2007-11-08 23:20:30 · 12 answers · asked by ross x 6 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
This is one of the original government conspiricies...it was a put up job to besmirch the good name of catholicks (sic)
2007-11-08 23:35:16 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The short answer is that nobody knows. Blowing up Parliament and killing the king (James I/VI) would certainly have been problematic but ultimately might not have changed much. James would have been succeeded by a child which would probably have meant a Regency headed by his widow, Anne of Denmark and leading nobles of the realm.
Guy Fawkes and his cohorts wanted to kill the King because he was a Protestant and hoped to install a Catholic king. However, there would have been disagreement as to who this King should be. So that would probably have meant a Civil War, with different groups vying for power and then alternately killing their opponents, and so on and so forth.
2007-11-09 07:16:39 · answer #2 · answered by marguerite L 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
we'd have had a king henry IX - the highest number we have got to. :)
it's unlikely that there would have been a catholic uprising, too many people had made too much money out of the break with rome and the dissolution of the monasteries.
i think things would have settled down fairly quickly, after a backlash against catholics. i don't think we would have had the religious wars which france and middle europe had.
james' son henry would have been crowned king - and he was considered to be a promising young man.
http://www.npg.org.uk/live/search/person.asp?search=ss&sText=Henry+Prince+of+Wales&LinkID=mp02146
of course he was only 11 years old at the time, and there would have been a regency. if he had inherited the throne, he might have married at an earlier age and produced an heir, before he died at the age of 19. if so, charles would not have inherited the throne, and maybe the civil war would not have happened. (though i doubt this - it might just have been deferred, i think the clash was bound to happen. with the rise of absolute monarchies in europe, it is likely that the english king would have been influenced anyway.)
2007-11-10 10:26:45 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
sure I do! Up the Republic is what i think of. England Scotland Wales all self reliant international locations each and each with their own person parliament below a single unifying top residing house. and supply Ulster lower back to the Irish. Redunicorn the residences of Parliament Fawkes tried to explode weren't an analogous homes because of the fact the present one. however Im effective they have been 'amazing' too!
2016-10-01 23:10:27 · answer #4 · answered by sedgwick 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They would have built a housing development there and the control of the country moved to Edinburgh saving most of them the trouble to travel so far !
2007-11-08 23:38:59 · answer #5 · answered by witton ender 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
it would have probably just turned catholic against protestant and vice vesa as it was all about religion anyway.personaly i blame george bush as i haveit on good authourity that guy fawkes was his relation.
2007-11-09 21:31:44 · answer #6 · answered by fozz 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We'd have been a four Party nation.
Edit: and to the guy above me, the first answerer, nutcrapper aka crappymoose, aka pink braindead matter and any other 'new usernames' he dreams up, you're a clueless tw@.
2007-11-08 23:26:32 · answer #7 · answered by Blokheed 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
In the parallel that I live in he did and for about things were very differant but now my history is the same as yours
2007-11-08 23:27:02 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Maybe it would have been o.k. at first but eventually the nasties would control everything like they do now.
2007-11-08 23:29:58 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
mybe be less organized country..or guy fawkes could be the hero....or no tax in england?
2007-11-08 23:43:37 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋