In the gunpowder plot 166- was Guy Fawkes framed?

Question

I cant remember which year its 166something and detailed answers please.

Answer 1

There was no doubt an attempt to blow up Parliament on November 5th 1605. But Guy Fawkes and his associates may have been caught in a Jacobean sting operation which would have served the authorities by casting Catholics, or Recusants, as an enemy to be pursued.

By the time Queen Elizabeth died, after ruling for about fifty years, most people only remembered living under her rule. When James I succeeded to the throne, many saw an opportunity for change. Those who felt particularly hard done by, both by Elizabeth I and James I, even felt that the situation was so bad as to require, in Fawkes' own words, "a desperate remedy": it was an opportunity to simply replace the current king.

These were unstable times indeed, with several smaller plots being discovered in the years preceding 1605. In fact, many of the Gunpowder plotters were known as traitors to the authorities. For this reason, it would have been difficult, if not unlikely, for them to gather 36 barrels of gunpowder and store them in a cellar under the house of Lords without the security forces getting suspicious.

Furthermore, the letter warning one of the members of government to stay away from Parliament is believed today to have been fabricated by the king's officials. Historians suggest that the King's officials already knew about the plot, that one of the plotters in fact revealed the key points of the plot to the authorities. The suspected turncoat? Francis Tresham.

The letter, then, would be a tool created by the King's officials to explain how, at the last minute, the king found out about the Plot and stopped it just before it wreaked its havoc on Parliament and himself. At the same time, the letter was vague enough to give the officials all the latitude they wanted in falsifying confessions and to pursue their own anti-Catholic ends.

There are two fundamental problems with the letter. Firstly, the letter was unsigned. Any and all of the conspirators, once apprehended, might have saved themselves from torture and perhaps even death if they could claim to have written it. None did. Not one of the conspirators who was caught appears to have known about the letter. Secondly, the letter was very vague in its content. It said nothing about the details of the planned attack. Still, the king and his men knew exactly the where and when to catch the conspirators and stop the explosion just hours before it was to take place.


ive just edited it now to tell you the person down below just coppyed me the nob

Answer 2

Fawkes and other conspirators planted 36 barrels of gunpowder underneath Parliament. The plot was foiled at the last minute on November 5th and Fawkes was burnt on a bonfire and we have bonfires every year to celebrate.

What is perhaps not as well known is that Fawkes was not the major conspirator. That dishonour belonged to Robert Catesby who enlisted Fawkes as all the other conspirators were known to the authorities, and if seen would arouse immediate suspicion. Fawkes planted the gunpowder on the instructions of Catesby, without knowing the full details of the plot.

Fawkes was the only person to be captured when the plot was uncovered, hence his name is given to Guy Fawkes Night and his effigy is ceremonially burnt. It was only when he was subjected to torture, that he revealed Catesby’s name.

Fawkes was an old boy of St Peter’s School of York, an ancient and venerable college, who celebrate Guy Fawkes Night with a bonfire, but burn no guy in deference to their former student.

Answer 3

There was no doubt an attempt to blow up Parliament on November 5th 1605. But Guy Fawkes and his associates may have been caught in a Jacobean sting operation which would have served the authorities by casting Catholics, or Recusants, as an enemy to be pursued.

By the time Queen Elizabeth died, after ruling for about fifty years, most people only remembered living under her rule. When James I succeeded to the throne, many saw an opportunity for change. Those who felt particularly hard done by, both by Elizabeth I and James I, even felt that the situation was so bad as to require, in Fawkes' own words, "a desperate remedy": it was an opportunity to simply replace the current king.

These were unstable times indeed, with several smaller plots being discovered in the years preceding 1605. In fact, many of the Gunpowder plotters were known as traitors to the authorities. For this reason, it would have been difficult, if not unlikely, for them to gather 36 barrels of gunpowder and store them in a cellar under the house of Lords without the security forces getting suspicious.

Furthermore, the letter warning one of the members of government to stay away from Parliament is believed today to have been fabricated by the king's officials. Historians suggest that the King's officials already knew about the plot, that one of the plotters in fact revealed the key points of the plot to the authorities. The suspected turncoat? Francis Tresham.

The letter,then, would be a tool created by the King's officials to explain how, at the last minute, the king found out about the Plot and stopped it just before it wreaked its havoc on Parliament and himself. At the same time, the letter was vague enough to give the officials all the latitude they wanted in falsifying confessions and to pursue their own anti-Catholic ends.

There are two fundamental problems with the letter. Firstly, the letter was unsigned. Any and all of the conspirators, once apprehended, might have saved themselves from torture and perhaps even death if they could claim to have written it. None did. Not one of the conspirators who was caught appears to have known about the letter. Secondly, the letter was very vague in its content. It said nothing about the details of the planned attack. Still, the king and his men knew exactly the where and when to catch the conspirators and stop the explosion just hours before it was to take place.

If fawkes was not set up, how would they have known?

Hope this is detailed enough for you!!!!

Answer 4

No, but many historians believe that he was set up in a 'sting' type of operation. Certainly the treatment he received after his capture ( which was really just a little too 'convenient' ) was about as bad as it got in those days, I won't go into details, it's my lunchtime.

He was probably a fairly naughty fellow, but personally I don't believe Guido was the great villain that he was made out to be. Cromwell and co. lopped Charlie I's noggin off, but we don't have a big shindig every year to commemorate it hundreds of years later, but "Remember, remember, the fifth of November"
still rolls around every year like clockwork, over three centuries after the event.

Answer 5

well some historians belive that guy fawkes was framed because the story the government told us sounds inccorect the bbc have good videos on this.The sotry to me sounds a bit like v for vendetta the government once again is lying to us twisting the truth from us and it still is happening today

Answer 6

Nick... how does that have anything to do with the american colonies? The best I found was that it was a celebrated day (Guy Fawkes Night) in pre-Revolution america. In Boston it had overtones of anti-authoritarianism.

Answer 7

5th November 1605, without a doubt historical records would make it sound like high treason. But, it was actually some guy who was on the (I would call it an assasination team) his cousin was in parliment on that night, so he wrote a letter to his cousin, inadvertantly uncovering the plot.

Answer 8

1605.

Security in the English Parliament was terrible. Somebody deserved a rocket.

Answer 9

Was The Gunpowder Plot Framed

Answer 10

No because he got caught but he was a betrayer though.