| Mulopwepaul | 05 Nov 2009 12:01 p.m. PST |
Would destroying Westminster in 1605 indeed have substantively changed history in the way the conspirators seemed to hope? Given how spectacularly the Midlands revolt failed, is there sufficient reason to believe the explosives would have been correctly sited to ensure the death of James? Would Charles have been a more reasonable king if he had taken the throne after his father's assassination? |
| King Monkey | 05 Nov 2009 12:07 p.m. PST |
|
| Connard Sage | 05 Nov 2009 12:14 p.m. PST |
Would Charles have been a more reasonable king if he had taken the throne after his father's assassination? His own, judicial, assassination didn't serve alter his views on the divine right of kings. Why would his father's have made him more moderate? |
| Mulopwepaul | 05 Nov 2009 12:15 p.m. PST |
Now THAT's my idea of good experimental history! |
| Mulopwepaul | 05 Nov 2009 12:19 p.m. PST |
Charles I would have succeeded at age 5 into a regency, and his education would have been entirely controlled by Parliament. It's not unreasonable to think his rule would have been as much a product of Parliament as, say, George I. |
| Connard Sage | 05 Nov 2009 12:22 p.m. PST |
A Catholic Parliament, for that was the conspirators aim. That'll be the Catholic church that enshrined the divine right of kings in its doctrines… |
| Mulopwepaul | 05 Nov 2009 12:24 p.m. PST |
Charles would have succeeded after Henry Frederick, though, I am reminded. But Henry Frederick would only have been 11, and similarly constrained by a regency. |
| Mulopwepaul | 05 Nov 2009 12:26 p.m. PST |
But would blowing up Parliament have done anything to actually achieve a Catholic parliament? The Commons would have just elected new, angrier men, and the Lords would have been filled with heirs eager to show their filial piety by crushing Romanism. It would seem that both houses would have been rather radicalised against Catholicism than bent towards it by the mayhem of a successful Gunpowder Plot. |
| Mulopwepaul | 05 Nov 2009 12:34 p.m. PST |
Also, the Catholic Church took a dim view of Divine Right, at least as James had framed it in his writings; the Jesuit Suarez's refutations of James' pretensions were banned in England. In any event, Catholics who plot the assassination of their king cannot be seriously considered to be advocates of Divine Right in any meaningful sense. |
| Timbo W | 05 Nov 2009 1:10 p.m. PST |
I reckon the backlash against the Catholics would be the main result of 'Gunpowder, Treason and Plot' blowing up Parliament. Probably Puritans in control 30 years early? |
| Mulopwepaul | 05 Nov 2009 1:14 p.m. PST |
I can easily see a Puritan regency as a consequence of a successful Plot. Would that have prevented the Civil War? Would Charles, after such a regency, even have had the resources to attempt to thwart Parliament? |
| Nik Gaukroger | 05 Nov 2009 2:12 p.m. PST |
Who knows – but if old Guido and his friends would like to pop along and have another go with our current incumbents I think they'd have a lot of support ;-))) |
| The Black Tower | 05 Nov 2009 2:41 p.m. PST |
Britain didn't need another religious "Change of leadership" but perhaps it would have been more like the vicious 30 TYW rather than an early ECW? |
| MrDilly | 10 Nov 2009 12:30 a.m. PST |
Never mind the gun powder plot. Wish someone would blow it up now, so we an have a fresh start, we have a phrase up here in the North,that sums up all those "elected" people, "Bent as a nine bob note."
Feel better on this miserable grey November day now I've got that off my chest. |
