Talk:Ambrose Rookwood

unsourced

Placed here so it doesn't get lost in the edit history:

Another Jesuit, Father John Gerard, made the following observations:

But that which moved them specially to make choice of Mr Rookwood was, I suppose, not so much to have his help by his living as by his person, and some provision of horses, of which he had divers of the best: but for himself, he was known to be of great virtue and no less valour and very secret. He was also of very good parts otherwise as for wit and learning, having spent much of his youth in study. He was at this time, as I take it, not past twenty-six or twenty-seven years old and had married a gentlewoman of a great family, a virtuous Catholic also, by whom he had divers young children.

Parrot of Doom 21:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Rookwood's task was to take the news of the firing of the gunpowder to Catesby at Dunchurch, using his celebrated stable of horses in relay. Close friends with Catesby, he had earlier provided him with gunpowder believing it to be for the new English regiment of Catholics, which James I had reluctantly allowed to be formed to fight with Spain's forces after the conclusion of their peace treaty, and of which Catesby had some hope of being a lieutenant.

Parrot of Doom 08:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Sir?

When was Rookwood knighted? I do not have access to any of the books regarding him, or the gunpowder plot, but I was just wondering if he really was addressed as "Sir". Take for instance this site in which Everard Digby is the only one who is acknowledged as a "Sir". --195.75.73.1 (talk) 13:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know where the honorific came from. It doesn't appear to be in Fraser's book and his ODNB entry doesn't contain it. I do recall random instances of editors prefixing many of those names involved in the Gunpowder Plot with "Sir", perhaps this is one that escaped an immediate reversion. In any case, I'll remove it. Parrot of Doom 16:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the quick answer and for the great articles about the gunpowder plot and the plotters. I myself am working on their Swedish equivalents and your articles were very interesting to read! --195.75.73.1 (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks :) Parrot of Doom 21:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Boom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.14.14.177 (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

This shows how crappy both FAC and TFA are

What kind of high-standard processes would let through an unconverted "miles" to be in a featured article and on the main page? Tony (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

FAC and TFA

Are FAC and TFA good or bad?--Dthomsen8 (talk) 02:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)Are FAC and TFA good or bad?--Dthomsen8 (talk) 02:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)Are

FAC is pretty corrupt and has fallen into substandard malaise. TFA doesn't seem to realise the extent to which it needs to scrutinise each main-page article it plans to display. Tony (talk) 12:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Shown by editors like me who frequently improve the WikiProject lines, and sometimes the article itself, just after it is published.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Gap?

The article explains that in 1601 "he joined the Earl of Essex's abortive rebellion against the government, for which he was captured and held at Newgate Prison." The next sentence in the text (admittedly, in the next section) begins "In August 1605 Rookwood joined . . ."

So clearly he was out of prison by then. How did he get released, considering that he had been involved in treason? That alone was usually enough for execution; however not only was he released, but he was evidently not sufficiently grateful for the sparing of his life to stop getting into treasonous activity. What else happened in the intervening four years? As those are the years leading up to the Gunpowder Plot, one imagines they constitute an important period in his life, but nary a word. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)