18 ms·

> I do remember as a child having a lot of sympathy for Fawkes and the others! It would surely be interesting to hear what could justify blowing up the parliam

> I do remember as a child having a lot of sympathy for Fawkes and the others! It would surely be interesting to hear what could justify blowing up the parliament and murdering royal family in a child's mind.

wwtrv 5y ago
If you simplify everything enough (as children tend to do) it’s not hard to see Guy Fawkes as a freedom trying to rekove a tyrannical government, rather than a religious zealot trying to replace it with an equally oppressive government (just towards a different group of people).
- TheMonarchist 5y ago
  Thanks! I see it now. I couldn't picture it in my mind as it is so contrary to what I know. > an equally oppressive government (just towards a different group of people). Could you expand on this? I contrast the then contemporary government against the reign of Bloody Mary, and it's hard to see how it could have been as bad as what Papists would surely have done.
  - qwytw 5y ago
    Of course I oversimplified, any government formed by the conspirators would had probably had to kill a lot more people to solidify their rule. Then again any attempt to impose a new religion by the central government would result in a lot of violence. While England was majority protestant by 1605, protestantism was largely violently imposed on a significant part of the English population whom wanted to remain catholic. While I don't want to downplay the persecutions that happened during Mary's reign they, they much like Guy Fawkes day or the "Spanish Black Legend" are to a some extent myths propagated by the protestant establishment over several hundreds of years. Protestants were mostly just as eager in persecuting heretics (not only catholics but also other protestants) as the catholics were. Even if they sometimes ended up killing less people I think it's more of a difference of degree rather than kind. I found https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/myth-bloody-mary-180974221/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/myth-bloody-mary-1809... quite interesting.
pbhjpbhj 5y ago
I don't recall unfortunately, however I suspect that as I often had run-ins (conflict over school regulations) with teachers that it was a reflection of anti-authoritarianism mixed with sympathy for the oppressed. To me the papists seemed like they just wanted to follow their own way (I don't know enough [now] to know if Catesby intended to usher in oppression by Catholics to replace the then oppression by Protestants/Royalists but that certainly didn't cross my mind at the time). Similarly, when learning about "priest holes" (places to hide a Catholic priest who came, presumably to lead mass, to your home) my sympathy was with those hiding. It never crossed my mind that they might effectively be plotting the otherthrow of the established order, only that they were oppressed and hunted down. I guess it's a first-order vs second-order level of thinking. Royals become royals by mass murder, then oppress the people they rule over. In France I would have been on the side of the revolutionaries for sure. You would side with the royals (and now I notice your username)?
- TheMonarchist 5y ago
  > Royals become royals by mass murder, then oppress the people they rule over. That way they wouldn't remain royals for long. At minimum they must keep their army loyal. One would imagine that they would prefer a good cause to fight for, so oppression must be justified to them somehow. It's easier to just avoid intentional oppression. > In France I would have been on the side of the revolutionaries for sure. You would side with the royals (and now I notice your username)? I guess so. Good things are easy to break but difficult to create.
- Lio 5y ago
  > Similarly, when learning about "priest holes" (places to hide a Catholic priest who came, presumably to lead mass, to your home) my sympathy was with those hiding. It never crossed my mind that they might effectively be plotting the otherthrow of the established order, only that they were oppressed and hunted down. As a kid we learned all about the priest holes and catholic persecution at my catholic school. Then when out with my parents I saw a large monument in a park to a group of people who where burned at the stake for openly practising their religion. More catholic persecution I thought. We're obviously the good guys being picked on by the bad guys. I was shocked to discover that it was protestant martyrs who'd been burnt at the stack by catholic fanatics. Before Guy Faulks the country had already flipped backwards and forwards between catholic and protestant absolute rulers. That was a wake up call for a young me that there are very few "good guys" involved in anything to do with absolute politics or absolute religion. Anyone you can't vote out is a tyrant, revolutionary or not. They will do horrific things simply because they can and no one can stop them. Absolute power corrupts absolute rulers absolutely.

wwtrv 5y ago

If you simplify everything enough (as children tend to do) it’s not hard to see Guy Fawkes as a freedom trying to rekove a tyrannical government, rather than a religious zealot trying to replace it with an equally oppressive government (just towards a different group of people).

TheMonarchist 5y ago
Thanks! I see it now. I couldn't picture it in my mind as it is so contrary to what I know. > an equally oppressive government (just towards a different group of people). Could you expand on this? I contrast the then contemporary government against the reign of Bloody Mary, and it's hard to see how it could have been as bad as what Papists would surely have done.
- qwytw 5y ago
  Of course I oversimplified, any government formed by the conspirators would had probably had to kill a lot more people to solidify their rule. Then again any attempt to impose a new religion by the central government would result in a lot of violence. While England was majority protestant by 1605, protestantism was largely violently imposed on a significant part of the English population whom wanted to remain catholic. While I don't want to downplay the persecutions that happened during Mary's reign they, they much like Guy Fawkes day or the "Spanish Black Legend" are to a some extent myths propagated by the protestant establishment over several hundreds of years. Protestants were mostly just as eager in persecuting heretics (not only catholics but also other protestants) as the catholics were. Even if they sometimes ended up killing less people I think it's more of a difference of degree rather than kind. I found https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/myth-bloody-mary-180974221/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/myth-bloody-mary-1809... quite interesting.

pbhjpbhj 5y ago

I don't recall unfortunately, however I suspect that as I often had run-ins (conflict over school regulations) with teachers that it was a reflection of anti-authoritarianism mixed with sympathy for the oppressed. To me the papists seemed like they just wanted to follow their own way (I don't know enough [now] to know if Catesby intended to usher in oppression by Catholics to replace the then oppression by Protestants/Royalists but that certainly didn't cross my mind at the time). Similarly, when learning about "priest holes" (places to hide a Catholic priest who came, presumably to lead mass, to your home) my sympathy was with those hiding. It never crossed my mind that they might effectively be plotting the otherthrow of the established order, only that they were oppressed and hunted down. I guess it's a first-order vs second-order level of thinking. Royals become royals by mass murder, then oppress the people they rule over. In France I would have been on the side of the revolutionaries for sure. You would side with the royals (and now I notice your username)?

TheMonarchist 5y ago
> Royals become royals by mass murder, then oppress the people they rule over. That way they wouldn't remain royals for long. At minimum they must keep their army loyal. One would imagine that they would prefer a good cause to fight for, so oppression must be justified to them somehow. It's easier to just avoid intentional oppression. > In France I would have been on the side of the revolutionaries for sure. You would side with the royals (and now I notice your username)? I guess so. Good things are easy to break but difficult to create.
Lio 5y ago
> Similarly, when learning about "priest holes" (places to hide a Catholic priest who came, presumably to lead mass, to your home) my sympathy was with those hiding. It never crossed my mind that they might effectively be plotting the otherthrow of the established order, only that they were oppressed and hunted down. As a kid we learned all about the priest holes and catholic persecution at my catholic school. Then when out with my parents I saw a large monument in a park to a group of people who where burned at the stake for openly practising their religion. More catholic persecution I thought. We're obviously the good guys being picked on by the bad guys. I was shocked to discover that it was protestant martyrs who'd been burnt at the stack by catholic fanatics. Before Guy Faulks the country had already flipped backwards and forwards between catholic and protestant absolute rulers. That was a wake up call for a young me that there are very few "good guys" involved in anything to do with absolute politics or absolute religion. Anyone you can't vote out is a tyrant, revolutionary or not. They will do horrific things simply because they can and no one can stop them. Absolute power corrupts absolute rulers absolutely.