The Grand Explosion [A Gunpowder Plot TL]

On the 5th of November, Anno Domini 1605, one of the grandest and most ambitious attempts at political assassination took place.

Not satisfied with just killing King James the Sixth and First, the conspirators around Sir Robert Catesby wanted to blow up Parliament at the State Opening, thus wiping out much of the English political establishment at a stroke.

The PoD for this timeline is based on the assumption that the letter received by Lord Monteagle was from Francis Tresham; and that Catesby never invited Tresham to join the conspiracy.
Thus, given no warning, the King sits upon his throne in Parliament, accompanied by Henry, Prince of Wales (and his younger son, Charles? Perhaps), and surrounded by the great and good of his kingdom...and Guy Fawkes lights the fuse and begins to run...and in a cataclysm of fire and smoke, with debris flying halfway across London, we are in a new history.

I am only beginning to research this possibility closely, so any help - including pointing me towards useful sources on the period - would be much appreciated.
I want to take this timeline at least as far as the 1640s, just to see how different England, Scotland, and the rest of Europe are by that point.
 
We recently discussed this, you should do a search for that thread.

One thing I remember that interested me was the possibility that the political chaos in England would push back their settlements in the New World by a number of years meaning that France and Spain will have more breathing room to expand and consolidate even if it's only say, 20 years. And with such a huge decapitation of English leadership, 20 years seems reasonable to spend sorting stuff out and preparing to go to the NW.
 
Eh, I did a couple of searches, and most of what I could find was threads each year discussing the anniversary. Still, I'll have another look.
 
One thing I remember that interested me was the possibility that the political chaos in England would push back their settlements in the New World by a number of years meaning that France and Spain will have more breathing room to expand and consolidate even if it's only say, 20 years. And with such a huge decapitation of English leadership, 20 years seems reasonable to spend sorting stuff out and preparing to go to the NW.

Actually, I don't think it is Spain that will profit most from it in the new world (as most English colonies were quite far from the Spanish cores), but the Dutch colonies in the new world.
 
Actually, I don't think it is Spain that will profit most from it in the new world (as most English colonies were quite far from the Spanish cores), but the Dutch colonies in the new world.

Though, of course the Netherlands will still have the restricted population base which caused them problems IOTL, so I'd expect them to lose most of any extra that they pick up as time wears on...however, they may lose more to France, rather than England.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Though, of course the Netherlands will still have the restricted population base which caused them problems IOTL, so I'd expect them to lose most of any extra that they pick up as time wears on...however, they may lose more to France, rather than England.

Except that the French did the same, and the Dutch settlements in the North America was much better placed.
 
Though, of course the Netherlands will still have the restricted population base which caused them problems IOTL, so I'd expect them to lose most of any extra that they pick up as time wears on...however, they may lose more to France, rather than England.

Stronger Dutch colonies in northern America means that their value for the Dutch increases. They could get the same rights as the European parts of the Netherlands (they tried to gain it, but it was hindered by the Anglo-Dutch wars). It could mean that England won't be able to capture the colonies in the Anglo-Dutch wars (assuming they aren't butterflied away, which is certainly possible). It could mean the Dutch demand their return because they are considered too important to trade (the English offered to return the New Netherlands colony after the second Anglo-Dutch war).

Also the low population base for the Netherlands doesn't have to be a problem as it could attract (protestant) German and Scandinavian settlers, maybe even English settlers depending on the effects of the gunpowder plot.
 
Stronger Dutch colonies in northern America means that their value for the Dutch increases. They could get the same rights as the European parts of the Netherlands (they tried to gain it, but it was hindered by the Anglo-Dutch wars). It could mean that England won't be able to capture the colonies in the Anglo-Dutch wars (assuming they aren't butterflied away, which is certainly possible). It could mean the Dutch demand their return because they are considered too important to trade (the English offered to return the New Netherlands colony after the second Anglo-Dutch war).

Also the low population base for the Netherlands doesn't have to be a problem as it could attract (protestant) German and Scandinavian settlers, maybe even English settlers depending on the effects of the gunpowder plot.

Ooh, now that could be interesting. English dissenters emigrating to a Dutch colony, then later interacting with their home-bound brethren...
 
Ooh, now that could be interesting. English dissenters emigrating to a Dutch colony, then later interacting with their home-bound brethren...
Would the Dutch really take in Catholic political refugees who were refugees because they tried to assassinate a protestant head of state and legislature?

In the midst of the 80 Years' War?
 
What If the Gunpowder Plot Had Succeeded?

...The implications of this outcome for future British history would have been tremendous. Charles I would have become king at the age of four instead of twenty-four. He would never have had the difficult relationship with his parents that left him determined to abandon most of his father's policies, and never have made a friendship with his father's unpopular favourite, Buckingham, so tarnishing the opening of his own reign.
Instead he would have revered the memory of his murdered parents, and almost certainly have acquired an abiding hatred of Catholicism, and tended instead to the evangelical wing of Anglicanism. This would have made him much more popular in both England and Scotland than the Anglo-Catholic policies that he adopted instead.
His sister would almost certainly have married a Protestant German prince (as she actually did), and when he lost his lands to Catholic powers (as he also really did), our different, zealously Protestant and anti-Catholic, Charles would have entered the war wholeheartedly on their side. As a godly Protestant prince, with all the serious and devout nature of the real Charles, he would have been assured of considerable support in Britain.

It is true that the financial system was under serious strain already, and would probably have collapsed under the war effort, but the accord between our new Charles and his subjects would have provided a much better basis for an overhaul of it to strengthen the monarchy.

It is true also that the Catholic majority in Ireland, faced with such a hostile king, would have probably been moved to rebellion as they actually were against the Long Parliament in 1641, but the most likely end to that would be that the crushing of the Irish Catholics by Cromwell would have occurred much sooner, and by a secure and popular king.

The Irish problem would have been solved by a programme of mass confiscation and mass evangelization, leaving three Protestant kingdoms under one monarch. In short, had Guy Fawkes succeeded, the British state would have turned into a Protestant absolute monarchy as Sweden, Denmark, Saxony and Prussia all did in the course of the 17th century; but much stronger than any of those.
..

I wonder what Shakespeare will write about ITTL?
 
Last edited:
Would the Dutch really take in Catholic political refugees who were refugees because they tried to assassinate a protestant head of state and legislature?

In the midst of the 80 Years' War?

I wasn't thinking of Catholic dissidents. I thought it could be possible there would be a backlash against all non-anglicans, including puritans and other protestants. Those could flee/move to the Dutch colonies.
 
Top