Guy Fawkes

[Mike Christ]

Wintour introduced Fawkes to Robert Catesby, who planned to assassinate King James I and restore a Catholic monarch to the throne.  The plotters secured the lease to an undercroft beneath the House of Lords, and Fawkes was placed in charge of the gunpowder they stockpiled there. Prompted by the receipt of an anonymous letter, the authorities searched Westminster Palace during the early hours of 5 November, and found Fawkes guarding the explosives. Over the next few days, he was questioned and tortured, and eventually he broke. Immediately before his execution on 31 January, Fawkes jumped from the scaffold where he was to be hanged and broke his neck, thus avoiding the agony of the mutilation that followed.

In other words, Fawkes did not represent anarchy, he represented terrorism; thoughts?

[1715458374]

1715458374

[1715458374]

1715458374

[Lethn]

Well pretty much, depends on how you define terrorism but I'd say he was, he was also in favour of a monarchy so he was a follower of monarchism rather than anarchism. The reason I bring up the terrorist definition is because if you look at history you'll find that the United Nations members etc. have declared people terrorists that we used to call Freedom Fighters, I am of course talking about the Taliban and Al Qaeda. I've forgotten their previous names but they weren't previously called what they are now, different organisations but when they were fighting the Russians who invaded Afghanistan the U.S actually supported them and actively gave them weaponry and explosives.

There are also the Mujahadeen ( translated is supposed to mean "Those who sacrifice" ) and while the media loves telling us how all these groups are just suicide bombers they remind me a bit of the Samurai back in the day where they don't necessarily deliberately go out to kill themselves but they'll fight to the death or will kill themselves if they are ordered to, which again is a misconception that the Americans had against the Japanese. In short, it all depends on your perspective it's so easy to get sucked into the side that your born into because that's just easier but if you start looking further into history you'll see the exact same patterns and misconceptions repeating themselves in different ways, sometimes it's all the same but with just different names too.

[dank]

The message I got out of V for Vendetta was equality and unity, anarchy.

^ Yeah, subject to perception.

[Merralea]

The term "terrorism" is...not useful to me.
But yeah, Fawkes was just some random Catholic that wanted a Catholic England. Not an anarchist or anything special, just some violent fool.
The Time Warner appreciation masks are a whole other story.

[Carlton Banks]

Even the history recorded in yesterdays newspapers was overwhelmingly distorted, do you think that in the 400 years since the Gunpowder Plot, that there could have been distortion of Guy Fawkes intentions?

I read about this on zerohedge, apparently the monarchy from Elizabeth 1st through to James 1st, who was the reigning monarch at the time of The Plot, were spending and borrowing much faster than they could collect tax. There were taxes on beards, windows, incorrect clothing etc. Seems possible that your average English revolutionary might have had some legitimate political complaints besides the protestant/catholic thing.

Then there's the whole "Guy Fawkes was Italian" thing, as if that being true would lend support to the idea of it being a Catholics vs Protestants situation.

Another thing that stands out is the traditions that came out of it: one was burning effigies of Guy Fawkes on November the 5th. I wonder who started that tradition up.

The other tradition is the "Remember, remember..." childrens rhyme. That's more ambiguous in it's possible intent and origins, but maybe that's the point. It tells the listener both to remember, and never to forget. But it doesn't explain why. I don't know if there are some other lines to the rhyme that do explain, but it seems unlikely that any such lines explain the reason unambiguously, as the writer claims to "know of no reason why" in the second line. So maybe the point of it to communicate the idea that there is some secret or controversy surrounding the reason to remember.

[Mike Christ]

Even the history recorded in yesterdays newspapers was overwhelmingly distorted, do you think that in the 400 years since the Gunpowder Plot, that there could have been distortion of Guy Fawkes intentions?

I read about this on zerohedge, apparently the monarchy from Elizabeth 1st through to James 1st, who was the reigning monarch at the time of The Plot, were spending and borrowing much faster than they could collect tax. There were taxes on beards, windows, incorrect clothing etc. Seems possible that your average English revolutionary might have had some legitimate political complaints besides the protestant/catholic thing.

Then there's the whole "Guy Fawkes was Italian" thing, as if that being true would lend support to the idea of it being a Catholics vs Protestants situation.

Another thing that stands out is the traditions that came out of it: one was burning effigies of Guy Fawkes on November the 5th. I wonder who started that tradition up.

The other tradition is the "Remember, remember..." childrens rhyme. That's more ambiguous in it's possible intent and origins, but maybe that's the point. It tells the listener both to remember, and never to forget. But it doesn't explain why. I don't know if there are some other lines to the rhyme that do explain, but it seems unlikely that any such lines explain the reason unambiguously, as the writer claims to "know of no reason why" in the second line. So maybe the point of it to communicate the idea that there is some secret or controversy surrounding the reason to remember.

You bring up a good point; history is written by the victors.  The scenario presented is very common throughout history; when an empire needs a massive military to conquer other nations, they borrow far more than they could ever hope to pay back, tax with the only hopes of paying off the interest, and devalue their issued currency for a transfer of wealth from the users to the state; this is certainly not going unnoticed today, even with the intentionally complex system, and I have no doubt this wasn't nearly as hidden in his day; then again, there was no need to, since the people of this time period were, on average, very simple.  However, Fawkes's intentions, even if the history is fabricated to some degree, are clear; even if he wasn't intending to restore a monarch, if it's true that he was intending to kill one, he would still not be accomplishing anything great, since a new monarch was bound to have taken the throne anyway; once a state is deeply ingrained into the minds of its people, it's fruitless to attempt to root it out through killing the figurehead; they just seek another monarch who will, especially after the point of no return, continue the last monarch's plot.

Remember remember the fifth of November
Gunpowder, treason and plot.
I see no reason why gunpowder, treason
Should ever be forgot...

It seems as though it's a warning to rulers who perform poorly that nobody forgets what could happen; reminds me of this quote:

"I don't think we should be governing ourselves. What need is a king, and every now and then if the king’s not doing a good job, we kill him." -- George Carlin

[Carlton Banks]

I think that's part of what makes the rhyme's mysterious intent so powerful, there are likely several ways of interpreting the meaning.

As for Guy Fawkes' plan not being so great, I think that's a given, seeing as he didn't even succeed in step 1. I wonder what step 2 would have been though, could it have been possible he was trying to fire the first shot in a war against the monarchy? Or against all the structures of the ruling class? It was perhaps no coincidence that he was blowing up the Houses of Parliament at the same time that the King and the parliamentary representatives were all there, surely there could have been a slightly less high stakes opportunity to simply kill the King.

Edit: Another ruling class classic is to portray political tensions as religious conflicts, kind of familiar throughout history as well as in today's world too.

Difficult to get much conclusive out of this kind of speculation, but I'm still more happy keeping the case open rather than confirming it closed.