Am I wrong to view Guy Fawkes as a hero?

I watched “V for Vendetta” tonight and I realized that I had never thought of Guy Fawkes as a villain. Not necessarily competent, but Jacobean England was full of spies and stoolies and any conspiracy was likely to fail. Anyway, I was raised Catholic in the dark days before Vatican II and some of that undoubtedly colored my thinking.

As a side note, when the barfly reacted to the Chancellor’s speech with, “That’s bollocks!” I turned to my wife and said, “Remember when the tide turned during Vietnam and regular people started saying stuff like that? That was the greatest time in my life!” Kinda like right now, without Nixon. But that’s beside the point.

Same wife, when asked the question in the title, said, “That’s why I thought you’d like Lutheranism.”

“But aren’t Anglicans and Lutherans both Protestants?”

“No, they are Protestants. We are Reformed Catholics.”

:confused: Whatever. As long as we don’t have the pope but can still respect his views, even if we don’t agree with them.
Back to topic: I know little about Fawkes other than he was Catholic and wanted to blow up James I. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter, but Fawkes doesn’t seem to have wanted to create fear but to incite a revolution.

And since it’s about religion, it’s here in GD.

Well, since he blew up that building at the end of the movie with planted bombs rather than with a calculated airstrike by a certified military, then…terrorist. With a mask.

Watch it, No Goose Livers Allowed! You’ll get this sent to Cafe Society!

Fawkes intended to set off his explosion with little likelihood of escape, so he was SUICIDE BOMBER!

Goose livers were Fawkes principle means of subsistence. Without them, he wouldn’t have had the fortitude to do what he did.

Edit: But REAL Americans eschew that fancy French crap and consume USA-farmed duck livers.

(looking at the responses and seeing only YOU, I wonder if I placed this in the right forum.)

Ignore goosy, folks. My question may be more of what’s the diff between COE and the rest of us, but was Guy a Good Guy or a Bad Guy?

It ain’t about right or wrong. It was about one side not wanting to be the other’s punching bag. England in the days of Guy Fawkes was one short step away from hanging all the Catholics. The Catholics objected.

Of course, things in practice were much more complex, but that’s the basic origin of the whole mess.

Yeah, bit of messiness. Henry VIII (after suppressing the Protestantmovement) set himself up as head of his own religion (Church of England) because the Catholic Pope wouldn’t allow him to divorce his first wife to marry Anne Boleyn. He died without a male heir so his eldest daughter (by Catherine of Aragon) became Queen.

Mary was staunchly Catholic and reversed the laws her dad had set in place. She also died without an heir of any gender, so her half sister (by Anne) Elizabeth took the throne.

Lizzie the First reversed all the laws that sis had enacted and reinstated C of E as the official religion again - with heavy penalties for the disobedient Catholics who refused to recant. She then imprisoned her cousin, Mary Queen of Scots and eventually had her killed - naming Mary’s son (James) as her successor. He carried on with the suppression of both roman catholicism and the protestants.

The Protestants have reformed and are not catholics.

The C of E considers itself to be *reformed * but still catholic.

The gunpowder plot began smoldering in 1534, even though the fuse wasn’t lit till 1605.

As may the Lutherans, though they consider themselves different from the Big C Catholics. We are co-communicants, which the the RCC still ignores, but we can still look at Baptist and Methodist teachings and still say, WTF?

I did an article on a church group once and made the mistake of asking if they were Lutherans. The respondent recoiled in horror and announced that ‘*That *lot down the road are Lutherans. *We *are Wesleyans.’

6 years later, I still don’t know the difference.

I should have added in the previous post that Elizabeth I needed to re-instate C of E because under Roman Catholic rules she was illegitimate and couldn’t take the throne.

[nitpick] His son, Edward VI, outlived him by 6 years or so. [/np]

mag, after several years in this church I’m stuck between the three poles of, Yeah, sounds reasonable; Um, you have me there; and Are you fuckin’ kidding me?

The “Lives of the Protestant Saints” I found a couple years back seems to qualify quite a few who were willing to die over whether the Eucharist brought us the reality or an awfully goood facsimile. To be honest, after ye so many years, who the fuck cares?

And yeah, I’ve been alone for decades.

Fair point, although he never reached maturity to reign in his own right. Ignorance fought, thanks.

Dropzone, One of my parents was raised Catholic, the other Protestant - both lapsed. While I’m interested in how religion shapes politics, I’ve got very little clue about how the different flavours worship or interact with each other. Wasn’t there also some decades long debate (with Jesuits??) about whether Christ owned his begging bowl?

“Hero” is a little strong - he failed, after all. “Legitimate combatant”, maybe, although I’d have a little more respect if he’d attacked a military rather than a civil target.

Anyone who rates ( or rated) a school holly is fine by me.

That was the Spiritual Franciscans, but they were earlier.

We don’t ignore it. We quite knowlingly no longer accept your bishops.

Yes, you’re wrong. Fawkes wished by a terror act to blow up the entire government, and institute a Catholic reign of terror like the persecutions of Bloody Mary. The Catholic powers in this era were promoters of the inquisition.

I wonder if in Italy there’s still hard feelings between the Guelph - Ghibelline factions.

A problem, BTW, that persisted for well over a century afterwards.

Well millions will burn him in effigy on bonfire night in the UK although I doubt many actually think about the history side of it.