Talk:Babington Plot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

POV, Accuracy[edit]

Shouldn't this article have a reference to the fact that some of Mary's supporters felt the plot was fabricated?

I agree with the sentiment. Unfortunately, I don't know the subject well, but I'll put up the appropriate pointers & warnings. Gabrielthursday 00:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the babington plot occured for the simple reason that james williams is a very immature and quite threatening charcter, james williams is also the cause of the current economic chrisis as he does not buy as many lucozades as he used to which isnt balanced out even though chris w buys plenty of food from the feccy on a daily basis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.22.120 (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The current level of Adam-born Lucozade consumption has had an //extremely// potent effect on the world economies! This terror must be stopped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.22.120 (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It is generally recognised that Walsingham had set Mary up, having infiltrated so much of her court, and that the plot presented little danger to Elizabeth as Walsinghm would never have allowed the plot to proceed. I will ammend the article accordingly to reflect this. Jimbo H, 5th Jan 2007

I agree with the statements about the Babington Plot and i think it must have happened even though I got suspended from school when I was 13 in the christmas holidays for hitting another boy extremely hard (his name was Bobby) on the nose a friend told a teacher.It wasn't very nice of me I am sorry but I have issues at home Adam 13 September 2006

I can help feeling that the end section goes a bit beyond what can actually be known or is considered proven. This is especially true of the reasoning behind not having exectuted mary earlier User:CaptinJohn 08 Feb 2007

I agree. It's too harsh. I am going to rewrite the article ab initio, add footnotes and references, as well as images to improve its quality. Wish me luck :). RashBold (talk · contribs · count) 22:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


Goooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo₮d luck CaptinJohn 15:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


Historically speaking, all Catholics universally agreeded that it was not in fact fabricated. I mean, come on, the Pope himself was sending out "death warrents" for Elizabeth and he also praised Anthony for his attempt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.213.219.190 (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the end section is too harsh. In fact, Elizabeth was very careful about signing the death warrent of Mary QOS. She signed the warrent, then refused to let it go. Her secretary, William Davison, then stole it, pursuaded by the privy councillers and Mary was executed. After the execution Elizabeth was furious and Davison was imprisoned. However he was released after eighteen months and his pension paid for the rest of his life! So you see, Elizabth was very careful about, almost leaving herself completely innocent! RBeniston. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.223.204 (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

..or at least "preserving deniability" as the Nixonist phrase was. Without a mention of the papal bull Regnans in Excelsis, how can the Wikipedia reader judge the atmosphere in which plot and reprisal went forward? --Wetman 18:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


: I added a mention of Thomas Morgan, who was working at the Scottish Embassy in Paris at this time and was actually the one sending letters to Mary Stuart and receiving them - though Gilbert Gifford might have been an intermediary. User: --Phdemorgan (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag[edit]

The NPOV tag was applied without explanation, at 20:55, 14 November 2006 by User:Gabrielthursday, who has since made a single edit, in September 2007. A copy of this post will be posted at User talk:Gabrielthursday to ask for some details of what statements require more neutral expression, so that the tag can be removed. --Wetman (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, let me first say that I'm happy to see the article greatly improved from its state when the tag was applied. My sense, however, is that this statement needs at least clarification:
In Mary's last letter to Babington, in which Mary acknowledged Babington's enterprise, Walsingham had Thomas Phelippes, a cipher and language expert in his employ, forge a postscript asking for the identity of the six conspirators.
Firstly, we ought to know what kind of acknowledgement was sent- was it an approval or not? Without clarification, the reader's assumption will likely be approval, which may or may not be accurate. Secondly, I seem to recall that some defenders of Mary, Queen of Scots allege that not only was the postscript forged, but so too was the acknowledgement. If so, this disagreement ought to be mentioned. See, for example [[1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabrielthursday (talkcontribs) 01:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Magazine style, citation requests, dubious[edit]

Currently the article reads like a magazine article, with sentences beginning with informal "Because," and anachronistic "Whilst." It addition prepositions end a number of long, multiphrase sentences. There are confused verb structures, and unclear writing. The tone of neutral authority is clearly absent from discussions of the social importance and political justification of the entrapment, plot, execution and consequences.

Citation requests are mainly in relation to statements of motivation, where it would be necessary to have a historian or a section of archives clearly demonstrate internal or interior motivation.

Dubious is related to the speculation regarding Elizabeth's motives in not killing Mary, and the complex compounded sentence claiming that regicide undermined her own rule. The expression of both these sentences is twisted in a way to try and include opinion within an encyclopedia without having to source this opinion externally. Additionally, the concept of regicide is an anachronism. Being clear would reveal these problems: "By committing regicide Elizabeth directly threatened the constitutional basis of her own rule." Written in the clear, it is obviously an opinion. What sources backs this opinion? Fifelfoo (talk) 04:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Babington recruited twice?[edit]

John Ballard, a Jesuit priest and Catholic agent, persuaded Babington to become involved in a plot . . . Babington was recruited by Charles Paget and Thomas Morgan, a confidant of Mary and member of the Scottish embassy to France.

So, did Ballard know Paget and Morgan? If he actually was recruited twice, independently, I think that should be clarified in one place in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.252.209.128 (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Major rewrite[edit]

I made a major rewrite of this article. I'm still thinking of revising the last part. I need your opinions, people RashBold (talk · contribs · count)


I think a major rewrite is in order. You might start with the following sentence:

In the new postscript a sincere offer was made to take an active part in the assassination but Phelippes who have seen Mary many times describing her in his letters as a very big almost obese and tall woman with a double chin who was taken by her guards in a coach or in a big chair because of her invalidity and inability to walk alone and who in addition was not allowed by her guards to approach him or anybody else when she saw him sometimes when she was outside her room where she usually spent almost all her time in bed due to her invalidity with no social contact in a cold damp room with barred windows which even kept the sun from reaching her; added a forged part focusing on the name of the conspirators: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.74.220 (talk) 06:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Biased[edit]

This article has a clear pro-catholic-Mary/anti-protestant-Elizabeth slant. Surely these articles should at least try to show a little objectivity..? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.170.152.204 (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps 82.170.152.204 could give us greater detail.
I want quotations, not general charges of bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.173.208 (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
82.170.152.204 seems to be mainly interested in entertainment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.173.208 (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)