BBC - History - The Gunpowder Plot The Gunpowder Plot By Bruce Robinson Last updated 2011-03-29 The failed plot to assassinate James I and the ruling Protestant elite would, however unfairly, taint all English Catholics with treason for centuries to come. Who were the conspirators and what did they hope to achieve? On this page Print this page Disillusionment Spying and shoot-outs, treachery and torture, not to mention gruesome deaths. The Gunpowder Plot has it all. Why were Catholics so bitter, and what did they hope to achieve? The year 1603 marked the end of an era. After 45 years on the English throne, Elizabeth I was dying. All signs suggested her successor would be James VI of Scotland, the son of Mary Queen of Scots - the queen who had been executed in 1587 on Elizabeth's orders. English Catholics were very excited. They had suffered severe persecution since 1570, when the Pope had excommunicated Elizabeth, releasing her subjects from their allegiance to her. The Spanish Armada of 1588 had made matters worse. To the Tudor State, all Catholics were potential traitors.

They were forbidden to hear Mass, forced instead to attend Anglican services, with steep fines for those recusants who persistently refused. Yet rumours suggested James was more warmly disposed to Catholics than the dying Queen Elizabeth. His wife, Queen Anne of Denmark, was a Catholic, and James himself was making sympathetic noises. The crypto-Catholic Earl of Northumberland sent one of his staff, Thomas Percy, to act as his agent in Scotland. Percy's reports back optimistically suggested that Catholics might enjoy protection in James' England. The early signs were encouraging. Upon his accession as James I of England (VI of Scotland), the new king ended recusancy fines and awarded important posts to the Earl of Northumberland and Henry Howard, another Catholic sympathiser. This relaxation led to considerable growth in the number of visible Catholics. Trying to juggle different religious demands, James was displeased at their increasing strength. The discovery in July 1603 of two small Catholic plots did not help. Although most Catholics were horrified, all were tainted by the threat of treason. Yet rumours suggested James was more warmly disposed to Catholics than the dying Queen Elizabeth. The situation deteriorated further at the Hampton Court Conference of January 1604.

Trying to accommodate as many views as possible, James I expressed hostility against the Catholics in order to satisfy the Puritans, whose demands he could not wholly satisfy. In February he publicly announced his 'utter detestation' of Catholicism; within days all priests and Jesuits had been expelled and recusancy fines reintroduced. Although bitterly disappointed, most English Catholics prepared to swallow the imposition of the fines, and live their double lives as best they could. But this passive approach did not suit all. Robert Catesby was a devout Catholic and familiar with the price of faith. His father had been imprisoned for harbouring a priest, and he himself had had to leave university without a degree, to avoid taking the Protestant Oath of Supremacy. Yet he possessed immense personal magnetism, crucial in recruiting and leading his small band of conspirators. Top The plotters The lower ground floor vault of the House of Lords where the gunpowder was stored © Their first meeting was on 20 May 1604. Catesby was joined by his friends Thomas Wintour, Jack Wright and Thomas Percy at the Duck and Drake, in the Strand. The fifth person was Guy Fawkes.

Originally from York, he had been recruited in Flanders, where he had been serving in the Spanish Army. They discussed their plan to blow up Parliament House, and shortly afterwards leased a small house in the heart of Westminster, installing Fawkes as caretaker, under the alias of John Johnson. With Parliament successively postponed to 5 November 1605, over the following year the number of plotters gradually increased to ten. Robert Keyes, Robert Wintour, John Grant and Kit Wright were all relatives, by blood or marriage, to one or more of the original five conspirators. As one of Catesby's servants, Thomas Bates' loyalty was equally firm. Fawkes was to light the fuse and escape to continental Europe. In March 1605 the group took out a lease on a ground-floor cellar close by the house they had rented from John Whynniard. The cellar lay directly underneath the House of Lords, and over the following months 36 barrels of gunpowder were moved in, enough to blow everything and everyone in the vicinity sky high, if ignited. Still hoping for foreign support, Fawkes travelled back to Flanders. Unsuccessful, he was also spotted by English spies.

They reported back to Robert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury, James' first minister, and made the link between Fawkes and Catesby. Over the next two months Catesby recruited Ambrose Rookwood, as well as Francis Tresham and Sir Everard Digby. Both Rookwood and Digby were wealthy and owned large numbers of horses, essential for the planned uprising. Tresham was Catesby's cousin through marriage, and was brother-in-law to two Catholic peers, Lords Stourton and Monteagle. Back in London in October, with only weeks to go, the final details were planned. Fawkes was to light the fuse and escape to continental Europe. To coincide with the explosion, Digby would lead a rising in the Midlands and kidnap King James's daughter, Princess Elizabeth, ready to install her as a puppet queen. In Europe, Fawkes would be arguing the plotters' case to continental governments, to secure their passive acceptance, even support. Top Discovery Copy of the 'anonymous' letter delivered to Lord Monteagle © Everything seemed ready. But on the night of 26 October, an anonymous letter was delivered to Lord Monteagle, warning him to avoid the opening of Parliament.

He took the letter - generally thought to have come from Tresham - to Salisbury, who decided the best results would be achieved by striking at the last minute. Thomas Ward, one of Monteagle's servants, had warned the plotters of the letter. Undaunted, they returned to London, and on 4 November Percy visited his patron, Northumberland, to sniff out any potential danger. Smelling nothing, they pressed on with the plan, and Catesby, Wright and Bates set off for the Midlands. All seemed well. It wasn't. The waiting over, Salisbury ordered Westminster to be searched. The first search spotted a suspiciously large amount of firewood in a certain cellar. The second, at around midnight, found Fawkes. Immediately arrested, he gave only his alias, but Percy's name had already been linked with the cellar and house, and a warrant for his arrest was immediately issued. The plotters escaped from London for the Midlands. Rookwood was the fastest, covering 30 miles in two hours on a single horse, a considerable achievement that enabled him to catch up with, and warn, his co-conspirators.

...his silence had prompted James I to give permission to use torture, gradually 'proceeding to the worst'. These six plotters - Catesby, Rookwood, the Wright brothers, Percy and Bates - rode on towards Warwickshire. As the first bonfires of thanksgiving for the discovery of the plot were being lit in London, 'John Johnson' was being interrogated. By 6 November his silence had prompted James I to give permission to use torture, gradually 'proceeding to the worst'. Even this, however, failed to extract any useful information for two more days. In the Midlands, the plotters raided Warwick Castle. By now they were wanted men and, with their stolen horses, they rode to Holbeche House in Staffordshire, which they thought would be more easily defended. On arrival, they discovered that their gunpowder was soaked, and laid it in front of the fire to dry. They should have known better: the ensuing explosion blinded John Grant, rendering him useless for the inevitable confrontation. This came quickly, in the form of 200 men led by Sir Richard Walsh, the High Sheriff of Worcestershire. They arrived at Holbeche House in the morning of 8 November.

The battle was short. Catesby, the Wrights and Percy died from their wounds; Thomas Wintour, Rookwood and Grant were captured. Five others remained at large. Top High treason Guy Fawkes being interrogated by King James VI of Scotland and I of England © Not for long, however. By December, only Robert Wintour was still free. Furthermore, under interrogation Bates had admitted confessing the details of the plot to the Jesuit priest Father Tesimond. With the Jesuits now implicated in the 'Powder Treason', the government set about finding them, ransacking scores of Catholic homes in the process. To further capitalise on the widespread sense of shock, the 'King's Book' - containing James's own account of what had happened, as well as the confessions of Fawkes and Thomas Wintour - was rushed through, appearing in late November. Francis Tresham died of illness in the Tower in December, and Robert Wintour was captured in the New Year. On 27 January 1606 the trials began. Westminster Hall was crowded as spectators listened to Sir Edward Coke's speech.

Under instructions from Salisbury, the Attorney General lay principal responsibility on the Jesuits, before describing the traditional punishment for traitors: hanging, drawing and quartering. They would be hanged until half-dead, upon which their genitals would be cut off and burned in front of them. Still alive, their bowels and heart would be removed. Finally they would be decapitated and dismembered; their body parts would be publicly displayed, eaten by the birds as they decomposed. ...before describing the traditional punishment for traitors: hanging, drawing and quartering. Only Digby pleaded guilty, and his trial followed that of the other seven. All were found guilty of high treason. Digby, Robert Wintour, Bates and Grant were executed on 30 January, with Thomas Wintour, Rookwood, Keyes and Fawkes dying the next day. Yet the repercussions rumbled on. Some small fry were tortured in the Tower and, tainted by Percy, the Earl of Northumberland was imprisoned there until 1621. However, Monteagle's letter - now kept in the Public Records Office - rewarded him with an annuity of around £700 per year.

It was ordinary Catholics, however, who suffered the longest as a result of the Gunpowder Plot. New laws were passed preventing them from practising law, serving as officers in the Army or Navy, or voting in local or Parliamentary elections. Furthermore, as a community they would be blackened for the rest of the century, blamed for the Great Fire of London and unfairly fingered in the Popish Plot of 1678. Thirteen plotters certainly proved an unlucky number for British Catholics: stigmatised for centuries, it was not until 1829 that they were again allowed to vote. The Gunpowder Plot of 1605 [Note: Some spelling from James' Workes has been modernized for ease of reading. Learn about Jacobean spelling and typeset here at a summary for King James' Workes . A facsimile copy of James' Workes is also available at that link.] THE GUNPOWDER PLOT OF 1605 Contents What was the Gunpowder Plot?

Roman Catholics attempted to kill King James I only because of their zeal for false doctrines of the Roman Catholic religion (which basically state that it is a "meritorious" thing to kill kings out of favour with the pope) The chief promotors of the Gunpowder Plot were Roman Catholic Clergy--specifically Jesuits . There has been a long time, historic Roman Catholic interference in politics. A strange thing can be heard today--that King James was Roman Catholic--but King James said that he had NEVER been Roman Catholic. Primary source documentation on the Gunpowder Plot. Read from King James himself about what happened. Knowledge of the Gunpowder Plot can direct the attention as to what has been happening in the earth. What about after the Gunpowder plot? The Jesuits seem to have continued to take on a life of their own. Taking a look around. Looking around some more. What was the Gunpowder Plot? In the Gunpowder Plot of 1605, Roman Catholics (amongst them Jesuits ) attempted to blow up and kill King James I of Great Britain, his wife, his son, and the entire British Parliament in a single stroke.

King James often wrote about the popes, Roman Catholic recusants taught to kill for the pope, and about the Jesuits and their political intrigues and evil deeds. Even today, the Gunpowder Plot is still remembered every November 5 on Guy Fawkes (a Gunpowder Plot conspirator) day. On this page, find links to primary source documentation detailing what happened. Roman Catholics attempted to kill King James I only because of their zeal for false doctrines of the Roman Catholic religion (which basically state that it is a "meritorious" thing to kill kings out of favour with the pope). "...how wonderful it is when you shall think upon the small, or rather no ground, whereupon the practicers were enticed to invent this Tragedie. For if these Conspirators had only been bankrupt persons, or discontented upon occasion of any disgraces done unto them; this might have seemed to have been but a work of revenge. But for my own part, I scarcely knew any of them, so cannot they alledge so much as a pretended cause of grief: And the wretch himself in hands doeth confess, That there was no cause mooving him or them, but merely and only Religion.

And specially that christian men, at least so called, Englishmen, born within the Country, and one of the specials of them my sworn Servant in an Honourable place, should practice the destruction of their King, his Posterity, their Country and all: Wherein their following obstinacy is so joined to their former malice, as the fellow himself that is in hand, cannot be moved to discover any signs or notes of repentance, except only that he doeth not yet stand to avow, that he repents for not being able to perform his intent." King James Speech in the Parliament House (1605), Workes p. 499 The chief promotors of the Gunpowder Plot were Roman Catholic Clergy--specifically Jesuits. The trial records indicate that it was Roman Catholic Jesuit traitors who spurred on other Roman Catholic traitors to kill the king, his wife, his son and heir apparent, the Parliament, etc.-- The Effect of the Indictment.

THAT whereas our Sovereign Lord the King had, by the Advice and Assent of his Council, for divers weighty and urgent Occasions concerning, his Majesty, the State, and Defence of the Church and Kingdom of England, appointed a Parliament to be holden at his City of Westminster; That Henry Garnet, Superior of the Jesuits within the Realm of England, (called also by the several names of Wally, Darcy, Roberts, Farmer, and Henry Philips) Oswald Tesmond Jesuit, otherwise called Oswald Greenwell, John Gerrard Jesuit, (called also by the several names of Lee and Brooke) Robert Winter, Thomas Winter, Gentlemen, Guy Fawkes Gent. otherwise called Guy Johnson, Robert Keyes Gent.

and Thomas Bates Yeoman, late Servant to Robert Catesby Esquire; together with the said Robert Catesby and Thomas Percy Esquires, John Wright and Christopher Wright Gentlemen, in open Rebellion and Insurrection against his Majesty, lately slain, and Francis Tresham Esq; lately dead; as false Traitors against our said Sovereign Lord the King, did traitorously meet and assemble themselves together; and being so met, the said Henry Garnet, Oswald Tesmond, John Gerrard, and other Jesuits, did maliciously, falsly, and traitorously move and persuade as well the said Thomas Winter, Guy Fawkes, Robert Keyes, and Thomas Bates, as the said Robert Catesby, Thomas Percy, John Wright, Christopher Wright, and Francis Tresham, That our said Sovereign Lord the King, the Nobility, Clergy, and whole Commonalty of the Realm of England, (Papists excepted) were Hereticks; and that all Hereticks were accursed and excommunicate; and that none Heretick could be a King; but that it was lawful and meritorious to kill our said Sovereign Lord the King, and all other Hereticks within

 this Realm of England, for the Advancing and Enlargement of the pretended and usurped Authority and Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, and for the restoring of the superstitious Romish Religion within this Realm of England.

To which traitorous Persuasions, the said Thomas Winter, Guy Fawkes, Robert Keyes, Thomas Bates, Robert Catesby, Thomas Percy, John Wright, Christopher Wright, and Francis Tresham, traitorously did yield their Assents: And that thereupon the said Henry Garnet, Oswald Tesmond, John Gerrard, and divers other Jesuits; Thomas Winter, Guy Fawkes, Robert Keyes, and Thomas Bates, as also the said Robert Catesby, Thomas Percy, John Wright, Christopher Wright and Francis Tresham, traitorously amongst themselves did conclude and agree, with Gunpowder, as it were with one Blast, suddenly, traitorously and barbarously to blow up and tear in pieces our said Sovereign Lord the King, the excellent, virtuous and gracious Queen Anne, his dearest Wife, the most noble Prince Henry, their eldest Son, and future Hope and Joy of England; and the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, the Reverend Judges of the Realm, the Knights, Citizens and Burgesses of Parliament, and divers other faithful Subjects and Servants of the King in the said Parliament, for the Causes aforesaid, to be assembled in the House of Parliament; and all

 them, without any respect of Majesty, Dignity, Degree, Sex, Age or Place, most barbarously, and more than beastly, traitorously and suddenly to destroy and swallow up.

And further did most traitorously conspire and conclude among themselves, That not only the whole Royal Issue-Male of our said Sovereign Lord the King should be destroyed and rooted out; but that the Persons aforesaid, together with divers other false Traitors, traitorously with them to be assembled, should surprize the Persons of the most noble Ladies Elizabeth and Mary, Daughters of our said Sovereign Lord the King, and falsly and traitorously should proclaim the said Lady Elizabeth to be Queen of this Realm: And thereupon should publish a Proclamation in the name of the said Lady Elizabeth; wherein, as it was especially agreed by and between the said Conspirators, That no mention should be made at the first, of the alteration of Religion established within within this Realm of England; neither would the said false Traitors therein acknowledge themselves to be Authors, or Actors, or Devisers of the aforesaid most wicked and horrible Treasons, until they had got sufficient Power and Strength for the assured Execution and Accomplishment of their said Conspiracy and Treason; and that then they would avow and justify the said most wicked and horrible Treasons, as Actions that were in the number of those, Quae non laud

antur, nisi peracta, which be not to be commended before they be done: but by the said feign'd and traitorous Proclamation they would publish, That all and singular Abuses and Grievances within this Realm of England, should, for satisfying of the People, be reform'd.

And that as well for the better concealing, as for the more effectual accomplishing of the said horrible Treasons, as well the said Thomas Winter, Guy Fawkes, Robert Keyes, and Thomas Bates, as the said Robert Catesby, Thomas Percy, John Wright, Christopher Wright, and Francis Tresham, by the traitorous Advice and Procurement of the said Henry Garnet, Oswald Tesmond, John Gerrard, and other Jesuits, traitorously did further conclude and agree, that as well the said Thomas Winter, Guy Fawkes, Robert Keyes, and Thomas Bates, as the said Robert Catesby, Thomas Percy, John Wright, Christopher Wright, and Francis Tresham, thereupon severally and traitorously should receive several corporal Oaths upon the holy Evangelists, and the Sacrament of the Eucharist, That they the Treasons aforesaid would traitorously conceal and keep secret, and would not reveal them, directly or indirectly, by Words or Circumstances, nor ever would desist from the Execution and final Accomplishment of the said Treasons, without the consent of some three of the aforesaid false Traitors first in that behalf traitor

ously had: And that thereupon as well the said Thomas Winter, Guy Fawkes, Robert Keyes, and Thomas Bates, as the said Robert Catesby, Thomas Percy, John Wright, Christ.

Wright, and Francis Tresham, did traitorously take the said several corporal Oaths severally, and did receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist aforesaid, by the Hands of the said Henry Garnet, John Gerrard, Oswald Tesmond, and other Jesuits. And further, that the said Thomas Winter, Guy Fawkes,Robert Keyes, and Thomas Bates, together with the said Robert Catesby, Thomas Percy, John Wright,Christopher Wright, and Francis Tresham, by the like traitorous Advice and Counsel of the said Henry Garnet, John Gerrard, Oswald Tesmond, and other Jesuits, for the more effectual compassing and final execution of the said Treasons, did. . . [Read more] Excerpted from, The Trials of Robert Winter, Thomas Winter, Guy Fawkes, John Grant, Ambrose Rookwood, Robert Keyes, Thomas Bates, and Sir Everard Digby, at Westminster for High-Treason, being Conspirators in the Gunpowder-Plot. 27 Jan. 1605. 3 Jac. l.

Quote from James' Remonstrance for the Right of Kings-- "...the chief promoters, the complices of the powder-conspiracie in my Kingdom? were they not Ecclesiastics?" --King James I, King of Great Britain A Remonstrance for the Right of Kings, and the Independance of Their Crownes, Against an Oration of the Most Illustrious Card. of Perron, Pronounced in the Chamber of the Third Estate. Jan. 15 1615 [ Workes , p. 381] There has been a long time, historic Roman Catholic interference in politics. In light of historic Roman Catholic recusancy against kings, toppling thrones, assassinating kings, ordering kings around in the most grievous manner, deceiving kings (e.g., the Donation of Constantine), making kings their vassals, etc. it is little wonder that King James spoke so often about the divine right of kings to rule their own kingdoms. He often spoke about Rome's role in such an abominable practice. A quote from his Remonstrance for the Right of Kings (Workes, p.

393)-- "Was not he that killed the forenamed King, was not he one of the Clergy? Was not Guignard a Jesuit? ...Did not Ravaillac that monster of men, upon interrogatories made at his examination...refer his examiners to the Sermons made the Lent next before, where they might be satisfied concerning the causes of his abominable undertaking and execution? Are not Bellarmine, Eudaemonoiohannes, Suarez, Becanus, Mariana, with such other monsters, who teach the doctrine of parricides [king killing (kings as fathers of the countries, not like the businessman-kings today)]...are they not all Clerics? are not all their bookes approved and allowed...? What were the heads, the chief promoters, the complices of the powder-conspiracie in my Kingdom? were they not Ecclesiastics?" A strange thing can be heard today--that King James was Roman Catholic--but King James said that he had NEVER been Roman Catholic. Our article, King James was NEVER Roman Catholic includes information on what appears to be an extremely misleading excerpt found on the Fordham University website (Fordham is a Jesuit university).

The Fordham webpage has an out-of-context excerpt from James' Workes (his Premonition) emphasizing where King James states that he was a Catholic Christian--in the paragraph right before that statement king James was emphasizing that he had NEVER been Catholic. Moreover, the entire Premonition itself was a broadside against Rome. Is this an example of the Jesuit "way of proceeding" mentioned at the University of Scranton (a Jesuit university) website? An excerpt from our index page-- An excerpt from, "Jesuit Tradition" at (emphases ours)-- Our Mission The University of Scranton is a Catholic and Jesuit university animated by the spiritual vision and the tradition of excellence characteristic of the Society of Jesus* and those who share its way of proceeding. . . . (as of 5-24-2014) *The Roman Catholic Jesuit order is known, of all things, as the "Society of Jesus" (a misnomer if ever there were one) Primary source documentation on the Gunpowder Plot. Read from King James himself about what happened. King James VI & I on the Gunpowder Plot (Extracts from speech to Parliament, 1605.

King James did not want non-guilty Roman Catholics to receive any unjust treatment by his people.) A Discourse of the manner of the discovery of the Powder Treason, joined with the examination of some of the prisoners (By King James, taken from his Workes, pp. 223. This is an interesting, up close, play-by-play overview of how King James and the British Parliament were miraculously spared being blown up in the Gunpowder Plot/Powder Treason by Roman Catholics conspirators such as Guido Fawkes, Jesuit conspirators Garnet, Owldecorne, etc. One also has the opportunity to see with what fairness King James and his Counsellors proceeded, in order, by law, by mercy only shewing the rack to the obstinate, disrespectful Guido Fawkes. To call any of the executed conspirators a martyr is a blatant proof of unrepentance for such an heinous attempt. One also sees that one of the kings subjects had a dear relationship with a Catholic involved in the Plot--it was this Catholic that tried to warn that subject not to be in the Parliament house--there was not a hate relationship with Catholics in England.

Their history of popes and Jesuits troubling the state required action in order to secure the state (witness the Spanish Armada of 1588). During those times, Roman Catholics were openly taught that it is a "meritorious" good thing to kill a king out of the pope's favor. "Ultramontanes" ("over the mountain") refers to Catholics who are citizens in various countries, but their first allegiance lies in the decrees of the Roman Catholic pope, the pope--at will--can release them from their loyalty to their king/ruler. Mischief Mystery; or Treason's Masterpiece, the Powder Plot A 1617 tract against the evil deeds of the Roman Catholic institution. A SPEACH IN THE PARLIAMENT HOVSE, AS NEERE THE VERY WORDS AS COULD BE GATHERED AT THE INSTANT [ANNO 1605] [1605, Workes pp. 499-508] In the wake of the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot, a thankful James addresses Parliament, rehearsing the great and miraculous deliverance that God has granted him.

A PREMONITION TO ALL MOST MIGHTIE MONARCHES, KINGS, FREE PRINCES, AND STATES OF CHRISTENDOME [Workes pp. 287-338] James warns and awakens his fellow princes to the papal threat to royal authority. Includes information on Jesuits involved in the Powder Treason, Roman Catholic doctrine teaching that Church-men are not subject to Kings or Princes; etc. Knowledge of the Gunpowder Plot can direct the attention as to what has been happening in the earth. The Gunpowder Plot of 1605 is much more than a single, unfortunate incident. For those who are seeking the truth, it can help open the door as to who the Roman Catholic institution is, what she* has done, and what has been happening in the earth. *MYSTERY BABYLON THE GREAT is a woman (see Revelation 17)--the issue regarding these last days is not "anti-Catholic" or any such thing; the Authorized (King James) Version of 1611 of the Bible makes it clear that the issue is "antichrist" and it shows the precise characteristics of antichrist and the man of sin.

Right now, each person is making his choice as to whether he will serve the Lord Jesus Christ according to his word , or whether he will serve him not . A beast and man of sin shall arise in the earth (Satan shall give him his seat, and power, and great authority ( Revelation 13 )--the one world leader for the one world government/new world order); the people that receiveth the mark of the beast in their hand or in their forehead, will be cast into the lake of fire for ever. The spirituality of this "new" order is devil worship the contemplative prayer/yoga/meditation/kabbalism/mystics/etc. use similar repetitive techniques to contact the devil directly. The God of the Bible cannot be contacted directly. Men must come through his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. Church people are becoming perilously close to the unpardonable sin--they are ignorantly and horribly using names of God in order to contact devils which they think are God--they need to repent and obey God's word. Christians shall be hated of all nations, but God's people will endure the wrath and war made against them and shall live forever.

As people continue to interact with evil spirits, it is easy to see how that influence will only deepen their anger and hatred towards those who have the testimony of Jesus Christ and keep his word. How to Get to Heaven ||| Hell is Real . What about after the Gunpowder plot? The Roman Catholic Jesuits seem to have continued to take on a life of their own. History shows that the Jesuits went forth to continue interfering in the political affairs of nations and causing troubles, even amongst popes, Catholics, and Catholic kings. In terms of their history, they started out as a group to basically arrest and overturn the gains of the Protestant Reformation (officially approved by a pope circa 1540), but the order took on a life of its own through its various techniques. According to Pope Clement XIV (in his suppression of the Jesuit order), the attempts of popes to reign in the evil deeds of the order basically failed. Clement XIV suppressed the Jesuit order for ever in 1773; he was dead in 1774. He delineated the errors of the Jesuits in his brief for the effectual suppression of the Order of the Jesuits, (Dominus ac Redemptor)* .

*It has been said that this document was first issued as a brief Dominus ac Redemptor and was later re-issued as a papal "bull" entitled, Dominus ac Redemptor Noster. The Jesuit order was restored by Pope Pius VII in 1814 (under what some say were dubious circumstances). According to Funk & Wagnalls (c. 1965, entry for "JESUITS or SOCIETY OF JESUS"), "...in 1814 Pope Pius VII re-established the Jesuits on a world-wide basis. Political and religious OPPOSITION ALSO REVIVED; since the re-establishment of the order, it has been free from attack only in Denmark, Sweden, England, and the United States.). The order was revived in time for the nefarious Congress of Vienna (1814-1815) from whence came "the Holy Alliance". The situation: the countries of the world wanted to be free like America. There is no room for tyrants for people who want to be free and do not believe in superstitions. There was essentially a war to suppresses popular governments and principles of freedom. Former Roman Catholics--priests (e.g.

Charles Chiniquy; Bernard Fresenborg, William Hogan), former Roman Catholic nun M.F. Cusak (in her The Black Pope: A History of the Jesuits), Jesuits (e.g. Alberto Rivera in modern times), etc. wrote and spoke about the what was going on and planned for America. Notwithstanding numerous books and warnings, the Roman Catholic Jesuits continued to trouble governments and peoples. According to Funk & Wagnalls Standard Encyclopedia (c. 1965), the Roman Catholic Jesuit Order has been expelled from every country in Europe. They landed on the shores of America and found a home. Many persons (whether secular or religious) have written about the deeds of Roman Catholic Jesuits, including Samuel Breese Morse, inventor of Morse Code. Mr. Morse on the Jesuits-- They are JESUITS. This society of men, after exerting their tyranny for upwards of 200 years, at length became so formidable to the world, threatening the entire subversion of all social order, that even the Pope, whose devoted subjects they are, and must be, by the vow of their society, was compelled to dissolve them.

They had not been suppressed, however, for 50 years, before the waning influence of Popery and Despotism required their useful labours, to resist the spreading light of Democratic liberty, and the Pope, (Pius VII,) simultaneously with the formation of the Holy Alliance, revived the order of the Jesuits in all their power. From their vow of "unqualified submission to the Sovereign Pontiff," they have been appropriately called the Pope's body guard. It should be known, that Austrian influence elected the present Pope; his body guard are therefore at the service of Austria, and these are the soldiers that the Leopold Society has sent to this country, and they are agents of this society, to execute its designs, whatever these designs may be. And do Americans need to be told what Jesuits are? If any are ignorant, let them inform themselves of their history without delay; no time is to be lost: their workings are before you in every day's events: they are a secret society, a sort of Masonic order, with superadded features of most revolting odiousness, and a thousand times more dangerous .

They are not confined to one class in society; they are not merely priests, or priests of one religious creed, they are merchants, and lawyers, and editors, and men of any profession, and no profession, having no outward badge, (in this country,) by which to be recognised; they are about in all your society. They can assume any character, that of angels of light, or ministers of darkness, to accomplish their one great end, the service upon which they are sent, whatever that service may be. "They are all educated men, prepared, and sworn to start at any moment, in any direction, and for any service, commanded by the general of their order, bound to no family, community, or country, by the ordinary ties which bind men; and sold for life to the cause of the Roman Pontiff." These are the men at this moment ordered to America. And can they do nothing, Americans, to derange the free workings of your democratic institutions? Can they not, and do they not fan the slightest embers of discontent into a flame, those thousand little differences which must perpetually occur in any society, into riot, and quell its excess among their own people as it suits their policy and the establishment of their own control?

Yes, they can be the aggressors, and contrive to be the aggrieved. They can do the mischief, and manage to be publicly lauded for their praiseworthy forbearance and their suffering patience. They can persecute, and turn away the popular indignation, ever roused by the cry of persecution from themselves, and make it fall upon their victim. They can control the press in a thousand secret ways. They can write under the signature of "Whig," to-day, and if it suits their turn, "Tory," to-morrow. They can be Democrat to-day, and Aristocrat to-morrow. They can out-American Americans in admiration of American institutions to-day, and "condemn them as unfit for any people" to-morrow. These are the men that Austria has sent here, that she supplies with money, with whom she keeps up an active correspondence, and whose officers (the Bishops) are passing back and forth between Europe and America, doubtless to impart that information orally which would not be so safe committed to writing.

"Their [Vatican and its Jesuits] help was the main force behind the lightning rise of Hitler..." The Jesuits as modern-day schoolmasters "The German COLLEGE, begun by Ignatius in Rome with 24 non-Jesuit students who were to be prepared for the secular priesthood, became AN INCREASINGLY POWERFUL WEAPON IN THE COUNTER REFORMATION IN THE EMPIRE.*" (Encyclopedia Americana (copyright 1971), "Jesuits", page 38 (emphases ours)]" *People who control textbooks and education have power to teach whatever to--what a startling statement--Education as a Weapon of the Counter Reformation (Counter Reformation: Rome's response to the Protestant Reformation. She sought to overturn the gains of the Protestant Reformation. Protestant Reformation: Catholics started reading the Bible and seeing the blasphemies and heresies of the Roman Catholic institution--some left her and became known as Protestants (see John Wycliffe, Huss, Martin Luther, William Tyndale, etc.). The sons of Loyola came into action around 1540 and sought to overturn this situation, bringing all back to the feet of Rome.

"THE MOST PROMINENT WORK OF THE SOCIETY OF JESUS IN THE UNITED STATES HAS UNDOUBTEDLY BEEN THAT OF HIGHER EDUCATION. High schools, colleges and universities built up and staffed by the Society are widely spread throughout the country. In 1954 there were 41 high schools and 28 colleges and universities maintained by the Society in the United States. The numbers of students for the same year were: high schools, 25,155; colleges and universities, 97,183. THIS VAST EDUCATIONAL WORK OF THE SOCIETY IN THE UNITED STATES CAN BE MATCHED, insofar as local conditions permit, IN EVERY PART OF THE WORLD WHERE JESUITS ARE TO BE FOUND." (ibid, pp. 39-40) A 2014 newspaper ad referencing, "the common good" and "civic life in America" ad at the end of "The Common Good" . Taking a look around.

The Papacy: An Overview of Its History and Nature A look at history reveals that the doctrine of papal supremacy (the pope is the ruler over all Christians, etc.) is rooted and grounded in the decrees of the imperial Roman empire itself, not the Bible. Papal supremacy actually denies the word of God--the disciples are not to exercise lordship and authority over each other (see Mark 10:42-43). That is why the fruit of it is corrupt (e.g., false doctrine (cath.htm), killing people (inquisition.htm), forgery (Donation of Constantine), etc.). There is no room for a pope in the word of God--one is our Master, even Christ; and we are all brethren (see Matthew 23:8-12). Rise of the papal states, their loss, and the Lateran treaty of 1929.

The Reformation, the Jesuits, and the Counter-Reformation The Paraguay Reductions and the Communeros Immigration and Naturalization Laws (Morse, 1835) A fresh look at books like Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto reveals tricks and techniques for taking down a free and prospering people--things like a licentious (filthy) literature, entertainments, scorning and mocking the best people, getting others to hate (instead of honor) the strong (the strong people help the rest of us), calling theft "redistribution of the wealth" (thereby basically making everybody an equal slave), etc. Sinful, ignorant people are weak, credulous and easily moved to rebellion (a fresh look at King James' Trew Law of Free Monarchies is in order--substantial excerpts of Trew Law are found in this article (The Seduced Opinion of the Multitude). Is there really a separation between church and state in the United States of America? Modern political activity--Roman hierarchy within individual nations, United Nations, United States of America, etc. "The Catholic Church is organised into local hierarchies within each nation, or group of smaller nations. National Conferences of Bishops co-ordinate local policy within each nation.

(emphases ours; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_organisation_of_the_Catholic_Church (8/6/12)) Modern religious activity--ecumenism, Spiritual Exercises, etc. The "common good" (Read about the long-time (over 120 years old) Roman Catholic social doctrine and "common good" doctrine that has erected itself more prominently in the earth today. Brute force could not do the job anymore and the arts of peace rose up. One expression of the arts of peace looks like this, "Let's start holding hands and singing songs and working together for the common good." In the 1960s the Vatican II council came and with it the ecumenical movement that looks like, "Let's all get together...me [the pope of Rome] at the top :o)." Somebody noted that Rome is a persecuting church (a brief look at history shows that). Others note a motto ascribed to her "semper eadem," "always the same" as in she does not change. Her canon laws and curses/anathemas of the Council of Trent, from what I understand, are still on the books have not be repealed.

Croatia showed what horrendous bloodflow happened when her legions got involved in making Croatia Catholic and persecuting and killing those that did not submit to her imperialistic requirements.) What is Georgetown, Archbishop, CFR, Opus Dei, masons, etc.... Looking around some more. Why the relentless war against the so-called "W.A.S.P." (White Anglo Saxon Protestant)*? It seems that anybody and everybody can be "proud" of their heritage except for him (for those who eyes are open, this prejudice can be seen in various places (including school books)--he seems to only be blamed while others go unexamined. His Bible is derided while any myth and legend is exalted and while the United States has diplomatic relations with the Roman Catholic "Holy See" (the seat of the Pope of Rome). From whom is the White Anglo Saxon Protestant man is descended?

His fathers in Great Britain translated the Authorized Version, wrote the Constitution, thrived under American principles of liberty, went on to become a world superpower in short order, his fathers invented, were skilled and industrious, were amongst the abolitionists, welcomed the immigrants, gave American citizens opportunities and jobs whereby we could know God and feed our families, etc.** Is it possible that someone has not forgotten what happened in 1517 (the Protestant Reformation)? And is it possible that someone has not forgotten the Counter Reformation? ...Why don't we hear insightful quotes about Roman Catholic Christopher Columbus being "the first slave trader in the New World" (The History of the Holy Bible In the United States of America-Volume I, p. 19)? Why do we not hear what he did to the friendly, welcoming Arawak Indians (ibid, pp. 19-20)?

Why do we not learn of excerpts such as, "According to The Conquest of America by Tzvetan Todorov, Columbus wrote to Ferdinand and Isabella [King and Queen of Spain] in 1496, 'We can send from here, in the name of the Holy Trinity, all the slaves and brazil wood which could be sold'" (ibid, p. 20)? Why did we not learn that the Roman Catholic Jesuits were slaveholders (The Truth in Charity: A History of The Archdiocese of Washington, p. 12)? Why did we not read The Secret History of the Jesuits (by Edmond Paris) and the words of Loyolan (Jesuit) Father Coughlin on Nazi Germany, "The German war is a battle for Christianity"? *[note: in order to pre-empt cavil (false objections), we disclose that the author of this statement is a Black American.

Christian brethren are brethren--race matters not, God made us all of one blood; but there are cavilers who will raise any false objection in order to stop people from telling the truth--including insinuating that any white person telling the truth is a racist.] **[aside: There was a time that those that wanted to be scholars could further their education and those that wanted to work with their hands could quit school and work and not be trapped learning "book learning" all their young years and into adulthood. There was a time when Americans had factory jobs and many opportunities--some of us remember that. Many of us would sign up for a factory jobs today, if they were available, but they are not. Much of our industry/product-making is gone (as well as the old-time American quality that some of us remember); looking around at the job market, we find sales of imported goods, restaurant jobs, paperwork jobs, etc. but, by-and-large, not production. Others elsewhere seem to have those jobs.] What did President John F.

Kennedy mean when he said* that "we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy" that "is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, scientific and political operations"? *[JFK_monolithic_conspiracy.mp3; 9:40; Speech Title: "The President and the Press", Delivered: 4-27-1961, Location: Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, Audience: The American Newspaper Publishers Association--relfe.com/A06/jfk_conspiracy_illuminati_speech.html (accessed approximately 2-15-14)]* Is there an international brotherhood and coordinated action? A cabal and subcabals? Who owns the newspapers and news channels, publication houses, various media, etc.? They keep getting bought up, sometimes in groups. Unsurprisingly, public opinion is swayed by these ubiquitous companions to industrialized man. These things become people's thoughts and beliefs. What if two contrary sentiments are proffered to the people, but both are wrong?

The person makes what they think is the best choice so they think they are free and have freedom of choice, but they actually are deceived and making a series of wrong choices. Who writes the books and textbooks? Who publishes the books and textbooks? Who is behind the entertainments? seminaries? associations, foundations, and various herders-together of interest groups, etc.? Who makes the documentaries? Who knows who? In the midst of various considerations, money (sources (whether legal or illegal) and payments (bribes, payroll, etc.)) must be considered; for the love of money is the root of all evil. Many people will do anything for money, e.g., pass whatever law they are told to pass. BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | Halloween v Guy Fawkes Day Halloween v Guy Fawkes Day A POINT OF VIEW By David Cannadine Lament the Americanisation of British culture? Guy Fawkes is your man, says historian David Cannadine in his weekly opinion column. 2005 has been a bumper year for anniversaries, and I've found myself editing a book about one of them, and contributing to another.

In January, it was 40 years since the death of Winston Churchill; and between May and August a series of observances marked the 60th anniversary of the end of World War Two. Forty and 60 are not, perhaps, the roundest of round numbers. But one good reason these events and these endings were being commemorated was for the benefit of those who were alive then, and who can still remember that far back in time. Guy Fawkes failed in his plot Once commemoration moves from the realm of remembrance to the province of history, the numbers tend to get much rounder, and it's centenaries or multiple centenaries that are usually marked. And in recent weeks, we've been right in the midst of two of them: the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar on 21 October, marking Nelson's great naval triumph in 1805; and the 400th anniversary of Guy Fawkes' abortive attempt to blow up the Houses of Parliament on 5 November 1605.

It's hard to imagine two events more different, both in terms of what went on, and in terms of the people who were at the centre of them. Nelson's annihilating naval victory rendered a French invasion of Britain impossible for the remainder of the Napoleonic Wars; it was the final, supreme triumph of a naval commander of astonishing gifts and undoubted genius; and the manner and the moment of his death assured him a posthumous glory and global fame which continue to this day. Tourists still visit HMS Victory at Portsmouth, Nelson remains the iconic hero at the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich, and he is always gazing down on us from the top of his column in Trafalgar Square. But as his statue there reminds us, Nelson lost an arm and an eye in the service of the state. Which means he showed that disability was no obstacle to achievement well over 100 years before the wheelchair-bound Franklin Roosevelt became president of the United States and long before David Blunkett was ever even heard of. How appropriate, then, that he has recently been joined in Trafalgar Square by another statue to another disabled person - Alison Lapper pregnant, who since September has occupied the fourth plinth, in the north-west corner.

Heroes and villains Trafalgar was a great national victory; and Nelson was (and is) a great national hero. By contrast, the Gunpowder Plot was a non event: the attempt to blow up the Houses of Parliament was foiled, and the plotters were apprehended, tortured and executed. Nelson, a national hero And Guy Fawkes is not a national hero but a national villain. Like Nelson, he was a professional fighting man, and there was about him a dashing sense of glamour and danger. But he is widely remembered as a sinister and melodramatic figure whose brief and ignominious appearance on the stage of our nation's past has been greeted with collective boos and catcalls ever since. No wonder he is burned in effigy every year. In fact, the Gunpowder Plot was a close-run thing. The conspirators, who were Roman Catholics, wanted to blow up parliament on the day of the state opening, with the aim of assassinating King James I, who'd been less sympathetic to the Catholic cause than they'd expected. They planned to replace James by his daughter, Princess Elizabeth, who they hoped would be a more malleable and a more Catholic queen.

Had they succeeded, England might have become a Catholic nation once more, and members of the Church of England would have been distinctly thin on the ground. It's not easy to get a sense of the scale of the carnage that would have taken place had they succeeded. On the day of the state opening of parliament, almost the entire elite of the nation would have been there: king, lords and commons, and all the senior officers of the church, the military and the state. BBC NEWS: AUDIO Hear A Point of View in the BBC Radio Player If all of them had gone up in smoke and flames, virtually the whole of the nation's establishment would have been taken out. And since many of the neighbouring buildings were made of wood, a large part of the capital would also have been destroyed in a conflagration that would have anticipated the Great Fire of London that did in fact happen later in the century. But the conspiracy was detected in advance. Unlike the Battle of Trafalgar, which was a big event, the attempt to blow up the Houses of Parliament was a failure.

Put in the Bush-and-Blair language of our own day, the foiling of the Gunpowder Plot was thus an outstandingly successful pre-emptive strike against what would now be described as the forces of organised, fanatical, religiously-motivated terrorism. Guy Fawkes duly got his comeuppance: illustrated literally in the wrenching contrast between the elegant, confident calligraphy of his signature before torture, and the enfeebled scrawl which was all he could manage after his body had been broken on the rack. National identity So what, if anything, unites these two very different figures and these two very different events? And why are they still commemorated centuries later? Both 21 October and 5 November serve to remind us, as they reminded our forbears even more forcefully, that Britain was a Protestant nation. Burnt in effigy The Gunpowder Plot was a foiled Catholic conspiracy, and during the 17th Century, it was the pope, rather than Guy Fawkes, who was often burned in effigy.

And the Battle of Trafalgar was fought against France and Spain, our nation's two hereditary enemies, which for much of their histories were both despotic and Catholic regimes. For many Britons, then, both Trafalgar Day and Guy Fawkes Day were national events to celebrate our Protestant patriotism, and it was that re-affirmation of our collective identity which gave them their long-lasting appeal. Not surprisingly, Catholic Britons have always been uncomfortable with 5 November, and nowadays there are frequent calls to abolish an event which seems to them to be based on little more than religious bigotry and intolerance. It's possible to be a Catholic Briton and admire Nelson; it's hard to be a Catholic Briton without wincing at the sight of an effigy of Guy Fawkes going up in flames. I'm not a Catholic, but I do rather sympathise. Americanised festivities But Catholics take heart: for these days, Bonfire Night is not the event it was when I was young.

I can vividly remember that for me 5 November meant street-corner guys in rickety prams; roasted potatoes and chestnuts; and my father in our back garden lighting the blue touch paper on rockets, roman candles and catherine wheels, and then retiring. Nowadays, family bonfire gatherings are much less popular, and many once-large civic celebrations have been given up because of increasingly intrusive health and safety regulations. But 5 November has also been overtaken by a popular festival that barely existed when I was growing up, and that is Halloween, which takes place on 31 October, the eve of All Saints Day. Trick or treat! It's a strange festival, part pagan, part Christian, which can be traced back in these islands to Celtic and medieval times. But in its present-day guise, we associate it with America, with kids dressing up in spooky and lurid costumes, who then go trick or treating - a custom I first encountered when I visited the United States as a graduate student in the early 1970s.

Halloween has long been big business in America, but it's only very recently become big business here in Britain, where it's now much easier for shops and supermarkets to sell pointed hats in garish colours than fireworks. As long as Britain has a Royal Navy, and as long as people read the novels of authors like CS Forester and Patrick O'Brian, there will always be a cult of Nelson and Trafalgar will retain its devotees. But although it's been around for much longer, the prospects don't look quite as good for Guy Fawkes and Bonfire Night once this anniversary is past. Britain is not the Protestant nation it was when I was young: it is now a multi-faith society. And the Americanised Halloween is sweeping all before it - a vivid reminder of just how powerfully American culture and American consumerism can be transported across the Atlantic. But here, perhaps, is an opportunity for the revival of 5 November. For those who wish to protest at the ever increasing Americanisation of our world might take up Bonfire Night as their cause.

Guy Fawkes may have been a bad Briton, but in some ways he was a good European, and from there it's only a step to pulling faces at Uncle Sam. BBC - History - British History in depth: The Battle of Trafalgar Print this page Global power The Battle of Trafalgar was to witness both the defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte's plans to invade Britain, and the death of Admiral Lord Nelson. It was never going to be any ordinary battle, and quickly acquired a heightened, almost magical, reality. ...the Royal Navy annihilated the greatest threat to British security for 200 years ... During the engagement at Trafalgar, on 21 October 1805, the Royal Navy annihilated the greatest threat to British security for 200 years, but lost Britain's national hero in the process. Little wonder the battle transcended the mundane calculation of ships and men, victory and defeat. It guaranteed Britain's control of the oceans, the basis of her global power for over a century. By 1805 Nelson was already a national hero, and considered the ultimate naval commander.

His elevated conception of war ensured that every battle he fought was used to solve major strategic problems, and his many successes ensured he was the only contemporary to rival Bonaparte as ultimate exemplar of total war. Nor did Bonaparte disagree - he kept a bust of Nelson in his private quarters. Nelson developed the art of war at sea to the new, terrible form he characterised as 'annihilation' to counter the war effort of Napoleonic France. He did so by taking the command system of Admiral Sir John Jervis, the tough old officer who taught him how to keep a fleet efficient, and melding it with the genius for battle and strategy he developed while serving under Admiral Lord Hood. Nelson used this combination of strategic flair and practical management to help Britain survive the 22 year struggle with Revolutionary and Napoleonic France. He understood that invasion by France was the least of Britain's worries - the real threat was the destruction of her global commercial system.

Top Defensive strategy HMS 'Victory' - in dry dock in Portsmouth © In 1803 the Peace of Amiens - a temporary armed truce between Britain and France - broke down, and for nearly two years British strategy rested on the defensive, waiting for the French navy to make the first move. Late in 1804, however, Spain joined the war as an ally of France, giving Napoleon the ships he needed to challenge Britain. This was the context of Trafalgar. Napoleon was looking for an opportunity to strike at Britain, without having to fight Nelson and the Royal Navy - while all his attempts to attack British interests were thwarted by expert seamen who countered his every move. Villeneuve's fleet ... was ideally positioned to attack British trading ships or Britain itself. Thus, when Vice-Admiral Pierre-Charles Villeneuve, Commander of Napoleon's Franco-Spanish fleet bottled up in a safe haven at Toulon, broke out into the Atlantic in early 1805, Nelson chased him all the way to the West Indies in the most daring of all his campaigns.

By September 1805, however, Villeneuve's fleet had found shelter at Cadiz, and was ideally positioned to attack British trading ships or Britain itself. It had to be destroyed. Top Battle plan Nelson explains his plan for the forthcoming Battle of Trafalgar © Nelson joined the British fleet off Cadiz in late September. His very presence electrified the men under his command, while his new battle plan, explained at his table on HMS Victory, was key to decisive combat. If the enemy put to sea Nelson wanted to be able to annihilate them completely, ending the need for Britain to stand on the defensive. Nelson's arrival unsettled Admiral Villeneuve, who was already being bullied by Napoleon, who wanted his fleet to support an attack on Naples. Thus under pressure Villeneuve, believing Nelson's fleet to be weaker than his own, put to sea on 19 October. In fact his 33 ships of the line faced 27 British vessels. Nelson anticipated his enemy's every move. At dawn on the 21st the fleets were in visual contact.

Nelson's fleet was formed into two columns, for a risky head-on approach that exposed the unarmed bows of his leading ships to the full weight of enemy broadsides. He knew a storm was coming, and he had to engage the enemy quickly. Nelson knew his skilled captains could wipe out the rest of the opposing fleet ... He was to lead the first column into the attack and destroy the enemy flagship, leaving his opponents, leaderless and confused, to be destroyed by the second column, led by Admiral Cuthbert Collingwood. With the enemy admiral disabled, Nelson knew his skilled captains could wipe out the rest of the opposing fleet in the remaining hours of daylight. Top 'England Expects ...' British ship crosses battle line of Franco-Spanish fleet © As his vessels approached their enemy, Nelson walked around his flagship, talking with the crew - having sent the immortal signal 'England expects that every man will do his duty' to the fleet. All his men cheered this example of courage and confidence that they had but to follow. The enemy had reversed course during the morning, heading back to Cadiz, leaving their line confused.

Now the fleets were off Cape Trafalgar, and the British sailors had time to eat a good meal in preparation for the engagement - although their opponents may not have had such healthy appetites. Nelson waited for Villeneuve to show his flag, so he would know where to strike. As Victory bore down on the enemy line she had to endure heavy fire from the allied line, without being able to reply. Round shot came smashing through the flimsy bow of the ship, killing and wounding the men on the upper deck. John Scott, Nelson's Public Secretary, was standing on the quarter deck talking with Captain Thomas Hardy, when a shot cut him in two. This is too warm work to last for long. Then the steering wheel was smashed, and a double-headed shot scythed down a file of eight marines on the poop. Still Nelson and Hardy paced up and down on their chosen ground, the starboard side of the quarterdeck, with splinters flying around them. When a splinter hit Hardy's shoe, tearing off the buckle, Nelson observed: 'This is too warm work to last for long'. Fifty men had been killed or wounded, and the crew of the Victory had yet to open fire.

Top The battle Battle of Trafalgar © At 12.35pm the concave enemy line allowed the Victory to open fire at last, shrouding the ship in smoke. Soon afterwards the Victory ran right under the stern of the French flagship, the Bucentaure, and fired a double shotted broadside that made the enemy ship shudder, and killed or wounded over 200 men. Admiral Villeneuve was the only man left standing on the quarter deck. The Redoutable then blocked Victory's way through the enemy line, and Nelson was immobilised on a ship fighting three opponents in the middle of the combined fleet - but he had administered the decisive stroke. Villeneuve was trapped on a crippled ship, and the Franco-Spanish centre was reduced to chaos, lacking the leadership to meet the irresistible British. Nelson, his work done, continued to walk with Hardy, while the captain of the Redoutable tried to clear Victory's upper deck with musket fire and hand grenades. Then, at about 1.15pm, Nelson was hit by a 0.69in-diameter lead ball, which cut an artery in his lung and lodged in his spine.

He was knocked to the deck, and it was clear the wound was mortal. Hardy had his chief carried below, where Surgeon William Beatty was hard at work on the mounting list of casualties. Meantime the battle raged, with the faster and more effective British gunnery steadily wearing down the enemy. Over the next three hours the Franco-Spanish force would collapse. Nelson's attack had broken all the rules of tactics, treating a fleet waiting for a fight like one running away, substituting speed for mass, precision for weight, and accepting impossible odds. ... the battle was won while the enemy had far more ships in the fight than the British. At the start of the battle, when the first British ships arrived, they were initially fighting a far greater number of enemy ships. They won the day because of their speed and flexibility, and by the time they were weakening, a later wave of vessels was in place to administer the coup de grace. In fact the battle was won while the enemy had far more ships in the fight than the British. The real triumph was not of 27 ships against 33, but of 12 against 22.

British casualties tell the story - 12 ships fought the early and decisive phase of the battle, suffering some 1200 deaths and injuries. Top Nelson's death Nelson is taken below after being wounded © As Nelson lay wounded, the battle with the Redoutable reached a crescendo. The French repeatedly tried to board the Victory, only to be driven back by heavy fire, and at 1.30pm the captain of the Redoutable surrendered. At 2.15pm Villeneuve surrendered. The genius of his opponent, the power of the Royal Navy and the failure of his lead squadron to come to his aid had doomed his brave effort. He lived to return to France, only to be murdered by Napoleon. By 2.30pm Hardy was able to go below, to report to Nelson that 12 or 14 of the enemy were taken, and no British ship had surrendered. That last answer betrayed Nelson's anxiety about the outcome of the battle. Hardy, however, could not linger, the lead enemy squadron was belatedly trying to join the battle, only to be bettered by Edward Codrington's brilliantly handled Orion, the Minotaur and the Spartiate.

Hardy went back on deck and signalled the ships nearby to support the flagship. Hardy visited Nelson again at 3.30pm to confirm a glorious victory, but could not satisfy Nelson's determination to have 20 prizes. 'Anchor, Hardy, Anchor!' the dying man demanded, as the rising sea reminded him of his weather forecast. Thank God I have done my duty. Hardy knelt and kissed him, as Nelson struggled to breathe and kept repeating his motto: 'Thank God I have done my duty.' Unable to endure his grief at his leader's plight, Hardy went back to the upper deck, burying his feelings in the fighting. Nelson died shortly before 4.30pm, as the battle died down. Nineteen enemy ships had been taken. Top Cost of victory End of the battle - with fleeing enemy ships in the distance © The cost of victory was high. Some 1,700 British were killed or wounded, with 6,000 enemy casualties and nearly 20,000 prisoners. Many of those lives, as well as Villeneuve's flagship, were lost in the storm that followed the battle.

The following day, Nelson's oldest friend, Admiral Collingwood, opened his wonderful Order of Thanks for the men of the fleet with the following lines: 'The ever to be lamented death of Vice Admiral Lord Viscount Nelson, Duke of Bronte, the Commander in Chief, who fell in the action of the 21st, in the arms of Victory, covered with glory, whose memory will be ever dear to the British Navy and the British Nation; whose zeal for the honour of his King, and for the interests of his Country, will ever be held up as a shining example for a British seaman.' This powerful document only heightened the emotional impact of the news across the nation - for Britons the triumph over Napoleon was cancelled out by the loss of Nelson. The loss, however, provided a national hero to help enhance the newly formed British identity. Trafalgar, as the battle was named by George III, had crushed the naval power of a deadly enemy, and - although they had fought like heroes - the Spanish and French had been annihilated. Trafalgar was the coda to Nelson's achievement. He had destroyed Napoleon's maritime strategy and invasion plans when he pursued Villeneuve to the West Indies and back.

This had set the limit to Napoleon's empire, and plotted the course of his downfall. Other British admirals could have won at Trafalgar, but only Nelson could have settled the command of the sea for a century. Trafalgar was the product of one man's obsessive genius and unequalled commitment to his country. Books Nelson: Britannia's God of War by Andrew Lambert (Faber and Faber, 2004) Logs of the Great Sea Fights, Vol. II edited by Admiral Sir T Sturges-Jackson (Navy Records Society, 1902, reprinted 2005). Collection of ships' log books dealing with the day of the Battle of Trafalgar, also the battles of the Nile and Copenhagen. The Campaign of Trafalgar by JS Corbett (Longman, 1910). The definitive study, written by a master of strategic and tactical history. Used to teach naval officers before 1914. The Campaign of Trafalgar by E Desbrière, translated by C Eastwick (Oxford). The French staff history, written before World War One.

Trafalgar and the Spanish Navy by J Harbron (Conway Maritime, London, 2004). The only book-length study of the Spanish perspective, although much of the text is concerned with the century leading up to the battle. The Letters and Dispatches of Admiral Lord Nelson, 1844-46 (vols 6,7) edited by NH Nicolas (reprinted Chatham Publishing, 1998) Nelson: New Letters edited by Colin White (Boydell, Woodbridge, 2005) Top About the author Andrew Lambert is Laughton professor of naval history at King's College, London. His three-part television series 'War at Sea' was broadcast on the BBC in 2004.

Question: How many years were between the Gunpowder Plot and the Battle of Trafalgar?
Answer: 200