[oldfogey]

Today is 5th November when all of the UK celebrates "Guy Fawkes Day" by lighting bonfires with a dummy (called a "guy") on them and having firework displays to celebrate the fact that he and his religious extremist group failed to blow up the houses of parliament with explosives (gunpowder, hence gunpowder plot).

The particular religious extremists were Roman Catholics in a counter-reformation move against the protestant authorities of the day who persecuted practising Catholics.

It's good to remember both that terrorists are nothing new, and that one man's religious extremist is another man's freedom fighter.

Also that many years later, no one remembers why and just enjoys the social event.

[sheepofblue]

surely there is more involved than bonfires and explosives I mean down here they would have to add guns and alcohol

[nedro]

Was there really a Gunpowder Plot, or were the "conspirators" framed by the King?
There was no doubt an attempt to blow up Parliament on November 5th 1605. But Guy Fawkes and his associates may have been caught in a Jacobean sting operation which would have served the authorities by casting Catholics, or Recusants, as an enemy to be pursued.
By the time Queen Elizabeth died, after ruling for about fifty years, most people only remembered living under her rule. When James I succeeded to the throne, many saw an opportunity for change. Those who felt particularly hard done by, both by Elizabeth I and James I, even felt that the situation was so bad as to require, in Fawkes' own words, "a desperate remedy": it was an opportunity to simply replace the current king.
These were unstable times indeed, with several smaller plots being discovered in the years preceding 1605. In fact, many of the Gunpowder plotters were known as traitors to the authorities. For this reason, it would have been difficult, if not unlikely, that they could gather 36 barrels of gunpowder and store them in a cellar under the house of Lords without the security forces getting suspicious.
Furthermore, the letter warning one of the members of government to stay away from Parliament is believed today to have been fabricated by the king's officials. Historians suggest that the King's officials already knew about the plot, that one of the plotters in fact revealed the key points of the plot to the authorities. The suspected turncoat? Francis Tresham.
The letter, then, would be a tool created by the King's officials to explain how, at the last minute, the king found out about the Plot and stopped it just before it wreaked its havoc on Parliament and himself. At the same time, the letter was vague enough to give the officials all the latitude they wanted in falsifying confessions and to pursue their own anti-Catholic ends.
There are two fundamental problems with the letter. Firstly, the letter was unsigned. Any and all of the conspirators, once apprehended, might have saved themselves from torture and perhaps even death if they could claim to have written it. None did. Not one of the conspirators who was caught appears to have known about the letter. Secondly, the letter was very vague in its content. It said nothing about the details of the planned attack. Still, the king and his men knew exactly the where and when to catch the conspirators and stop the explosion just hours before it was to take place.
How did they know?

[oldfogey]

.. and thanks, Nedro, for reminding us that conspiracy theories and political skullduggery are nothing new either.

Enjoyed lots of spectacular fireworks over the weekend, but didn't enjoy the fact that this morning I discovered a dent in my Mercedes' bonnet caused by a rocket stick landing on it!