Thread 18138459

Now that the purely hypothetical satire dust has settled, did he go far enough?

What else could he have done to maximize effect on target?

For that matter, what was the next step in his master plan?
What do you do when the entire parliament and king have had their body parts scattered across a broad swathe of the city of London?
Did he even have a plan, or was he more like a dog chasing a car?

>>18138459 (OP)
destroy Parliament, create political chaos, start a catholic uprising in the midlands, kidnap the 9 year old Princess Elizabeth from Coom Abbey and install her as a puppet monarch, attempt to consolidate power, and Fawkes if he survived was to go to the continent to explain what just happened and get foreign backing. The plan relied on a rapid, popular response from a large population of angry midlands catholics ready to throw off the protestant yoke that in reality never existed. Which is one reason the plot, once discovered, collapsed so quickly.

>>18138488
What? I thought Guy Fawkes was a crazy, authoritarian Puritan that was upset because the crazy, authoritarian, Puritan government wasn’t crazy, authoritarian, or Puritan enough?

>>18138493
Uh, no. The gunpowder plot was about creating a catholic theocracy in England. It had nothing to do with the puritans. You're probably thinking of Oliver Cromwell who was the head of a military junta for several decades during the English civil war period. He was a brutally repressive puritan who banned things like theater, dancing, and even fucking christmas.

>>18138504
>creating a catholic theocracy in England

Is that what existed before Henry VIII?

>>18138504
Based Cromwell and based Puritans.

>>18138585
That's why it was retarded. It would have probably just caused even more extreme versions of Protestantism to take control.

>>18138504
no wonder these people imported half of pakistan

>>18138585
Something like it existed for the brief period before God sent mary to hell

>>18138679
The only thing Bloody Mary did wrong was not executing more people than Elizabeth did.

>>18138709
You'll get to meet her if you don't repent.

>>18138709
She killed a lot more than her per year and would have killed many more if not struck down

>angry about religious intolerance
>go join the spanish army in the netherlands

>>18138714
Repent from what exactly?
Being objective correct about literally everything?

>>18138717
Sauce.

>>18138731
John Foxe lists 300 executions, a number Elizabeth would have to match with 2700 executions for her 45 year old reign to be as bloody

>>18138745
>Foxe

"What a hypocrite, then, must that man he, who pretends to believe in this Fox! Yet, this infamous book has, by the arts of the plunderers and their descendants, been circulated to a boundless extent amongst the people of England, who have been taught to look upon all the thieves, felons, and traitors, whom Fox calls "Martyrs," as sufferers resembling St. Stephen, St. Peter, and St. Paul!

249. The real truth about these "Martyrs," is, that they were, generally, a set of most wicked wretches, who sought to destroy the Queen and her Government, and under the pretence of conscience and superior piety, to obtain the means of again preying upon the people. No mild means could reclaim them: those means had been tried: the Queen had to employ vigorous means, or, to suffer her people to continue to be torn by the religious factions, created, not by her, but by her two immediate predecessors, who had been aided and abetted by many of those who now were punished, and who were worthy of ten thousand deaths each, if ten thousand deaths could have been endured. They were, without a single exception, apostates, perjurers, or plunderers; and, the greater part of them had also been guilty of flagrant high treason against Mary herself, who had spared their lives; but whose lenity they had requited by every effort within their power to overset her authority and the Government. To make particular mention of all the ruffians that perished upon this occasion, would be a task as irksome as it would be useless; but, there were amongst them, three of CRANMER's Bishops and himself! For, now, justice, at last, overtook this most mischievous of all villains, who had justly to go to the same stake that he had unjustly caused so many others to be tied to; the three others were HOOPER, LATIMER, and RIDLEY, each of whom was, indeed, inferior in villany to CRANMER, but to few other men that have ever existed."

>>18138797
250. HOOPER was a MONK; he broke his vow of celibacy and married a Flandrican; be, being the ready tool of the Protector Somerset, whom he greatly aided in his plunder of the churches, got two Bishoprics, though he himself had written against pluralities; he was a co-operator in all the monstrous cruelties inflicted on the people, during the reign of Edward, and was particularly active in recommending the use of German troops to bend the necks of the English to the Protestant yoke. LATIMER began his career, not only as a Catholic priest, but as a most furious assailant of the Reformation religion. By this he obtained from Henry VIII. the Bishopric of Worcester. He next changed his opinions; but he did not give up his Catholic Bishopric! Being suspected, he made abjuration of Protestantism; he thus kept his Bishopric for twenty years, while he inwardly reprobated the principles of the Church, and which Bishopric he held in virtue of an oath to oppose, to the utmost of his power, all dissenters from the Catholic Church; in the reigns of Henry and Edward he sent to the stake Catholics and Protestants for holding opinions, which he himself had before held openly, or that he held secretly at the time of his so sending them. Lastly, he was a chief both in the hands of the tyrannical Protector SOMERSET in that black and unnatural act of bringing his brother Lord THOMAS SOMERSET, to the block, RIDLEY had been a Catholic bishop in the reign of Henry VIII., when he sent to the stake Catholics who denied the King's supremacy, and Protestants, who denied transubstantiation. In Edward's reign he was a Protestant bishop, and denied transubstantiation himself; and then he sent to the stake Protestants who differed from the creed of CRANMER.

>>18138799
...

He, in Edward's reign, got the Bishopric of London by a most roguish agreement to transfer the greater part of its possessions to the rapacious ministers and courtiers of that day. Lastly, he was guilty of high treason against the Queen, in openly (as we have seen in paragraph 220 ), and from the pulpit, exhorting the people to stand by the usurper Lady JANE; and thus endeavouring to produce civil war and the death of his sovereign, in order that he might, by treason, be enabled to keep that bishopric which he had obtained by simony, including perjury.


251. ... "SAINT" MARTIN LUTHER, who says, in his own work, that it was by the arguments of the Devil (who, he says, frequently ate, drank, and slept with him) that he was induced to turn Protestant: three worthy followers of that LUTHER, who is, by his disciple MELANCTHON, called "a brutal man, void of piety and humanity, one more a Jew than a Christian:" three followers altogether worthy of this great founder of that Protestantism, which has split the world into contending sects: but, black as these are, they bleach the moment CRANMER appears in his true colours. But, alas! where is the pen, or tongue, to give us those colours! Of the 65 years that he lived, and of the 35 years of his manhood, 29 years were spent in the commission of a series of acts, which, for wickedness in their nature and for mischief in their consequences, are absolutely without any thing approaching to a parallel in the annals of human infamy. Being a fellow of a college at Cambridge, and having, of course, made an engagement (as the fellows do to this day), not to marry while he was a fellow, he married secretly, and still enjoyed his fellowship. While a married man he became at priest, and took the oath of celibacy; and, going to Germany, he married another wife, the daughter of a Protestant "saint;" so that he had now two wives at one time, though his oath bound him to have no wife at all.

>>18138809

He, as Archbishop, enforced the law of celibacy, while he himself secretly kept his German frow in the palace at Canterbury, having, as we have seen in paragraph 104 , imported her in a chest. He, as ecclesiastical judge, divorced Henry VIII. from three wives, the grounds of his decision in two of the cases being directly the contrary of those which he himself had laid down when he declared the marriages to be valid; and, in the case of ANNE BOLEYN, he, as ecclesiastical judge, pronounced, that Anne had never been the King's wife; while, as a member of the House of Peers, he voted for her death, as having been an adulteress, and, thereby, guilty of treason to. her husband. As Archbishop under Henry (which office he entered upon with a premeditated false oath on his lips) he sent men and women to the stake because they were not Catholics, and he sent Catholics to the stake, because they would not acknowledge the King's supremacy, and thereby perjure themselves as he had so often done. Become openly a Protestant, in Edward's reign, and openly professing those very principles, for the professing of which he had burnt others, he now burnt his fellow-Protestants, because their grounds for protesting were different from his. As executor for the will of his old master, Henry, which gave the crown (after Edward) to his daughters, Mary and Elizabeth, he conspired with others to rob those two daughters of their right, and to give the Crown to Lady JANE, that Queen of nine days, whom he, with others, ordered to be proclaimed. Confined, notwithstanding his many monstrous crimes, merely to the palace of Lambeth, he, in requital of the Queen's lenity, plotted with traitors in the pay of France to overset her government. Brought, at last, to trial and to condemnation as a heretic, he professed himself ready to recant. He was respited for six weeks, during which time he signed six different forms of recantation, each more ample than the former.

>>18138813
He declared that the Protestant religion was false; that the Catholic religion was the only true one; that he now believed in all the doctrines of the Catholic Church; that he had been a horrid blasphemer against the sacrament; that he was unworthy of forgiveness; that he prayed the People, the Queen and the POPE, to have pity on, and to pray for his wretched soul; and that he had made and signed this declaration without fear, and without hope of favour, and for the discharge of his con science, and as a warning to others. It was a question in the Queen's council, whether he should be pardoned, as other recanters had been; but it was resolved, that his crimes were so enormous that it would be unjust to let him escape; to which might have been added, that it could have done the Catholic Church no honour to see reconciled to it a wretch covered with robberies, perjuries, treasons and bloodshed. Brought, therefore, to the public reading of his recantation, on his way to the stake; seeing the pile ready, now finding that he must die, and carrying in his breast all his malignity undiminished, he recanted his recantation, thrust into the fire the hand that had signed it, and thus expired, protesting against that very religion in which, only nine hours before, he had called God to witness that he firmly believed!

252. And Mary is to be called the "Bloody", because she put to death monsters of iniquity like this! It is, surely, time to do justice to the memory of this calumniated Queen; and not to do it by halves, I must, contrary to my intention, employ part of the next Number in giving the remainder of her history.

The "fires of Smithfield" have a horrid sound; but, to say nothing about the burnings of Edward VI., Elizabeth, and James I., is it more pleasant to have one's bowels ripped out, while the body is alive (as was Elizabeth's favourite way), than to be burnt? Protestants have even exceeded Catholics in the work of punishing offenders of this sort. And, they have punished, too, with less reason on their side. The Catholics have one faith; the Protestants have fifty faiths: and yet, each sect, whenever it gets uppermost, punishes, in some way or other, the rest as offenders. Even at this very time, there are, according to a return, recently laid before the House of Commons, no less than fifty-seven persons, who have, within a few years, suffered imprisonment and other punishments added to it, as offenders against religion; and this, too, at a time, when men are permitted openly to deny the divinity of Christ, and others openly to preach in their synagogues, that there never was any Christ at all. A man sees the laws tolerate twenty sorts of Christians (as they all call themselves), each condemning all the rest to eternal flames; and, if, in consequence of this, he be led to express his belief, that they are all wrong, and that the thing they are disputing about is altogether something unreal, he may be punished with six years (or his whole life) of imprisonment in a loathsome gaol! Let us think of these things, when we are talking of the "bloody Queen Mary." The punishments now-a-days proceed from the maxim that "Christianity is part and parcel of the law of the land." When did it begin? Before, or since, the "Reformation"? And, who, amongst all these sects, which, it would seem, this law tolerates; which of them is to tell us; from which of them are we to learn, what Christianity is?

258. As to the mass of suffering, supposing the whole of the 277 persons, who suffered in the reign of Mary, to have suffered solely for the sake of religion instead of having been, like CRANMER and RIDLEY, traitors and felons as well as offenders on the score of religion; let us suppose the whole 277 to have suffered for offences against religion, did the mass of suffering surpass the mass of suffering; on this same account, during the reign of the late King? And, unless Smithfield and burning have any peculiar agony, any thing worse than death, to impart, did Smithfield ever witness so great a mass of suffering as the Old Bailey has witnessed, on account of offences against that purely Protestant invention, bank notes?

Perhaps this invention, expressly intended to keep out Popery, has cost ten times, if not ten times ten times, the blood that was shed in the reign of her, whom we still have the injustice, or the folly, to call the "bloody Queen Mary," all whose excellent qualities, all whose exalted virtues, all her piety, charity, generosity, sacred adherence to her faith and her word, all her gratitude, and even those feelings of anxiety for the greatness and honour of England, which feelings hastened her to the grave: all these, in which she was never equalled by any sovereign that sat on the English throne, ALFRED alone excepted, whose religion she sought to re-establish for ever; all these are to pass for nothing, and we are to call her the "bloody Mary," because it suits the views of those who fatten on the spoils of that Church which never suffered Englishmen to bear the odious and debasing name of pauper.

>>18138821
259. To the pauper and ripping-up reign we now come. This is the reign of "good Queen Bess." We shall, in a short time, see how good she was. The Act of Parliament, which is still in force, relative to the poor and poor-rates, was passed in the 43rd year of this reign; but, that was not the only act of the kind: there were eleven acts passed before that, in consequence of the poverty and misery, into which the "Reformation" had plunged the people. However, it is the last Number of my work which is to contain the history of the rise and progress of English pauperism, from the beginning of the "Reformation" down to the present time. At present I have to relate what took place with regard to the affairs of religion.

260. ELIZABETH, during the reign of her brother, had been a Protestant, and during the reign of her sister, a Catholic. At the time of her sister's death, she not only went to mass publicly; but, she had a Catholic chapel in her house, and also a confessor. These appearances had not, however, deceived her sister, who, to the very last, doubted her sincerity. On her death bed, honest and sincere Mary required from her a frank avowal of her opinions as to religion. Elizabeth, in answer, prayed God that the earth might open and swallow her, if she were not a true Roman Catholic She made the same declaration to the Duke of Feria, the Spanish envoy, whom she so completely deceived, that he wrote to Philip, that the accession of Elizabeth would make no alteration in matters of religion, in England. In spite of all this, it was not long before she began ripping up the bowels of her unhappy subjects, because they were Roman Catholics.

...

266. If these Acts of Parliament had stopped here, they would certainly have been bad and disgraceful enough. But such a change was not to be effected without blood. This Queen was resolved to reign: the blood of her people she deemed necessary to her own safety; and she never scrupled to make it flow. She looked upon the Catholic religion as her mortal enemy; and, cost what it might, she was resolved to destroy it, if she could, the means being, by her, those which best answered her end.

267. With this view, statutes the most bloody were passed. All persons were compelled to take the oath of supremacy, on pain of death. To take the oath of supremacy; that is to say, to acknowledge the Queen's supremacy in spiritual matters, was to renounce the POPE and the Catholic religion; or, in other words, to become an apostate. Thus was a very large part of her people at once condemned to death for adhering to the religion of their fathers; and moreover, for adhering to that very religion, in which she had openly lived till she became Queen, and to her firm belief in which she had sworn at her coronation!

>>18138830

268. ... it was made high treason in a priest to say mass; ... high treason in a priest to come into the kingdom from abroad; it was made high treason to harbour or to relieve a priest. And, on these grounds, and others of a like nature, hundreds upon hundreds were butchered in the most inhuman manner, being first hung up, then cut down alive, their bowels then ripped up, and their bodies chopped into quarters: and this, I again beg you, sensible and just Englishmen, to observe, only because the unfortunate persons were too virtuous and sincere to apostatize from that faith which this Queen herself had, at her coronation, in her coronation oath, solemnly sworn to adhere to and defend!

269. Having pulled down the altars, set up the tables; having ousted the Catholic priests and worship, and put in their stead a set of hungry, beggarly creatures, the very scum of the earth, with Cranmer's prayer-book amended in their hands; having done this, she compelled her Catholic subjects to attend in the churches under enormous penalties, which rose, at last, to death itself, in case of perseverance in refusal! Thus were all the good, all the sincere, all the conscientious people in the kingdom incessantly harassed, ruined by enormous fines, brought to the gallows, or compelled to flee from their native country. Thus was this Protestant religion watered with the tears and the blood of the people of England. Talk of Catholic persecution and cruelty! Where are you to find persecution and cruelty like this, inflicted by Catholic princes? Elizabeth put, in one way or another, more Catholics to death in one year, for not becoming apostates to the religion which she had sworn to be hers, and to be the only true one, than Mary put to death in her whole reign for having apostatized from the religion of her and their fathers, and to which religion she herself had always adhered.

>Elizabeth put more Catholics to death in one year than Mary put to death in her whole reign

>>18138824
>but muh Foxe sayth...
>NOOOOOOOO
>YUO CANNOT SIMPLY POST COBBETT VERBATIM

>CONSTABLE
>GIVE THIS RUFFIAN A STERN DRESSING DOWN

>>18138858
Oh if only Cobbett found himself in, say, 16th century Spain, I bet he would've found a decent appreciation for freedom of religious expression there

do catholics ever consider why there was so many prominent catholics in England to plot a coup in the heart of political power unlike catholic states like France and Austria?

>>18138655
Kek

>>18138459 (OP)
He shouldn’t have picked Guy Fawkes night to do his plan- that was asking for trouble