Remember, remember,If the Gunpowder Plot had succeeded, Queen Elizabeth II would have taken the throne in 1605. And Guy Fawkes might be regarded as a hero.
The fifth of November,
The Gunpowder Treason and Plot.
I see of no reason,
Why the Gunpowder Treason
Should Ever be Forgot.
Instead, the chances of ending the persecution/disfavoring of Catholics vanished. Catholics were viewed with official suspicion in England for another two hundred years.
Imagine how the participants of the American Revolution would be regarded today if the British had won the war.
7 comments:
In London two weeks ago, saw first episode of "Gunpowder," a BBC three-part dramatazation. It features Kit Hatingto from Game of Thrones as one of the protaganoists (not Guy)
Hope it shows up on Netflix or Amazon Prime.
That thought, doubting my opinions of the merit of each side in historical conflicts, has bothered me before.
But the Civil War, WWII and today's struggle against white supremacists has left me very, very comfortable in my choice of sides. Despite the tactics of both sides. Despite the hand-waving. Despite the distractions.
The Revolutionary War was far from clear, although the Colonists were more for (white) people's rights. The Crown got an awfully bad rap from ineffectual and corrupt representatives, as did plenty of the Colonies. That being said, English history has a spectacular array of conflicts and plots that had two equally distasteful, or sometimes appealing, sides. That England tended to lead the U.S. on changes such as banning slavery (1807-33 vs 1864/5) and women voting (1918 vs 1920), is often mitigated by little asterisk added to those dates. That these changes happened quickly in England was often due to the Parlimentary nature of its governance, where the U.S. had a longer gestation period for similar changes. Neither makes a compelling argument for a "better" side.
Elizabeth I not II . The red head came first.
Glenn
The core issue that led to the Revolutionary War, CP88, was the fact that Parliament refused to raise taxes in order to pay off the debt from the Seven Years' War (the "French and Indian War" here on the Colonial side of things). Between that and George III's imperial longings, which cost money, the Crown was broke. Raising money from the Crown colonies seemed to be an easy side-step around Parliament. Yeah, some easy...
No, Glenn, Elizabeth II is correct. Elizabeth I died in 1602/3 (depends which version of the calendar you use), succeeded by James I. The gunpowder plot aimed to kill James I and install his 9 year-old (Catholic) daughter as Elizabeth II in 1605.
Tux, agreed, Kings Rights versus Peoples Rights. So, if we're gonna use reconciliation to pass the budget the King, er, Donnie wishes, are we effectively sidestepping Parliament?
Post a Comment