Tinkerlina Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 [quote name='TotusTuusMaria' post='1774238' date='Feb 6 2009, 08:58 PM']You know I really am thinking this is jogging a world history memory....[/quote] I actually never learned about Guy Fawkes in history, I learned about him from the movie V for Vendetta, haha! -Katie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TotusTuusMaria Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1774239' date='Feb 6 2009, 09:59 PM']I actually never learned about Guy Fawkes in history, I learned about him from the movie V for Vendetta, haha! -Katie[/quote] Well my World History textbook was more like the history of Christendom haha EDIT: Ah yes, just looked it up. The gunpowder plot. There was like a whole chapter dedicated to it. Edited February 7, 2009 by TotusTuusMaria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TotusTuusMaria Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 (edited) According to my textbook.... "When James first became king, he did not enforce the anti-Catholic laws. But Robert Cecil could not allow this toleration to continue. James was frightened into renewing the anti-Catholic persecution by the Gun-Powder Plot. The full truth about the Gunpowder Plot may never be known, but here are the facts. On Saturday, October 26, 1605, a mysterious letter was delivered to the Catholic Lord Monteagle, warning him to stay away from Parliament when it convened on November 5. The letter was badly written, with no punctuation and no capital letters. Lord Monteagle immediately took the letter to Robert Cecil, who stated that he feared some kind of Catholic violence against Parliament, since a Catholic nobleman had been warned not to attend its meeting. So Cecil ordered a search of the cellars of Parliament and on November 4 found a Yorkshire soldier-of-fortune named Guy Fawkes standing guard over barrels of gunpowder. Fawkes was arrested. James I was terrified of gunpowder because of the way his father had died. (Darnley's house had been blown up and he was killed while attempting to escape.) He ordered the torturing of Guy Fawkes. On November 8 Fawkes finally confessed under torture and named others involved. Cecil announced that Catholics had been plotting to blow up Parliament when the king and his two sons were there, put his daughter Elizabeth on the throne, and bring her up as a Catholic. Fawkes and others were executed, and for centuries afterward, the English people celebrated "Guy Fawkes Day" on November 5 with bonfires. [b]Many historians believe, however, that Robert Cecil organized the whole plot precisely to turn James solidly against Catholics. Here is the evidence: How could the plotters get gunpowder when it was a government monopoly? Why did Cecil refuse to allow an investigation into missing stores of powder in the Tower of London? How did the plotters get access to the house next to Parliament (from which they had tunneled into the cellars of Parliament), since it belonged to a government official (who conveniently died on November 5)? Why were two leading conspirators immediately shot instead of taken alive? The government claimed that it did not know the identity of the conspirators until Fawkes confessed under torture on November 8, yet why were a number of conspirators arrested on November 5? Why was the assembly of Parliament postponed from February (when the plotters weren't yet ready) until November (when they were)? Even at the time, some observers thought the whole plot was a government frame-up. [/b] The results are exactly what Cecil wanted. James I turned unalterably against Catholics and increased the laws against them. Specifically, James broke the treaty with Ireland and enforced the Act of Uniformity, which required for everyone to attend Anglican services. Besides harassing Catholics, the Act of Uniformity also affected small Protestant groups which wanted a simpler church with fewer ceremonies and no bishops. One of these groups, the Separatists , left England and came to America in 1620, where they were later known as Pilgrims. James also opposed the Puritans, English Calvinists who wanted to make the Church of England more like the Calvinist churches and less like the Catholic Church. His dislike of them stemmed from his unpleasant memories of the stern Calvinists who had raised him in Scotland." .... so it appears like Catholics might not have been blowing up stuff as you say, Hassan. I bet Cecil was a secret muslim too... framing us Catholics like you secret Muslims do. Edited February 7, 2009 by TotusTuusMaria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan Posted February 7, 2009 Author Share Posted February 7, 2009 [quote name='TotusTuusMaria' post='1774237' date='Feb 6 2009, 08:56 PM'] EDIT: Where is that little picture of the cat in the trash can when you need him.[/quote] [img]http://mentalfloss.cachefly.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/trashcat_410.jpg[/img] More Cathofascist agression Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TotusTuusMaria Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 [quote name='Hassan' post='1774252' date='Feb 6 2009, 10:21 PM'][img]http://mentalfloss.cachefly.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/trashcat_410.jpg[/img] More Cathofascist agression [/quote] Shh Cecil... I mean Hassan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan Posted February 7, 2009 Author Share Posted February 7, 2009 [quote name='TotusTuusMaria' post='1774250' date='Feb 6 2009, 09:20 PM']According to my textbook.... "When James first became king, he did not enforce the anti-Catholic laws. But Robert Cecil could not allow this toleration to continue. James was frightened into renewing the anti-Catholic persecution by the Gun-Powder Plot. The full truth about the Gunpowder Plot may never be known, but here are the facts. On Saturday, October 26, 1605, a mysterious letter was delivered to the Catholic Lord Monteagle, warning him to stay away from Parliament when it convened on November 5. The letter was badly written, with no punctuation and no capital letters. Lord Monteagle immediately took the letter to Robert Cecil, who stated that he feared some kind of Catholic violence against Parliament, since a Catholic nobleman had been warned not to attend its meeting. So Cecil ordered a search of the cellars of Parliament and on November 4 found a Yorkshire soldier-of-fortune named Guy Fawkes standing guard over barrels of gunpowder. Fawkes was arrested. James I was terrified of gunpowder because of the way his father had died. (Darnley's house had been blown up and he was killed while attempting to escape.) He ordered the torturing of Guy Fawkes. On November 8 Fawkes finally confessed under torture and named others involved. Cecil announced that Catholics had been plotting to blow up Parliament when the king and his two sons were there, put his daughter Elizabeth on the throne, and bring her up as a Catholic. Fawkes and others were executed, and for centuries afterward, the English people celebrated "Guy Fawkes Day" on November 5 with bonfires. [b]Many historians believe, however, that Robert Cecil organized the whole plot precisely to turn James solidly against Catholics. Here is the evidence: How could the plotters get gunpowder when it was a government monopoly? Why did Cecil refuse to allow an investigation into missing stores of powder in the Tower of London? How did the plotters get access to the house next to Parliament (from which they had tunneled into the cellars of Parliament), since it belonged to a government official (who conveniently died on November 5)? Why were two leading conspirators immediately shot instead of taken alive? The government claimed that it did not know the identity of the conspirators until Fawkes confessed under torture on November 8, yet why were a number of conspirators arrested on November 5? Why was the assembly of Parliament postponed from February (when the plotters weren't yet ready) until November (when they were)? Even at the time, some observers thought the whole plot was a government frame-up. [/b] The results are exactly what Cecil wanted. James I turned unalterably against Catholics and increased the laws against them. Specifically, James broke the treaty with Ireland and enforced the Act of Uniformity, which required for everyone to attend Anglican services. Besides harassing Catholics, the Act of Uniformity also affected small Protestant groups which wanted a simpler church with fewer ceremonies and no bishops. One of these groups, the Separatists , left England and came to America in 1620, where they were later known as Pilgrims. James also opposed the Puritans, English Calvinists who wanted to make the Church of England more like the Calvinist churches and less like the Catholic Church. His dislike of them stemmed from his unpleasant memories of the stern Calvinists who had raised him in Scotland." .... so it appears like Catholics might not have been blowing up stuff as you say, Hassan. I bet Cecil was a secret muslim too... framing us Catholics like you secret Muslims do. [/quote] I know little about the whole deal, I have never heard such a thing before, I found something about you theory in Wikipedia. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_Plot#cite_note-15"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_Plot#cite_note-15[/url] Conspiracy theories Many at the time felt that Robert Cecil, 1st Earl of Salisbury had been involved in the plot to curry favour with the king and enact more stridently anti-Catholic legislation. Such theories alleged that Cecil had either actually invented the plot or allowed it to continue when his agents had already infiltrated it, for the purposes of propaganda. These rumours were the start of a long-lasting conspiracy theory about the plot. Yet while there was no "golden time" of "toleration" of Catholics which Father Garnet had hoped for at the start of James' reign, the legislative backlash had nothing to do with the plot: it had already happened by 1605, as recusancy fines were re-imposed and some priests expelled. There was no purge of Catholics from power and influence in the kingdom after the Gunpowder Plot, despite Puritan complaints. The reign of James I was, in fact, a time of relative leniency for Catholics, few being subject to prosecution.[16] This did not dissuade some from continuing to claim Cecil's involvement in the plot. Father John Garrett, namesake of a Jesuit priest who had performed Mass to some of the plotters, wrote an account alleging Cecil's culpability in 1897, prompting a swift refutation a year later by the eminent historian S.R. Gardiner, who argued that Garrett had gone too far in trying to "wipe away the reproach" which the plot had exacted on generations of English Catholics.[17] Gardiner portrayed Cecil as guilty of nothing more than opportunism. Subsequent attempts to prove Cecil's responsibility, such as Francis Edwards's 1969 work, have similarly foundered on the lack of positive proof of any government involvement in setting up the plot.[18] There has been little support by historians for the conspiracy theory since this time, other than to acknowledge that Cecil may have known about the plot some days before it was uncovered. However, with many Internet websites suggesting Cecil's full involvement and postulating a profusion of theories, the idea lives on. It is unlikely that either side will ever produce the evidence needed to convince the other of the veracity of their respective arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan Posted February 7, 2009 Author Share Posted February 7, 2009 [quote name='TotusTuusMaria' post='1774253' date='Feb 6 2009, 09:22 PM']Shh Cecil... I mean Hassan.[/quote] Where are the moderate Catholics who will protest Papist terrorism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TotusTuusMaria Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 [quote name='Hassan' post='1774259' date='Feb 6 2009, 09:30 PM']Where are the moderate Catholics who will protest Papist terrorism? [/quote] Papal terrorism? Cecilians and secret-muslims... always trying to make us Catholics look bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TotusTuusMaria Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 [quote name='Hassan' post='1774257' date='Feb 6 2009, 09:27 PM']I know little about the whole deal, I have never heard such a thing before, I found something about you theory in Wikipedia. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_Plot#cite_note-15"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_Plot#cite_note-15[/url] Conspiracy theories Many at the time felt that Robert Cecil, 1st Earl of Salisbury had been involved in the plot to curry favour with the king and enact more stridently anti-Catholic legislation. Such theories alleged that Cecil had either actually invented the plot or allowed it to continue when his agents had already infiltrated it, for the purposes of propaganda. These rumours were the start of a long-lasting conspiracy theory about the plot. Yet while there was no "golden time" of "toleration" of Catholics which Father Garnet had hoped for at the start of James' reign, the legislative backlash had nothing to do with the plot: it had already happened by 1605, as recusancy fines were re-imposed and some priests expelled. There was no purge of Catholics from power and influence in the kingdom after the Gunpowder Plot, despite Puritan complaints. The reign of James I was, in fact, a time of relative leniency for Catholics, few being subject to prosecution.[16] This did not dissuade some from continuing to claim Cecil's involvement in the plot. Father John Garrett, namesake of a Jesuit priest who had performed Mass to some of the plotters, wrote an account alleging Cecil's culpability in 1897, prompting a swift refutation a year later by the eminent historian S.R. Gardiner, who argued that Garrett had gone too far in trying to "wipe away the reproach" which the plot had exacted on generations of English Catholics.[17] Gardiner portrayed Cecil as guilty of nothing more than opportunism. Subsequent attempts to prove Cecil's responsibility, such as Francis Edwards's 1969 work, have similarly foundered on the lack of positive proof of any government involvement in setting up the plot.[18] There has been little support by historians for the conspiracy theory since this time, other than to acknowledge that Cecil may have known about the plot some days before it was uncovered. However, with many Internet websites suggesting Cecil's full involvement and postulating a profusion of theories, the idea lives on. It is unlikely that either side will ever produce the evidence needed to convince the other of the veracity of their respective arguments. [/quote] Wiki is written by bias sources, no doubt secret muslims. I am with the Cecil thing until the questions have been answered. However, we can't truly for real say ever... so says the book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TotusTuusMaria Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 (edited) [quote]There was no purge of Catholics from power and influence in the kingdom after the Gunpowder Plot, despite Puritan complaints. The reign of James I was, in fact, a time of relative leniency for Catholics, few being subject to prosecution.[16][/quote] James broke the treaty with Ireland and enforced the Act of Uniformity, which required for everyone to attend Anglican services, so says the book. And this was after the gunpowder plot. [quote]There has been little support by historians for the conspiracy theory since this time, other than to acknowledge that Cecil may have known about the plot some days before it was uncovered.[/quote] If that is the case he should have been called a conspirator too! Edited February 7, 2009 by TotusTuusMaria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan Posted February 7, 2009 Author Share Posted February 7, 2009 [quote name='TotusTuusMaria' post='1774264' date='Feb 6 2009, 09:36 PM']James broke the treaty with Ireland and enforced the Act of Uniformity, which required for everyone to attend Anglican services, so says the book. And this was after the gunpowder plot. If that is the case he should have been called a conspirator too![/quote] More Cathofascist excuses, trying to cover up a history of Papo terror Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TotusTuusMaria Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Hassan' post='1774270' date='Feb 6 2009, 09:48 PM']More Cathofascist excuses, trying to cover up a history of Papo terror [/quote] More secret muslim cover-up trying to slander the churches beautiful history of peacefulness Edited February 7, 2009 by TotusTuusMaria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan Posted February 7, 2009 Author Share Posted February 7, 2009 [quote name='TotusTuusMaria' post='1774272' date='Feb 6 2009, 09:52 PM']More secret muslim cover-up trying to slander the churches beautiful history of peacefulness [/quote] *Sigh* CSG, I honestly don't have time for your petty anti Uzbek rantings, I have a serious personal problem I'm trying to work through. [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=90361"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=90361[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TotusTuusMaria Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Hassan' post='1774279' date='Feb 6 2009, 11:03 PM']*Sigh* CSG, I honestly don't have time for your petty anti Uzbek rantings, I have a serious personal problem I'm trying to work through. [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=90361"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=90361[/url][/quote] Oh yeah, making sick people feel guilty because you have managed to get butter all over yourself and haven't discovered the sink. Edited February 7, 2009 by TotusTuusMaria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan Posted February 7, 2009 Author Share Posted February 7, 2009 [quote name='TotusTuusMaria' post='1774285' date='Feb 6 2009, 10:09 PM']Oh yeah, making sick people feel guilty because you have managed to get butter all over yourself and haven't discovered the sink. [/quote] Why are you being so cruel to me? All I've ever wanted is to make people happy and dominate the world via an iron handed dictatorship. Is that so wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now