WI: Sucessful Gunpowder Plot

[British Republic]

Every 5th of November, Britain celebrates Guy Fawkes Night.

It commemorates the attempt by English Catholics to blow up the Houses of Parliament (during the State Opening of Parliament, were James I would be attending). As you may or may not know, it did not succeed.

However what if it did succeed? (There was enough gunpowder to blow it up). What would have happened afterward in the British Isles, Europe and elsewhere and and how would things be different in ITTL 2014?

 

[Cymraeg]

Every 5th of November, Britain celebrates Guy Fawkes Night.

It commemorates the attempt by English Catholics to blow up the Houses of Parliament (during the State Opening of Parliament, were James I would be attending). As you may or may not know, it did not succeed.

However what if it did succeed? (There was enough gunpowder to blow it up). What would have happened afterward in the British Isles, Europe and elsewhere and and how would things be different in ITTL 2014?

Blowing up Parliament and James I was actually the most realistic part of the plot. The rest of it was a load of wishful thinking. Even if they had been able to get their hands on the next heir, the young Princess Elizabeth, she would not have been compliant (she was a firm Protestant) and would have done her damnedest to escape. Even if she didn't there would have been an anti-Catholic pogrom of horrific proportions. Any rising of Catholics would have been crushed, Parliament would have been put back together, any remaining Catholics would have been really persecuted and above all else we would never have been cursed with one of the biggest idiots to ever take the throne, namely Charles I. So possibly no Civil War, no Glorious Revolution and maybe no American Revolution (which was in part inspired by the GR, although I am stretching things a little).

 

[Maeglin]

Surviving Lords grab the 5 years old Charles Stuart, and crown him as Charles I. Charles develops a deep-seated fear of Catholics the rest of his life, so he marries a Protestant instead. This, combined with the effects of a decade-long regency, probably stops the English Civil War from happening.

 

[Maeglin]

and above all else we would never have been cursed with one of the biggest idiots to ever take the throne, namely Charles I.

Surely little Charles wouldn't have been in attendance for a ceremony like that?

 

[British Republic]

Blowing up Parliament and James I was actually the most realistic part of the plot.

Agreed on that.

The rest of it was a load of wishful thinking. Even if they had been able to get their hands on the next heir, the young Princess Elizabeth, she would not have been compliant (she was a firm Protestant) and would have done her damnedest to escape. Even if she didn't there would have been an anti-Catholic pogrom of horrific proportions. Any rising of Catholics would have been crushed, Parliament would have been put back together, any remaining Catholics would have been really persecuted and above all else we would never have been cursed with one of the biggest idiots to ever take the throne, namely Charles I.

Was he planned to be in the building on that day? How many members of both houses of Parliament would have remained after the bombing?

What would have happened to Catholics in the long run in England and Scotland.

So possibly no Civil War, no Glorious Revolution and maybe no American Revolution (which was in part inspired by the GR, although I am stretching things a little).

And what kind of Britain would result out of it? Will the United Kingdom itself still form?

 

[British Republic]

Surviving Lords grab the 5 years old Charles Stuart, and crown him as Charles I. Charles develops a deep-seated fear of Catholics the rest of his life, so he marries a Protestant instead. This, combined with the effects of a decade-long regency, probably stops the English Civil War from happening.

What about Henry Frederick?

 

[JamesHunter]

What about Henry Frederick?

Dead, as heir to the throne he was planned to be in the building at the time. The plotters planned to grab Elizabeth but as others have said her reaction would have been anger and defiance, they have just murdered her family after all.

Charles wasn't expected to attend, he was a bit of the unfavorite at the time, and there was no real need for the spare to show up (things changed after his brother dropped dead).

I've seen some suggestions the Scots might have scooped him up, scarpered over the border and taken back their independence while leaving Elizabeth for England, but it's hard to know what's really going to happen. Elizabeth does seem to have been a bit more sensible than her brother so she might have done better if she ended up on the throne plus her name would invoke Gloriana in her subjects. In contrast James really wasn't that popular at the time.

I hate to use 9/11 comparisons but he was a bit of GWB, not terribly popular and his policies (full unification, mucking with the quiet consensus about religion) sure weren't. Meanwhile scotland's feeling a bit hard done by with the King having decamped to a more powerful throne. The Catholics really aren't happy having thought James would let up on the persecution and found he...well didn't.

Then came the bomb plot, everybody rallies around the lawful King against the outside enemy, the Catholics duck their heads and stay there, and anyone else with ideas gets a graphic example of what happens if you try to knock the King off.

However if James is dead he won't be raising Charles as he did in OTL, he'll be raised to be a very pious protestant, and to rely on the advice of his ministers that probably lets the constitution as it was stand for at least a few generations longer. One bad King would probably still convince Parliament to flex it's muscles as OTL but it might put things back into the eighteenth century.

A failed coup (and make no mistake it would have failed) and alot of dead (James feared the bomb could have killed 30,000 gathered for the state opening) is very bad for the Catholics. There will be a pogrom, and Catholics will have to pronounce their loyalty even more loudly than they did in OTL, probably by converting.

On the foreign front, Spain and France both want peace with England so they can focus on the continent. Peace with Spain is only about a year old so alot of people will probably suspect they were involved, but after twenty years of inconclusive war the last thing a decapitated England will want is a fight. Once it becomes clear alot of the plotters have connections to English Catholic mercenaries fighting for Spain the Netherlands, Spain likely has to make a few concessions. Probably the Merc's are kicked out and Spain pronounces it's "Prefound shock and disgust at this evil act on the person of a King," (or some such).

Watching the BBC show about the plot last night it does seem the plotters asked a few Spanish contacts for help, and the reaction was pretty much "Are you nuts!" because the Spanish wanted peace. Probably a "Wasn't us this time," from the Spanish would be looked on with askance but after a decapitation strike England's in no state to pick another fight. Things might get cold for a bit and Spain probably stops backing any Jesuit efforts (if they haven't already), but peace should hold.

Bonfire night probably wouldn't have any fireworks but would instead be a night of mourning and ritual anger, I expect relations with the Catholics would improve eventually so by now it's probably a forgotten old shame like the anti catholic slurs that used to be carved on the Fire of London monument. In contrast the act itself is probably still remembered as the most horrific terrorist attack in history.

 

[Cymraeg]

What about Henry Frederick?

He would have been blown up with his father. The plotters actually planned to capture Charles in London and take him up to join his sister. The fact that a) they couldn't find him and b) when they reached the pro-Catholic area they were heading for and announced that the King was dead, very few people joined them, shows you that these herberts had a plan that was DOA from the start.

 

[British Republic]

@JamesHunter and Cymraeg

Thanks very much for your replies, I will reply to them tomorrow.

 

[Maniakes]

He would have been blown up with his father. The plotters actually planned to capture Charles in London and take him up to join his sister. The fact that a) they couldn't find him and b) when they reached the pro-Catholic area they were heading for and announced that the King was dead, very few people joined them, shows you that these herberts had a plan that was DOA from the start.

My understanding is that they'd originally expected Charles to be present at the ceremony (hence focusing the follow-up plan on kidnapping Elizabeth), and when they found out he wouldn't be, they decided instead to have Thomas Percy grab him.

That part of the plan had a good chance of working had the bombing succeeded. Percy was a member of a palace guard unit (the Gentleman Pensioners), so he had access to Charles and could have plausibly claimed to be taking Charles to safety in the wake of the bombing. The biggest risk would be running into either a more senior guard or Charles's guardian (Robert Carey).

It didn't happen IOTL because Percy fled London when he found out Fawkes had been arrested. By that point, there was a warrant out for Percy's arrest, and he would have been captured or killed on sight if he'd tried to show up at the palace.

 

[WanderingWanderer]

If the plot succeeded, would we still have clueless fools parading around in Guy Fawkes mask during protests? Seriously, do these people even know who Fawkes was, or can I just assume they're all idiots who watched the 'V for vendetta' movie

Also, Catholics at that time are gonners. There'll be huge Catholic massacre (dare I use the 'g word') in Britain and maybe spreading to Ireland, maybe Cromwell in this TL would not be the Irish bogeyman.

Meanwhile, neighbouring powers will start shouting "No we have nothing to do with this, nothing at all double triple swear please believe us!11!"

 

[Maeglin]

Also, Catholics at that time are gonners. There'll be huge Catholic massacre (dare I use the 'g word') in Britain and maybe spreading to Ireland, maybe Cromwell in this TL would not be the Irish bogeyman.

No Cromwell in this TL, due to butterflying the Civil War. Unless you want to make Oliver the loyal servant of Good King Charles, suppressing those dastardly Irish.

On the subject of No Civil War (and No 1688 either), you are going to see much more powerful English monarchs well into the nineteenth century. Charles and his successors don't go the Divine Right of Kings route, but they'll be more active political players than any of the Georges, because they lack Hanover and can all speak English. Perhaps we see Britain go republican in 1848?

 

[Maeglin]

Meanwhile, neighbouring powers will start shouting "No we have nothing to do with this, nothing at all double triple swear please believe us!11!"

The neighbouring powers won't be worried about a decapitated Britain. They'll be much more worried about home-grown dissidents getting ideas. It'll be the Golden Age of Terrorism, seventeenth century style.

 

[Maniakes]

On the subject of No Civil War (and No 1688 either), you are going to see much more powerful English monarchs well into the nineteenth century. Charles and his successors don't go the Divine Right of Kings route, but they'll be more active political players than any of the Georges, because they lack Hanover and can all speak English. Perhaps we see Britain go republican in 1848?

To amplify this, there's a pretty high chance that Parliament's powers get thoroughly nerfed in the aftermath of the bombing, for two reasons:

1. Parliament just got exploded. A new Parliament will be called, but it will be full of people who were previously second-tier players. Between the immediate crisis and their lack of experience and clout, they are pretty likely to defer to Charles or Elizabeth's regents.
2. Francis Bacon was in the Parliament that got exploded. He had a pretty big role, both theoretical and practical, in formalizing the idea of the power of the purse as a check against tyranny. In particular, he was the main member of Parliament consistently arguing for putting time limits on revenues so the monarch has to keep coming back to Parliament to renew the revenues. IOTL, Bacon survived and went on to become James's Lord Chancellor.

Add these together, and there's a good chance Charles's regents ask Parliament for a permenant tax, and the new Parliament agrees. If the tax is big enough, then Parliament just gave up its biggest piece of leverage against the crown.

 

[Dieu Le Roi]

Wasn't Elizabeth only nine at the time of the plot? I don't know if the plotters could have got there hands on her or if it would have come to anything (almost certainly not going by other posts) but I seriously doubt a nine year old is going to stand up to the plotters and refuse to obey them. Even if she grew up to be a devout protestant, I just can't see her doing that as a child - she'd be too busy crying over the death of her family or whatever and consequently very easy for the plotters to use as a puppet. For all the good it would do them.

 

[Space Oddity]

I've seen some suggestions the Scots might have scooped him up, scarpered over the border and taken back their independence while leaving Elizabeth for England, but it's hard to know what's really going to happen.

That most certainly will not. Despite what people tend to imagine, no, the immediate Scottish reaction to the Union of the Crowns was not to try and get out of it.

Elizabeth does seem to have been a bit more sensible than her brother so she might have done better if she ended up on the throne plus her name would invoke Gloriana in her subjects. In contrast James really wasn't that popular at the time.

The Winter Queen, the woman who helped kick off the Thirty Years War, is not someone I'd call sensible--the more I read about them, the more I'm convinced that all the sense in the entire damn Stuart line coalesced in one man, and that man is James VI & I--and as I'm afraid she's not getting put before Baby Charles in the succession, Elizabeth II is probably not happening. Plus James' generally WAS well-liked by subjects, especially this early in his (English) reign--most of the exasperation with him was at the higher levels of government for the entire "Great Britain" project. And at this point, Gloriana nostalgia wasn't that high--people still remembered what it was actually like during the later parts of Elizabeth's reign, and were actually pretty happy to put all that behind them.

 

[WanderingWanderer]

And at this point, Gloriana nostalgia wasn't that high--people still remembered what it was actually like during the later parts of Elizabeth's reign, and were actually pretty happy to put all that behind them.

Yeah, not much nostalgia for another sovereign queen, one of the things many were happy about the Stuarts at that time was that there seems to be guaranteed male succession (ye olde heir and spare).

If they only knew what having King Charles would mean for the kingdom(s), but yeah, hindsight and all that.

 

[Uhura's Mazda]

As another aspect of the more powerful British monarchy, wouldn't the nobility be powerless for a decade or so, letting the commons (either on their own initiative, or as puppets of the Regent/King/Queen) gain dominance over the aristocracy? Presumably, the House of Lords would all be there, so every title-holder in the country gets blown up, and their successors will be more likely to be below the age of majority or just inexperienced. Thus, more royal reliance on commoners as advisers, etc. while the commonality rally round their monarch, allowing him to take a more absolutist stance.

 

[Stolengood]

Gloriana nostalgia wasn't that high--people still remembered what it was actually like during the later parts of Elizabeth's reign, and were actually pretty happy to put all that behind them.

How exactly do you mean? Rather curious.

And, as for the effects of a successful Gunpowder Plot, may I suggest this TL? (It's not mine, but it's ridiculously good. )

 

[Maeglin]

How exactly do you mean? Rather curious.

The 1590s was a period of famine in England, and by the time Elizabeth died in 1603, the real wages of your average English labourer were at their all-time lowest for the entire millennium. Meanwhile Liz had been buying time for herself by selling monopolies to certain merchants - which everyone hated, and which jacked up prices, but meant the regime didn't have to reform the tax and revenue system right now.