NationStates Jolt Archive

Well I saw him mentioned in another thread. And I also have an interesting side to it, I saw an interesting arguement between two people.

Guy Fawkes was a Roman Catholic who was fed up with the British treatment of Roman Catholicism (suffice to say worse then bad) planned to show that he did not deserve to be discriminated against in such overt ways and was going to blow up the Parliament as a revolutionary sign of revenge and payback.

So does this make the man a martyr, revolutionary, traitor, or other?

Revolutionary.

Poll?

terrorist he wanted to overthrow the British protestants and create a catholic Britain (who would without doubt committed the same crimes as protestants)

Also he had a cross shaped house so he was clearly mad

In the strictest sense of the word, he is a traitor to the ruling power. However, I would not consider him a revolutionary, as he really wasn't supporting an alternative government. In my mind I would consider him a rebel, a person who saw an injustice, and took steps to "correct" the wrong, in this case blowing Parliament into the next century.

Then of course there is V, modeled after Guy Fawkes. Now HE would be a revolutionary, an individual who, while indeed battling blatent injustices, primarily sought anarchy, rather than simply righting a wrong.

terrorist he wanted to overthrow the British protestants and create a catholic Britain (who would without doubt committed the same crimes as protestants)

Also he had a cross shaped house so he was clearly mad


Ach, there wasn't much difference between Early Protestant England from the Catholic Inquestitions in Spain earlier on.

I still wonder each year on Guy Fawkes day which Brits are celebrating that they stopped him and which are emulating him by blowing shit up.

terrorist he wanted to overthrow the British protestants and create a catholic Britain (who would without doubt committed the same crimes as protestants)

In my history class we were told that he just wanted equal rights for Catholics...

Scape-goat for continued religious persecution?

So does this make the man a martyr, revolutionary, traitor, or other?

Simple answer? yes to all of the above, and then some.

Ach, there wasn't much difference between Early Protestant England from the Catholic Inquestitions in Spain earlier on.
Except for the fact that...
http://www.montypythonpages.com/pictures/spanish_inq.jpg
NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!!!

Did people ever expect the Early Protestant English...Inquisition?

In my history class we were told that he just wanted equal rights for Catholics...

It is good that all who want equal rights dont communicate their wishes Guy Fawkes stylee.

In my history class we were told that he just wanted equal rights for Catholics...

equal rights in religion were a long way away

It's what you get from an extremist government. Not sure I like his methods, but I think overall the failed attempt was a good thing. That period saw Britain end up leading the world in seperating religion from politics, a good thing I think.

Except for the fact that...
http://www.montypythonpages.com/pictures/spanish_inq.jpg
NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!!!

Did people ever expect the Early Protestant English...Inquisition?

I expected the Spanish Inquestion. I saw it coming from a mile away. Them and that damn chair of theirs.

As for Early Protestant English Inquestion...Meh...doesn't have the same ring to it.

Yes I also learned in school the Guy Fawkes was merely a man trying to achieve religious freedom so he could practice his faith in peace.

Yes I also learned in school the Guy Fawkes was merely a man trying to achieve religious freedom so he could practice his faith in peace.

Er...

So, his theory was that by blowing up parliment, he would be able to live in peace?

Er...

So, his theory was that by blowing up parliment, he would be able to live in peace?

Yes actually.

Yes actually.

Ah. My vote goes for raving loony then.

I still wonder each year on Guy Fawkes day which Brits are celebrating that they stopped him and which are emulating him by blowing shit up.

Blowing shit up!

Er...

So, his theory was that by blowing up parliment, he would be able to live in peace?

Twisted, huh? :D

I still wonder each year on Guy Fawkes day which Brits are celebrating that they stopped him and which are emulating him by blowing shit up.

There's no such thing as a bad excuse for pyrotechnics.

Er...

So, his theory was that by blowing up parliment, he would be able to live in peace?


Not quite I presume more in the direction of a statement that he was fed up at being treated like a second class animal of sorts and would abide by it no longer, nor would his fellow Catholics as you can see by various uprisings, notably the 1641 uprising in Ireland.

The Duke of Wellington was one of the few British able to see past the prejudices that were rampant in his country and initiated much needed reforms later on that granted Catholics the same rights as Protestants.

But even now the King/Queen of Britain cannot be a Roman Catholic, no idea what they will do today about it if it should ever happen, but it is in the law.

Guy's father, Edward, was staunchly protestant. Guy converted to Catholicism about the age of 16. He later served in the Spanish army fighting the Protestant Dutch.

The gunpowder plot was an attempt to assassinate King James I led by Robert Catesby (Hardly a protest in favour of religious freedom - for those that were taught this, your education has been corrupted somewhere.) As it was an attempt to kill the king, it has to be treason. (Regardless of your opinion of the king, or of monarchies in general)

Wiki on The Gunpowder Plot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_Plot)

Rebel. Aginst an incredibly injust system.

Yes but he as a Catholic could by the policy of the Roman Catholic Church at the time (the Catholic Church did not recognize James I as the rightful King, so the Church's subjects by default could neither) not recognize the King, so all he was killing was a pretender, how is this treason?

Yes he was fighting for political freedom. As he was fighting for the reinstitution of a Catholic Monarch or at least the removal of James the I, so it would be a lesson to his successor to quicken up the freedom of religion.

Yes but he as a Catholic could by the policy of the Roman Catholic Church at the time (the Catholic Church did not recognize James I as the rightful King, so the Church's subjects by default could neither) not recognize the King, so all he was killing was a pretender, how is this treason?

Yes he was fighting for political freedom. As he was fighting for the reinstitution of a Catholic Monarch or at least the removal of James the I, so it would be a lesson to his successor to quicken up the freedom of religion.

Completely wrong - historically and with regard to the concept of treason.

Starting with treason. This is a crime against the head of the state or nation of which you are a citizen or subject. It matters not what some foreign religious leader thinks, an attempt to kill the head of state is, by definition, treason. Now it may be justifiable, but it is still treason all the same.

As to the fighting for political freedom crap - it is just that - crap. There had been at the time a long standing battle in Europe between Catholic states and Protestant states. Neither of these sides accorded freedom of religion/politics to the other. So Guy Fawkes was just wanting to swap one authoritarian code that didn't suit him for another such code that did suit him. Ther was no altruistic intent of increasing political freedom, just pure personal self interest. (In the case of Guy, not even family interest.)

Er...

So, his theory was that by blowing up parliment, he would be able to live in peace?apt for time, people were still being burned for not belonging to the right religion so blowing up a building in protest isn't so extreme.

Well I saw him mentioned in another thread.Oh no. What have I done! :(

Well I saw him mentioned in another thread. And I also have an interesting side to it, I saw an interesting arguement between two people.

Guy Fawkes was a Roman Catholic who was fed up with the British treatment of Roman Catholicism (suffice to say worse then bad) planned to show that he did not deserve to be discriminated against in such overt ways and was going to blow up the Parliament as a revolutionary sign of revenge and payback.

So does this make the man a martyr, revolutionary, traitor, or other?
Those are all really the same thing, from different viewpoints. He was what he was, and all those labels are equally true. He was a martyr because he died for his religious beliefs (or planned to), he was a revolutionary because he tried to instigate change within his country, and was a traitor because he attempted an attack upon his country.

But yeah, most of all he was a moron. As if killing people would make them want to treat you better.

Well to some degree yes by killing change took place. It would be foolish to think that all the violence and unrest that took place in Ireland didn't contribute to the British not only giving up the idea of no longer forcing protestantism on them, or for that matter actually give equal rights eventually, and then in the end give Ireland the right to secede from the Empire. If Ireland would have just been queit and accepted it all, I doubt it would be as it is now.

A religious fanatic and a failure. He deserves no recognition.

I see him as a hero, one that should be emulated when the time calls for it.

-plots revenge against his own gov't- :eek:

terrorist he wanted to overthrow the British protestants and create a catholic Britain (who would without doubt committed the same crimes as protestants)

Also he had a cross shaped house so he was clearly mad
Interesting.
Did you know the Devil lives in Right-angles?