Post by Storm on Nov 4, 2006 21:56:24 GMT
It's that time of year, the anniversary of Britain's most notorious terrorist attack, so of course our eyes are filled with coloured lights, our ears are filled with loud bangs and shrieks, and burned gunpowder fills our nostrils.
Three things I was wanting to discuss.
PART 1.
I was wondering whether people here think possession of fireworks should be regulated, as there's no doubt some kids misuse them terribly. Some of them really think that fireworks are toys.
PART 2.
As it's a celebration of a man being hanged, drawn and quartered for being a Catholic, is the whole occasion offensive?
PART 3.
I thought I'd examine the conspiracy theory that surrounds the conspiracy facts and set a puzzle for people to think about.
I won't bother going into too many details of what definitely happened in November 1605, as I get the feeling you may just be aware of them already...
But there has been an argument running ever since just a few weeks after the conspirators were hanged, about whether there was more to the plot than we are told in the 'official version'.
The conspiracy theory runs that Robert Catesby, Guido Fawkes, Thomas Percy et al had been provoked into their action by an outside agency, some hidden figure who was hoping to rouse anti-Catholic feelings round the country. The man most frequently accused of involvement is King James I's chief advisor and Intelligencer, Sir Robert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury.
Cecil, who had inherited the mighty spy network of Sir Francis Walsingham, was the son of Elizabeth I's chief counsel, William Cecil, Lord Burleigh. Burleigh was one of the main plotters twenty years earlier who brought about Mary Queen of Scots' execution, and taught his son everything he knew about statecraft and espionage.
The theory goes that Cecil, renowned for his hatred of Catholicism, fielded agents provocateurs to coax Catesby and his friends into rebellion, hoping that catching them red-handed at the last minute would cause a fresh wave of public hysteria against Catholics, pressuring the new King, James I, into tightening laws against Catholicism.
This theory sounds a bit far-fetched at first glance, but there are some interesting aspects in the official version of how the plotters were captured that don't quite ring true.
The conspiracy was supposedly leaked on October 26th by way of an anonymous letter to an aristocratic 'church papist'{*} called William Parker, Lord Monteagle. The letter advised him not to attend the State Opening of Parliament on November the 5th as it was to be dealt an "unspecified blow." (Monteagle's brother-in-law, Francis Tresham, was one of the conspirators and is often assumed to be the man who wrote the letter.) Monteagle, who was himself under suspicion of involvement in pro-Catholic conspiracies, and spotting a chance to win new favour with the King, brought the letter to Cecil, who supposedly didn't understand its meaning. So a few days later he took it to the King himself.
The King, the only one equipped by God with the wisdom to see any threat to the stability of his realm, immediately identified the explosive secondary meaning to the word "blow", scolded Cecil for missing it, and commanded a full search of the cellars and apartments around Westminster.
And so, the night before Parliament was to open, Cecil sent in guards to scour the cellars and found Fawkes ready to light the fuse that would trigger enough gunpowder to destroy the Houses of Parliament twenty times over.
On November the 8th, after three days of agonising torture and interrogation, Fawkes finally buckled and implicated his fellow conspirators, who the previous day had retreated to Catesby's home in the Midlands, Holbeche House, where they prepared to make a stand against the Government reprisals that they knew would soon be aimed at them; having discovered that their remaining stock of gunpowder for arming their guns with was soaked, they chose, idiotically, to try and dry it out in front of an open fire. The resulting flash-blast of flame somehow failed to kill any of them, although it inflicted some painful wounds.
The next morning the Sheriff of Worcester and his militia arrived at Holbeche and surrounded the house, where, in a brutally brief battle, Catesby, Percy and John and Kit Wright were all killed, three other plotters were captured and whisked off to the Tower of London, and the remaining five escaped only to be hunted down one at a time over the course of the next few weeks.
Can you spot the flaws and implausible elements in the official version of what happened? And what theories do you have to account for them?
{*} 'Church papist' is a derogatory term meaning a practising Catholic pretending to be a Protestant conformist in order to advance his social standing.
Three things I was wanting to discuss.
PART 1.
I was wondering whether people here think possession of fireworks should be regulated, as there's no doubt some kids misuse them terribly. Some of them really think that fireworks are toys.
PART 2.
As it's a celebration of a man being hanged, drawn and quartered for being a Catholic, is the whole occasion offensive?
PART 3.
I thought I'd examine the conspiracy theory that surrounds the conspiracy facts and set a puzzle for people to think about.
I won't bother going into too many details of what definitely happened in November 1605, as I get the feeling you may just be aware of them already...
But there has been an argument running ever since just a few weeks after the conspirators were hanged, about whether there was more to the plot than we are told in the 'official version'.
The conspiracy theory runs that Robert Catesby, Guido Fawkes, Thomas Percy et al had been provoked into their action by an outside agency, some hidden figure who was hoping to rouse anti-Catholic feelings round the country. The man most frequently accused of involvement is King James I's chief advisor and Intelligencer, Sir Robert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury.
Cecil, who had inherited the mighty spy network of Sir Francis Walsingham, was the son of Elizabeth I's chief counsel, William Cecil, Lord Burleigh. Burleigh was one of the main plotters twenty years earlier who brought about Mary Queen of Scots' execution, and taught his son everything he knew about statecraft and espionage.
The theory goes that Cecil, renowned for his hatred of Catholicism, fielded agents provocateurs to coax Catesby and his friends into rebellion, hoping that catching them red-handed at the last minute would cause a fresh wave of public hysteria against Catholics, pressuring the new King, James I, into tightening laws against Catholicism.
This theory sounds a bit far-fetched at first glance, but there are some interesting aspects in the official version of how the plotters were captured that don't quite ring true.
The conspiracy was supposedly leaked on October 26th by way of an anonymous letter to an aristocratic 'church papist'{*} called William Parker, Lord Monteagle. The letter advised him not to attend the State Opening of Parliament on November the 5th as it was to be dealt an "unspecified blow." (Monteagle's brother-in-law, Francis Tresham, was one of the conspirators and is often assumed to be the man who wrote the letter.) Monteagle, who was himself under suspicion of involvement in pro-Catholic conspiracies, and spotting a chance to win new favour with the King, brought the letter to Cecil, who supposedly didn't understand its meaning. So a few days later he took it to the King himself.
The King, the only one equipped by God with the wisdom to see any threat to the stability of his realm, immediately identified the explosive secondary meaning to the word "blow", scolded Cecil for missing it, and commanded a full search of the cellars and apartments around Westminster.
And so, the night before Parliament was to open, Cecil sent in guards to scour the cellars and found Fawkes ready to light the fuse that would trigger enough gunpowder to destroy the Houses of Parliament twenty times over.
On November the 8th, after three days of agonising torture and interrogation, Fawkes finally buckled and implicated his fellow conspirators, who the previous day had retreated to Catesby's home in the Midlands, Holbeche House, where they prepared to make a stand against the Government reprisals that they knew would soon be aimed at them; having discovered that their remaining stock of gunpowder for arming their guns with was soaked, they chose, idiotically, to try and dry it out in front of an open fire. The resulting flash-blast of flame somehow failed to kill any of them, although it inflicted some painful wounds.
The next morning the Sheriff of Worcester and his militia arrived at Holbeche and surrounded the house, where, in a brutally brief battle, Catesby, Percy and John and Kit Wright were all killed, three other plotters were captured and whisked off to the Tower of London, and the remaining five escaped only to be hunted down one at a time over the course of the next few weeks.
Can you spot the flaws and implausible elements in the official version of what happened? And what theories do you have to account for them?
{*} 'Church papist' is a derogatory term meaning a practising Catholic pretending to be a Protestant conformist in order to advance his social standing.
That's FAR too early, I mean I know some people like to take time to prepare a firework display but come on...I think the middle of October is early enough. I've noticed signs in town asking for ID when buying fireworks (must be over 21) but I wouldn't be surprised if teenagers were still able to buy them without being asked proof of age 
The sale of them should be as strict as possible IMO.
. Years ago people only bought fireworks for proper displays but now ...