| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| GWRC |
Posted - 11/25/2005 : 04:56:48
I wonder if Robert CATESBY had ideas above his station ?
If you include Robert CATESBY there were 13 "Plotters".
There were 12 Disciples with Jesus and of course including Jesus there were 13 of them also.
If Robert CATESBY did stage manage this number then was it not ironic that one of the other 12 betrayed him (Judas) ? |
| 9 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Zoe |
Posted - 02/04/2006 : 10:39:31
So when Ambrose spoke of his 'error' in revealing the treason, was he simply expressing regret at having implicated the jesuits? the way i understood it was that he was telling Father Hammond that he regretted revealing it to someone else, possibly during a crisis of conscience.
It's a great website by the way, keep up the good work! |
| Administrator |
Posted - 02/02/2006 : 11:30:38
Zoe, Rookwood confessed to the priest Hammond, however as with catesby himself, this "confession" was made under the seal of the confessional. By virtue of this, the priests were absolved from any blame or guilt, and what was said between them and those who confess must remain between only those two parties.
Today we have "similar" things such as doctor patient confidentiality as well of course as the confessional still. Many have used this to support the Jesuit complicity in the plot- they had knowledge of something and by virtue of their "oath" to the crown were obligated to inform them of any uprising or assassination attempt. Interestingly Tresham was never convicted of treason, instead he was simply guilty of failing to reveal the plot to the authorities. |
| Zoe |
Posted - 02/02/2006 : 07:27:40
Hi everyone, i read in Ambrose Rookwood's statement that he confessed to Father Hammond his error of 'revealing their project of powder because it seemed to be too bloody'. Does that mean he had some role in spoiling Catesby's plans? Who did he reveal it to? |
| GWRC |
Posted - 12/01/2005 : 09:35:41
I also believe that the male who handed the letter to Mounteagle`s servant etc was a red herring.
This "man of reasonable tall personage, who delivered him a letter".
Compare this description with Guy FAWKES:
He was a tall, powerfully built man, with thick reddish-brown hair, flowing moustache, and a bushy reddish-brown beard.
If memeory serves me right, the suspicious male had part of his face covered.
I believe that there have been instances in the past where suspects are being questioned by the Police in interview etc. where when asked to supply a description of say," the man who they bought it off in a pub" was have had to think quickly and have described the first person they see, usually the interviewing officer.
If you extend this to a more leisurely pace,could it be that whoever came up with the idea of the letter decided to describe FAWKES ?
Why FAWKES ?
Well, presumably it would be preferable to describe someone they had seen but not someone who the recipient of the description would recognise.
For examle, some of the other Plotters were tall.
They were also known to the authorities.
However, what if the writer of the letter, Mounteagle for instance, had indeed seen FAWKES.
Knowing of him and perhaps who he was and his role, might he not be the first choice for a desperate fellow clandestinely deliviring a letter at night?
Of course his red beard might be a clue,which might give the idea that this is why the male would have hidden his face etc.
Not that the description was meant to blame FAWKES specifically but as a result of how the description developped as the inventor thought it though.
It would not directly blame FAWKES and would not eliminate anyone.
The servant who saw the male would not be able to recognise him again nor give a description of his face.
Unless Cecil knew of FAWKES, this would indicate Mounteagle possibly as the writer. |
| Administrator |
Posted - 11/28/2005 : 19:32:38
Over the years I have found it difficult to reconcile that Monteagle, whose relationship with Catesby was every bit as strong, some say stronger, as the relationship Monteagle had with his brother in law. To this end, and there are many many instances where we read of Catesby and Monteagle together at White Webbs or Moorecrofts, it seems strange that Monteagle had to wait until Tresham outlined the plot to him before he actually wrote the letter. There are recorded instances of Catesby talking to Wintour and Fawkes while Monteagle sits in another room with the Jesuits. You cannot tell me that Monteagle was oblivious to what was going on until Tresham spoke up.
Tresham was dying, and I believe he knew that - at the very least that he was extremely ill. The passport he acquired on 2 November which some have used as evidence that he was about to flee, or was sent abroad by the government was to travel to France to seek remedial aid at some of the french health spas more than likely. By telling Monteagle, he had much to lose - the prospect of effectively disinheriting his daughters should his involvement be revealed, which it was.
He was of the belief that he had managed to convince the other conspirators to delay their action - probably until he was safely overseas or dead. I have never subscribed to the notion that Tresham was the source of the information that led to the Monteagle letter.
Catesby had a reason why he did not involve Tresham until the very end. Some say it was because he needed money, yet he had just recruited both Sir Everard Digby and Ambrose Rookwood, both very wealthy in their own right. Why would Catesby want Tresham involved for his money when he was likely aware that Tresham's father had died intestate and with debts amounting to 10,000 pounds. I believe Catesby "involved" Tresham out of a sense of honour and loyalty.
Monteagle waited until the very last moment to send the letter for the simple reason that parliament had been prorogued on at least 3 separate occassions in the past and was not willing to show his hand until he knew that everything was going ahead as planned from both sides - the government's session, and the plotters action. |
| Storm |
Posted - 11/28/2005 : 13:21:41
Don't get me wrong, I do think that Tresham was the one who leaked the plot, I just don't think he wrote the letter to do it; he probably told Monteagle by word of mouth, and then one of two things happened;-
Either Monteagle wrote the letter himself so he could report the conspiracy while making himself look less closely involved with the Recusants;
Or upon receiving word from Monteagle, Cecil wrote the letter as a way of setting things up so the King could look like the genius who managed to see through the whole thing, which would make for a great propaganda coup for the Stuart regime in England.
I think the first option is by far the most likely explanation. |
| GWRC |
Posted - 11/27/2005 : 09:34:45
Totally agree.
Can`t imagine Catesby and the rest trusting someone with such information if they even suspected he was capable of treachery.
Especially in view of the horrible consequences if they were caught.
I wonder though if the idea of Catesby and his 12 "Apostles" did not occur to someone else who ironically pointed the finger at Tresham to turn him into Catesby`s Judas.
It would be beneficial to imply someone else was to blame (by not giving Tresham the same treatment as the others etc) in order to avoid the suspicion pointing to the real "informant".
|
| Storm |
Posted - 11/25/2005 : 13:16:59
I agree Tresham didn't write the letter as I can't think of any decent reason why he'd have done that instead of telling Monteagle verbally.
As for the Catesby and disciples idea... wow, GWRC, what do you put in your coffee?!?  |
| Administrator |
Posted - 11/25/2005 : 10:45:40
Interesting idea but you first have to subscribe to the idea that it was indeed one of those 12 that wrote the Monteagle Letter. Personally I don't believe it was Tresham but Monteagle himself who wrote and then stage managed the discovery of the letter. |
|
|
