Conspiracies: The Facts * the Theories * the Evidence (9 page)

When a leading member of the Catholic gentry, Anthony

Babington, became heavily involved in the plot to overthrow

Elizabeth, it was his damning correspondence with Mary, detail-

ing planned events and overseas invasions (this time from Spain,

France and Italy), backed up by Mary’s written consent, that final y gave Walsingham his chance. With a few more incriminating

references falsely added into copies of the letters for good measure (presumably to ensure the absence of any mitigating loopholes),

there was no longer any question of the plotters’ guilt, and

typical y horrific executions, torture and prosecutions followed, culminating in the final demise of Mary, convicted of treason

and beheaded in 1587. With no obvious replacement to take on

a ral ying role for Catholicism, the rumble of threatened rebellion quietened for a while.

A conspiracy of a less overarching kind occurred in 1601,

when Robert Devereux, second earl of Essex, who had fallen out

of favour with the now aged Elizabeth, led an insurrection that

did actual y lead to military action on the streets of London. It was aimed more at restoring his own prestige at court, rather

than being an attempt at all-out regime change; enough support

was rallied to lead 300 armed men into the city, but the general

population failed to respond to the cause, and its few followers

were easily quelled, leading to Devereux’s inevitable execution.

Although his intentions were largely self-centred, some supporters had seen an opportunity to use the rebellion as a spark for a

wider Catholic uprising – including one Robert Catesby, who,

having been wounded in the skirmishes, managed to escape

with a brief imprisonment and hefty fine. Four years later, as we shall see, Catesby would be at the core of one of the most famous conspiracies of all time.

47

Conspiracy.indd 47

23/10/2012 15:42:21

conspiracies

The Shakespeare Conspiracy

One of the more curious tactics used by the Essex rebels was

the mounting of a production of William Shakespeare’s play

Richard II
at London’s Globe Theatre the night before the failed coup (not
Richard III
, as Hol ywood’s 2011 take on proceedings had it, courtesy of Roland Emmerich’s controversial Shakespeare

conspiracy film
Anonymous
). The play’s theme of a preening monarch, prey to dubious advisers and falling into paranoia before being deposed by rebellion and ultimately murder, was apparently

intended to help stir the mob to civil unrest, in the hope that the Essex revolt would gain the people’s support next day. Although

its intentions failed on this occasion, it is a strong early example of propaganda and public conditioning being spread through the

guise of popular entertainment.

Shakespeare himself has, in recent years, come under the gaze

of several conspiracy claims, with many considering a common

playwright incapable of expressing so many rich insights into

human affairs and displaying such broad knowledge of courtly

etiquette without at least some kind of outside input. It has been widely speculated that more venerable figures such as Sir Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe or Edward de Vere, the seventeenth

earl of Oxford, may well have contributed to the plays, or authored them entirely, aliased to protect their names from what was then

seen as a somewhat disreputable profession. Speculation has been

bolstered by the absence of any substantial recorded information

about Shakespeare himself. Inevitably, most academics round

heavily against this view, but there has been a steady increase in the number of leading classical actors and scholars prepared to consider openly that the figure we know as William Shakespeare may have

been a composite front for either another author or a committee of contributors, which may or may not have included the bard himself.

The often volatile reaction against this theory produces in

itself another telling example of how ingrained establishment

48

Conspiracy.indd 48

23/10/2012 15:42:21

historical conspiracies

resistance is to anything that threatens the status quo. This

was keenly il ustrated with the release of the aforementioned

Anonymous
movie in 2011, which opts for the de Vere

hypothesis, mixing in the Essex rebellion for dramatic purposes.

What was plainly intended as entertaining distraction rather

than historical depiction (which, as we have seen, is hardly to be relied upon) was nonetheless met with some of the most vitriolic

attacks seen towards mainstream cinema for some time, rooted

largely in sheer outrage that anyone might so publicly challenge

the authority of such a great British institution. However,

the movie’s shrewd inclusion of famous Shakespearian actors

(including Derek Jacobi and Mark Rylance), obviously happy

to put their names to something fronting the controversial idea,

led to one of the most overt media discussions of a conspiracy

theory, albeit a light one, yet seen. This at least stimulated a

little more awareness that there
are
other views to the narrow selection usual y voiced in the mainstream, even if they were

met by a barrage of condemnation.

The Gunpowder Plot

When Elizabeth I died in 1603, her failure to marry and produce

children or to name an heir resulted in Mary Stuart’s eldest son

being imported from Scotland and crowned the new English

monarch as James I. Although one might have expected James

to bear some resentment for the execution of his mother, he

dutiful y maintained the Church of England. A few acknowledged

Catholic sympathizers had somehow managed to retain a quiet

presence at court throughout Elizabeth’s reign, tolerated as long as there was no open practice of their faith, which remained a

punishable offence. Some had hoped the arrival of James might

free them of this shackle, but he showed little sign of initiating a full emancipation.

49

Conspiracy.indd 49

23/10/2012 15:42:21

conspiracies

One Catholic unable to contain his disappointment was one

Robert Catesby, the resentful survivor of the 1601 Essex rebellion.

Together with the aid of several other conspirators – most

famously Guido (Guy) Fawkes – Catesby formulated a plan to

assassinate James, together with his court and government, by

igniting barrels of gunpowder stored in a convenient undercroft

that ran beneath the old House of Lords. Had it succeeded, the

blast would have constituted the largest peace-time explosion

then witnessed, probably wiping out anyone within an eighth of

a mile (as a television experiment in 2005 demonstrated).1 It was planned for detonation during the state opening of Parliament on

5 November 1605; the hope was that a national Catholic uprising

would follow, led by forces in the English Midlands, after which

James’s nine-year-old daughter, another Elizabeth, would be

installed as a puppet queen, loyal once again to Rome.

These machinations have been recorded by history as the

‘Gunpowder Plot’, perhaps one of the most famous conspiracies

of all time, still commemorated in Britain in its famous ‘Bonfire Night’ celebrations. Although awareness of its source inspiration seems to fade with each generation, some towns still uphold its

fuller traditions, such as Ottery St Mary in Devon and, most

spectacularly, Lewes in East Sussex (this author’s birth town).

Even today, the Lewesian streets see effigies of Pope Paul V and

Guy Fawkes (along with more contemporary political ogres of the

moment) blown up to annual controversy, as the events of 1605,

together with the Marian persecutions, are remembered with

large-scale pageantry, il ustrating the profound effect religious strife of old has had on the country.

The full details of the Gunpowder Plot are less important here,

but it is highlighted to demonstrate an example of a conspiracy

(one descended from several previous intrigues) that has become

a marked fixture in the nation’s calendar. England’s history, in

particular, is therefore indelibly defined by the recognition that conspiracies do most certainly occur. If then, why not still now?

50

Conspiracy.indd 50

23/10/2012 15:42:21

historical conspiracies

The misplaced assertion that only in days of yore did such things happen, and that too many lessons have been learned to ever allow it today, is a weak one, given the evidence.

Harder-nosed truthseekers might point out that the Gun-

powder Plot was merely yet another assassination attempt, a failed terrorist rabble-rousing on behalf of a persecuted minority, rather than a full contrivance to defraud the people, as ‘conspiracy’ is often defined today. However, a twist to the events of 1605 may

throw another light on it.

Catesby, together with his band of co-conspirators, was

ultimately undone when an anonymous informant sent a letter

to William Parker, fourth baron Monteagle, warning him not to

attend the opening of Parliament if he valued his life. Inevitably, Monteagle raised the alarm and Fawkes was consequently

apprehended as he guarded the powder barrels in the early hours

before the opening of Parliament. As ever, interrogations, torture, retreats, shoot-outs and appalling executions followed, and the day of the Gunpowder Plot was done. But perhaps not quite dusted.

Who sent the crucial letter to the baron? This question has

never been satisfactorily answered. It was widely assumed that the anonymous hand was most likely that of Francis Tresham, one of

the plotters. As brother-in-law to Monteagle, he might reasonably have been concerned about his welfare. But Tresham, even when

dying of a mysterious illness while imprisoned in the Tower of

London, continued to deny sending the letter, and his involvement was never proven. This is where claims of a ‘false-flag’ operation have arisen.

Even at the time, voices were raised that, just as Mary Stuart’s

communications with co-conspirators had been openly set up

and monitored to implicate her, so also might the Gunpowder

Plot have been actively encouraged or even arranged by James’s

advisers, with or without his direct knowledge. There were many

who desired to stir firmer legislation against Catholics, and, sure enough, the revelation of the potential y devastating scheme

51

Conspiracy.indd 51

23/10/2012 15:42:21

conspiracies

provided justification for the stiffest sanctions against the Roman Church in many years. Although the subsequent public reaction

perhaps fell short of the all-out pogroms that hardliners might have hoped for, nonetheless much of the population enthusiastical y

embraced the bell-ringing and firing of cannons (eventual y to

become the more familiar bonfire and firework frenzies) that were official y decreed must take place each 5 November as an annual

reminder of the baleful dangers of Catholicism.

If the Gunpowder Plot
was
a set-up, its result was a success and the upshot was the same (just as the West made useful capital of 9/11 by grateful y making it the launch pad for a new crusade

into the Middle East), even without the false-flag connotations.

But continuing suspicion has fallen on Robert Cecil, first earl

of Salisbury, secretary of state and ‘spymaster’ for the King, and a protégé of the Mary Stuart-baiting Sir Francis Walsingham.

In addition to seeking greater legislation against Catholics, he

was also eager to stoke new pretexts for war against Spain and

Portugal, through which England could rise to new power and

influence (which, several conflicts and a century later, it did, as the British Empire rose). It is said by some that Thomas Percy, one of Catesby’s conspirators, was a double agent, actively working

for Cecil, and that Tresham was in fact poisoned in the Tower to

remove his awkward protestations of innocence – for if
he
hadn’t written the damning letter to Monteagle, other hands would

inconveniently have to be investigated.

John Gerard, a Jesuit priest who had been implicated as being

involved in the plot despite his denials (although he was certainly connected to Catesby’s circle), plainly believed it was a case of official y sponsored terrorism. In the 1606 tract
A Narrative of the
Gunpowder Plot
, published after his flight into exile, Gerard wrote:

For purposes of State, the government of the day either

found means to instigate the conspirators to undertake

their enterprise, or, at least, being, from an early stage of the
52

Conspiracy.indd 52

23/10/2012 15:42:21

historical conspiracies

undertaking, ful y aware of what was going on, sedulously

nursed the insane scheme till the time came to make capital

out of it. That the conspirators, or the greater number of them,
real y meant to strike a great blow is not to be denied, though
it may be less easy to assure ourselves of its precise character;
and their guilt will not be pal iated should it appear that, in
projecting an atrocious crime, they were unwittingly playing

the game of plotters more astute than themselves.

Jesuits are themselves held in heavy suspicion by some conspiracy theorists today, but a number of odd things do arise around the