What would have happened if guy fawkes was successful?

Guy Fawkes and fellow conspirators planning the gunpowder plot to blow up the Houses of Parliament in 1605, so what if they has succeded? How do you think it would change history if they had been successful?
 
MASSIVE backlash against the Catholics, for starters. Probably a lot more Puritanism and other brands of radical Protestantism in the 17th century.

Prince Henry becomes King Henry IX at age 11; a good candidate for a regent would be the Duke of Richmond. Assuming he makes it to adulthood unlike OTL he may be charismatic and talented enough to avert the Civil War depending on how willing he would be to listen to Parliament: do I sense a TL in the works?
 
It's been modelled...

...Look up Gunpowder Plot : Exploding the Legend on YouTube. BBC documentary on this. Tremendous death toll and heavy collateral damage. An explosive success and a political disaster. And it damn near succeeded!

Get writing that TL!
 
Prince Henry becomes King Henry IX at age 11; a good candidate for a regent would be the Duke of Richmond. Assuming he makes it to adulthood unlike OTL he may be charismatic and talented enough to avert the Civil War depending on how willing he would be to listen to Parliament: do I sense a TL in the works?
If I am not mistaken, Prince Henry of Wales, was to attend the opening of parliament, along side his father, if this is so, than the death toll will include King and heir. Prince Charles, Duke of York and Albany, Marquess of Ormonde, Earl of Ross and Lord Ardmannoch is only 4, so a regency would last for 12 years at least.

As for Duke of Richmond - Ludovic Stewart, 2nd Duke of Lennox was not given the title of DoR until 1623, where as his nephew, James Stewart, 4th Duke of Lennox would not gain the title of DoR until 1624. Both of whom lack the strength and support of English Parliament.
Maybe some one like:
Robert Cecil, 1st Earl of Salisbury (Secretary of State, James I's leading minister)
Charles Howard, 1st Earl of Nottingham (Lord High Admiral)
Henry Howard, 1st Earl of Northampton (Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports)
Thomas Sackville, 1st Earl of Dorset (Lord Treasurer)
Thomas Howard, 1st Earl of Suffolk
Charles Blount, 1st Earl of Devonshire

Or simply having a council rather than a single ruler to make it fair.
 
If I am not mistaken, Prince Henry of Wales, was to attend the opening of parliament, along side his father, if this is so, than the death toll will include King and heir. Prince Charles, Duke of York and Albany, Marquess of Ormonde, Earl of Ross and Lord Ardmannoch is only 4, so a regency would last for 12 years at least.

As for Duke of Richmond - Ludovic Stewart, 2nd Duke of Lennox was not given the title of DoR until 1623, where as his nephew, James Stewart, 4th Duke of Lennox would not gain the title of DoR until 1624. Both of whom lack the strength and support of English Parliament.
Maybe some one like:
Robert Cecil, 1st Earl of Salisbury (Secretary of State, James I's leading minister)
Charles Howard, 1st Earl of Nottingham (Lord High Admiral)
Henry Howard, 1st Earl of Northampton (Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports)
Thomas Sackville, 1st Earl of Dorset (Lord Treasurer)
Thomas Howard, 1st Earl of Suffolk
Charles Blount, 1st Earl of Devonshire

Or simply having a council rather than a single ruler to make it fair.

Whoops.

Well, if Charles is king, and he's still an absolutist Arminian, then this could easily lead to an earlier English Civil War. Heck, it may very well result in a permanent Commonwealth.
 
The plotters' intention was to make Princess Elizabeth queen, under a Catholic regency.

If they succeed in seizing power, there's an immediate Civil War, and the Catholic faction will have to seek help from France or Spain. If they get help from Spain, France might help the Protestants; the Netherlands certainly will.

The union of the crowns of England and Scotland had not been in place long; it might not last if the Protestants in the two countries don't agree on a claimant to the crown.
 
By my understanding, the plot nearly DID succeed. Guy's original excuse to what or why he was storing under the house of Parliament was bought, it was only James VI/Cecil's paranoia that made them check again. James' paranoia was based on his own father's death, ICR why Cecil was paranoid.
 
Whoops.

Well, if Charles is king, and he's still an absolutist Arminian, then this could easily lead to an earlier English Civil War. Heck, it may very well result in a permanent Commonwealth.

Or would Charles coming to the throne earlier, with new politicians, lead to a feeling that he is divine from God? Would we see a united Charles and Parliament fighting in a civil war against the Catholics.
 
In such a scenario where the Catholics loose (which I'm putting strong money on the catholics loosing) Would they be able to flee across the Atlantic. In shot Catholic thirteen colonies? Another thing to consider is that if France and Spain are intervening, how much would this hurt their efforts in intervineing in the 30 years war?
 
By my understanding, the plot nearly DID succeed. Guy's original excuse to what or why he was storing under the house of Parliament was bought, it was only James VI/Cecil's paranoia that made them check again. James' paranoia was based on his own father's death, ICR why Cecil was paranoid.

A number of the plotters had friends and relatives in Parliament; the crucial warning came in an anonymous letter to Lord Monteagle (brother-in-law of plotter Francis Tresham) which read:

My Lord, out of the love I bear to some of your friends, I have a care of your preservation. Therefore I would advise you, as you tender your life, to devise some excuse to shift your attendance at this parliament; for God and man hath concurred to punish the wickedness of this time. And think not slightly of this advertisement, but retire yourself into your country where you may expect the event in safety. For though there be no appearance of any stir, yet I say they shall receive a terrible blow this Parliament; and yet they shall not see who hurts them. This counsel is not to be condemned because it may do you good and can do you no harm; for the danger is passed as soon as you have burnt the letter. And I hope God will give you the grace to make good use of it, to whose holy protection I commend you.

The general import of the letter was unmistakable; Monteagle took it to the authorities. James himself, seizing on the word 'blow', suspected an explosion was planned (like, in fact, the one that had killed his father many years earlier). The ensuing search located the gunpowder.
 
There's some difference of opinion over how close the plot came to success. One theory is that it would have succeeded but for the Monteagle letter. The other theory is that Cecil knew of the plot in at least general terms some time in advance, but he chose to "allow the plot to ripen" before rounding up the plotters, in order to have a more concrete case against them and in order to draw out who else the plotters would recruit.
 
In such a scenario where the Catholics loose (which I'm putting strong money on the catholics loosing) Would they be able to flee across the Atlantic. In shot Catholic thirteen colonies? Another thing to consider is that if France and Spain are intervening, how much would this hurt their efforts in intervineing in the 30 years war?

In 1605 there are no English colonies in the Americas. Virginia was founded two years later IOTL. As the new English government won't have much reason to trust Catholics to be loyal, it almost certainly wouldn't want to sponsor them. They might instead move to Spain, Portugal or France's colonies.
 
Top