referenced work that supports your view as well. Francis Edwards work is the most notable statement your point of view, though it may be out of print. Certainly I have not seen a copy. I unhappy about referencing websites unless the author of the piece is known or the website belongs to a respected organisation such as the BBC as it is unclear otherwise on what authority they write. Websites also rarely ever state their own sources and are, as such, untraceable. If someone suddenly takes down a website or changes its content the wikipedia of this article immediately becomes unverifiable. We could put some of the ideas back if we can reference them. I think we should try and keep the word count down and try to be safe and not state anything too controversial. We should state both opinions neutrally and leave it at that. Part of me still feels it would not be out of order to point out on which side the weight of academic opinion about this matter is on. Thank you for defending me. If I am a little clueless I trust you all to point it out.

I can refute some of your points immediately though.

"Tresham subsequently died of a mystery illness in the Tower of London on December 23 1605." All ilness in the 1600s was a mystery. Description of ilness in the 1600s is hard to decipher as they had no conception germ theory. The tower was a very unhealthy place to be depending on where you were held and whether you someone brought you proper food. If you are suggesting they killed him, why did they not simply have him executed for treason.

"The cellar was hired in March 1605. By August 1605 Fawkes had to replace spoiled barrels of gunpowder, indicating gunpowder went off after 3 months kept in those conditions. The plot was supposedly for November 5, another 3 months on. Subsequent Tower of London records confirm at least some of the powder was once again spoiled ("decayed").

This one is easy. Parliaments opening was delayed due to the appearance of plague, first to Feb 7th then October 1st. The plotters were not ready for the first opening. The plotters therefore had the powder ready too early for the second opening date and it got a bit damp. There was still enough to kill everybody though. Damp carbon rich powder reacts producing lots of Carbon monoxide which would have suffocated those still intact after the blast. Fawkes as an explosive expert may have even known this. He certainly knew he had enough powder.--86.20.247.253 16:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

"The earl of Salisbury described Tresham's complaint as a ‘natural sickness, such as he hath been a long time subject to’ (Memorials of Affairs of State … Collected … from the Original Papers of Sir Ralph Winwood, ed. E. Sawyer, 3 vols., 1725, 2.189). This was almost certainly a strangury. His lingering, painful end was documented at length by his trusted servant William Vavasour, who along with Tresham's wife and a nurse, Joan Sisor, had regular access to the stricken man." from ONDB His head was put on a spike anyway, its just he died before they could cut it off when he was still alive. I could go on with all of these points. They should not be in the article because many are just plain wrong. Tresham always opposed the plot and planned to go abroad to avoid it. Catesby and Winter extorted money from him, and always suspected him of wanting to warn people of the plot. His lands were forfiet to the crown.--86.20.247.253 16:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Can somebody who has not already shown themselves to be a POV warrior on this confirm that British schools commonly teach that the definitive story of the Gunpowder Plot is that it was all made up by Cecil? If this is true, I must say that I am rather disappointed by the British educational system. I don't think it really changes the fact that the opinions we should take most seriously are those of mainstream academic historians, who believe no such thing. john k 16:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Unless the dispute over the curriculum has been reported in newspapers (or similar) it itself is probably not notable enough for inclusion in this article. If reliable sources say that Cecil was a conspirator then their views can be added and attributed to them. This really doesn't seem like a major issue, certainly not one for the entire article, and not on that has been acted on since 2006, so I am going to remove the tag. Savidan 23:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Broken English in new edit
'It is now generally believed that although there is no evidence to say that Cecil initiated the plot, he may certainly have known about it before Fawkes arrest on the fourth or fifth of December and played its uncovering to his and the government's advantage.'

'May certainly' - what kind of broken English grammar is that? Well of course Cecil knew before the 5th! He was shown the warning letter sent 9 days previous, and he immediately deduced it was a plot to blow up parliament! Why 9 days elapsed between the warning, and a search, is one of the major unanswered questions. Clear evidence the persons who butchered my conspiracy section, do not know the slightest thing about the gunpowder plot. Historically accurate content, is being replaced with illogical nonsense, written in grammatically broken English! Timharwoodx 09:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You can put some stuff back into it if you like. Though don't write a list. People just add to it and it gets out of control. I accept the point about the grammar. I'm sorry that isn't my strong point (or spelling for that matter), I was hoping someone else would go over it afterwards, insert links, make the formating look better and correct my apauling rendering of the English language. I did try to say that Cecil knew before and may have 'played the uncovering to his advantage'. Perhaps you could intergrate your information into the article. I will bow to your better judgement. Have you read the book by Fraiser which I have not? I only went over Gardiners work, the article by Dodds and one by Jenny wormald on the Scottish connection with the plot. Most of the knowledge of the plot is of course based on the confession of Winter, but I don't think that is a reason to be too suspicious of it. Of course the famous account of the discovery of the plot has only James I realising the significance of the letter.Can we really believe that only the King saw this? The conspiracy theories come from the fact that it seems from the account that Sailsbury set James up to discover the plot from the letter. Or at least made him believe that he did. Salisbury went to the King with the letter on 'Allhallows day' 30th. There was at least one search after this that found nothing and then after further suspicion was raised another search which found Fawkes. Am I right? And also where do you get your nine days from?

I think though the evidence from the confessions of the plotters fairly convincingly proves the actual existance of the plot, whenever Cecil knew about it. Also Fawkes torture, the shootout at Holbeach etc say that this was not concocted by Cecil. The foreign conections with Hugh Owen and Fawkes make the whole thing seem quite genuine. I don't think if Cecil had really been aware of the plot all of the time he would have let the plotters plant gunpowder under the commons. Or move "10 other barrels full of Gunpowder newly bought, fearing least the former gunpowder aforsaid bestowed and placed there was become dankish". This incidently is from the printed proceedings 'Against the late traitors' and the origin of the idea that the some of the gunpowder had gone off. Also if I was concocting a plot and I was Cecil I would just arrest some catholics and say they plotted to assasinate the King and raise the country in rebellion. it would simply require the forging of some letters. It is more like the Main and Bye plots - planning military takeovers and kidnap of the King. The gunpowder is a quite original and uneccesary addition. I feel that Cecil would not have gone to that trouble. He might have just rounded up some Catholics and a few priests. The result would have been equally scandalous at the time, though I doubt it would have held our imagination. The details of the confessions and the plot are too idiosyncratic to be totally made up. They had to be the plans and ideas of these men not the government

There is also a very good book and article by David Cressy Called something like "Bonfires and Bells" which has a chapter on the commemeration of the plot if you wanted to edit the popular culture section as well. I think that could do with an expert look over. If your going to do this I think there was also a sermon by John Donne in 1628, certainly there were many commemorative sermons on the matter. You might also find T. watts book 'cheap print and popular piety 1550-1640' useful as it has lots on popular literature. Again I hope you will excuse my ignorance of the matter and I hope you have better luck.--86.20.247.253 12:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not like the title of this section. It breaches WP:CIV, and despite my differences with 86.20, I do not think that he is clueless. Please let us continue this discussion with more respect for those with whom we do not agree. Viewfinder 13:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

'May certainly' - How can you describe anyone who writes in such broken English as anything other than clueless? I hold postgraduate qualifications in History. What qualifications does he have? Again, can I repeat the point, it is NOT for editors to decide what is and is not true! How can ANYONE claim to know the absolute truth about poorly documented events of 400 years ago, where all the main evidence was collected under torture? An external body of literature exists on alternative theories for the gunpowder plot, they need not be in the main section, they may not even be true, but the external verifiability guidelines mean there is no reason for some summarised reference not to be made to them. Inclusion the WIKI does not mean truth, it just means some people think it, and that’s all that is required. Timharwoodx 19:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * http://www.schoolhistory.co.uk/year8links/gunpowder/gunpowder.pdf
 * http://www.schoolhistory.co.uk/year8links/gunpowder/setup.pdf

There is an example of a handout used in English schools, setting out points of suspicion about the official story. I've seen others (better), but can't locate them right now. Sorry. Note the plot is called the 'traditional explanation' - NOT THE TRUTH.


 * http://www.gunpowder-plot.org/

'Conflicting historical details confirm one thing - that the offical account of this event that persists in our folklore cannot possibly be true.'

No serious Plot researcher accepts the official story any longer i.e. no evidence for the tunnel, etc. Everyone accepts that much now. The only question is how much Cecil lied about, not if he lied. Any serious editor on this topic would know that. Timharwoodx 19:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You cannot say that a worksheet is evidence worthy to be quoted in an encyclopaedia. I think that some of the information in the sheet that you point to - labelled informatively as source E 1996- a historian is from Antonia Frasers book. The way the information is presented misrepresents her argument if it argues that the plot was set up by Cecil. If you wish to use her information on this, however, you must buy the book, read it, find a pithy quotation and present it in a properly footnoted way in this article. We also really need someone who has read Alan Haynes 1994 work, which is far less populist that Fraser,who spends far too much time trying to equate the plot with terrorism. Here Alan Haynes describes the plot on the BBC website, and its deep rooted origins in the mind of Thomas Catesby. This is an example of a reputable source by a named person. Yours are from unnamed authors and unknown provenance.


 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/civil_war_revolution/gunpowder_haynes_01.shtml

What you have succeeded in proving is that this theory is thought to amuse schoolchildren so is put on websites and worksheets.

You say you have postgraduate qualifications, what are they and where are they from? Out of interest, more than anything, seeing as you brought the topic up.

Why do you prefer to quote websites rather than books? I you like history, presumably you like reading. If you wish to find some books I suggest you use the website of the Royal historical society.


 * http://www.rhs.ac.uk/bibl/

I did not say that the old account of the plot was accepted anymore. The new view is a far more nuanced and balanced account with regards to the role of Catholicism. It loses the old views of Catholicism as devilry and king james as the one who uncovered the plot. It is revisionism too far, however, to say that Cecil made this plot. I would love to hear about this body of external literature that represents your view.

--86.20.240.225 23:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * http://www.askwhy.co.uk/analogiesandconjectures/GunpowderPlot0.html

Good summary of the alternative view of the plot, taught in English schools. My point being, there is reasonable doubt about Cecil, and since this alternative view is externally referencable to published literature (i.e. written sources), therefore can not be excluded by editors, who take an arbitrary decision that is not 'truth.' The alternative view is increasingly being referred to as the 'modern' version, as opposed to the 'classic' version, sold to the general public. Timharwoodx 15:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

That page looks like fringe ranting. I also do not believe you have any kind of post-graduate training in history. Certainly not in Jacobean history. The idea that a theory expressed, apparently, in worksheets for high school students and fringe conspuracy theory books and websites, is the "modern version" of the story of the Gunpowder Plot is ridiculous. We are supposed to base wikipedia on reliable sources. Reliable sources would say something along the lines of "various people have come up with theories that Cecil made up the Gunpowder Plot, but no evidence has been produced to substantiate such claims, and these theories are rejected by most historians." Your position requires that you dismiss the work of pretty much all mainstream scholars who have recently written on the subject, in favor of the work of ranting fringe characters. The articles on the plotters in the ODNB, for instance, are by Mark Nicholls, the author of Investigating Gunpowder Plot (1991), and cast no doubt on the guilt of, for instance, Catesby, Winter, and Fawkes. The article on Fawkes, for instance, states that ''Winter's confession, probably written for publication, certainly in his own hand, is one of the most remarkable accounts of intended treason in the pages of English history, and while not altogether free from obfuscation, it is substantially true. By comparison, Guy Fawkes's confessions show that, while he was privy to most secrets, he knew less than Winter.'' "It is substantially true," says Nicholls of Winter's confession. The articles by Jenny Wormald on James VI and I, and by Pauline Croft on Salisbury, provide no more comfort for your supposed "modern view". Please give up on this nonsense. john k 16:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Quite.--86.20.240.225 19:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The night Lord Monteagle received the warning letter coincided with a dinner party, where he read the private letter aloud to guests. It was the only night in 1605 that he stayed at home. Subsequently he was given a pension of £700 p.a. by Cecil.

Cecil did not stay at home this night. As you said he went out to dinner; he was about to go out when he received the letter. This is therefore not very suspicious. I would also like to see you trace the whereabouts of Lord Monteagle for all of the days of the year in 1605 to prove that what you say was indeed unusual. The point invites ridicule.

The almost illegible signature of Guy Fawkes is widely taken as evidence he was tortured, and therefore his signed confession may not be wholly reliable. This is in-line with the instructions given by King James in a letter dated 6 November that "The gentler tortours are to be first used unto him, et sic per gradus ad mia tenditur [and so by degrees proceeding to the worst], and so God speed your goode worke".

So what? That other sources acquired separately agree is not enough. The other accounts of the plotters agree. There are also the accounts of the priests Tesimond and Gerard. There is evidence of them being Catholic for a long time, and Catesby as being a ‘wild youth’

Two consignments of 36 is was a month's worth of the whole English national supply at the time, or £500. A vast sum in those days, yet the plotters were not affluent men. Percy might have embezzled the sum, yet there is no evidence for this. Even if smuggled in from abroad, how you would transport such a quantity without arousing suspicion is unclear.

They were aquiring money from Francis Tresham, almost by blackmail, as he was scared of them and was planning to flee abroad. He was going to go abroad after the plot but left it too late. Yet there was not only Tresham but Sir Everard Digby and Ambrose Rookwood also who were financing the plot. Perhaps you have never heard of these gentlemen. As for transportation, the powder was in barrels that could have been easily passed off as imported wine, but it is hard to say for definate. I consider it extremely unlikely it was from the tower, it is very outlandish that such a quantity of powder could be moved from a fortress in public view.

From the dictionary of national biography. This was just one of many payments.

“At his ‘chamber in Clerkenwell’ he paid over £190 to Winter, for Catesby's use ‘acording to a former agreement between them’, in the fortnight before 5 November (PRO, SP 14/216/116). As he himself put it, ‘the silence that I used was only to deliver my self from that infamous brand of an accuser, and to save his life which in all true rules I was bound to do.’ He had aimed, he said, ‘not only to free his majesty and the state from this present treason, but to shipe them all away that they might have no meanes left them to contrive any more’ (PRO, SP 14/16/63). It was, if true, a perilous game, and Tresham knew it. Driven on by his fears, he secured a licence to travel abroad for two years, with servants and horses, granted on 2 November 1605.”

On 7 November Holbeach House was surrounded on the orders of Robert Cecil, even before Fawkes had "confessed" and named his claimed associates. Catesby and Percey were shot dead, supposedly by a single bullet, even though they did not resist arrest. The officer responsible was given a life pension.

This is simply incorrect. They were both shot on the 8th possibly by the same bullett. News spread from London of Fawkes capture on the 5th. On the 5th the rebels had plundered horses from Warwick castle and generally ridden about the county acquiring powder and shot and trying to attract support from scared Catholic gentlemen who probably informed the authorities because they knew the plot had failed (they knew of Fawkes capture). Holbeach was not the first place they came to. They had been to Norbrooks and Hewell grange on the 6th and the 7th. They were caught at Holbeach (is it actually in Staffordshire?) having no prearranged plan, so that the government could not possibly know they would have been there. They knew about them from the trail fear and disorder they left not Fawkes confession, though they had heard of his arrest. They naturally put two and two together. The officer responsible was given a life pension because preventing a rebellion and killing rebels is the sort of thing that pensions are usually awarded for.

however this quote fails to clarify the exact cause, which remains unknown.

Because disease is very difficult to diagnose. Why do you think doctors spend six years training for it. He could have easily made up a disease like ‘sweating sickness’, ‘smallpox’ or some other disease that they had a name for. What he was saying was that he had a chronic condition which he did not understand. He would have been hardly likely to diagnose a heart complaint or arrhythmia would he? Many chronic diseases share symptoms and look much alike to those who are not familiar with the disease. The important thing was he knew that it was a problem he had suffered with before his arrest therefore his death was not a surprise.

Gunpowder was a government monopoly in this period, and the Tower of London was the only location authorized to hold the large quantities of gunpowder planted under parliament (36 barrels - many of which were replaced with fresh ones, after they decayed). The relevant 1605 Tower of London gunpowder store log book is inexplicably missing.

You are saying that the government turned over its entire supply of powder to a group of angry Catholics who then went and stored it in central London, with another seditious Catholic who sat on top of the lot with flint and tinder. Guy Fawkes probably knew people on the continent who provided the powder, though I do not know. It is not unusual however for logs to go missing. There are many missing papers all over the place that have no other significance than they have been taken as a souvenir.

The Dutchman who drew it probably never actually saw or met any of the conspirators, but it has become a popular representation nonetheless.

Do you mean van de Passe? --86.20.240.225 11:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

A poem to remember the plot Remember, remember, the 5th of November The Gunpowder Treason and plot ; I know of no reason why Gunpowder Treason Should ever be forgot. Guy Fawkes, Guy Fawkes, 'Twas his intent. To blow up the King and the Parliament

Other "false flag" operations by governments
See the Alex Jones Terrorstorm film - an introduction to US government sponsored 'false flag' terror operations, where governments make things up to achieve political aims. The American government admits in its own declassified documents it considers the mass murder of American civilians acceptable, if it advances specific long term policy goals i.e. see Operation_Northwoods - an entry in the WIKIPEDIA itself. A shocking insight into the type of people who run our governments.


 * http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5948263607579389947

Watch Loose Change Second Edition - Recut. The most watched internet-only film of all time.


 * http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&hl=en

From Freedom to Fascism - Aaron Russo.


 * http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198

Those videos were where I started to have my doubts about governments and 'Terror plots.' Go watch the films - they are free. The Gunpowder plot was an a inside job. Just another government backed 'false flag' operation. None of the so called 'facts' about the plot add up, and an externally verifiable published literature exists which says so. Wake up folks! Timharwoodx 21:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Unless we can clearly say that this was a government plot, it shouldn't be so categorised. If you want - create a separate category for possible false flag operations. -- Beardo 19:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Films or TV dramatisations
Has a film or TV dramatisation ever been done?--Moonlight Mile 05:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I can only find two on IMDB. A TV adaptation in 2004 and an obscure silent version in 1923. Robertcornell68 10:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Revision to introductory material.
I think the following sentence needs to be revised; I find it problematic.

"Before this period Catholicism had been associated with Spain and the Inquisition but after the plot's failure it also became thought of as treasonous to be Catholic." (Eeesh 22:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC))


 * I agree. In fact, so bad is the sentence that I've removed it. Yes, Catholicism was associated with Spain, but also with English history, with English Catholics, with European history, with the pope, and with goodness knows what else. Some people might have thought that all Catholics were potential traitors, but King James did not, and the Oath of Allegiance required Catholics to swear loyalty to the king: if they did that, they were considered loyal. qp10qp 22:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Broken Picture
The bonfire picture is brokenVentusIgnis 12:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Imagemap
Nice reference concerning the artists travels. Note there is a bug in imagemap so that links and refs are not processed properly Victuallers 13:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)