Talk:Gunpowder Plot

"but there was none left"

Here, the source infers that this addition is in reference to the gunpowder itself, but it may as well be in reference to the plot, suggesting regret that, alas, there "was none left" to light the fuse. Why would someone in 1952 question the provenance of said gunpowder without providing further proof? Why should none of it have been left? No other source states what was done with it.84.164.194.186 (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

On topic of the gunpowder, I recall in 1990s Magnus Magnusson presented a documentary about the Plot, arguing possibility of government collusion, mentioning that gunpowder at the time was a government monopoly, thus raising a question as to the source (who and where) of the gunpowder. So the person questioning the gunpowder left behind was perhaps justified in their disbelief if they were aware of the monopoly factor.Cloptonson (talk) 14:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

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

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)

Removal of tags without discussion

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)

Strange changes of names

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

Purported 'tunnel'

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)