After Dark: Myths, Misdeeds & the Paranormal - Guy Fawkes & the 1605 Gunpowder Plot

Episode Date: November 1, 2023

Other countries celebrate their victories and independence. But in Britain, we celebrate a bungling terrorist from the 17th century. Why? Who was Guy Fawkes? What was the Gunpowder Plot? And why must we Remember, Remember the 5th of November?Maddy Pelling and Anthony Delaney are joined by historian and author Steven Veerapen - author of (among other titles) Of Blood Descended: An Anthony Blanke Tudor Mystery: https://birlinn.co.uk/product/of-blood-descended/Produced by Charlotte Long and Freddy Chick. Senior Producer is Charlotte Long.Get 50% off your first 3 months with code AFTERDARK. Download the app on your smart TV or in the app store or sign up at historyhit.com/subscribe.You can take part in our listener survey here.

Hi there, it's Maddy. I'm just jumping in to let you know that this episode contains some sensitive content. So if that's not for you, check out our back catalogue of amazing episodes. And if you're sticking with us, enjoy. London, 1605, November the 5th. Out on the city streets, the air has turned resolutely cold. The nights have been creeping in, enveloping the ever-shorter days, so that London's inhabitants are forced to huddle in doorways and, if they're lucky, rush home to glowing coals and a warm meal. if they're lucky, rush home to glowing coals and a warm meal.

Despite the seasonal chill, at Westminster, preparations are underway for the state opening of Parliament. Servants bustle back and forth as politicians arrive to take their places. Soon, the King himself will be there. But we're not at street level to witness this ceremonial circus. Instead, we're several feet lower, standing in an icy, vaulted space. A cellar of sorts. It's damp. The smell of it lingers in the nostrils and settles on the hair.

The only light to pierce the darkness comes from a small lantern, its dull flicker just enough to illuminate our companion. He's of average height and build, though the broad cloak slumped about his shoulder lends him an intimidating air. Beneath the broad-rimmed hat, pulled low over his brow, are dark curls that tangle and weave with a beard of similar length. He's unsettled. His foot taps against the stone floor, though he remains as still as possible, a lone watchman standing in front of... what? Looming behind us in the murk and packed to the ceiling are large wooden barrels, their metal bands winking now and then under the lantern's glare. Though our man takes special care, the flame never gets too close. And with good reason. Inside, each vessel is filled with gunpowder. One spark could ignite it all, obliterating with it the

very foundations of British state power and sending its major players straight into the heavens. Remember, remember the 5th of November. Hello and welcome to After Dark Myths, Misdeeds and the Paranormal. In a gender role reversal, I am today Dr. Maddy Pelling. And I'm Dr. Anthony Delaney. And boy, do we have an explosive episode for you. But before we descend into that parliamentarian vault that Maddy was describing at the outset, and we seek to uncover some of the most infamous and vilified figures of British

history within its shadows, let me first introduce our guest. Today, we are joined by the historian and author Stephen Virappan. Stephen has written a staggering number of fiction and non-fiction works including novels set amid the political intrigue and dangerous courtly worlds of the 1500s and biography of King James VI and I about whom I'm sure we'll be speaking about today. So Stephen first things first welcome to After Dark. Thank you very much for having me. And can I just say I really appreciate the gender role reversals. That's very Shakespearean. It fits very well. Okay, so we need to sort of set the scene, I guess, a little bit

in terms of the beginning of the 17th century and the gunpowder plot. So, Stephen, I'm sure you're very familiar with the gunpowder plot. So I'm actually going to go to Anthony first and ask him a little historian's quiz. What do you know about the gunpowder plot? I know a rhyme that I explored briefly. What else do I know? The names Catesby come to mind, obviously Guy Fawkes. I'm sure we're going to meet both of those figures in a little bit more detail as this episode goes on.

I seem to recall, and I don't know why this number has stuck with me, but 34 barrels of gunpowder were deposited under the Houses of Parliament. For those who can't see, Maria's going side to side with her head. I've made some kind of historical faux pas there, but again, we'll come to that. I think it's 36, but I'm no mathematician. Stephen, is it 36? Correct us. 36, yes. I have seen it given in some places as 38, but 36 is the most commonly reported number. I mean, I think 34 would have done the job very well. Cost of living prices, I'm trying to cut down on the cost of gunpowder. And yes, I guess the aim was a Catholic plot against the Protestant establishment and even some of the Calvinist influences that were coming down into England from Scotland with the reign of James VI and I.

Okay, how did I do? Give me a percentage, Maddy. Well, actually, Stephen, you probably need to give me the percentage. Yeah, let's hear from Stephen now. Stephen, tell us a little bit about what's happening at the start of the 17th century, because I think it's such an interesting moment of change and flux across Britain. And of course, we have a new monarch. So tell us a little bit about that. Yes, I think what's really interesting about King James becoming King of England is that quite a few words came home to roost due to what James had been promising and what James had been claiming to everyone in his bid for the English throne. James spent 36 years of his life really waiting to become

King of England, desperate to become King of England. And during his reign in Scotland, he was keen to be all things to all men. He really wanted to minimise potential opposition. This meant quite a lot of promises were made to Catholics about toleration, about better things to come. So people were really looking forward to James's reign on both sides, I think. I mean, the more puritanical Protestants were looking forward to James becoming king because they thought, great, we'll get the increase in reform that we want. We can become, as Anthony said, more Calvinist. We can become more like that. We can have a purer church. The Catholics, on the other hand, were thinking, great, it's the son of the martyred Mary Queen of Scots. He'll be sympathetic towards us. We will have a better time. James, however, when he actually

became king, having made all these promises, was really keen to establish himself as kind of the continuity candidate for England. He actually said something along the lines of, I'm very blessed amongst English kings to come to the throne and not have to make any changes at all. So that was a positive for him. It wasn't for anyone else. Yeah, I think that's, it's so interesting, isn't it? That for anyone else yeah i think that's it's so interesting isn't it that for the catholics who you know let's not forget under elizabeth the first they've been marginalized they've been persecuted and they really find themselves on the edge of society you know worshiping in secret elizabeth has a sort of dedicated it's almost a secret spy service

isn't it steven to to catch cath Catholics sort of at it and there's a feeling correct me if I'm wrong but there's a feeling of hopefulness potentially when James does take the English throne that things are going to get better for the Catholics and it never really never really arrives I suppose and we can see that potentially as the the seeds being sown for the plotters that they see this opportunity for change and for Catholicism to be reinstated as a respectable thing within society, within English society. And when that doesn't happen, those resentments start to bubble, I guess. Yeah, I think so. I think James,, I suppose in trying to please everyone ended up just disappointing more people. And it became a question of who's going to break first. Is it

going to be the Catholics or is it going to be the more puritanical wing of Protestants that break first? I think a lot of people have this idea, certainly of the portrait of James VI and I, that that's kind of iconic and that a lot of people might be familiar with. But tell us a little bit about the man himself, Stephen. What is he bringing to the throne? How is he going to approach this? You talked about him not wanting to change things too much, but give us a bit of a broader stroke about what he is, how he is received and what he's bringing to the throne at this time. is how he is received and what he's bringing to the throne at this time? Well, James's big selling point and one that he was always really, really keen on

was being presented as a patriarch, as a dynastic candidate. Elizabeth I had obviously been the Virgin Queen. She'd had no children. People wanted a king. They wanted a man in charge and they wanted a man who had children in charge. This was a huge selling point and James was really keen on promoting that so he was met with all kinds of acclamation from people and I think it's very easy I've given an impression there that everyone was

just wanting change I should point out I'm sure the vast majority were perfectly happy with continuity it was these extremes that that were really unhappy it's interesting that word extreme and i think there's something to be said about the plotters themselves they they are sort of radical extremists in one sense uh they are devoutly religious and it's that devout religious belief and conviction that leads them to create the plot in the first place. So we've got James on the throne on the one hand. Now let's talk about the plotters themselves. We've got, so the names that I know that we sort of, you know, we get taught in school,

they're part of the nursery rhymes. We've got Robert Catesby, of course, we've got Guy Fawkes, and he has become the figure to which this story is attached. And we can talk about maybe just how central or otherwise that he is. Other names, we've got Thomas Winter, we've got Thomas Percy. Anthony, do you know any others?

No, because we don't get taught this in Ireland. Not surprising. Yeah, yeah. We don't have Bonfire Night. We don't have the 5th of November thing. We do our Bonfires on Halloween night so actually while we're aware it's happening it's what you know we often talk about the kind of reverse where people in Britain are not necessarily aware of the Irish history or the impact of the British Empire on Irish history but actually we often come up against these things such as the the gunpowder plot and go so so no I can. I can't give you any more names, sorry.

Well, no, Anthony, I think that's a really important point that other countries must look at England, Scotland, at the UK, I suppose, and think, why this event? Why all these centuries later is this event still celebrated with fireworks and things? It's a question I can't actually answer. I don't know why. I mean, nothing happened. It was averted. The plot failed. with fireworks and things it's it's a question i can't actually answer i don't know why i mean

nothing happened it was averted the plot failed and yet we still have burning the guy and guy fox and fireworks all of this sort of stuff and it's it's not even the only catholic plot against the the english or the british crown to take place in the 17th century or indeed the 16th century you know it's that it's so fascinating that this one is the one that endures in our imagination i suppose part of that may be the ambition of the plot itself so the plotters decide that they are going to blow up the houses of parliament which is a pretty big deal and they pick the state opening day so a day traditionally when obviously the king will be there. I think the heir is traditionally there as well. So does James have an heir at this point? Is there someone

to inherit his throne? Yes, James's son, Prince Henry, who would almost certainly have been there because he was the Prince of Wales. But I think you're quite right, Maddy, in that there had been plots against individual monarchs before. There had been plots against James before. plots against individual monarchs before. There had been plots against James before. There had been plots against Elizabeth. But this was something bigger. This was a massive terrorist act, really, that was being plotted. Yeah, I think it's fair to call it that. And, you know, had it succeeded, it would have wiped out the monarch, the heir to the throne, and also pretty much all of the people in charge of running the state at that time so it would have completely yeah it would have removed the whole of british government

the people in charge oh well that's actually an interesting an interesting point it would have been the english government but not the scottish government at the time and that's something potters i don't think really cared about or thought about. Yeah, it doesn't seem to have registered with them, does it? It just it's there is this real focus on Englishness. And actually, I was wondering, as you were talking earlier, Stephen, about that link with Mary Queen of Scots and the kind of residual, I guess, romanticising of Scotland and Catholicism, which actually is probably not standing up to scrutiny at all in in reality but just in the popular imagination i'm wondering if that's playing a little bit of a part there yeah i think what really bothered the powder plotters or what they used as an excuse was

the idea that this scottish king had come and taken over and brought with him a gaggle of what were perceived as beggarly Scots taking up government positions and things, taking up political positions. Guy Fawkes, when he was interrogated, apparently said that one of the aims of the plot was to blow the Scottish beggars back to their native mountains. So there was quite a lot of xenophobia baked up in it. That's so interesting. And of course, James is perceived in England at this time as being you know the Scottish king who still believes in witches and witchcraft and has this fear of the supernatural and I wonder if that English xenophobia yeah if it's absolutely

playing a part here and of course the the plotters themselves have all these links to the Midlands, to Warwickshire, to Staffordshire, and the real, you know, the absolute geographical and sort of, I guess, Catholic heartland in England, which is so interesting. The other thing that I think is fascinating about this plot in particular, and why it stays in our imagination, is the fact that it's the Houses of Parliament. And just coming back to that, thinking about the fact that this is not only a practical act that, as we say, will wipe out a huge portion

of the English Parliament, at least, but it's such a sort of symbolic space in terms of sort of pomp and circumstance of the state. It's a performance, it's a ritual, essentially, the King coming and opening Parliament. And I wonder if we can say anything more about that,

about the very act of trying to blow it up it's such a terrorist act it's such violence that that could potentially happen. Yes absolutely and it's I mean it was the home of the law courts, king's bench, common pleas, it was the home of the government, it was where the the parliament sat. So this was a massive symbolic act as well. And I mean, if we look at terrorist acts in the modern world, we've all read about them, we've all experienced media around them and things. And there's always that shock afterwards and misinformation flying around. And that was common in the 17th century as well and I think that's what the plotters were really banking on is when this happens or will follow this period of complete chaos a complete power vacuum into which they could really well their plan was to substitute James's daughter Princess Elizabeth use her as a puppet queen. Yeah, we'll get to that. I think chaos is absolutely the key word here, that they don't necessarily think through the plot very well. The other thing that always fascinates me about

this story is, you know, we think about the Houses of Parliament today, and we think about this very 19th century neo-gothic imposing building. But of course, at at this time it was really a warren of medieval buildings and the fact that they were able to move all of that gunpowder to a cellar right under i think it's the house of lords isn't it and nobody battered an eyelid that's remarkable these rooms were available for rents these undercrofts and things, these spaces, they were public spaces, people could rent them out, they could lease them. Gunpowder itself, because James had ended the war with Spain, Queen Elizabeth I's Anglo-Spanish War, gunpowder was there to be had in the southeast of England. I mean, people were selling it off relatively cheaply. So yes, it was almost

remarkable in that this age of security when you know I mean you know how difficult it is now to go through an airport and things like that that was not the case in the 17th century and I think because no one expected this kind of plot this kind of massive plot which is almost silly because James himself had a kind of experience with gunpowder. His father's house had been blown up at Mary, Queen of Scots, husband, and at Darnley, his father had been found strangled in the garden. So James was, he was not only no stranger to gunpowder as a plot, but he'd also faced a plot himself, the Gowrie conspiracy,

when he was in Scotland sort of dying days of his time in scotland he'd faced a conspiracy and what's really interesting about that is he had rushed after surviving it to what we now call control the narrative you know to get an official version of events and we see the same thing then in the gunpowder plot there is this attempt by the king to give the official version and to demand that everyone as we've been doing for centuries celebrates that celebrates his deliverance and all of that sort of stuff so james was no slouch when it came to not only surviving plots but to writing up the official version in which he comes out smelling roses i think that's partially the answer, right? Is that this endures because

the establishment, the king, wanted to endure. And that narrative belongs to them and they sell it, they package it, they then feed it back to the people and, you know, eventually to us in a way that celebrates the establishment and celebrates the continuity of government and royal power. But you were both talking about this kind of warren of medieval buildings that are underneath the House of Lords. Maddy, I'm just wondering if you would be able to take us on our next part of the story to learn a little bit more about that location. Excavations under the warren of medieval buildings that made up the area around Parliament

was begun by the plotters earlier that year. Together, they'd started to dig tunnels, unnoticed, close to the cellar that sat directly beneath the House of Lords. Fawkes was a key part of the operation, though his road to get there was perhaps unconventional for a religious martyr. Born in York in 1570, he'd been brought up as a Protestant, though he had converted to Catholicism by the time he'd enlisted as a mercenary to fight for the Spanish. On the battlefields of Europe, he learned skills that would, to the plotters, make him invaluable. An experienced soldier, Fawkes had worked, crucially, with explosives.

By the autumn of 1605, the group had a lucky break. The cellar itself became available to rent. Fawkes took it on behalf of his master, Catesby. No questions were asked, and soon they began to move the barrels of gunpowder into place. Everything now seemed set. The only detail left was to pick a date for the execution of their daring plan. But it would not be long before fear and doubt would creep in, and the cracks in this network of devout extremists begin to show. Catherine of Aragon Anne Boleyn Jane Seymour Anne Anne of Cleves, Catherine Howard, Catherine Parr.

Six wives, six lives. I'm Professor Susanna Lipscomb, and this month on Not Just the Tudors, I'm joined by a host of experts to tell the stories of the six queens of Henry VIII, who shaped and changed England forever. Subscribe to and follow Not Just the Tudors from History Hit wherever you get your podcasts. so we have this situation where this group of men have come together with this plan but actually what i'm left wondering at this point steven and perhaps you can you can help us with this could this have worked and then the second

part the kind of follow-up to that is why didn't it what went wrong um yes absolutely could have worked I mean they had the raw ingredients of it but quite a lot of things seemed to go wrong for them which of course the government was then able to interpret providentially. So for example, it was never planned for the November of 1605, Parliament was supposed to meet much earlier. The plan was actually in place in about 1604 and for various reasons, plague being amongst them, the meeting of Parliament was delayed and in that delay that's when Catesby, who was really the, Catesby was the driving force. He was the charismatic leader of this. And initially it involved his friends. It involved Thomas Winter.

It involved John Wright. But then it started to widen to include Guy Fawkes as the munitions expert. And then it just kept widening. And of course, the more people that got involved, the more potential there was really for it to leak out, which is perhaps what happened. And there did emerge stories from the interrogations that, as Maddy said, there was a tunnel being dug at one point. No one's ever been able to find evidence of that, I don't think. It's in the confessions, but it's debated whether that was the case or not. I feel like that's an Indiana Jones movie waiting to happen. Oh, yeah. Indiana Jones and the parliamentary tunnels. I would watch it, yes. I think Harrison Ford's probably got one more in him.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm free as a historical consultant, Harrison, if you're listening. But what we find is they are trying to almost coordinate this. So in the breathing space between Parliament being delayed and eventually being called to meet in 1605 Catesby is trying to build up support in the country amongst catholic landowners and things trying to really arrange an uprising that is also a problem though because that is more people coming into this I think the almost canonical number is the unlucky 13 that there were an unlucky 13 conspirators it was

almost certainly more than that who knew about it definitely was this again just was delay and was more people who might speak and who might talk so it really became just a plot that could have worked if fewer people had known about it if it was kept intimate if it was kept quiet I mean when you look at successful acts successful terrorist acts I mean they are successful because people aren't on to them because those inside haven't leaked the information there's something really interesting here about the Catholicism of these networks. And I was reading somewhere that in terms of sort of secret Catholic underground networks of worship, not necessarily of plots for treason, that women played a huge part. And I wonder,

you know, we remember these 13, possibly more male plotters. And I wonder how many of their wives, their sisters, their mothers were in on this as well and also their priests we know that a lot of these men admitted to the plot before it took place to their priests in confession and whilst that is a sacred bond between the confessor and the confessee I guess there's there's always a risk there isn't there that that that information about the plan is going to leak out yes absolutely in fact there is a a theory there, isn't there, that that information about the plan is going to leak out? Yes, absolutely. In fact, there is a theory, there are a lot of conspiratorial theories about the gunpowder plot. I think that's why it keeps people coming back for more, because there are always new theories developing about it. And one of them is that a wife of one of the conspirators might have written the famous Montego letter,

which really, in the official version, gave the government the heads up that something was going on. There was this letter sent to Lord Montego warning him not to go to Parliament on November the 5th because a terrible blow would occur. And he immediately took it to Robert Cecil, who was James's Secretary of State. It has been theorised that perhaps a wife of a conspirator wrote it. It has been theorised and was suspected by the conspirators at the time that Francis

Tresham, one of their number, had written it. In truth, no one actually knows who wrote this letter. It's even been theorised that Cecil wrote it himself because he knew all about the conspiracy and wanted to have an official reason to reveal it it's it's so exciting and I think you're right that's why people come back to this story I guess because there are so many levels of conspiracy of people plotting against each other conspiracy within a conspiracy yeah it totally is yeah and there's there's you know people constantly working to hide their own actions and to misdirect and misinform. And it's so hard in the archival record to unpick some of that. And of course, a lot of the time, the evidence just doesn't exist anymore. It was destroyed at the

time or, you know, in the centuries since. So we have this letter that's sent in the end to the king, and the king is informed that there is potentially, possibly, this possibly happened. And I've read as well that there's a sort of theory amongst some historians then that the plot was allowed to play out as a way of capturing the people involved. And I just find this slightly difficult to believe. When we think about that cellar being full at the end in 36 with 36 barrels of gunpowder and nobody noticed and there is actually a security sweep close to the the opening of parliament isn't there they see guy foggs and this is again in the official version of events everyone is an idiot except james which should raise questions in the official version Cecil doesn't really

understand what a terrible blow might mean Monteagle doesn't understand it when Monteagle and Suffolk search the houses of parliament they see someone acting shiftily in the undercroft don't know what it means we'll better go back to the king and ask if he has any ideas and of course James reads the letter and immediately realizes ah it's gunpowder it must be gunpowder and that's how Guy Fawkes is discovered but once again that is an example probably of the official line being how great is the king how intelligent is the king and again James had tried that in Scotland with the Gowrie conspiracy his version of events was of holes, but he emerges from it as this great, intelligent hero. I think people underestimate James Sixth and First at their kind of peril because he has a lot going on for him.

And it's one of those things I think people can gloss over him slightly, particularly between Elizabeth and Charles the First, where he is actually holding court in a very, yeah, there's criticism, but he's actually quite a canny individual in a lot of different ways. But I had a question, again, from somebody who has not grown up with this history, but why then, if, you know, you're describing this kind of large cabal of Catholics who are planning an extremist act. Why are we left with Guy Fawkes as the, I mean, I would never have heard of Catesby until I actually started studying history. So why are we left with Guy Fawkes and not one of the others as the prominent figure, Stephen, do you think? Well, that is one of those questions that I think sometimes annoys historians. It's not the question, sorry, but the fact that it's known as Guy Fawkes, the Guy Fawkes conspiracy, Guy Fawkes Night,

when he was really a kind of minor player compared to Catesby, who was the leader. I think the reason for Guy Fawkes is just that iconic scene that the government wrote of him being discovered tending to the gunpowder, watching over the gunpowder. It's cinematic. I mean, it's a really cinematic moment. He must have been a really incredible person and with a really keen religious conviction. He's the one who, whilst all of his fellow plotters have at this point removed themselves to the Midlands to carry out the second part of the plot which we'll get to in a moment he's the one who's stood in that vault with a long line fuse and a lantern potentially ready to blow himself up there are historians who

talk about the fact he's described when he's captured as he's wearing his spurs for you know presumably to ride a horse so maybe he's planning to escape to the Midlands as well but he's described when he's captured as he's wearing his spurs for you know presumably to ride a horse so maybe he's planning to escape to the midlands as well but he's there he's the one taking the risk and he is the one that's captured and i think he must have been a very whatever we think of what he was planning he must have been a very captivating and charismatic person with with real courage i think even if that was misdirected. I think so, yes. And he demonstrated that when he was interrogated by James personally. I mean, James always took a keen interest in people that were trying to kill him. And he interrogated Fox and Fox said such a widespread disease deserves a sharp remedy. I mean, he was proud of what he had been attempting.

He did crumble under torture. There's a very famous comparison of his signature before he'd been tortured, which is very firm, signing his name, and then afterwards when it's a scribble. We'll get to that point because we are going to come on to that in more detail. Let's just talk a little bit about, so on the one hand, we've got the plot to blow up parliament in london we have guy fawkes ready to ignite the fuse under the vault we also have the plot that's going on the midlands can you explain a little bit about that because it involved james's daughter princess elizabeth correct yes princess elizabeth was being brought up in warwickshire

she had no knowledge of this in fact in, in the aftermath, she said she would rather have died in an explosion than be used by these treacherous rebels. But for some reason known only to them, the conspirators thought she would be a really useful puppet. And I suppose the idea was to keep a sense of royal continuity. We've got rid of the king, we've got rid of the heir, keep a sense of royal continuity. We've got rid of the king, we've got rid of the heir, but we have this spare royal who can be set up in their place and keep a sense of continuity going. What is bizarre to me anyway is the conspirators knew about the Montego letter, they knew the government had got hold of it. Also bizarre is that the government waited days. There was a period of about five days when they had this evidence, they had this letter, and they didn't or seemed to not be acting. Knowing this, the conspirators just continued playing. It's almost

as if they were thinking, well, we know the government has this letter threatening a terrible blow, but they might not work out what it means. So's just keep going let's ride off to Warwickshire and get the other part moving it doesn't seem like the greatest plan really does it it's it's not particularly well thought through what I think they'd hoped for is obviously that there would be some mass catholic uprising supporting them and what's it's almost kind of tragic for Catesby. I mean, it's a terrible thing he was plotting, but there's a tragic element to it really. When Fox had been arrested,

when it was clear it had failed, he was off riding through the country, but he was eventually informed and told it's not worked. Fox has been arrested. The parliament has not been blown up and Catesby still tried to rouse this Catholic sentiment, this Catholic insurgence. So he was still really going for it. I suppose by that time it had become a case of well we've gone this far, we might as well try and salvage something. So Stephen we have this plot that's unfolding in

the Midlands and there's this move to capture Princess Elizabeth and to use her as a puppet monarch. But of course, things are inevitably going to go wrong. We know that this plot doesn't come to fruition properly. So what happens to the plotters who have removed themselves from London and are now trying to take Princess Elizabeth? Well, I think at this stage, Catesby, as I said, was trying to salv Princess Elizabeth. Well I think at this stage Catesby as I said was trying to salvage something and what's really interesting to me is Catesby years before had been implicated in the Earl of Essex's failed rebellion against Elizabeth. In that rebellion or I think it was really more of an attempt at a palace coup but Essex had found that as much as he went out and tried to rabble rouse no one answered no one could people lock their doors to him and Catesby was fined for

his part in that he escaped any more serious punishment but he must have found himself in very much the same position as Essex had been that the absolute fear when you realize right i am i am clearly committing treason here and no one's backing me up no one's sort of rising to to my banners he took the sort of the conspirators who had fled with him to hall beach house which was owned by a sympathizer stephen littleton and the idea then was that they would hole up that they would almost make a last stand and I think they did this knowing that there was a high chance they would be as they saw it martyred and another thing that has then given rise to conspiracy theories is just how quickly the sheriffs of the county rose against them hounded them out chased them

down which some people have thought they must have known. They acted so quickly, they must have known what was in the offing. But we ended up with this big shootout and yet more tragic comedy, I suppose, or dark comedy. It had been raining very badly when they were on the run and they took the genius step of trying to dry out their wet gunpowder in Hull Beach House, which immediately caught fire. It blinded one of the conspirators, and it scorched some of the other ones, so these were walking wounded now before the government forces had even shot at them. What followed then was the shootout.

Catesby was killed with the same musket ball, apparently, that also went through one of his fellow conspirators he didn't die outright but he did manage to make a good catholic death by crawling wounded into what we think was a chapel and clutching at a portrait of the virgin mary which given this iconic death it's deeply catholic isn't it yeah and even the fact the musket ball goes through him and one of his fellow conspirators, that feels, it's so sort of religious, this idea of the body of these martyrs kind of being united in this way. It feels deeply Catholic.

And to me, it raises some questions about the sort of reliability of that narrative. It feels quite romanticised. It does feel romanticised. It does seem questionable going through Thomas Percy,cy of course who was one of the other big conspirators who had actually it was in his name that the undercroft had been leased both of them escaped i think more rigorous punishment although katesby's head was then separated from his corpse so it could be spiked so if they couldn't get you alive and humiliate you, they would do it to your corpse. The question of how the state deals out justice to these conspirators is incredibly brutal,

isn't it? And while we have this very cinematic shootout going on in the Midlands, the whole time Guy Fawkes and a handful of the others is at the Tower of London. He's been arrested and taken there and he's being tortured. After his arrest, Fawkes was taken to the Tower of London, where he told his captors his name was John Johnson. Perhaps he thought he could buy time for his friends in the Midlands and that the plot might still succeed without him. Perhaps he simply hoped to save himself by keeping quiet. But his interrogator, Sir William Wade, lieutenant of the tower, was determined to extract a confession and get to

the bottom of the plot. When Forks was searched, Wade found on his person a letter revealing his true name. The game was up. The details of Fawkes' torture beyond this point remain hard to pin down, though his two signatures, one taken at the start of the process, bold, steady, and the other afterwards, the letters, an inky, sprawled mess, speak of a man entirely broken. Worse would follow. On the 31st of January, 1606, Fawkes was brought from the tower to Old Palace Yard at Westminster, opposite the very building he had planned to blow up. the very building he had planned to blow up. Along with fellow conspirators Thomas Winter, Ambrose Rookwood and Robert Keyes, he ascended the gallows. After watching the other men meet their makers, each hanged, drawn and quartered, Fawkes stood before the crowd and recanted his crimes. Then he fell to his death, the rope breaking his neck and sparing him from

the agony of disembowelment that nevertheless followed. It's so interesting that Fawkes's end is not in flames when we so deliberately associate his image nowadays with burning and with flames and with fire. The fact that he's hanged, drawn and quartered doesn't really seem to resonate with us. It's not as, I don't know, it's not as visually accessible, I guess, in terms of the recreation that we do year after year to remember the gunpowder plot. Why then, Stephen, do you think this fire tradition, this burning, the bonfires, why has that latched on as part of this ceremony, this remembrance, do you think? Why it has latched on, I don't know. There must have been some historical confusion between

celebratory bonfires, which were a big part of the period and execution. James was very proud of this something he had inherited from Elizabeth which was Catholics in England are not burned for heresy they are only ever executed for treason. Now I think to the Catholics involved the effect is very much the same. I mean, I'm going to be burned on a pyre or I'm going to have my guts ripped out and thrown on a brazier in front of me. Really, do you want to be shot or do you want to be stabbed? But this was considered a benefit. But he supposedly jumped. He jumped so that his neck would break, which I think, good on him for that i suppose it speaks to

to the kind of man that he was i think and the way that he he met his end i mean not when presented with the choice of you know not to dwell too much on the details but the idea of being hung drawn and quartered is very much that you're not dead after the hanging is over and that you're still conscious when your entrails are being taken out of you. As you say, Stephen, I think presented with the opportunity to end his life sooner rather than later, he does take it. And I think it's such a dramatic, but quite willful end. And I think it does speak to who he is. I know that pretty much straight away after the plot is foiled and these conspirators are caught and killed in these various ways that the government, and I think, again, it speaks very much, Stephen, to what you're saying about this

narrative that James puts out that he wants to be in control of. The government actually orders people to ring church bells in celebration and to light bonfires. So I wonder if whilst the guy isn't being burned on these bonfires as an effigy, I wonder if those initial bonfires, which are a sort of tradition of the 17th century world as well. And earlier we see bonfires lit when the Spanish Armada is defeated, for example, in 1588. And I wonder if that tradition, it all sort of becomes blurred into one, I guess. I think absolutely. You're quite right, Maddy. I mean, when Prince Charles, James's other son, arrived back from Spain in the 1620s, there were reports of 300 bonfires being lit between Temple Bar and somewhere else in London

it was a celebratory thing but again this was pure James ordering big wide-scale anniversary celebrations he had tried the same thing in Scotland after again that Gowrie conspiracy or Gowrie plot he ordered that on the anniversary of that every year bonfires should be lit and bells should be rung so he again had form in this he really seemed keen on creating an anniversary of thanksgiving for his deliverance he got it steven we know that you work on the kind of historical fact but there is also part of your work that deals with the historical fiction around this time period. And in one sense, it's kind of a two-part question, which the first being, what do you find is different about approaching this specific time period in terms of the historical fiction you work

with and the kind of archival history? And on a more personal level, then what it is, what was it exactly about this period that drew you to it in such a kind of visceral way? It seems to be something that really ignites your imagination as well as your kind of analytical skills. That's a really good question. And I've been asked it before and asked myself it before. So you would think I would have a better answer than what I'm about to try and give. What is it about this period I mean there are certain things that you can point to and say this is what's so fascinating I mean there's the the personalities the dramatic events the debates the the things that we don't have

answers to like the the truth underneath the gunpowder plot but then I suppose one could point out every period has interesting personalities and so on for me I suppose it's this is a period when the political and the personal are so close together people are making political decisions based on personal likes and dislikes people's personal relationships intimate relationships have massive political ramifications. So it's just colourful and interesting and bloody and gory and full of unanswered questions. There's lots of space to kind of paddle around in, but it does come down, I really think, to to the personalities so for this episode james who is incredibly vainglorious loves himself and yet is paranoid all of these interesting things cecil who is cunning and sneaky and might know more than he lets on katesby who's charismatic and charming and able to pull people in. You have all of these

really interesting personalities that are feeding into this, literally plot as in story and plot as in plot. And we didn't even get on to speaking about the conspiracy theory that Queen Anna was in on it somehow, which has raised its head recently. Oh, go on. Tell us a little bit about this this is a very recent theory that anna of denmark james's queen who has for a very long time been accused of being a crypto catholic having secretly converted was actually a secret sponsor of the gunpowder plotters wanted her husband and her son blown sky high it's not true i'm afraid it's i'm not even convinced entirely that she converted to catholicism i think she was working hand in glove with james during her time in scotland to

sort of raise catholic hopes and entertain catholics but it's a hell of a theory yet more color i think i i agree with you in terms of of possibly that's not wherever that theory has come out of. But what it does say, and that kind of feeds back into what you're talking about previously, is that during this particular moment, this particular, say, 100 years after Elizabeth's death, before the dawn of the Georgian era, there is very much a narrative that comes from the palace often itself of good guys and bad guys which is very compelling both historically and fictionally as well um and i think this particular moment in

time moving into charles the first and then obviously the the civil war there there are sides to take and that always makes for a very compelling history and a very compelling story so i'm not surprised that it really kind of ignites that in you because i i as a an 18th century historian this there is something in the 17th century that's always been very appealing that feels very visceral and very i mean yeah dramatic because it's kind of been set up that way by the people who were living during that time and i I think it probably helps as well, but it does now have hundreds of years of storytelling behind it and questioning behind it. So why do the Tudors keep in the public consciousness? Because the story is constantly being refreshed and renewed. Why does the gunpowder plot? Because it's constantly being refreshed and renewed. So I suppose there's something self-perpetuating

about some of these historical moments and historical times. And we have, Maddy, do we not, a little bit of a potential hangover from Guy Fawkes's time in those Warrens. Apparently there's a lantern that's associated with him. There is. And we spoke- Or is there?

Well, we spoke earlier about these gaps in the archive when it comes to the Gunpowder plot and the information that we just don't have. And there's not a huge amount of material evidence. We've got some documentary evidence on paper, but there's not a lot in the way of objects associated with this plot. And yeah, one of the objects that does survive is supposedly Guy Fawkes' lantern, and it's in the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford now. And looking at it, and you can look at it online, it just looks, it's such a small object. It doesn't, you know, it's not particularly well made. It would be an everyday 17th century lantern. And it's so remarkable to think that this very otherwise uninteresting item potentially came so close to blowing up the Houses of Parliament, you know, a candle lit within it would have been marking those last moments that Guy Fawkes was in

that cellar. And he must have been very aware of that flame burning away so close to the gunpowder. What do you reckon Stephen is it an iconic piece of material culture or is it a piece of fabricated iconography? I choose to believe that it is real and in some ways it almost doesn't matter if it isn't real because it carries all that imagination and power with it exactly the story that maddie just told is part of this this little item it's like i suppose like cardinal wills his hat which people have written about surviving it's just here's so much history wrapped up in an object it doesn't even matter what the provenance of it is really. So listeners, that is your homework for today. Go and take a look at Guy Fawkes' Lantern,

which you'll be able to find online. Just give it a good old Google, old-fashioned research methods at this point. Thank you so much for joining us for this episode of After Dark Myths, Misdeeds and the Paranormal. We were delighted to speak to Stephen Verappen today on all things 17th century plots and underhand dealings.

I hope, and for me certainly, but I hope for you guys as well, there has been something a little bit new, a new, just something new to be still gleamed out of this, I think, and it's a fascinating, fascinating topic.

So thank you so much, Stephen. Until next time, please follow us wherever you get your podcasts. And if you so much, Stephen. Until next time, please follow us wherever you get your podcasts. And if you enjoyed this episode, leave us a review or a rating. Until next time, thanks for listening and sleep tight. Well, thank you for listening to this episode of After Dark. Please follow this show wherever you get your podcasts. It really helps us and you'll be doing us a big favour. Don't forget, you can listen to all these podcasts ad-free and watch

hundreds of documentaries when you subscribe at historyhit.com forward slash subscribe. And as a special gift, now don't say we never give you anything, you can also get your first three months for one pound a month when you use the code AFTERDARK at checkout.