|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
I deleted the reference to Carloline Hibbard's _Charles I and the Popish Plot_, since I believe her book uses the term "popish plot" to refer to plotting undertaken under Charles I, rather than the "Popish Plot" in the usual signification, which this article describes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 03:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it looks a little silly putting Popish in quotation marks. The historical interest is that it was a conspiracy delusion, there was no plot of any sort. So to put one word in quotation marks is like writing "Jewish" conspiracy, when there is no conspiracy at all. In the 21st century, it is an historical term, not a statement of opinion. Can people cite reputable sources that put the word in quotation marks? William Quill (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Some aspects of the Plot need to be detailed in this article, among which are: The connexion between the plot and the exclusion crisis, the prosecution of Samuel Pepys in the plot, the details of how Titus Oates was discredited. I'm sure that more details are needed on many fronts, but these strike me as most needful. Gabrielthursday (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- A possible reference for some of the above is the Catholic Encyclopaedia article on this subject. Gabrielthursday (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
It is very unlikely that Oates and Tonge assassinated him, although almost certain that the men hanged for the murder did not. Suicide is also unlikely as the marks upon his neck are not consistent with a suspension. John Dickson Carr and Alred Marks, inter alia, suggest that Philip Herbert, 7th Earl of Pembroke, on the basis of circumstantial evidence, was responsible. In the 17th century the top 4% of the population by income were responsible for 15% of homicides.--Streona (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC) The percentages are not proof that Herbert killed anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
No, but I thought it might be interesting.
Godfrey was foreman of the Middlesex Grand Jury who convicted Herbert of killing one Nathaniel Cony but Herbert appealed to his fellow Peerrs and was let out. The day he walked,Godfrey took a holiday in Montpelier for 2 months. He returned in September 1678 and was dead in October. Herbert had left injuries on Cony by stamping on his torso and similar injuries were found upon Godfrey. Herbert went on to murder a watchman called William Smeath and got off again by Royal Pardon, retiring to his estates where he kept 60 mastiffs and a gang of men as debauched as himself until drinking himself to death at the age of 30.All this represents circumstantial evidence only, but quite strong at that. If it were proof he could have been convicted.--Streona (talk) 17:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Treaty of Dover
To my mind the whole affair must be placed in the context of the Secret Treaty of Dover. Charles II agreed to convert to Catholocism & convert England, with the support of 6000 French Dragoons and to attack the Netherlands in return for money off the French. Shaftesbury found out from fellow Cabal minister Dlifford who had negotiated along with Danby.What could Shaftesbury do? If he accused the King of Treason he would be executed for the same offence. Nobody wanted another Civil War, so he resigned & formed the Kng's Head Club - later the Green Ribbon Club- of which Godfrey was a founder member. The Club campaigned to "save the King" from evil advior and Catholics plotting against him. This was simply coded reference to Charles own treachery and I suspect that most of the inner membership knew it- as did Charles. He sussed out Oates immediately. When he questioned him about the descriptions of people & places he knew in Europe and Oates claimed to have seen, he caught him out. Nonetheless innicent individual Catholics were scapegoated by Shaftesbury to thwart Charles's ambitions (which were later carried out - unsuccessfully by his brother James)and for Charles to save his own skin. In seeking to assassinate Charles and James in the Rye House Plot, Rumbold and the others were merely seeking the heads of the real traitors for whom so many innocent catholics were killed.--Streona (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure that the portrayal of the Earl of Danby (Thomas Osborne) is correct in this portion of the article: "Oates and Tonge were brought before the Privy Council later that month. The council interrogated Oates. On 28 September he made 43 allegations against various members of Catholic religious orders — including 541 Jesuits — and numerous Catholic nobles. He accused Sir George Wakeman, the queen's physician, and Edward Colman, the secretary to the Duchess of York (Mary of Modena), of planning to assassinate the king. Although Oates probably selected the names randomly or with the help of the Earl of Danby, Coleman was found to have corresponded with a French Jesuit, which condemned him. Wakeman was later acquitted.
Others Oates accused included Dr William Fogarty, Archbishop Peter Talbot of Dublin, Samuel Pepys, and Lord Belasyse. With the help of the Earl of Danby the list grew to 81 accusations. Oates was given a squad of soldiers and he began to round up Jesuits."
I am pretty sure that the person helping Oates to accuse (and judicially murder) these Catholics was Lord Anthony Ashley Cooper, the Earl of Shaftesbury. Anyone have a citation for either one of these lords helping Oates?
If a citation cannot be produced, I think we should eliminate the claim that any particular person helped compile the lists of those accused and revert simply to the number of people whom Oates claimed were involved.