Our beloved Fawkes was named after Guy Fawkes, the man who intended to carry out the Gunpowder Plot to blow up the British Parliament in 1605. Depending on your particular political persuasion, you’re either celebrating the failure of that attempt, because government was not overthrown (“Bonfire Night,” tonight, is celebrated, and Guy Fawkes is burned in effigy), or you’re honoring Guy Fawkes for his attempt to overthrow an oppressive State.
Or you have no idea what Guy Fawkes Day is, in which case you can click here.
In any case, Happy Guy Fawkes Day!
Remember, remember the Fifth of November,
The Gunpowder Treason and Plot,
I can think of no reason
Why the Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot.
Joivre on 
Red Rocker on 
revgeorge on 
Ally on 
PotterMom05 on 
Loading ...
{ 31 comments… read them below or add one }
Well, as a libertarian & Christian I eschew violence as a means for political change, but I do have a soft spot for Guy Fawkes.
As a switch off, can we burn an MP in effigy tonight?
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at this. He’s an embarassment to Catholics everywhere and not just because he chose violence over diplomacy. Guy Fawkes is definitely a candidate for Spike tv’s World’s Most Dumbest Criminals. I can just see the surveillance footage now, Fawkes down in the basement with 36 barrels of old, outdated gun powder, trying to light it with no “luck” for hours and then getting caught red handed.
On another note – the grace and tolerance America showed to Benedict Arnold as opposed to the torture, execution and burning that England showed Fawkes (not to mention the annual blood sport of celebrating it) makes me proud of my country’s founders.
Guy Fawkes, the only person to enter Parliament with honest intent (unless you include David Blunkett’s guide dog).
Forgive my ignorance Joivre, but I don’t know much about Benedict Arnold (besides what I just gleaned from Wikipedia) – please feel free to correct me! Not that I’m condoning violence and torture etc, but are you really comparing apples to apples here? Not only do you have 100 years difference between each event but Fawkes was plotting to bring down the established government rather than participating in an act of war. While England was experiencing a time of religious strife, it was by no means a time of war. Just want to say that I’m proud to be English, and despite having celebrated many a Guy Fawkes Day, I’m definately not a blood-thirsty, execution-loving person.
On a Harry Potter related note, I’m wondering if JKR used the name to suggest that, just as the Fawkes the phoenix dies and is reborn, there will always be people who disagree with a ruling government – like Harry himself!
Another nice article on Guy Fawkes Day may be found here.
Uh-oh. I stepped in it. Sorry Aeris-Flowers! You are absolutely right! I have an affliction where my fingers move over my computer keyboard without brain prompts. Of course, 100 year difference. Established government, yes. I love England. England is a great country. I want to kiss England on the lips. Mea maxima culpa!
Also Aeris-Flowers, I referred to my country’s founders, not the Cheney Administration (which had a penchant for bringing back into vogue an ancient little form of torture called waterboarding). We, across the pond are not innocent by any means. Please accept my humble apologies. Was not thinking.
Joivre, No problem! I’m actually a dual citizen (I live in the US now). There are plenty of things to be both proud and ashamed of as a citizen of either country.
Glad that you like England
.
Having spent months and months with a computer that kept crashing and losing my changes, I can totally sympathize with Fawkes (the agent for radical social change) crouching in the damp basement with barrels of gunpowder past its best-before date, lighting match after match (or striking flints, which is probably what he had), trying to get the darn thing to explode knowing that the soldiers were coming but unable for the life of him to walk away.
I always thought Fawkes (the phoenix) represented Dumbledore’s attitude towards authority in the form of the Ministry of Magic. While he himself didn’t engage in radical activism, he may have sympathized with those who took that option.
Not to beat a dead horse, but a quick check of Wikipedia (I know very little about American history) shows that Benedict Arnold escaped down the Hudson River after his plans to turn over West Point to the British were exposed, narrowly missing being captured – and also cancelling his dinner engagement with George Washington that evening. I think therefore that we should give the Americans the benefit of the doubt: I’m sure they would have tortured Arnold had they had the opportunity.
I don’t think the Americans would’ve tortured Arnold, if Washington had anything to say about it. But he certainly would’ve been executed like Major Andre was.
Arnold’s treason was brought about for a couple of reasons different than Fawkes’. Arnold was bitter over what he considered snubs by the military & political establishment, especially since he had shown loads of bravery in battle & his actions were also essential to winning the Battle of Saratoga. Fawkes was involved in a plot to one, either get revenge for mistreatment of Catholics in Great Britain, or two, lead to a restoration of Catholic rule in England.
Sorry: not dinner, breakfast. He was supposed to have breakfast with Washington.
Also, they did hang John Andre, who was just the go-between, so they would probably have similarly honoured Arnold.
The whole story reads like a comedy of errors. History looks a lot more noble at a distance.
Yes, yes, yes. He would have been hanged for treason. When he returned to sack Virginia, Washington personally gave the order if he was caught (which he obviously never was) for him to be hanged on the spot. I’m positive Washington would not have had him tortured, not his style.
I was half asleep when I posted that stupid post. I should have checked my facts. I sleepily remembered Arnold escaping capture and requesting that his family be given safe return to England, which Washington granted. Which I thought was decent of George. Also something about him living into old age in England. I also should not have made light of Guy Fawkes, or the bonfire celebration.
I am now going to self-flagellate a la Dobby.
No need to pull a Dobby, Joivre, I personally enjoyed the detour through Revolutionary history. I never knew why Arnold’s name was synonymous with betrayal, let alone why he did what he did. Now I have a better idea. One of the more interesting players in the story was his second wife Peggy Shippen, who was 18 or 19 when he married her. Seems she was quite the player, having previously been involved with John Andre, being active in passing letters (billets d’amour) behind enemy lines (her family were either Loyalists or traitors to the Revolution, depending on your politics). After her marriage, she used her networks to pass letters to the British for her husband. It was her safe passage to Philadelphia that Washington granted Arnold after his treason.
But the most colorful member of the cast appears to have been Major John Andre, soldier, spymaster, artist, poet, favorite of the ladies, admired by the gentlemen. His final minutes, documented by James Thacher, are quite Dumbledorian:
So soon, however, as he perceived that things were in readiness, he stepped quickly into the wagon, and at this moment he appeared to shrink, but instantly elevating his head with firmness he said, “It will be but a momentary pang,” and taking from his pocket two white handkerchiefs, the provost-marshal, with one, loosely pinioned his arms, and with the other, the victim, after taking off his hat and stock, bandaged his own eyes with perfect firmness, which melted the hearts and moistened the cheeks, not only of his servant, but of the throng of spectators. The rope being appended to the gallows, he slipped the noose over his head and adjusted it to his neck, without the assistance of the awkward executioner. Colonel Scammel now informed him that he had an opportunity to speak, if he desired it; he raised the handkerchief from his eyes, and said, “I pray you to bear me witness that I meet my fate like a brave man.”
Any Revolutionary War experts here? Anyone beside me wonder why General Clinton refused Washington’s suggestion that Andre be exchanged for Arnold?
I’m going to guess that Arnold was of more military value to the British than Andre was. Andre was a spy & a very capable one, but spies could be easily replaced. Arnold was a high ranking general in the American forces, he knew their numbers, their commanders, their tactics. Plus, having Arnold might have provided a morale boost to the British forces and also a rallying point for Loyalist sentiment.
Ok, I’m awake now. Second cup of cafe au lait awake.
That’s a good question! Arnold was the more serious offender in my eyes and the more potentially lethal for England to use in the Revolution, as he would later prove. He also was pretty ruthless when he did return. Revgeorge – do you mean Arnold executed would boost morale as a martyr for the cause? I’m confused there. I’m thinking perhaps Maj. Andre exchanged billets d’amour with Clinton’s wife as well?
and Clinton wanted satisfaction. Also, it struck me that Washington never used Arnold’s family as bait to lure the traitor back. Beneath our great General, but something I would have done to get him back (I confess that uneasily but all’s fair as the say).
By the way, I saw a portrait of Mrs. Arnold, man! she was gorgeous. I love the fact that the traitor was betrayed by his beautiful wife and another traitor. Sounds like a great Opera!
“(her family were either Loyalists or traitors to the Revolution, depending on your politics). ”
I’m guessing you’re Canadian, Red Rocker!
Oh whoops, I now see Peggy was involved with Andre BEFORE her marriage, not after. Obviously, not lurid enough for an Opera.
Joivre, I mean having Arnold alive and fighting on their side might have been a morale boost to the British. But as Arnold found out afterwards, nobody really loves or trusts a traitor.
True Revgeorge! I was surprised when I read about his subsequent treatment in England after this whole affair. It seems Maj. Andre was the true hero there and Arnold was considered somewhat of a coward for escaping. I wonder if George felt any schadenfreude about that. Probably not.
Clinton is a bit of a mystery. According to Wikipedia, Andre was his favorite aide-de-camp (and possibly more than that). And yet given the chance to get him back, he refused.
The likely explanation is what revgeorge suggested: Clinton felt Arnold was more valuable to the British war effort than Andre. Possibly he didn’t want to dissuade other American generals from switching sides.
It’s also possible that being someone who did not get along well with others, Clinton refused Washington’s offer simply because Washington made it.
And then again, although Andre was born in England, he was born to French and Swiss parents. Which may have made him seem like a second class citizen to the English Sir Henry (no less English for being born in Newfoundland) And an exposed spy master is not much of an asset.
I read that Andre wrote a last letter to Clinton. Wonder what it said.
Cher Henri,
Lt. Enslin meant nothing to me. Get me out of here!
Love,
John
Got this out of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell entry from wikipedia –
During the American Revolutionary War, the armed forces treated sodomy (then broadly defined as oral or anal sexual conduct)[citation needed] as grounds for being dishonorably discharged. The first such recorded discharge was in 1778, when Lieutenant Frederick Gotthold Enslin was (with the approval of General George Washington[1]) dishonorably discharged following a conviction of homosexual sodomy and perjury.
I guess Peggy was barking up the wrong tree.
She knew it too. Wikipedia says:
Popular legend holds that Peggy Shippen fell in love with and pursued André, as she later did with Arnold.
Historically, a possible allusion to André’s lack of interest in women occurs in one of Shippen’s letters, which refers to Andre’s “unrequited appeal to the fairer sex”.
Back to the nobility of the Fawkes issue (yea or nay) and the American Revolution. There’s quite a bit about the widespread terrorism of Tarleton and other Loyalist Tories. What I didn’t learn, until long after my school days, was that “the good guys”–everyday American patriots (not just American soldiers) in gangs–also wreaked hideous terrorism on fellow citizens’ whose loyalty they questioned, their actions often based on rumor, petty revenge, or trumped up charges. Ah, war, both divide and equalizer.
Fawkes and Co. violated their faith in using violence on its behalf, as does any religious terrorist of whatever persuasion.
I’ve never grasped why Dumbledore would name the Resurrection Bird, which carries a freight of Christian symbolism, after a religious terrorist. I’m not sure this was a politically symbolic move.
There is a movie plot in there. I can even cast it:
Ralph Fiennes as Henry Clinton
Scarlett Johannson as Peggy Shippen
Paul Bettany as John Andre
Brendan Gleeson as George Washington
Can’t cast Benedict Arnold: need someone who can play an intelligent yet weak man, full of resentment and self-pity, easily seduced by an 18 year old vixen.
Jeff Daniels a la Terms of Endearment!
Sorry Arabella. Got carried away. But I am with you not fully understanding the Fawkes connection besides it being a bird that goes up in flames once in awhile.
Oh, snap. I didn’t mean to inject seriousness into this!
Let’s see, Arnold was about 40 when he changed sides. Intelligent but weak…. I know! Tom Cruise! He’s got just the right ferret face.
Back to the Gunpowder Plot and HP . . .
Bonfire Night is referenced in the very first chapter of the series when the muggle TV announcer reports on the “fireworks” down in Kent. McGonagall says it must have been Daedalus Diggle. In Greek myth, Daedalus and his son Icarus escaped the Cretan labyrinth and King Minos with giant wings made of feathers and wax. Icarus disregarded Daedalus’ warning, flew too near the sun causing the wax to melt, and plummeted to his death in the sea. So I find the linkage of Diggle and Bonfire Night kind of amusing. In DH we again have “fireworks” in the sky with Harry’s escape from Privet Drive right after Diggle and the Dursleys drive off with the setting sun reflecting in their rear window. And Harry plummets from the sky to his near-death on Hagrid’s motorbike (the motorbike of course providing another link to the 1st chapter of the series).
One of Fawkes’ co-conspirators in the Gunpowder Plot was a man named Ambrose Rookwood, who provided fast horses and gathered information for the other plotters. His name is similar to one of the Death Eaters, Augustus Rookwood, who was Voldemort’s spy inside the Ministry and to whom Bagman unwittingly passed information during VoldeWarI.
Lily Luna – those are interesting insights! But I’m still wondering how it all fits together. Fawkes, the bird, is on the good side; Rookwood, the Death Eater, on the bad. Is it just abitrary influences or do they have meaning to the story. Maybe because I just woke up, I’m not seeing the connection.
Also, one of my dearest co-workers is from England and I asked her about Bonfire Day. She related fond memories of the many celebrations – one quite funny one where her dad almost blew up their house trying to light fireworks. But when I tried to discuss the origins of the day – she said most children and many adults don’t even know – kind of like Halloween here. When I asked if she viewed Fawkes as a bad guy – she said most people look at him with a sly admiration.
I think this whole thing might be hard for non-Englanders to fully understand culturally. I might be approaching it from the wrong end. If that makes any sense.
Joivre – I , too, am not making the Fawkes/Guy Fawkes connection. Come on, Potter Pundits, help us out!
Perhaps the differing interpretations of Guy Fawkes relate indirectly through Fawkes the Phoenix to the differing interpretations people have had of Dumbledore’s actions. Some see him as all good, some as mostly good but willing to use manipulation to good ends, and I’ve read quite a bit of fanfiction where he’s portrayed as, varyingly, bad, evil and seeking only his own power, or extremely manipulative for “the greater good.”
The irony is that Fawkes the phoenix is quite successful at bursting into flames but Guy Fawkes didn’t actually succeed in blowing anything up!
Fawkes’s name is one of JKR’s jokes, surely? What a great name for a phoenix! He’s a bonfire. He bursts spectacularly into flames – like a firework.
I think most people in the UK know about Guy Fawkes and the origins of Bonfire Night. Plus, it’s taught at primary school. I’ve never come across any great angst over it, but there is definitely a certain amount of irony attached to the celebration!
Thanks, woman_ironing, I like your interpretation. Ironic and funny – true JKR style.