Talk:Popish Plot

Untitled

For citations, one might use Cressy, Bonfires and Bells (Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1989). 68.166.239.67 (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I am currently researching this topic for a Western Civ. class. I hope to be adding content soon. --Rhopkin3 (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hibbard?

I deleted the reference to Carloline Hibbard's _Charles I and the Popish Plot_, since I believe her book uses the term "popish plot" to refer to plotting undertaken under Charles I, rather than the "Popish Plot" in the usual signification, which this article describes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.226.3 (talk) 03:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"Popish"

I think it looks a little silly putting Popish in quotation marks. The historical interest is that it was a conspiracy delusion, there was no plot of any sort. So to put one word in quotation marks is like writing "Jewish" conspiracy, when there is no conspiracy at all. In the 21st century, it is an historical term, not a statement of opinion. Can people cite reputable sources that put the word in quotation marks? William Quill (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Needed Expansion

Some aspects of the Plot need to be detailed in this article, among which are: The connexion between the plot and the exclusion crisis, the prosecution of Samuel Pepys in the plot, the details of how Titus Oates was discredited. I'm sure that more details are needed on many fronts, but these strike me as most needful. Gabrielthursday (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

A possible reference for some of the above is the Catholic Encyclopaedia article on this subject. Gabrielthursday (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Godfrey

It is very unlikely that Oates and Tonge assassinated him, although almost certain that the men hanged for the murder did not. Suicide is also unlikely as the marks upon his neck are not consistent with a suspension. John Dickson Carr and Alred Marks, inter alia, suggest that Philip Herbert, 7th Earl of Pembroke, on the basis of circumstantial evidence, was responsible. In the 17th century the top 4% of the population by income were responsible for 15% of homicides.--Streona (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC) The percentages are not proof that Herbert killed anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.49.24 (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No, but I thought it might be interesting.

Godfrey was foreman of the Middlesex Grand Jury who convicted Herbert of killing one Nathaniel Cony but Herbert appealed to his fellow Peerrs and was let out. The day he walked,Godfrey took a holiday in Montpelier for 2 months. He returned in September 1678 and was dead in October. Herbert had left injuries on Cony by stamping on his torso and similar injuries were found upon Godfrey. Herbert went on to murder a watchman called William Smeath and got off again by Royal Pardon, retiring to his estates where he kept 60 mastiffs and a gang of men as debauched as himself until drinking himself to death at the age of 30. All this represents circumstantial evidence only, but quite strong at that. If it were proof he could have been convicted.--Streona (talk) 17:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Treaty of Dover

To my mind the whole affair must be placed in the context of the Secret Treaty of Dover. Charles II agreed to convert to Catholocism & convert England, with the support of 6000 French Dragoons and to attack the Netherlands in return for money off the French. Shaftesbury found out from fellow Cabal minister Dlifford who had negotiated along with Danby.What could Shaftesbury do? If he accused the King of Treason he would be executed for the same offence. Nobody wanted another Civil War, so he resigned & formed the Kng's Head Club - later the Green Ribbon Club- of which Godfrey was a founder member. The Club campaigned to "save the King" from evil advior and Catholics plotting against him. This was simply coded reference to Charles own treachery and I suspect that most of the inner membership knew it- as did Charles. He sussed out Oates immediately. When he questioned him about the descriptions of people & places he knew in Europe and Oates claimed to have seen, he caught him out. Nonetheless innicent individual Catholics were scapegoated by Shaftesbury to thwart Charles's ambitions (which were later carried out - unsuccessfully by his brother James)and for Charles to save his own skin. In seeking to assassinate Charles and James in the Rye House Plot, Rumbold and the others were merely seeking the heads of the real traitors for whom so many innocent catholics were killed.--Streona (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Danby's involvement

I am not sure that the portrayal of the Earl of Danby (Thomas Osborne) is correct in this portion of the article: "Oates and Tonge were brought before the Privy Council later that month. The council interrogated Oates. On 28 September he made 43 allegations against various members of Catholic religious orders — including 541 Jesuits — and numerous Catholic nobles. He accused Sir George Wakeman, the queen's physician, and Edward Colman, the secretary to the Duchess of York (Mary of Modena), of planning to assassinate the king. Although Oates probably selected the names randomly or with the help of the Earl of Danby, Coleman was found to have corresponded with a French Jesuit, which condemned him. Wakeman was later acquitted.

Others Oates accused included Dr William Fogarty, Archbishop Peter Talbot of Dublin, Samuel Pepys, and Lord Belasyse. With the help of the Earl of Danby the list grew to 81 accusations. Oates was given a squad of soldiers and he began to round up Jesuits."

I am pretty sure that the person helping Oates to accuse (and judicially murder) these Catholics was Lord Anthony Ashley Cooper, the Earl of Shaftesbury. Anyone have a citation for either one of these lords helping Oates?

If a citation cannot be produced, I think we should eliminate the claim that any particular person helped compile the lists of those accused and revert simply to the number of people whom Oates claimed were involved.

Dmphistory (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Popish Plot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929091038/http://www.getcited.org/pub/101172415 to http://www.getcited.org/pub/101172415
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070523060216/http://www.companymagazine.org/v144/powder.html to http://www.companymagazine.org/v144/powder.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Tuberville

"Stafford, denied counsel, failed to exploit several inconsistencies in Tuberville's testimony, which a good lawyer might have turned to his client's advantage." This is the only mention of Tuberville -- who or what was he? 71.235.184.247 (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Background

There are a number of issues with the sections on background;

• Overly long in some areas; it doesn't need this level of detail in an article on the Popish Plot;
• Too short in others eg omits factors such James' conversion to catholicism, creating the prospect of a Catholic heir, the pro-French policies of Charles II and the Franco-Dutch War conducted by Louis against the Dutch, attempts to rule without Parliament etc etc.
• No references in the entire first paragraph (and not enough in the second);
• Several of the claims are dubious; eg

Elizabeth and later Protestant monarchs hanged and mutilated hundreds of Catholic priests and laymen. This, and her dubious legitimacy – she was the daughter of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn – led to Catholic powers not recognising her as queen and favouring her next relative, the Catholic Mary, Queen of Scots. That might be the excuse, it's very far from being the reason (plus, 'later Protestant monarchs' can hardly have been the reason for supporting Mary, since she'd been dead 15 years before James turned up);

Under the early Stuart Kings, fears of Catholic conspiracies were rampant and the policies of Charles I – especially his church policies, which had a decidedly high church bent; the suggestion this was the primary cause of the Civil War is not correct.

I'm happy to give it a go but wanted to make this visible for a start.

Robinvp11 (talk) 10:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Playing cards?

Not that I want it removed, but it's weird to have a "Gallery of playing cards" with no further context. The Commons data says they're from the mid-19th century, so not contemporary with the event. Were the cards a major part of the event's depiction in later memory, or is it just matter of not having other suitable illustrations? --BDD (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Denialism

Why does this article treat the Popish Plot as if it were "fictitious," an unfounded "conspiracy," and "hysteria," when there are no grounds to do so? It is intellectual dishonesty and historical revisionism to slap the label "fictitious" on something in an attempt to impugn its veracity with a single word. It is also inconsistent to treat this topic dishonestly while the Gunpowder Plot is reported honestly. As the 1605 Gunpowder Plot proved all too well, the British during the 1678 Popish Plot had plenty enough grounds to believe that the papacy could and would strike again. Guy Fawkes Day is ample evidence of British distrust of the Roman Catholic Church yet today, particularly of the Jesuits. Mary Surratt and the Lincoln assassination are additional proof that the papacy employs such Machiavellian tactics whenever they see fit to do so. Only people who don't know history will be fooled by this deliberate disingenuity. These terms need to be removed from the entire article. - JGabbard (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)