Popish Plot | English history | Britannica.com English history Wesselényi Conspiracy Popish Plot, (1678), in English history, a totally fictitious but widely believed plot in which it was alleged that Jesuits were planning the assassination of King Charles II in order to bring his Roman Catholic brother, the Duke of York (afterward King James II), to the throne. The allegations were fabricated by Titus Oates , a renegade Anglican clergyman who had feigned conversion to the Roman Catholic church the year before and spent a few months as a student at two English seminaries abroad, from both of which he was expelled. Illustration of Titus Oates in the pillory. Museum of London/Heritage Images/age fotostock Encouraged by a fanatically anti-Catholic acquaintance, Israel Tonge , Oates informed the government of the imagined plot and eventually gained access to the Privy Council , where the king’s questioning showed Oates to be lying. But meanwhile, Oates also made a sworn deposition of his “evidence” (Sept.

28, 1678) to a Westminster justice of the peace, Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey , and when the latter was found murdered in October, a popular panic was engendered. Ramifications of the plot were imagined everywhere, and in all about 35 innocent people were executed. Eventually, Oates was discredited, and the panic died down. Learn More in these related articles: Project MUSE - Ireland and the Popish Plot (review) Toby Barnard Ireland and the Popish Plot. By John Gibney. (New York: Palgrave. 2009. Pp. x, 206. $69.95. ISBN 978-0-230-20365-5.) In “Silver Blaze” (1892), Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes memorably refers to the dog that did not bark. In Ireland, the Popish Plot of 1678–81 has the same status: a plot that never was. Its nonexistence therefore poses severe difficulties for historians who study it.

In essence, what any analyst has to do is to show why such as plot was widely believed to exist, or, if it was a complete fabrication, why it was invented. John Gibney’s account generally follows previous ones in its answers. However, it is based on a fuller review of the evidence than has usually been attempted, and therefore it carries conviction. Gibney makes clear that the notion of a plot among Catholics in Ireland to kill their Protestant neighbors and for some from Ireland to murder the king and leading politicians was the product of febrile English politics. Charles II’s inclinations toward France, indulgence of Catholics, and Frenchstyle absolutism were resisted fiercely by English opponents, derisively labeled as “Whigs.” Misgovernment in Ireland, notably in allowing too great latitude to the Catholic majority there, was a cudgel with which to belabor the king. However, reticence about attacking the monarch directly, and thereby risking the charge of treason, made many critics indict evil councillors. In Ireland, the obvious target was the incumbent viceroy, a veteran from the 1640s, the duke of Ormond. Both in England and Ireland, Ormond had rivals keen to topple him.

Catholics blamed him for their disappointments following Charles II’s restoration, while ultra-Protestants accused him of leniency toward the Catholics. [End Page 363] The crisis over the alleged Popish Plot was an English one. So, too, was the attempt to exclude the Catholic heir, James, duke of York, from the succession to the throne. Opportunists and demagogues in England believed that Ireland could play a vital role in building up belief in a Catholic conspiracy to assassinate Charles and substitute a French puppet regime in England, Ireland, and Scotland. After all, Ireland had an overwhelmingly Catholic population. As a separate island it gave France a possible beachhead from which to invade Britain. There was also the powerful and assiduously reinforced memory of the Catholic uprising of the 1640s, and the negative connotations that the terms Catholic and Irish carried among many Protestants. That the drama that played out in London caused only muffled echoes in Dublin owed much to the very different political structures in Ireland. No Parliament sat, although Ormond had wanted to summon one; the press was puny in comparison with its English counterpart and relatively easily policed.

Even so, there were justifiable anxieties in Ireland, which could be whipped into something more dangerous. Vulnerable Protestant minorities scattered across the country feared that they might suffer as their forebears had in and after 1641. In practice, while individual Protestants might reasonably fear violence from supplanted Catholics, a coordinated popish plot was implausible in 1679. By that date, two Catholic grievances remained: the loss of lands and the penalties attaching to the exercise of their faith. Politically experienced Catholics calculated that a Fabian approach was best. Not only would their loyalty commend them to Charles II and entitle them to greater generosity but the accession of James promised even brighter prospects. Therefore, to risk all in a new rising would be premature and foolhardy. In the event, the hopes pinned on James proved misplaced. Even when he came to Ireland in 1689 and used it as the base from which to try to regain his lost kingdoms, he remained loath to alter the land settlement or to give back to Catholicism the status and resources of the established church. Of course, not all had the patience to wait for a change of king to improve matters.

But the violence that punctuated provincial Ireland remained episodic and largely uncoordinated. It was relatively easy, nevertheless, to point to the large numbers of priests ministering surreptitiously and the many contacts between Catholic Ireland and continental Europe, and conjure up all too imaginable consequences. Gibney plods steadfastly through the successive accusations. He assesses the ease with which rumors could start and catch hold. He uncovers some of the subterranean links among malcontents in England and stooges and mercenaries in Ireland. He contrasts the apparent lack of commentaries printed originally in Dublin with the blizzard falling from the London presses. These elements, together with the detailed narrative, make this a useful study. It fails, however, to explore several potentially rewarding avenues that might have given it some novelty. In particular, remembering that France was said to be behind the subversion of Ireland and that Catholicism was an international movement, as well as associated with [End Page 364] bids for universal monarchy, the book largely ignores continental and Catholic sources. Since the activities of the Irish outside Ireland are attracting increasing scholarly attention, it is a shame that the international dimensions of the Popish Plot, especially in its Irish aspects, are not explored.

Gibney is refreshingly skeptical regarding the relevance of “the new British history” to a satisfactory interpretation of his subject. He insists that it was fundamentally an English crisis. It was, also, in terms both of ideology and realpolitik, an international episode. Those implications have yet to be considered. Toby Barnard Popish Plot | The Politics of Britain Wiki | Fandom powered by Wikia The Politics of Britain Wiki Share [1] [2] The execution of the five Jesuits The Popish Plot was a fictitious conspiracy concocted by Titus Oates that gripped England in anti-Catholic hysteria between 1678 and 1681. [1 ] Oates alleged that there existed an extensive Catholic conspiracy to assassinate Charles II , accusations that led to the execution of at least 15 men and precipitated the Exclusion Bill Crisis. Eventually Oates' intricate web of accusations fell apart, leading to his arrest and conviction for perjury . Contents Edit There was a growing fear by Protestants of increasing Catholic influence on England. Charles' heir, his brother James Stuart, Duke of York had converted to Catholicism , and the King's wife, Catherine of Braganza , was also Catholic.

Charles' wars and religious policies during the 1670s led to conflict with parliament . In 1672, Charles issued the Royal Declaration of Indulgence , in which he purported to suspend all penal laws against Roman Catholics and other religious dissenters. [2 ] Charles II did not want to share power, but he was financially reliant on Parliament . He believed that an alliance with Catholic France would provide money and aid him in becoming the absolute monarch of England. As the power of the Cabal Ministry waned Thomas Osborne, Lord Danby assumed more influence in his role as Lord High Treasurer . Danby sought to divert the king from a Francophile foreign policy. [3 ] In December 1677 an anonymous pamphlet (possibly by Andrew Marvell ) spread alarm in London by suggesting that Rome planned to change the lawful government of England. [4 ] Edit The Plot unfolded in a very peculiar fashion. Oates and Israel Tonge had written a large manuscript that accused the Roman Catholic Church of approving an assassination of Charles II. The Jesuits in England were to carry out the task. The Oates and Tonge manuscript also named nearly 100 Jesuits and supporters that were supposedly involved in this assassination plot.

Nothing in this document was ever proven to be true. Oates slipped a copy of the manuscript into the wainscot of a gallery in Sir Richard Barker's house. [5 ] The following day Tonge claimed to find the manuscript, and showed it to an acquaintance, Christopher Kirkby , who was shocked and decided to inform the King. Kirkby was a chemist and a former assistant in Charles's scientific experiments; he bragged about his access to the king. [6 ] On 13 August 1678, whilst Charles was out walking in St James's Park , the chemist informed him of the plot. [7 ] Charles was dismissive but Kirkby stated that he knew the names of assassins who planned to shoot the King in the park and, if that failed, the Queen's physician, Sir George Wakeman , would poison him. When the King demanded proof, the chemist offered to bring Tonge who knew of these matters personally. Charles told Kirkby to present Tonge before Lord Danby. Tonge then lied to Danby that he had found the manuscript but did not know the author although it was probably a man he had seen once or twice and whom he had engaged in light conversation.

Danby advised the King to order an investigation. Charles II denied the request maintaining that the entire affair was absurd. He told Danby to keep the events secret so as not to put the idea of regicide into the people's minds. [8 ] However, word of the manuscript eventually spread to the Duke of York, who publicly called for an investigation into the matter.[ citation needed ] During the investigation, Oates' name arose. On 6 September Oates was summoned before the magistrate Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey to swear an oath prior to his testimony before the king. Oates claimed he had been at a Jesuit meeting held at the White Horse Tavern in the Strand, London on April 24, 1678. [9 ] According to Oates, the purpose of that meeting was to discuss the assassination of Charles II . The meeting discussed a variety of assassination methods which included: Stabbing by Irish ruffians, shooting by two Jesuit soldiers, or the assassination of Charles II by the Queen's physician, Sir George Wakeman . [10 ] 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. Edit The Popish Plot was nearly dismissed as nothing but a conspiracy theory until the murder of Sir Edmund Godfrey. Godfrey was a member of Parliament, and a strong supporter of Protestantism. His disappearance on 12 October 1678, and the finding of his body on 17 October sent the Protestant population into an uproar.

He had been strangled and run through with his own sword. Many of his Protestant supporters blamed the murder on the Catholic Church. Oates seized on this murder as proof that the Plot was true, which succeeded among the public. To this day, no one is certain who killed Sir Edmund Godfrey. There is some speculation that Oates and Tonge may have committed the murder to advance their cause, but evidence is scant. King Charles, aware of the unrest, returned to London and summoned Parliament . He remained unconvinced by Titus's accusations, but Parliament and public opinion forced him to order an investigation. The King's opponents, however, who disliked his "Catholic" court and his Catholic wife Catherine of Braganza , exploited the situation. One of the most prominent such opponents was Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury , leader of the Whigs . [ edit ] Trial of the five Catholic lords Edit Oates became more daring and accused five Catholic lords ( The Earl of Powis , The Viscount Stafford , The Lord Arundell of Wardour , The Lord Petre and The Lord Belasyse ) of involvement in the plot.

The King reputedly laughed at the accusations but the Earl of Shaftesbury had the lords arrested and sent to the Tower for trial at the House of Lords. Seizing upon the anti-Catholic tide, Shaftesbury publicly demanded that the King's brother, James, should be excluded from the royal succession , prompting the Exclusion crisis . On 5 November 1678, people burned effigies of the Pope instead of those of Guy Fawkes . [10 ] At the end of the year, the parliament passed a bill, a second Test Act , excluding Catholics from membership of both Houses (a law not repealed until 1829). On 25 October 1678 the Lords Arundell, Stafford, Powis, Petre, and Belasyse were arrested at the instance of the House of Commons and committed to the Tower. On 1 November the House of Commons resolved to proceed by impeachment against 'the five popish lords.' On 23 Nov.

all Arundell's papers were seized and examined by the lords' committee; on 3 December the Middlesex grand jury found the five peers guilty of high treason; and on 5 December the lower house announced that they were ready to impeach Arundell. A month later parliament was dissolved, and the proceedings were interrupted. After some discussion, in March 1679, it was resolved by both houses that the dissolution had not invalidated the motions for the impeachment. On 10 April 1679 Arundell and three of his companions (Belasyse was too ill to attend) were brought to the House of Lords to put in pleas against the articles of impeachment. Arundell complained of the uncertainty of the charges brought against him, and implored the peers to have them 'reduced to competent certainty.' But this plea was on 24 April voted irregular, and on 26 April the prisoners were again brought to the House of Lords and ordered to amend their pleas. Arundell replied by briefly declaring himself not guilty.

The trial of the five lords was soon afterwards fixed for 13 May; but a quarrel between the two houses as to points of procedure, and as to the legality of admitting the bishops to a capital trial, followed by a dissolution, delayed its commencement till 30 November 1680. On that day it was decided to proceed first against Lord Stafford, who was condemned to death on 7 December and beheaded on 23 December. On 30 December the evidence against Arundell and his three fellow-prisoners was ordered to be in readiness, but there public proceedings stopped. Petre died in the Tower in 1683. His companions remained there till 12 February 1684 (i.e. for five years and nearly four months), when an appeal to the court of King's Bench to release them on bail was successful. On 21 May 1685 Arundell, Powis, and Belasyse came to the House of Lords to present petitions for the annulling of the charges against them, and on the following day the petitions were granted.

On 1 June 1685 their liberty was formally assured them on the ground that the witnesses against them had perjured themselves, and on 4 June the bill of attainder against Stafford was reversed. [11 ] Edit On 24 November, Oates claimed the Queen was working with the King's physician to poison him and enlisted the aid of "Captain" William Bedloe , who was ready to say anything for money. The King personally interrogated Oates, caught him out in a number of inaccuracies and lies, and ordered his arrest. However, a couple days later, Parliament forced Oates's release with the threat of constitutional crisis. Hysteria continued. Noblewomen carried firearms if they had to venture outdoors at night. Houses were searched for hidden guns, mostly without any significant result. Some Catholic widows tried to ensure their safety by marrying Anglican widowers. The House of Commons was searched—without result—in the expectation of a second Gunpowder Plot being perpetrated. Anyone even suspected of being Catholic was driven out of London and forbidden to return within ten miles of the city. Silk armour was produced for fashionable ladies and gentlemen.

Oates, for his part, received a state apartment in Whitehall and an annual allowance of £1,200. He was not ready to stop, however, and soon presented new allegations. He claimed assassins intended to shoot the king with silver bullets so the wound would not heal. The public invented their own stories, including a tale that the sound of digging had been heard near the House of Commons and rumours of a French invasion in the Isle of Purbeck . The "purge" spread to the countryside. However, public opinion began to turn against Oates. Having had at least 15 innocent men executed, the last being Oliver Plunkett , Archbishop of Armagh , on 1 July 1681, Judge William Scroggs began to declare people innocent. The King began to devise countermeasures. On 31 August 1681, Oates was told to leave his apartments in Whitehall, but remained undeterred and denounced the King, the Duke of York, and just about anyone he regarded as an opponent. He was arrested for sedition , sentenced to a fine of £100,000 and thrown into prison.

When James II acceded to the throne in 1685 he had Oates retried for perjury and sentenced to annual pillory , loss of clerical dress, and imprisonment for life. Oates spent the next three years in prison. At the accession of William of Orange and Mary in 1688, he was pardoned and granted a pension of £5 a week but his reputation did not significantly recover. The pension was suspended, but in 1698 was restored and increased to £300 a year. Titus Oates died on 12 July or 13 July 1705. [ edit ] Gallery of playing cards Map of Popish Plot - The Full Wiki The Full Wiki Wikipedia article: Map showing all locations mentioned on Wikipedia article: The Popish Plot was a fictitious conspiracy concocted by Titus Oates which gripped England in anti-Catholic hysteria from 1678 until 1681 . Oates alleged that there existed an extensive Catholic conspiracy to assassinate Charles II . These accusations would eventually lead to the execution of at least 15 men, and precipitate the Exclusion Bill Crisis.

Eventually Oates' intricate web of accusations fell apart, leading to his arrest and conviction for perjury . Background There was a growing fear by Protestants of increasing Catholic influence on England. Charles' heir, his brother James Stuart, Duke of York had converted to Catholicism , and the King's wife, Catherine of Braganza , was also Catholic. Charles' wars and religious policies during the 1670s led to conflict with parliament . In 1672, Charles issued the Royal Declaration of Indulgence , in which he purported to suspend all penal laws against Roman Catholics and other religious dissenters. Charles II did not want to share power but needed Parliament for money. He believed that an alliance with Catholic France would provide money and aid him in becoming the absolute monarch of England. As the power of the Cabal Ministry waned Thomas Osborne, Lord Danby assumed more influence in his role as Lord High Treasurer . Danby sought to divert the king from a Francophile foreign policy. In December 1677 an anonymous pamphlet (possibly by Andrew Marvell ) spread alarm in London by suggesting Rome planned to change the lawful government of England. The Plot The Plot unfolded in a very peculiar fashion.

Oates and Israel Tonge had written a large manuscript that accused the Roman Catholic Church of approving an assassination of Charles II. The Jesuits in England were to carry out the task. The Oates and Tonge manuscript also named nearly 100 Jesuits and supporters that were supposedly involved in this assassination plot. Nothing in this document was ever proven to be true. Oates slipped a copy of the manuscript into the wainscot of a gallery in Sir Richard Barker's house. The following day Tonge claimed to find the manuscript, and showed it to an acquaintance, Christopher Kirkby , who was shocked and decided to inform the King. Kirkby was a chemist and a former assistant in Charles's scientific experiments; he bragged about his access to the king. On 13 August 1678 , whilst Charles was out walking in St James's Park , the chemist informed him of the plot. Charles was dismissive but Kirkby stated that he knew the names of assassins who planned to shoot the King in the park and, if that failed, the Queen's physician, Sir George Wakeman , would poison him. When the king demanded proof, the chemist offered to bring Tonge who knew of these matters personally.

Charles told Kirkby to present Tonge before Lord Danby. Tonge then lied to Danby that he had found the manuscript but did not know the author although it was probably a man he had seen once or twice and whom he had engaged in light conversation. Danby advised the king to order an investigation. Charles II denied the request maintaining that the entire affair was absurd. He told Danby to keep the events secret so as not to put the idea of regicide into the people's minds. However, word of the manuscript eventually spread to the Duke of York, who publicly called for an investigation into the matter. During the investigation, Oates' name arose. On 6 September Oates was summoned before the magistrate Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey to swear an oath prior to his testimony before the king. Oates claimed he had been at a Jesuit meeting held at the White Horse Tavern in the Strand, London on April 24, 1678. According to Oates, the purpose of that meeting was to discuss the assassination of Charles II .

The meeting discussed a variety of assassination methods which included: Stabbing by Irish ruffians, shooting by two Jesuit soldiers, or the assassination of Charles II by the Queen's physician, Sir George Wakeman . Oates and Tonge were brought before the Privy Council later that month. The council interrogated Oates. On September 28 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.

The Godfrey murder The Popish Plot was nearly dismissed as nothing but a conspiracy theory until the murder of Sir Edmund Godfrey. Godfrey was a member of Parliament, and a strong supporter of Protestantism. His disappearance on October 12, 1678, and the finding of his body on October 17 sent the Protestant population into an uproar. He had been strangled and run through with his own sword. Many of his Protestant supporters blamed the murder on the Catholic Church. Oates seized on this murder as proof that the Plot was true, which succeeded among the public. To this day, no one is certain who killed Sir Edmund Godfrey. There is some speculation that Oates and Tonge may have committed the murder to advance their cause, but evidence is scant. King Charles, aware of the unrest, returned to London and summoned Parliament . Charles still did not believe in Titus's accusations. However, Parliament and public opinion forced him to order an investigation. The king's opponents, however, who disliked his "Catholic" court and his Catholic wife Catherine of Braganza , exploited the situation.

One of the most prominent such opponents was Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury , leader of the Whig . Trial of the five Catholic lords Oates became more daring and accused five Catholic lords ( The Earl of Powis , The Viscount Stafford , The Lord Arundell of Wardour , The Lord Petre and The Lord Belasyse ) of involvement of the plot. The King reputedly laughed at the accusations but the Earl of Shaftesbury had the lords arrested and sent to the Tower for trial at the House of Lords. Seizing upon the anti-Catholic tide, Shaftesbury publicly demanded that the King's brother, James, should be excluded from the royal succession , prompting the Exclusion crisis . On November 5 , 1678 , people burned effigies of the Pope instead of those of Guy Fawkes . At the end of the year, the parliament passed a bill, a second Test Act , excluding Catholics from membership of both Houses (a law not repealed until 1829).

On 25 October 1678 the Lords Arundell, Stafford, Powis, Petre, and Belasyse were arrested at the instance of the House of Commons and committed to the Tower. On 1 November the House of Commons resolved to proceed by impeachment against 'the five popish lords.' On 23 Nov. all Arundell's papers were seized and examined by the lords' committee; on 3 December the Middlesex grand jury found the five peers guilty of high treason; and on 5 December the lower house announced that they were ready to impeach Arundell. A month later parliament was dissolved, and the proceedings were interrupted. After some discussion, in March 1679, it was resolved by both houses that the dissolution had not invalidated the motions for the impeachment. On 10 April 1679 Arundell and three of his companions (Belasyse was too ill to attend) were brought to the House of Lords to put in pleas against the articles of impeachment.

Arundell complained of the uncertainty of the charges brought against him, and implored the peers to have them 'reduced to competent certainty.' But this plea was on 24 April voted irregular, and on 26 April the prisoners were again brought to the House of Lords and ordered to amend their pleas. Arundell replied by briefly declaring himself not guilty. The trial of the five lords was soon afterwards fixed for 13 May; but a quarrel between the two houses as to points of procedure, and as to the legality of admitting the bishops to a capital trial, followed by a dissolution, delayed its commencement till 30 November 1680. On that day it was decided to proceed first against Lord Stafford, who was condemned to death on 7 December and beheaded on 23 December. On 30 December the evidence against Arundell and his three fellow-prisoners was ordered to be in readiness, but there public proceedings stopped. Petre died in the Tower in 1683. His companions remained there till 12 February 1684 (i.e.

for five years and nearly four months), when an appeal to the court of King's Bench to release them on bail was successful. On 21 May 1685 Arundell, Powis, and Belasyse came to the House of Lords to present petitions for the annulling of the charges against them, and on the following day the petitions were granted. On 1 June 1685 their liberty was formally assured them on the ground that the witnesses against them had perjured themselves, and on 4 June the bill of attainder against Stafford was reversed. Other accusations On 24 November, Oates claimed the Queen was working with the King's physician to poison him and enlisted the aid of "Captain" William Bedloe , who was ready to say anything for money. The King personally interrogated Oates, caught him out in a number of inaccuracies and lies, and ordered his arrest. However, a couple days later, Parliament forced Oates's release with the threat of constitutional crisis. Hysteria continued. Noblewomen carried firearms if they had to venture outdoors at night. Houses were searched for hidden guns, mostly without any significant result.

Some Catholic widows tried to ensure their safety by marrying Anglican widowers. The House of Commons was searched — without result — in the expectation of a second Gunpowder Plot being perpetrated. Anyone even suspected of being Catholic was driven out of London and forbidden to return within ten miles of the city. Silk armour was produced for fashionable ladies and gentlemen. Oates, for his part, received a state apartment in Whitehall and an annual allowance of £1,200. He was not ready to stop, however, and soon presented new allegations. He claimed assassins intended to shoot the king with silver bullets so the wound would not heal. The public invented their own stories, including a tale that the sound of digging had been heard near the House of Commons and rumours of a French invasion in the Isle of Purbeck . The "purge" spread to the countryside. However, public opinion began to turn against Oates. Having had at least 15 innocent men executed, the last being Oliver Plunkett , Archbishop of Armagh , on July 1 , 1681 , Judge Scroggs began to declare people innocent. The King began to devise countermeasures.

On August 31 , 1681 , Oates was told to leave his apartments in Whitehall, but remained undeterred and denounced the King, the Duke of York, and just about anyone he regarded as an opponent. He was arrested for sedition , sentenced to a fine of £100,000 and thrown into prison. When James II acceded to the throne in 1685 he had Oates retried for perjury and sentenced to annual pillory , loss of clerical dress, and imprisonment for life. Oates spent the next three years in prison. At the accession of William of Orange and Mary in 1688, he was pardoned and granted a pension of £5 a week but his reputation did not significantly recover. The pension was suspended, but in 1698 was restored and increased to £300 a year. Titus Oates died on July 12 or July 13 , 1705 .

Gallery of playing cards Image:Popish Plot Playcard1.jpg| Informer William Bedloe Image:Popish Plot Playcard2.jpg| Titus Oates uncovers plotImage:Popish Plot Playcard3.jpg|Magistrate Edmund Berry Godfrey with OatesImage:Popish Plot Playcard4.jpg| William Brooks , Alderman of Dublin Image:Popish Plot Playcard5.jpg| Thomas Pickering , Benedictine monk and victim of the Popish PlotImage:Popish Plot Playcard6.jpg| Nathaniel Reading in Pillory Image:Popish Plot Playcard7.jpg| Edward Colman a victim of Oates's plotImage:Popish Plot Playcard8.jpg|The execution of the five Jesuits References Fraser, pp.305–308 and Hutton, pp.284–285 Mark Knights, ‘Osborne, Thomas, first duke of Leeds (1632–1712)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, Sept 2004 Pollock, John p.

13 Alan Marshall, ‘Tonge, Israel (1621–1680)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, Sept 2004 Pollock, John p. 73-74 Williams, Shelia (1958). The Pope-Burning Processions of 1679, 1680 and 1681. "Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes." p. 104-118. Retrieved February 18, 2008, from JSTOR database. Williams, Shelia p. 104-118 Douglas C. Green (Hg.), Diaries of the Popish Plot, New York 1977 John Kenyon, The Popish Plot 2d ed., 1985, repr.

Phoenix Press 2001 ISBN 1842121685 John Pollock, The Popish Plot: A Study in the History, Kessinger Publishing, 2005, ISBN 1417965762 External links The Popish Plot | Barlow, Francis | V&A Search the Collections Download PDF version Object Type These playing cards are engravings. The images were made by cutting lines into the surface of a flat piece of metal, inking the plate and then transferring the ink held in the lines onto a sheet of paper. Francis Barlow's original drawings for the engravings are in the British Museum, London. Subject The Popish Plot was a fictitious Catholic conspiracy to kill Charles II that the Reverend Titus Oates claimed to have uncovered in 1678.The pictures on these cards tell the story of the plot and show the dire penalties meted out to alleged Roman Catholic enemies of the state. Sets of playing cards depicting historical events were very popular in the last quarter of the 17th century.

There are other political packs from the time of the Popish Plot depicting 'All the Popish Plots' and the Rye House Plot, a conspiracy to assassinate Charles II and his brother, James, Duke of York. Historical Context There was great fear in Britain at the time of Catholic intrigue and a very real apprehension that on the death of Charles his Roman Catholic brother, James, would be placed on the throne. Prints were used to fuel public anxiety, and playing cards were another ideal means of spreading political propaganda at a low cost. Many packs were designed and engraved by leading artists of the day. Physical description 'The Popish Plot'; Pack of 52 politico-historical playing cards, dealing with the Titus Oates conspiracy and the murder of Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey; Place of Origin engraving print, ink on paper Marks and inscriptions Lettered with captions and numerals. Dimensions Height: 8.8 cm each, Width: 5.2 cm each Object history note Made in England by an unknown engraver after pencil drawings by Francis Barlow (born, possibly in Lincolnshire, about 1626, died in London, 1704).

The designs for this pack are in an album of drawings in the British Museum (E Hodnett, Francis Barlow First Master of English Book Illustration, London 1978, pp.25, 26). The cards were available either as a pack or in two broadsheets ‘fit to adorn studios or houses’, at a cost of 8d each. Thirty-six cards (from a pack of 52) have the same back pattern as this pack, and depict incidents in the defeat of the Spanish Armada, see E.1184-1219-1921. Historical context note The 'Popish Plot' was a fictitious conspiracy concocted by Titus Oates that gripped England in anti-Catholic hysteria between 1678 and 1681. Oates alleged that there was Catholic conspiracy to assassinate Charles II. The hysteria that these accusations generated, led to a 'purge', where almost anyone even suspected of being Catholic was driven out of London. It also resulted in the execution of at least 15 men and precipitated the Exclusion Bill Crisis.

By mid-1681, public opinion was turning against Oates and he was arrested for sedition, fined and imprisoned. Descriptive line Pack of 52 politico-historical playing cards depicting 'The Popish Plot' (1678-1681); Backs with geometrical pattern; Lettered with captions and numerals; Engraving print on paper; By an unidentified engraver, after Francis Barlow; England; ca. 1679. Bibliographic References (Citation, Note/Abstract, NAL no) Hamilton, Jean. Playing Cards in the Victoria & Albert Museum. Victoria & Albert Museum. Her Majesty's Stationery Office. London, 1988. pp.39-40, ill. Hamilton, Jean. Playing Cards in the Victoria & Albert Museum. Victoria & Albert Museum. Her Majesty's Stationery Office. London, 1988. pp.14-15, ill. Hamilton, Jean. Playing Cards in the Victoria & Albert Museum. Victoria & Albert Museum. Her Majesty's Stationery Office. London, 1988. p.10. Urban, Sylvanus. Pictured Cards of the Popish plot.

The Gentleman's Magazine. Volume XXXII. London : John Bowyer Nichols and Son, 1849 pp. 265-269, ill. Labels and date British Galleries: These cards were probably published in late 1679, as rumours about the 'Popish Plot' grew. Surviving advertisements show that the cards were sold in packs, or in sheets 'to adorn studies and houses'. They cost eight old pence (just under 3p). The cards were so popular that at least three sets were published. [27/03/2003] Production Note Thirty-six cards have the same back pattern as this pack, and depict incidents in the defeat of the Spanish Armada, see E.1184-1219-1921. Materials Popish Plot - Definition and synonyms of Popish Plot in the English dictionary. Translation of Popish Plot to 20 languages. Popish Plot Meaning of Popish Plot in the English dictionary DICTIONARY GRAMMATICAL CATEGORY OF POPISH PLOT noun exclamation Popish Plot is a noun. A noun is a type of word the meaning of which determines reality.

Nouns provide the names for all things: people, objects, sensations, feelings, etc. WHAT DOES POPISH PLOT MEAN IN ENGLISH? Popish Plot The Popish Plot was a fictitious conspiracy concocted by Titus Oates that between 1678 and 1681 gripped the Kingdoms of England and Scotland in anti-Catholic hysteria. Oates alleged that there existed an extensive Catholic conspiracy to assassinate Charles II, accusations that led to the execution of at least 22 men and precipitated the Exclusion Bill Crisis. Eventually Oates' intricate web of accusations fell apart, leading to his arrest and conviction for perjury. Read more Definition of Popish Plot in the English dictionary The definition of Popish Plot in the dictionary is a supposed conspiracy to murder Charles II of England and replace him with his Catholic brother James: in reality a fabrication by the informer Titus Oates.

ENGLISH WORDS THAT BEGIN LIKE POPISH PLOT Synonyms and antonyms of Popish Plot in the English dictionary of synonyms SYNONYMS WORDS RELATING TO «POPISH PLOT» Popish Plot gunpowder plot popish titus oates what weegy playing cards fabricator fictitious conspiracy concocted that between gripped kingdoms england scotland anti catholic history learning site never actually result imagination encyclopedia britannica totally widely believed which jesuits were planning assassination king hourhistory hour crime solved marks beginning episode forever known roots advent term conventionally used designate during reign pretended have discovered infoplease more from meaning definitions pronunciation freelance writer fabricated started englishman named caused wave herd behavior matters john pollock study diaries being israel tonge robert oxford dictionaries american example sentences reference content Translation of «Popish Plot» into 20 languages TRANSLATOR TRANSLATION OF POPISH PLOT Find out the translation of Popish Plot to 20 languages with our English multilingual translator . The translations of Popish Plot from English to other languages presented in this section have been obtained through automatic statistical translation; where the essential translation unit is the word «Popish Plot» in English.

List of principal searches undertaken by users to access our English online dictionary and most widely used expressions with the word «Popish Plot». FREQUENCY OF USE OF THE TERM «POPISH PLOT» OVER TIME The graph expresses the annual evolution of the frequency of use of the word «Popish Plot» during the past 500 years. Its implementation is based on analysing how often the term «Popish Plot» appears in digitalised printed sources in English between the year 1500 and the present day. Examples of use in the English literature, quotes and news about Popish Plot EXAMPLES 10 ENGLISH BOOKS RELATING TO «POPISH PLOT» Discover the use of Popish Plot in the following bibliographical selection. Books relating to Popish Plot and brief extracts from same to provide context of its use in English literature. 1 The Popish Plot: A Study in the History of the Reign of ... nent position into which he was brought by the trials for the Popish Plot has earned for him a reputation for evil second in the history of the English law courts only to that of Jeffreys. He has been accused of cowardice, cruelty, time-service, ...

John Pollock, 1903 10 A Narrative and Impartial Discovery of the Horrid Popish ... Carried on for the Burning and Destroying the Cities of London and Westminster, with Their Suburbs, &c. : Setting Forth the Several Consults, Orders and Resolutions of the Jesuites &c. Concerning the Same and Divers Depositions and ... William Bedloe, 1679 10 NEWS ITEMS WHICH INCLUDE THE TERM «POPISH PLOT» Find out what the national and international press are talking about and how the term Popish Plot is used in the context of the following news items. 1 The Fiction of Robert Hugh Benson The story takes place during the reign of Charles II, an era rife with political intrigue, including the Popish Plot. Roger Mallock, the fictitious ... «Catholic World Report, Jul 15» 2 Oakham: Not just a small town but the capital of our county Titus, 'the King of Liars' was an instigator of the Popish Plot (1678). Macaulay in his History of England described him as having 'a short neck, ...

«Rutland Times, Apr 15» 3 Anti-Catholic and anti-Presbyterian declarations among thousands … ... pardons for information about the Popish plot". This referred to rumours that the Irish were planning a rebellion with the aid of French forces. «An Phoblacht, Mar 15» 4 The Worst Religious Violence is a Family Affair In this area at least, the “Popish Plot” crisis looks rather like a family feud, if not a civil war within the old Catholic community. « Previous; 1 · 2 ... «Aleteia, Jan 15» 5 Lucinda rising may yet be King Enda's political nightmare ... many political opponents will be to pigeon-hole Lucinda as being the representative of some Catholic manque Popish plot to return Ireland to ... «Irish Independent, Jan 15» 6 In defence of Fighting, Lying, Mad Richard Talbot – the Last Cavalier … This brought him unwonted prominence as when he would narrowly escape a show trial and execution during the Popish Plot hysteria in 1679.

«Irish Times, Nov 14» 7 Learn more about treason, plots and murder in the 17th century The exhibition will explore Guy Fawkes' infamous plot to blow up the Houses of Parliament, the Rye House Plot and the Popish Plot. The free ... «Enfield Independent, Nov 14» 8 Why SPLM should not be a political party? In England, this change began after what was called the Popish Plot of 1678. These narrowly based parties were later transformed to a greater ... «Sudan Tribune, Oct 14» 9 London: Tyburn Martyrs memorial restored ... who were condemned for the Popish Plot of 1678 and died at Tyburn on 20 June 1679: Thomas Whitbread, William Harcourt, John Fenwick, ... «Independent Catholic News, Oct 14» 10 'Civil War: The History of England Volume III', by Peter Ackroyd Nor does this new “reason” leave room for the Popish Plot. The huge merchant fleet, we hear, is filled with “sugar, tobacco and cotton” on its ...

«Financial Times, Sep 14» REFERENCE Article in The Catholic Historical Review 96(2) · January 2010 with 6 Reads DOI: 10.1353/cat.0.0691 1st Toby Barnard Abstract In “Silver Blaze” (1892), Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes memorably refers to the dog that did not bark. In Ireland, the Popish Plot of 1678–81 has the same status: a plot that never was. Its nonexistence therefore poses severe difficulties for historians who study it. In essence, what any analyst has to do is to show why such as plot was widely believed to exist, or, if it was a complete fabrication, why it was invented. John Gibney’s account generally follows previous ones in its answers. However, it is based on a fuller review of the evidence than has usually been attempted, and therefore it carries conviction. Gibney makes clear that the notion of a plot among Catholics in Ireland to kill their Protestant neighbors and for some from Ireland to murder the king and leading politicians was the product of febrile English politics.

Charles II’s inclinations toward France, indulgence of Catholics, and Frenchstyle absolutism were resisted fiercely by English opponents, derisively labeled as “Whigs.” Misgovernment in Ireland, notably in allowing too great latitude to the Catholic majority there, was a cudgel with which to belabor the king. However, reticence about attacking the monarch directly, and thereby risking the charge of treason, made many critics indict evil councillors. In Ireland, the obvious target was the incumbent viceroy, a veteran from the 1640s, the duke of Ormond. Both in England and Ireland, Ormond had rivals keen to topple him. Catholics blamed him for their disappointments following Charles II’s restoration, while ultra-Protestants accused him of leniency toward the Catholics. The crisis over the alleged Popish Plot was an English one. So, too, was the attempt to exclude the Catholic heir, James, duke of York, from the succession to the throne. Opportunists and demagogues in England believed that Ireland could play a vital role in building up belief in a Catholic conspiracy to assassinate Charles and substitute a French puppet regime in England, Ireland, and Scotland.

After all, Ireland had an overwhelmingly Catholic population. As a separate island it gave France a possible beachhead from which to invade Britain. There was also the powerful and assiduously reinforced memory of the Catholic uprising of the 1640s, and the negative connotations that the terms Catholic and Irish carried among many Protestants. That the drama that played out in London caused only muffled echoes in Dublin owed much to the very different political structures in Ireland. No Parliament sat, although Ormond had wanted to summon one; the press was puny in comparison with its English counterpart and relatively easily policed. Even so, there were justifiable anxieties in Ireland, which could be whipped into something more dangerous. Vulnerable Protestant minorities scattered across the country feared that they might suffer as their forebears had in and after 1641. In practice, while individual Protestants might reasonably fear violence from supplanted Catholics, a coordinated popish plot was implausible in 1679. By that date, two Catholic grievances remained: the loss of lands and the penalties attaching to the exercise of their faith. Politically experienced Catholics calculated that a Fabian approach was best.

Not only would their loyalty commend them to Charles II and entitle them to greater generosity but the accession of James promised even brighter prospects. Therefore, to risk all in a new rising would be premature and foolhardy. In the event, the hopes pinned on James proved misplaced. Even when he came to Ireland in 1689 and used it as the base from which to try to regain his lost kingdoms, he remained loath to alter the land settlement or to give back to Catholicism the status and resources of the established church. Of course, not all had the patience to wait for a change of king to improve matters. But the violence that punctuated provincial Ireland remained episodic and largely uncoordinated. It was relatively easy, nevertheless, to point to the large numbers of priests ministering surreptitiously and the many contacts between Catholic Ireland and continental Europe, and conjure up all too imaginable consequences. Gibney plods steadfastly through the successive accusations. He assesses the ease with which rumors could start and catch hold. He uncovers some of the subterranean links among malcontents in...

CitationsCitations0 England and the Popish Plot - History in an HourHistory in an Hour England and the Popish Plot Posted on by admin In October 1678 a magistrate by the name of Edmund Berry Godfrey was found murdered at the foot of Primrose Hill near London. Though he was in himself a figure of little importance his death was to have explosive consequences. For the crime, never solved, marks the beginning of an episode of anti-Catholic hysteria forever known as the Popish Plot. The roots of the ensuing crisis, by far the most serious ever faced by the Restoration monarchy, can be traced back several years. The Cavalier Parliament It’s one of the great ironies of history that the assembly which dominated the reign of Charles II , known for its perceived political loyalties as the ‘Cavalier Parliament’, was in its own way almost as troublesome for the crown as the Long Parliament of Charles I. It was packed with men who were loyal to king, yes, but they were just as loyal to the established church, in some ways even more loyal.

Attempts by the government to introduce a measure of relief for Catholics and dissenters, those who refused to accept communion in the Church of England, was met with an ever growing sense of suspicion. The events of 1678 and after have to be placed against this background, against a fear over growing Catholic influences at court, compounded by suspicions over Charles’ foreign policy, which took England into alliance with the Catholic French against the Protestant Dutch. This was bad enough but there was one additional element which made the general atmosphere toxic- Charles’ brother, James duke of York, converted secretly to Catholicism sometime in the early 1670s, a fact that became generally known when he refused to take the oath prescribed by the 1673 Test Act, specifically aimed at rejecting an important part of Catholic dogma. Titus Oates In itself his conversion may have passed, especially as he was obliged to resign his offices, but for the fact that the king had no legitimate heirs. On the threshold of the Popish Plot, with Charles now well into middle-age and the queen obviously barren, England was faced with the prospect of a Catholic succession, the first since Mary Tudor over a hundred years before.

It was now that one Titus Oates (pictured), a disreputable clergyman, came to the fore, with tales of a conspiracy against the crown. The king was reluctant to take the matter seriously, though he delegated the task of investigation to his chief minister, Thomas Osborne, the earl of Danby. Danby, in turn, passed it on to Godfrey. Only a spark was needed to cause an inferno. Godfrey’s murder was that spark. At once Oates’ accusations took on a new urgency. He was a talented perjurer, who by a mixture of verisimilitude, pure speculation and good luck now convinced the country at large that a grand Catholic conspiracy was under way. At first he alleged no more than that the Jesuits and others were planning to murder the king and his brother. But by fine degrees James was removed as a prospective victim and turned into the principal beneficiary of the crime. England went mad; there is really no other way of describing the ensuing hysteria, positively murderous in its malevolence. In the years between 1678 and 1680 the country was troubled with tales of dark riders and secret meetings.

Perfectly innocent Catholics were tried and butchered on no more than Oates’ perjured evidence. The Exclusion Crisis As Oates accusations gained ground a group formed in Parliament around Anthony Ashley Cooper, first earl of Shaftesbury (pictured), a man of formidable political talents and a personal enemy of James, calling for the removal of the duke of York from the succession, thus beginning the Exclusion Crisis, a far more immediate political danger for the monarchy than the fictions of Oates. This during the days before political parties in the modern sense had emerged. Those who supported Shaftesbury were loosely known as the ‘Country Party,’ the inference being that that they represented the interests of the nation as a whole, as opposed to the ‘Court Party’ behind the king. Other names soon emerged. The enemies of the Country Party started to call them ‘Whigs’, after a group of troublesome Scottish Presbyterian rebels. When it came to insults Shaftesbury and his men were just as adept. The Court Party were referred to as ‘Tories’, recalling a set of Irish brigands. It’s a sign of the eccentricity or the peculiar genius of the English that these insults were eventually adopted as badges of pride!

As the game commenced Charles showed himself a player of some genius. James was removed from the scene, first to the Low Countries and then to Scotland, while Parliament was prorogued from time to time in an attempt to reduce some of the excessive heat. Sacrifices were made to the passions of the mob of men that Charles clearly knew were guiltless, but on the central principle of legitimacy he remained firm. He absolutely refused to accept James, duke of Monmouth, his much-loved but illegitimate eldest son as a possible Protestant successor. He was also fortunate that while the Commons repeatedly returned majorities in favour of exclusion, Shaftesbury and his supporters were a minority in the Lords, where the Tories, rallied by George Saville, marquis of Halifax, rejected the Exclusion Bills. The Oxford Dissolution In the end the Exclusion Crisis was no more than a great wave which broke on the rock of royal obduracy and an unwillingness of even the monarchy’s most trenchant critics to risk again the horrors of the Civil Wars. Charles knew his enemy. Parliament was summoned in 1681 to meet in Oxford, away from the febrile atmosphere of London and the importunities of the Whig mob.

But no sooner had it met than it was dissolved, no further being called for the remainder of the reign. The Whigs, though strong in Parliament, had no real organisational coherence. After the Oxford Dissolution they simply imploded. Shaftesbury eventually went into exile, where he died. James succeeded peacefully to the throne on the death of his brother in 1685, held up by a mood of Tory reaction against the Whigs and the murderous excesses of the Popish Plot. In coming to the throne no king was ever more fortunate in the loyalty of his subjects; in ruling no king was ever less fortunate in judgement and political sense. The End of Titus Oates Titus Oates, the author of the tragedy, had a mixed afterlife. Even before the dissolution of the Oxford Parliament the popular mood had turned against him and the bloodletting that had seen the execution of fifteen innocent men. In August 1681 he was obliged to vacate his apartments in Whitehall. Thereafter he was convicted on a charge of sedition, fined £100,000, a prodigious sum for the day, and imprisoned.

No sooner did James come to the throne than Oates was arraigned on a fresh charge, this time one of perjury. After conviction he was sentenced to life imprisonment, his shame compounded by an annual pillory. He was also tied behind a cart and whipped from Aldgate to Newgate, a punishment that was almost certainly intended to kill him. He survived, bellowing like a bull, so it is reported, during his flogging. When William and Mary came to the throne in the Protestant coup of 1688 Oates was pardoned and awarded an annual pension. It was probably the least the new government could do given the political atmosphere of the day. But his influence never recovered. He died in 1705 little regarded, a “shame to mankind”, to use the words of Judge George Jeffreys. Ana the Imp. House of Stuart | King Charles II House of Stuart Born: May 29, 1630 at St.

James Palace Ascended to the throne: May 29, 1660 aged 30 years Crowned: April 23, 1661 at Westminster Abbey, and at Scone as King of Scots, 1 January 1651 Married: Catherine of Braganza, on May 1662 Children: Three children who died in infancy, and about 17 illegitimate children by at least 8 different mistresses Died: February 6, 1685 at Whitehall Palace, London, aged 54 years, 8 months, and 10 days Buried at: Westminster Charles II was born in St James's Palace, London. During the Civil War he lived with his father in Oxford 1642�45, and after the victory of Cromwell's Parliamentary forces he was in exile in France. Accepting the Scottish Covenanters' offer to make him King, he landed in Scotland in 1650, and was crowned at Scone on 1 January 1651. An attempt to invade England was ended on 3 September 1651 by Cromwell's victory at the Battle of Worcester.

Charles escaped according to legend by hiding in an oak tree, and for nine years he was in exile in Holland, France, Germany, Flanders, and Spain. The death of Cromwell and the collapse of the English Commonwealth lead to opening of negotiations in 1659 by George Monk for the restoration of the monarchy. In April 1660 Charles issued the Declaration of Breda, promising a general amnesty and freedom of conscience. Parliament accepted the Declaration and he was proclaimed King on 8 May 1660. Charles landed at Dover on 26 May 1660, and entered London three days later. He was crowned at Westminster on 23 April 1661. Despite the Declaration there was retribution. The body of Oliver Cromwell was dug up and posthumously decapitated, Charles I was venerated a Saint by the Anglican Church, and all legal documents were post-dated as though Charles II had succeeded on his father�s death in 1649. The Act of uniformity required all Puritans to accept the doctrines of the Church of England. Many who refused sought a new life in the colonies in North America.

The Restoration brought liberalizing social changes including the re-opening of theatres and study of sciences that had been banned by the Puritans. The Royal Society for the study of Science was established and the Royal Observatory at Greenwich. In May 1662 Charles married the Portuguese Princess Catherine of Braganza. Her dowry brought Tangiers and Bombay to British control, but despite four pregnancies she produced no children. Charles did however have at least 17 illegitimate children by his various mistresses who included Lady Castlemaine, Nell Gwyn, Lady Portsmouth, and Lucy Walter. England was at war with Holland and in 1664 seized the Dutch settlement of New Amsterdam in North America and renamed it New York. However the Dutch Navy sailed up the River Medway and humiliated the Royal Navy by capturing the English flagship and burning other ships. In 1665 the Great Plague struck London killing over 60,000 people, and was followed in 1666 by the Fire of London which destroyed a large part of the city including St Paul�s cathedral. Sir Christopher Wren was commissioned to rebuild the cathedral.

The Dutch war furnished an excuse for banishing Lord Clarendon who was made a scapegoat in 1667, and he was replaced by the Cabal of Clifford and Arlington, both secret Catholics, and Buckingham, Ashley (Lord Shaftesbury), and Lauderdale. In 1670 Charles signed the Secret Treaty of Dover, whereby he promised Louis XIV of France he would declare himself a Catholic, re-establish Catholicism in England, and support the French king's projected war against the Dutch; in return Louis was to finance Charles and in the event of resistance to supply him with troops. The third Dutch War followed in 1672, and at the same time Charles issued the Declaration of Indulgence, suspending all penal laws against Catholics and Dissenters. In 1673, Parliament forced Charles to withdraw the Indulgence and accept a Test Act excluding all Catholics from office, and in 1674 to end the Dutch war. The Test Act broke up the Cabal, while Shaftesbury, who had learned the truth about the treaty, assumed the leadership of the opposition.

In 1678 Titus Oates's announcement of a 'Popish plot' released a general panic, which Shaftesbury exploited to introduce his Exclusion Bill, excluding Charles�s brother James, Duke of York, from the succession as he was openly Catholic and instead he hoped to substitute Charles's illegitimate son the Duke of Monmouth. Charles dissolved Parliament in 1679 declaring there would be no talk of change of succession. He now ruled as absolute monarch without a parliament, financed by Louis XIV. When the Whigs plotted a revolt, their leaders were executed, and Shaftesbury and Monmouth fled to the Netherlands to William of Orange. Charles died in 1685, and was received into the Roman Catholic Church on his deathbed. He was succeeded by his brother James II. King Charles II's Signature King Charles II | Britroyals Born: May 29, 1630 at St.

James Palace Parents: Charles I and Henrietta Maria Relation to Elizabeth II: 1st cousin 9 times removed House of: Stuart Ascended to the throne: May 29, 1660 aged 30 years Crowned: April 23, 1661 at Westminster Abbey, and at Scone as King of Scots, 1 January 1651 Married: Catherine of Braganza Children: About 17 illegitimate children by at least 8 different mistresses Died: February 6, 1685 at Whitehall Palace, London, aged 54 years, 8 months, and 10 days Buried at: Westminster Reigned for: 24 years, 8 months, and 9 days Succeeded by: his brother James II Charles II was born in St James's Palace, London. During the Civil War he lived with his father in Oxford 1642�45, and after the victory of Cromwell's Parliamentary forces he was in exile in France.

Accepting the Scottish Covenanters' offer to make him King, he landed in Scotland in 1650, and was crowned at Scone on 1 January 1651. An attempt to invade England was ended on 3 September 1651 by Cromwell's victory at the Battle of Worcester. Charles escaped according to legend by hiding in an oak tree, and for nine years he was in exile in Holland, France, Germany, Flanders, and Spain. The death of Cromwell and the collapse of the English Commonwealth lead to opening of negotiations in 1659 by George Monk for the restoration of the monarchy. In April 1660 Charles issued the Declaration of Breda, promising a general amnesty and freedom of conscience. Parliament accepted the Declaration and he was proclaimed King on 8 May 1660. Charles landed at Dover on 26 May 1660, and entered London three days later. He was crowned at Westminster on 23 April 1661. Despite the Declaration there was retribution.

The body of Oliver Cromwell was dug up and posthumously decapitated, Charles I was venerated a Saint by the Anglican Church, and all legal documents were post-dated as though Charles II had succeeded on his father�s death in 1649. The Act of uniformity required all Puritans to accept the doctrines of the Church of England. Many who refused sought a new life in the colonies in North America. The Restoration brought liberalizing social changes including the re-opening of theatres and study of sciences that had been banned by the Puritans. The Royal Society for the study of Science was established and the Royal Observatory at Greenwich. In May 1662 Charles married the Portuguese Princess Catherine of Braganza. Her dowry brought Tangiers and Bombay to British control, but despite four pregnancies she produced no children. Charles did however have at least 17 illegitimate children by his various mistresses who included Lady Castlemaine, Nell Gwyn, Lady Portsmouth, and Lucy Walter. England was at war with Holland and in 1664 seized the Dutch settlement of New Amsterdam in North America and renamed it New York.

However the Dutch Navy sailed up the River Medway and humiliated the Royal Navy by capturing the English flagship and burning other ships. In 1665 the Great Plague struck London killing over 60,000 people, and was followed in 1666 by the Fire of London which destroyed a large part of the city including St Paul�s cathedral. Sir Christopher Wren was commissioned to rebuild the cathedral. The Dutch war furnished an excuse for banishing Lord Clarendon who was made a scapegoat in 1667, and he was replaced by the Cabal of Clifford and Arlington, both secret Catholics, and Buckingham, Ashley (Lord Shaftesbury), and Lauderdale. In 1670 Charles signed the Secret Treaty of Dover, whereby he promised Louis XIV of France he would declare himself a Catholic, re-establish Catholicism in England, and support the French king's projected war against the Dutch; in return Louis was to finance Charles and in the event of resistance to supply him with troops. The third Dutch War followed in 1672, and at the same time Charles issued the Declaration of Indulgence, suspending all penal laws against Catholics and Dissenters.

In 1673, Parliament forced Charles to withdraw the Indulgence and accept a Test Act excluding all Catholics from office, and in 1674 to end the Dutch war. The Test Act broke up the Cabal, while Shaftesbury, who had learned the truth about the treaty, assumed the leadership of the opposition. In 1678 Titus Oates's announcement of a 'Popish plot' released a general panic, which Shaftesbury exploited to introduce his Exclusion Bill, excluding Charles�s brother James, Duke of York, from the succession as he was openly Catholic and instead he hoped to substitute Charles's illegitimate son the Duke of Monmouth. Charles dissolved Parliament in 1679 declaring there would be no talk of change of succession. He now ruled as absolute monarch without a parliament, financed by Louis XIV. When the Whigs plotted a revolt, their leaders were executed, and Shaftesbury and Monmouth fled to the Netherlands to William of Orange. Charles died in 1685, and was received into the Roman Catholic Church on his deathbed. He was succeeded by his brother James II. King Charles II's Signature

Question: 'The Popish Plot' was an alleged conspiracy to murder which English monarch?
Answer: CHARLES II