Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a231b7d449265751

Jump to content

Talk:Gunpowder Plot

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 19 days ago by ~2026-35840-83 in topic Location
Featured articleGunpowder Plot is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic starGunpowder Plot is the main article in the Gunpowder Plot series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 5, 2010, and on November 5, 2025.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 3, 2009Featured article candidatePromoted
November 6, 2010Featured article reviewKept
January 28, 2011Featured topic candidatePromoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 5, 2006, November 5, 2007, November 5, 2008, January 27, 2011, November 5, 2011, November 5, 2014, November 5, 2018, November 5, 2021, and November 5, 2022.
Current status: Featured article

Comment re Doubt (Was the king behind the gunpowder plot?)

[edit]

As that talk page is now archived (Archive 4) I offer my comment here to answer the question raised over allegations Robert Cecil was behind it. Was not Robert Cecil, as Secretary of State who went to the House of Lords on ennoblement, bound to be attending parliament himself? I certainly agree with the doubt attached to what may have been written by 'Horrible Histories' as these books do not give sources to everything they mention in the ways many histories written for a more adult readership would. I recall (see last talk point) that in the 90s there was a TV documentary that may be archived online that mentioned Cecil's secret agents acted as agent provocateurs to interest Catholics in potential acts of treason so they could subsequently arrest them at opportune times. There is the question there may have been government collusion as Magnus Magnusson pointed out gunpowder was a government monopoly.Cloptonson (talk) 11:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Removal of tags without discussion

[edit]

Why was the overly detailed tag removed without discussion? The stated justification that it was based on other articles is not convicing. I'm not working on that article. For this article, I don't see the value of including a list of attendees using opaque colloquial titles, some of whom don't appear to be notable enough to have their own articles. I'm not edit warring with you over this (editor who removed the tag), but this manner of removing justified good faith tags added by another editor is not appropriate. Ben Azura (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Strange changes of names

[edit]

In he first 2 paragraphs: Catesby -> Catfood Guy Fawkes -> Kai Hawkes 141.15.24.12 (talk) 12:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Purported 'tunnel'

[edit]

As a member of Subterranea Britannica I have a particular interest in tunnels, and indeed we have had discussions on what constitutes a 'tunnel'; e.g. is a ground level road passing under a wide bridge in a tunnel? I think a tunnel has to be by definition below ground level and connecting two non-adjacent locations.

As such, it is clear that the purported 'tunnel' the conspirators may have 'dug' from the undercroft of the Prince's Chamber to the undercroft of the House of Lords would not have been a tunnel as commonly understood, as the undercrofts were probably at ground level and certainly adjoining according to Capon's plan - separated by only a five foot thick wall.

They would have been cutting a five foot deep hole through this wall two or three feet off the floor level - I suppose this could be loosely described as 'tunneling through the wall', but they would not have created a 'tunnel' - just a hole, and as both buildings have been demolished it is no surprise no evidence of a 'tunnel' has ever been found. Wolstan Dixie (talk) 08:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Location

[edit]

Can the map be explained? It might be better to have the location as the Houses of Parliament, if anything and not Holbeche House (I assume); but I can't see where it is pulling from in the infobox. ~2026-35840-83 (talk) 05:47, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply