| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| bibbly_bubbly |
Posted - 11/01/2005 : 18:48:40
 Did Robert Cecil set up the Catholics? I'm studying A-level history and I've decided to do the Gunpowder plot as my coursework as i find it really interesting. I need to find out more information for my other argument whether it really was the Catholics who planned to blow up king and Parliament. I need some sources to analyse, so if you have any information please help as it would really much be appreciated!! Thanks |
| 14 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Ciara123 |
Posted - 05/20/2006 : 05:56:13
Hey there, I am neew on here but I thought it would help me finish my assessment. Um the assessment is about Guy fawkes and I had to choose wether he was guilty or not and I chose Guilty but now I have run out of reasons. please please help. 
Hi! |
| ClareBear |
Posted - 03/29/2006 : 14:03:11
Hey. I'm doing a presentation on The Gunpowder Plot. I'm just confused my everything you just said. What does it mean if he was poisoned and why wout Cecil re-write his confession? |
| beth |
Posted - 01/27/2006 : 11:36:28
font=Comic Sans MS]hi im only 12 and in year 8, recently we have been doing work on the gunpowder plot and the plotters this is how it went down the 36 barrels of gunpowder were kept in a cellar next to parliament it was rented to thomas percy by john wynniard a mate of robert cecil. whynniard died suddenly on the morning of the 5th of nov. robert cecil hated catholics and believed that the king was too kind to them. The confession by thomas winter was re-written by robert cecil and no one has ever seen the original. lord monteagle got a warning letter and took it to robert cecil on 27 oct but the cellars weren't searched until a week later. Francis tresham was monteagles brother in law he was the only plotter who was not captured quickly he was caught on 12 dec and died on 22 dec some say that he had been poisoned. this is the evidence you can make up your own mind. I hope this helps. if you need any further info i will ask my history teacher to try and get a post in some time in the week.  thankz
xxxbethxxx[/font=Comic Sans MS][ |
| Administrator |
Posted - 01/03/2006 : 10:34:37
How the powder was acquired is a little more complex than that. Having served for many years in the English Regiment under Sir William Stanley it was likely most of the powder would have been sourced from here. Also, many of the conspirators and their allies would have had private stores of powder. In an age where they frequently hunted, powder was a necessary item.
Also I would be careful of the claim that Fawkes was an explosives expert. While this is generally believed to be the case, there is no evidence to support it and it is used as a claim to support his involvement in the plot. Unfortunately it may well be another example of where fiction has become fact in this tale.
As for the female letter writer, the only woman identified as a possible author of the letter is Mary Habington, sister of Thomas Habington. She is unlikely to be the author for one very good reason - she had little connection to the plotters and the events transpiring. There is also no evidence to support a motive for doing it either.
As I have outlined in this forum, I believe Monteagle wrote the letter. |
| steph |
Posted - 01/03/2006 : 07:40:19
I need the answer to how the plotters got hold of the gunpowder.
it was guarded in the tower of London and records were kept. the records of that year went missing. I don't know how they may have got hold of it. I know Guy was an explosives expert, and that they had to get gunpowder twice because the first lot became un-useable. ( that�s one version of events i have heard anyway)
i have also found that some people think the letter was written by a women who was inexperienced at writing. it was messy, the writing wasn't fancy , if Cecil or Tresham had wrote it would be very elaborate as they were well educated men. it also had a mistake were the author had put two instead of to.
please help, thank you for the names
Thanks a Bunch
Steph :) |
| Administrator |
Posted - 01/02/2006 : 13:54:34
Robert Catesby, Thomas Percy, Guy Fawkes, John Wright, Thomas Wintour, Thomas Bates, Robert Wintour, Christopher Wright, John Grant, Robert Keyes, Ambrose Rookwood, Sir Everard Digby, and Francis Tresham. |
| steph |
Posted - 01/02/2006 : 10:43:58
hi im studying my history essay and im finding it really difficuly to find all of the plotters names i have a deffinate 9 but if i had all 13 i would be able to complete the essay its due in seriously soon so please help if you can
 
Thanks a Bunch
Steph :) |
| GWRC |
Posted - 11/20/2005 : 15:24:17
Thanks for the welcome.
It is of course also possible that Thomas Percy or one of the others could have aksed the current occupier of the "cellar" to take some money, ask no questions and let them have the cellar.
Percy could have used the same excuse he used later to account for all the "fuel" he was storing, that is, the imminent arrival of his wife in London. (Probably going to check up on him and stop him having fun with the lads !)
If this were so, however, then why the tunnel if it ever existed ?
Unless the idea of the cellar made the tunnel redundant etc.
I,m off for another coffee and a think.
George. |
| Storm |
Posted - 11/19/2005 : 16:53:16
(Welcome to town, GWRC! )
I don't think there's much doubt that Cecil knew fairly early on that something big was going to happen at the Opening of Parliament that year, and yes, he probably did allow the plot to simmer before intervening.
The idea about the convenient availability of the 'croft is an interesting theory, but I'm not sure it's that much of a coincidence in fact. There were loads of rentable cellars and apartments around Westminster palace at the time - it was a very different place back then to what it is now - and by law of averages one of them had to become available sooner or later. It would be interesting though, to see any records of purchasing/renting patterns for Westminster from that year, if any survive. |
| GWRC |
Posted - 11/18/2005 : 16:57:17
My belief is that Catesby and the others did what they did because they believed in what they were doing.They must have known the kind of punishment awaiting them but were simply quite prepared to die for their Faith and what they believed was right as many people have done in the past for many different reasons (patriotism and religion to name but two).
However, it is my belief that the conspiracy was detected and that instead of stopping it the ones discovering the plot allowed it to proceed.
They possibly felt that as they were one up on the Plotters that they could control what happened to a large extent.
Give the Plotters enough rope and they would literally hang themselves.
Any others on the edges may also be brought out into the open and this would generate the sort of intelligence sought by Cecil etc.
A bit like pulling at a root and seeing what emerges from the hidden depths etc.
Consider the "luck" the Plotters had when the undercroft suddenly became vacant at the right time to allow the preparations not only to continue but also to make it certain that the gunpowder might be put in place where Cecil could monitor the situation.
There would be no point in setting off the explosion prior to King James being present etc at the opening of Parliament.
As the man on the spot, FAWKES was presumably more than able to ensure there were no accidents in the meantime and any random fire etc. would have been very unlucky for the Conspirators.
I believe that the "cellar" was provided indirectly by Cecil etc. and this provided a fairly sterile environment in which to allow the Conspirators to believe all was well, recruit other would be insurgents under conditions where Cecil was in charge of the overall situation and then, at the last possible moment, when all the intelligence that was going to be gained was gained, the Plot was "discovered".
Some people would then take credit for it.
The letter ?
Maybe this was an attempt to point the finger at there being an informer to avoid any blame being attached to Cecil allowing the situation to continue etc.
It`s possibly what may happen today in similar circumstances, albeit nobody would then admit it etc. |
| Storm |
Posted - 11/09/2005 : 15:44:29
Anyone would have to be insane to start a plot like this, be it for the sake of a genuine rebellion or for the sake of trapping enemies. Whatever else he might have been, Robert Cecil wasn't insane. There would have been no sure way for him to control the outcome of such a plot, so he would never have instigated it.
As I say, it would have to be the work of someone insane, or at least someone very unstable. And Robert Catesby and most of his co-conspirators were just that, so there's no need to look beyond the surface to find the 'brains' of the operation. |
| Kronos |
Posted - 11/06/2005 : 09:53:00
I dont believe Cecil set up the plotters. No, the idea of armed insurrection, as an antidote to persecution, had been in Robert Catesby's head for months, if not years. I'm afraid that Cecil's subsequent discovery of the plot, was down to the loose lips of an informer, an informer whose identity we can only speculate. |
| cgpearce1 |
Posted - 11/05/2005 : 05:22:24
Sorry about this first post being a bit negative but "losers are always misguided,one way or another" happens because only the winners get to write the history. It may be possible to look at the conspiracy from another perspective than religious. These labels are frequently used to disguise the more likely causes of economics or political hegemony. |
| Jennifer |
Posted - 11/02/2005 : 20:53:54
I do not know of any sources that seriously address the theory that Robert Cecil instigated the Gunpowder Plot. The question gets raised here and there, but never gains much traction.
I think it is something that people would like to believe - because there is nothing quite as fascinating as a government conspiracy (and Cecil would probably be more than capable of such a thing), or some people cannot understand why this group felt driven to this attempt, and therefore must have been goaded - and some people just cannot believe that 'real' catholics would ever have been involved.
This is not to say that it is impossible, just that to date there is absolutely no evidence for this theory. Given the background of the plotters, I can easily say that it would be impossible for it to have been an overt set-up - that they were only 'pretending' to be Catholics and died in order to retain their cover. Could it have been covert? Did a government agent plant the idea in Robert Catesby's ear? Perhaps. But the fact remains is that he went with the idea whole-heartedly, and both he and his co-conspirators were actually responsible. And given his arguments, I don't think it would have taken much to push him over the line.
Also, I am not entirely certain that the uncovering of a Catholic plot against James would have been considered to be such a wonderful benefit to his young reign - certainly not to the extent that would warrant setting one up. Not exactly the best PR in the world, and it also risked jeopardizing the new peace with Spain.
Perhaps some in the government wanted to jeopardize this. Could be. However, if it was instigated and followed from the beginning there was absolutely no need to allow it to continue as long as it did in order for the uncovering to be affective. Sounds far more like a case of last minute cold-feet to me.
Now this is not to say that the government had no knowledge of the plot before Monteagle went running to the court with his letter. To me, the letter was a complete sham, and was used to protect Monteagle from a Catholic backlash against him. But how much foreknowledge did the government have? Probably only a matter of hours, as I don't think even the most callous official would risk that much gunpowder sitting around in a busy area just waiting to go off.
Now I love conspiracy theories as much as the next person, but this one appears to be a dud. From all the sources I have read, rightly or wrongly, these people truly believed they had no choice but to fight back the only way they could. And losers are always misguided, one way or another! |
|
|
