Talk:Ridolfi plot

Huh?

Is it Roberto di Ridolfi or Roberto di Ridolfo? Blair P. Houghton 00:21, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC) It's Roberto Ridolfi.

Date

Although Ridolfi may have laid much of the groundwork of the plot before, the date given for the plot is conventionally 1571, not 1570.

Date

The Duke of Norfolk could not have been arrested on September 7, 1571 yet executed in June 1571.

Date

All the sources I have say that Norflok was executed in 1572. Moonksy29 13:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Date

I agree with Moonsky above. My research shows he was executed on June 2nd, 1572.

Cousin to the Queen

Since the paragraph previous mentions both Queen Elizabeth and Mary Queen of Scots, to which Queen is the reference? Also, should it be "cousin to the Queen" or "cousin of the Queen"? JByrd (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

some additions

I edited this page on behalf of a group of college students at SUNY New Paltz. If you want to consult with our teacher, his username is Redcknight. Zacharyschiff17 (talk) 01:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ridolfi plot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070515030703/http://www.elizabethi.org/uk/chronology/two.html to http://www.elizabethi.org/uk/chronology/two.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Wrong explanation of Browne's actions

The article, Ridolfi Plot, repeats a common misunderstanding in describing (under the heading 'Discovery') how the plot was uncovered. It basically repeats Thomas Browne's side of the story unquestioningly, but he was both wrong and disingenuous. The text "Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeological and Natural History Society 2nd series Vol. V 1893, "THOMAS BROWNE OF SHREWSBURY, DRAPER" pp 49-60 conclusively argues otherwise. First, "on September 5th, Browne imagined that the bag ... was still in the hands of the carrier ; and yet historians ... have all stated that Browne himself took the bag to the Council." ... "Now we know that on September 1st Higford was already in custody, and the nature of his first examination shows that the bag of money and the ciphered letter were then in Cecil's possession'. ...(Furthermore) Browne could not possibly have journeyed nearly to Shrewsbury and got back to London between August 29th and September 1st." As to Browne's 'suspicions' based on the bag's weight, "There could be very little difference in weight between .£50 of silver and £600 of gold, and what difference there might be would be in favour of the silver rather than the gold." Most probably, Browne had spoken to a third person about his commission, and that person, becoming suspicious, informed the Council. In any case, the explanation given in the Wikipedia article is impossible. Tomash11 (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2025 (UTC)