Talk:James I of England

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments

This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group.

James I of England is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

James I of England appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 19, 2005.

This is a selected entry on Template:March 24 selected anniversaries (may be in HTML comment)

Archives
June 2006 – June 2006

[edit] Black acts

There's a problem with the section titled 'Catholic uprising' in that it mentions James I repealling the Black acts in 1592 but linking to an article that states that the Black acts were passed by parliament in 1723 and reppealled in 1827.

I'm not particularly familiar with the subject matter but it seems pretty clear that one of those two things is incorrect. Would removing the link be the correct thing to do?

[edit] Anne of Denmark

In the entry on Anne of Denmark, it says that the marriage ceremony was formalised in Oslo, Norway. "In August 1589, she was married, by proxy, to James, the young king of Scotland, and their actual wedding ceremony took place in Oslo, Norway, on November 23 of that year." Here it states that it was a few months later at Krondborg in Denmark. Could someone throw light on this discrepancy, please? King Hildebrand 19:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

James and Anne were married in the Old Bishops' Palace in Oslo in Norway, then part of the Kingdom of Denmark, on 23 November 1589. The information given on this page-now changed-was wrong. Rcpaterson 07:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

As much as it arises animosity of some Great-Denmark POV pushers, Norway at that time was yet an own kingdom (we would say "in personal union...") and not directly "a part of Denmark". Suedois 07:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Denmark - Norway

Was Norway ever a part of Denmark, officially? My understanding was that there was an effective state union, although officially the two always remained separate. john k 11:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Norway lost gradually its statehood functions. Perhaps, and this is a very big perhaps, from c 1660s onwards we can somehow start to say that Norway was part of Denmark. Other interpretations are that it never was. In c 1660 (check the very correct year!), Denmark got a new constitution ("Lex regia" of Frederick III) where Denmark was changed to a hereditary kingdom, and got "absolutism" (or almost), over all territories. Denmark's that constitution was applied in Norway too. Until that time, Norway was hereditary kingdom and Denmark elective. Theoretically, their routes could have diverged, had Denmark elected anyone else than the one to hereditarily succeed in Norway. Already before that, king Christian III had dissolved the separate Royal Council of Norway, in around 1530s, but as the government of Norway sprang from the person of the hereditary king, it was theoretically of no importance who were the persons who "advised and counselled" the king. Of course, every bigger policy came to come from council in Copenhagen from 1530s onwards (before that, bigger policies came from king in Copenhagen, prepared by Danish advisers, but their execution had something to do with councillors in Norway who simultaneously were important officials having their powers of office), but routines were done by officials in Norway. Norway had its separate governor or viceroy until the very end, 1814. However, until the very end, kings used titulary of Denmark, Norway, Vends and Goths. In that sense, it was personal union. Suedois 17:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Using a long title doesn't make something merely a personal union. French Navarre was merged into France in 1620, but the Bourbon kings continued to be styled "King of France and Navarre." Castile was a single kingdom, but its titulary including a huge number of different places the king was supposedly king of (Castile, León, Granada, Toledo, Galicia, Córdoba, Murcia, Jaén, the Algarves, Algeciras, Gibraltar, and the Canary Islands). I think some kind of separate constitution is required for something to be a personal union. But all of this has little to do with James I. john k 19:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Presbyterian Scotland?

To say that James was 'despised' in Scotland for the attempted introduction of the Five Articles of Perth is far too strong. Implementation met with a degree of popular resistance, but this did not in any way express itself in distaste for the king.

The more fundamental point here concerns a common misconception-repeated all too often in Wikipedia pages- about the form of church government in Scotland at this time. While the Golden Acts of 1592 gave the appearance of establishing the Church of Scotland on a Presbyterian basis, the goal of Andrew Melville and his adherents, there were still individual ministers who had the title, if not the full functions, of bishop. From the beginning of the seventeenth century, by the manipulation of parliament and the General Assembly of the church, James had reintroduced first parliamentary and then diocesan Episcopacy. By the end of his reign the Church of Scotland had exactly the same Episcopal structure as its English cousin, with bishops operating in all of the ancient diocese, including the archdiocese of St. Andrews and Glasgow. The confusion on this issue is born from an inablity to distinguish Episcopacy, as a form of church government, from the liturgical practices of High Anglicanism, associated with John Whitgift, William Laud and the like. The Scottish church was both Episcopal and Calvinist. It was the attempt to move it in a more Anglican direction in the Five Articles of Perth that met resistance. The Scottish Church did not become Presbyterian until November 1638, when the bishops were formally expelled by the Glasgow General Assembly. Rcpaterson 08:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ancestors of Flaald of the House of Stuart?

Who were the ancestors of Flaald?

[edit] Scottish Solomon

I must be missing something here-or admitting to a gap in my education-but I simply do not understand the link between James' wisdom and the gossip about his parentage. Is this meant to imply that David Rizzio was considered to be unusually wise? I am completely baffled. Could this reference please be explained-or removed-as a matter of urgency. Rcpaterson 05:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Now removed. Rcpaterson 21:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Solomon son of David of course: King Solomon was supposed to be remarkably wise and religious, and so people flattered the similarly reputed James by comparing them; gossips and wits then joked that he was thus 'The son of David'. There was a certain amount of scurrilous gossip about the Kings paternity, and some claimed that Mary's secretary Rizzio had been having an affair with her (hence Darnley supposedly killed him because of this) and had fathered James on her. It wasn't seriously believed, but it was well enough known for the King of France to make a barbed comment about it. The joke also made reference to the fact that both Davids were musicians. A.

Thank you for that clarification. Could you please guide me to the source for Henri's alleged observation? Rcpaterson 22:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't get at the book at the moment, and can't remember its title, so not at present. It was a book about the Stuart Kings and Queens from James VI/I - Anne, but I can't be more precise. A.

Forgive me for pressing the point; but can I have this reference in the very near future? Rcpaterson 06:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Found it. J.P. Kenyon, 'The Stuarts'. In fact, I got the point slightly wrong, so I reproduce the point. P.53, note 8 re 'Scottish Solomon: "James's controversial writings had earned him this title, but it was usually employed sarcastically. For instance, Henry IV is said to have remarked 'that he hoped he was not David the fiddler's son' - a reference to Mary Stuart's music-loving secretary, David Rizzio." As you can see, the title Scottish Solomon was used sarcastically, but not by Henri: he instead seems to have made a pun on it regarding the paternity issue. A.

Thank you. There still seems to be some confusion here. The main article states as fact what seems to have been a remark allegedly made by Henri IV. In other words, a legend has been turned into substance without any real documentary justification. What Kenyon says about what Henri is supposed to have said will not do. Can this be reduced to hard documentary support or removed? You may consider the point trivial; but I feel sure you will understand the danger in creating myths: once they are up and running they are almost impossible to knock down. Rcpaterson 22:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

First off, the title of 'Scottish Solomon' should not be attributed to Henri: if the anecdote is true, he would have heard of it, but he clearly didn't invent it. As for the 'David the Fiddler's son' remark, I can't verify that any more than I already have: I couldn't find any explanation of where the anecdote came from. However, would it not be enough to comment that the title 'Scottish Solomon' was often used sarcastically (of which there seems to be little doubt), and that historian J.P. Kenyon reports Henri IV of France having commented ... . Because it is a rather amusing remark, and certainly suggests what the French King was expected to think of James, if not necessarily what he actually thought of him. A.

I don't see why the quote should not be included, so long as we indicate that it is not certain that Henri IV actually said it. If he did not say it, somebody else did and attributed it to Henri, and probably not long after the time in question (because who would make up such a joke in, say, 1750? it wouldn't really be funny anymore.) john k 15:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to some mention being made of this, provided the context is made clear. I'm a historian and a hard-nosed empiricist, so I always look for substance. There are too many legends masquerading as fact. I personally doubt that Henri would ever have made such a remark in any public way; for to do so would not just have caused serious offence but would have called into question the political-as well as the biological-legitimacy of the British monarchy. In the seventeenth century this would have been no light matter. Rcpaterson 23:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, it depends on the context it was made (might Henri have kept a journal?) I have no particular convictions as to whether it is or is not true; I simply found it interesting when I read it and thought it should be mentioned here (after all, history revolves as much around the amusing little anecdotes as around the substantial and certain, and if the difference can be made clear then there is room for both).A.

As I have already said I have no problem with small asides of this nature: the problem arises when a supposition is transformed into a fact, as it was when I first noticed this. Good history will always make place for kitchen gossip as well as grand documents. The issue is always over that of inclusion: in other words, what is important and what is not. I really do not want to belabour this, but a speculative reference to what Henri might have said about this or that is best included in a footnote rather than incorporated in the text, as Kenyon obviously did when he touched on the matter.Rcpaterson 22:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glaring Mistake

Surely the "glaring mistake" identified in this edit is in fact correct: that our man was James VI of Scotland until his death. I see the edit has survived for over a month, but I'm bringing the subject here for reconsideration. AndyJones 21:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a quite unbelievable amount of ignorance about James and his reign. You are quite right: he was James VI in Scotland until his death. He may have liked to style himself as 'King of Great Britain', but he was never crowned as such, and neither the Scottish nor the English parliaments recognised the British title. There is, however, an even deeper confusion here, which I have not tackled because it is too well established: James, during his lifetime, was never known as, or referred to as 'James I', even of England. He was James, King of England, Ireland and France. The regnal number was attributed long after his death. He would always have though of himself as James VI, in much the same way as the present queen is Elizabeth II. Rcpaterson 22:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

"James I" only coming into serious use after 1685, I take it? Speaking of which, was James II really called "James VII" in Scotland? john k 23:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

He was: in Scotland! (See the Acts of the Parliament of Scotland). Not to do so would have involved some degree of legal confusion. Rcpaterson 01:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I figured he was called that de jure. I was more wondering if he was called "James VII" in every day use, as well. john k 09:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Only in an official and legal documents. In everyday usage he would simply be 'the King' or 'King James', in much the same way as the present monarch is referred to as 'the Queen' or 'Queen Elizabeth', and almost never as 'Elizabeth II'. Rcpaterson 22:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me for being such an ignoramus regarding wiki protocol, and without prejudice to my English cohabitees, surely this page should be more suitably titled. Numbers are irrelevant, there not having been a prince of both realms before, surely the title should read 'James, King of Scotland, England and Ireland'? Or, though never a formal title, 'James, King of great Britain'. Purely for political fairness' sake. I personally don't have a problem with "The Wisest Fool" being known as the first James of England, but I do think that considering that he was "Jamie Saxt" of Scotland for 34 years before he went south that this should be reflected from the start.Brendandh 21:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, could I suggest you firstly have a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). Addhoc 22:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Urgent Questions!

Throughout the article there are little or no citations, except for several references at the very bottom of the article. I have read the article many times and I know it is definitely worthy of being a featured article, but I have some questions about the content:

Since it is a featured article, how does it get by the strenuous referencing requirements that most featured article candidates are denied as a result of? (ex. little or no citations in the main article)

What referencing method was used for the article?

Does anyone know the opposition or concerns raised when this article was just a candidate (for featured status)?

Thank you very much

-- AJ24 5:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incoherence...

"Revisionism of King James has restored his reputation as an unfortunate king who simply fell short of some of his greatest achievements."

This sentence, which I've copied from the article, doesn't mean anything.

How can someone fall short of their own greatest achievements? Can someone who has read the particular books that are quoted here revise this muddly sentence?

Or has someone editted out something vital?

--Amandajm 16:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It's just atrocious prose-cut it out. Rcpaterson 03:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing this article

I can't understand the decissions made by some previous edittors of this article about what to cut and what to leave in.

It seems to me that speculatively and sensational material has been included to the expense of the more factual.

I'm going to try to reverse some of that. Please check to make sure that I haven't ommitted anything accurate and vital.

--Amandajm 01:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted Link

Hey there bornhj, sorry to delete the link [1] but it just seemed out of place, it appears later on in the article in context, in the first line of "personal relationships". I hope this clears explains why I deleted it. Cheers. Potters house 15:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coston

Reverted to 6th July. This is from what I could find on one "Stephen A. Coston Sr" via a quick google: he appears to be a self-published religious fundamentalist who has never been published in any peer-reviewed academic journal. I would therefore guess he isn't considered a reputable historian by any recognised experts of the field. Certainly, the Coston page linked to is an appalling piece of POV nonsense. The statement: "Also in the strictist terms the King was married for 20 years and had nine children to the same woman, therefore he could not have been a homosexual, but was instead a faithful husband." is laughable idiocy. (Oscar Wilde had two children. Andre Gide married but eloped with the son of his best man. He later conceived a child with another woman. And so on.) But all this is beside the point. The article is meant to be factual, not speculative, hence Coston doesn't belong here. However you may wish to create a special page for him to outline all his deeply fascinating theories for the dumb multitudes - including why James, Carr and Buckingham were just bestest pals.

Engleham

Thanks for talking, There are problems with the revert as I did also remove a link that was in an inappropriate place and placed it (or rather left the one) in the Refs. It seemed like a silly link anyway but I thought I would retain it to keep the neutrality of the article. It seemed to be logical that James was not a homosexual but would be correctly defined as a bisexual if the accusations were true, thus the comments; "Also in the strictest terms the King was married for 20 years and had nine children to the same woman, therefore he could not have been a homosexual, but was instead a faithful husband." Or a better wording "but is perceived to be a faithful husband (by those opposing the homosexual view)"

You said; "The article is meant to be factual, not speculative, hence Coston doesn't belong here. However you may wish to create a special page for him to outline all his deeply fascinating theories for the dumb multitudes - including why James, Carr and Buckingham were just bestest pals."

I never overwrote the article but just stated that "others conclude" I believe that many scholars are correct in this point and that he has been unjustly accused! Mostly Christian of course, because what other group would object. But to avoid POV I have just included it, which is what a good Wikipedian should do, put all the facts down and have a well rounded article. If you understand that the King was a protestant King who made many Catholic enemies, you can understand why many Catholic sites proclaim that James was gay. Also if the site is pro Homosexual it is may have an agenda, thus all the more reason for a non biased article.

http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/james-h.html

http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0463.htm

http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0060.htm

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/was-kingjames-homosexual.html

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/was_king_james_a_homosexual.htm

You also delete all reference to the flag which is historical fact. I have no idea why you would do this and no reason was given. As to POV I see that you perhaps have already concluded that James is indeed a homosexual and have rejected any other conclusions outright. If you carefully read the above links you will be surprised at how many facts prove the contrary. If you were to read the article you would assume that James was a Homosexual, but not everyone holds to that notion, especially fundamentalist Christians who claim that James was a Protestant Christian king. Included it brings an awareness of the debate, makes for a good discussion point, and gives a non biased POV. Nick. Potters house 07:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

"If you understand that the King was a protestant King who made many Catholic enemies, you can understand why many Catholic sites proclaim that James was gay." The belief by most recognised scholars that James was primarily homosexual isn't based on Catholic slurs, contemporary or otherwise. It's based on primary evidence. Even if you dismiss eyewitness accounts of his behavior as "biased", his own love letters and the fact that he showered honours and fortune on handsome young men for no reason would be enough to seal the case beyond reasonable doubt. However, given homophobia, and the fact that he's seen an a Protestant and Christian icon, this is all subject to *unreasonable* doubt and spurious claims. Any Wikipedia entry for such a figures immediately becomes a battle ground between Protestants, Catholics, English, Scots, right-wing Christians, gays, etc, etc. The best option in such circumstances is for the article to stick to simple facts, and not tediously cater for the various speculations, often bizarre, of the various camps. So, with regard to James's relationships with young men, it's preferable the article simply state what occurred, and leave it at that. Which is what it was doing before your additions. I won't even bother to read your links because I've read the primary sources, not twisted accounts by wingnuts, and I suggest you do the same. I'm again deleting your additions for the reasons given above, and because Coston is not a recognised scholar, and the article includes no other speculations by any other scholars, so your addition makes the article wildly unbalanced. The pre-existing neutral sentence: "The question of James' sexuality was a point of controversy during his lifetime and has remained so." succinctly sums up the issue for an article that is already very long. As previously, I suggest you create a Coston page.

Engleham

It seems that you are content on having a biased article. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral i.e. having both or all sides of the story so that the informed reader can make up their own minds as to further study or investigation of claims. Whether James was Gay or not, it is not the issue, the issue is having a non biased article. At present the article basically says "James was Gay" but there are many who contest that view. This is a fact and must be mentioned because it provides the reader with the whole picture, not one sided bias. If, for example the article stated that James was not gay, and you came along and said that he is gay, although I might not like it, I would be forced to let you add that to the article because there is indeed many vocal people who claim this. For this reason I am reverting the article. If this cannot be reasoned perhaps we can mediate. Also when you finish a post please put 4 ~'s, that will put your name and time you posted, thanks. Potters house 07:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"At present the article basically says "James was Gay""

It doesn't say that at all. In covering his life it necessarily details the fact that he fell in love with a succession of young men. Whether the relationships were platonic or sexual is left up to reader to decide. The article simply presents the facts.

"but there are many who contest that view. This is a fact and must be mentioned"

And the article does. With this eloquent sentence which sums three centuries of bitching:

"The question of James' sexuality was a point of controversy during his lifetime and has remained so."

I didn't write that sentence, but it reads very plain and balanced to me.

But I don't think you're being honest. You want Coston in. Forget it. You may as well reference David Irving. If I don't delete him, others eventually will. So if you don't lose the battle today, you will tomorrow. On high profile Wiki articles like this, the record shows that flake references don't survive. That said, I don't believe this article will ever amount to much because there's too many conflicting interests resulting in endless edit wars. e.g the current utterly misleading minor reference to Esme Stuart indicates some previous shitfight. I'm not about to waste my time fixing it.

I do scratch my head though as to why fundamentalist Christians have, in the last few years, suddenly decided to make James some kind of holy icon, and its so desperately important to them that be a certified heterosexual, merely because of his association with the King James Version. It's as tenuous and stupid as suddenly deciding to canonise Elizabeth II because, say, a bridge had been commissioned in her name. Engleham 13:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems that you are not willing to discuss this so I will invite a mediator in to try and sort this out. In regards to your personal attacks on fundamentalist Christians who "try" to make James some kind of holy icon, it would do you well to read the above links that I posted (which you refused to read), as this is neither a novel thing or unfactual. The argument is not that you think he is gay and I think he is not, the argument is that there are facts on both sides that need to be known. To say that the statement "The question of James' sexuality was a point of controversy during his lifetime and has remained so" is enough information on the issue is inaccurate and misleading.

Also to say that sourcing Coston is like quoting David Irving, and also the Personal attacks on my capability to source information is uncalled for. I have provided many other links but you simply refused to look. You are demonstrating a personal bias which is not helping the issue which seems to have been a problem before http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Engleham Potters house 00:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I've been more than generous in the time I've wasted humouring you. Which really, is all one can do. As you obviously find homosexuality so horrible that you need to distort historical truth, may I suggest you go and rewrite, say, most of the Renaissance artist entries? It'll provide you with hours of edit war entertainment, and with dedication, may turn you from being a mere minor figure here amongst the Catholic/Protestant/English/Scotch fruitcake push, into a Wiki troll legend. Engleham 01:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is not a soapbox for zealots

Fundamentalist cranks who operate sites called "jesusislord.com" and "baptistpillar.org" have nothing to contribute to a serious, dispassionate, encyclopedic treatment of any subject. Ben-w 04:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Fundamentalist cranks? Please refrain from derogatory POV. The name of the site is not the issue but the content! Please state you reasons why this content should not be included. Why is a person with "Jesus" in thier domain name all of a sudden a Zealot? or Baptist. I am reporting you to Wiki admins. Potters house 08:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, gents, firstly, do please both calm down. I'm sure it's possible for us all to accept eachother's PoV. However, Ben, my advice would be to refrain from such a confrontational attitude, and from making such sweeping generalisations - in point of fact, I myself run a Christian-based website - are you to claim that, despite my many, many edits, that "I have nothing to contribute". Were I to take you too seriously, as I believe Potters house to have, I may well be insulted. Please do consider others' feelings before you post such self-indulgent nonsense. And, like I said, Potters, a bit of an over-reaction on your part - I'm sure Ben can read this response and see that he made a slight error, learn from it, and move on. Throwing admins around is neither useful nor appreciated. // D B D 12:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, two Christians! Why, that's almost a Crusade. However, perhaps Potters House's valuable time might be better invested in the apparant endless edit war for the Potters House wiki entry? I just flicked over to it: golly, all those ungodly accusations flying about on the Discussion page --it seems more like a shitfight than a church. But then, apostates can be so troublesome. However, didn't Jesus command get thine own house in order? Oh, and here's an outraged baptist doesn't think much of Pastor Coston's self-published tome either: http://www.kjvonly.org/bob/ross_baptist_preacher_burned.htm He seems to think James was an absolute cunt. How unChristian. Engleham 13:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly why I am trying to get this information up here, because there are very notable and strong debates concerning James sexuality and his conduct. It is only fair to have both sides of the coin! Potters house 13:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't care how insulted you are; don't put words in my mouth, or take them out. Arguments which are entirely sourced from fundamentalist websites like "kjvonly", "baptistpillar", "jesusislord" are not historical, encylcopedic resources and have no place in an encyclopedia article about King James I. None. Between you, you have all about twelve million zealous fundamentalist sites (and, please, don't create a site called "kjvonly" and then take umbrage when someone calls you a biblical fundamentalist) where you can go and play and have your theological discussions. This is not a suitable venue for your harranguing and crusading. Take your zealotry, bible-thumping and sectarian screeds out of wikipedia and run along to jesusislord.com which has that sort of thing as its stock-in-trade. This is an article about King James I.

Potters house, stop being disingenuous. This is not about "both sides of the coin" on the matter of James's sexuality -- this is you trying to present your sectarian zealotry where it is not appropriate. Take your preachers and your scriptures and your tiresome wars of religion back to your little websites and fling your citations of scripture around at each other there. Ben-w 22:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Look I don't care if you hate all christians or if there is a Pro Homosexual agenda, I just want to provide a non biased article by the inclusion of other refs that's all! Potters house 12:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"I just want to provide a non biased article" No you don't. The other poster has already pointed out your deceit. Trying to force Coston on this page is like wanting to put David Irving on the Auschwitz page to call it "balance". In any case, by going through my contribution list yesterday and vandalising pages simply because I contributed to them in the past, you've shown your true vindictive colors. Whatever thing you are, you certainly aren't a Christian. Like Deborah Lipstadt who wisely refuses to waste her time debating with Holocaust deniers, I haven't the slightest intention of engaging you any further. Engleham 13:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Potters house, you are being incredibly disingenuous. You are trying to sneak in your favourite zealot in as a reliable source about what you think King James did with his penis and how important you think this is. This sort of thing is simply not appropriate in an encyclopedia article. On welovethebible.com or jesusistrulylord.org or whatever other crank sites you run in your spare time, you are free to grind whatever axes you please, obsess about the sex lives of long-dead monarchs to your heart's content, and bandy biblical passages around as much as you like. Don't do that here. Do not try to slyly insinuate your brand of dogma into a Wikipedia article. You might also wish to consider why you have resorted to dishonesty, deceit and subterfuge in an attempt to achieve whatever it is you want to achieve. I think you may have broken a Commandment or two there. Ben-w 03:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

So if a person is a Christian they are incredible and a zealot, but if they are a homosexual they are credible and have credence? This is bias. The think you are missing is the facts, stop attacking people and just look at the facts. Potters house 22:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you give one, non-Academic, clearly biased source as if it represents a credible viewpoint. It does not. I've left your stuff in there, but it deserves deletion until you find a better source to the viewpoint. Ah, and BTW, I'm a Christian. I wouldn't consider myself incredible or a Zealot, but Stephen A. Coston Sr. seems to look like one. BovineBeast 23:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It is rather amazing that the site is not Coston's it is just a web reproduction of his book [2]. So reguardless of how you view the site, the content is what is important. I don't care if you are hindu, christian, homosexual, or a scientologist, the facts are facts, some conclude that he is not a homosexual or bisexual and that is a fact which must be made known or else it is a biased article. Potters house 09:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Great, then find a mainstream, unbiased source to show that such a conclusion can be reasonably reached. Else there is no bias, and the article simply relates the only conclusion that has been reached by people in the know, which is NPOV. BovineBeast 14:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You're still doing it, Potters house. First: leave your biased, cranky, POV bible-thumping pet project websites OUT OF THIS ARTICLE. Second: stop being deceitful and dishonest about what you are doing. Ben-w 16:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

James the Sixth was one of the most successful princes of his age. Although there may be merit in all the 'argie-bargies' ongoing here, it seems that this spat is more about hurt egos than trying to represent 'qualified' truths. I live in North Berwick, where he supposedly slobbered at the antics of the witches, and especially at seeing Satan's(probably the Earl of Bothwell's) backside being kissed, before personally consigning the coven to the fire, after much torture in Edinburgh. This story may be apocryphal, but like all apocrypha presumably has some basis in fact. I am also a cousin (somewhat obliquely!) of James himself, and of Esmé Stuart, considered his first dalliance that way. What is important however, is not what he did with his willy or where he put it, or what he wanted to do with it, (however, he did produce male heirs.) but what he left to civilisation. By his accession to the English throne, he united the disparate parts of the British Isles. This led to the major colonial expansion that ended in Empire, without which we would be without the modern states of India, USA, Canada, Australia, South Africa (I won't mention the Middle East!). He was a hard-nosed pragmatist in his dealings with his subjects and with his religieux. The middle way seems to be a hard path for anyone to take, but especially during the ferment of 16th-17th Century Britain, and I believe he did it more than modestly well. Please can we discuss the ramifications rather than the tittle-tattle of his reign? ...However, knowing nothing about 'Coston' apart from this barney, I would contend that old Jamie certainly was the other queen in his marriage! Brendandh 22:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MedCab

I think I've made my position clear: the inclusion of extremist, opinionated religious websites is not appropriate in an encyclopedia article. The complainant is trying to use a particular, extreme NPOV source to speculate and digress in an inappropriate, unencyclopedic way. The version of the article for which comment was requested looks fine to me as it does not attempt to shift the terms of the discussion by including an extremist, biased source. Ben-w 18:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MedCab Case

[edit] This section is for the discussion regarding the mediation-cabal case concerning the portrayal of his sexuality

Mediator: Addhoc. Involved Parties: Potters house, Engleham, Ben-w

Would any other involved parties add their name to the list.

Also could involved parties comment below on their views about this version of the article. Thanks, Addhoc 18:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey there Addhoc. I don’t think that the version offered above is much different. It provides similar information. The link http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/jamesi.htm is being pushed. I feel that this link is about the same quality and bias as the site I have linked to. http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/rumors.htm

My hope is that there will be equilibrium. Notice that I have not deleted all of the claims that he was gay or anything, I have simply added that some others don't agree, and in my eyes is only fair. There are many things that come into play here. There is a debate about the accuracy of the King James Bible, and many will dismiss all claims made because of the notion that James was a homosexual. Also James was a protestant King who has various attempts on his life by the Roman Catholic Church. He greatly opposed Catholicism in the UK. Thirdly James was a Scottish King ruling over the entire UK. These three things seem to attract a desire to tarnish the king by claiming he was gay. Of course http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Engleham seems to think that any historical figure has a secret gay past. This type of generalization is not warranted. And if mentioned, there should at least be room for a counter argument. I never said that there are not claims but I included that some of those claims are disputed.

Most of this info comes from people who seem to have an agenda by claiming that most historical figures were gay. If you look through the history of one of the main posters http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Engleham you will see that his main goal is to claim that Lincoln was gay, James 1 of England was gay, Erasmus was gay, Ludwig was gay, Shakespeare was gay and many, many others. I can understand that some people were gay and to mention this is fine, but these comments seem to say that if anyone ever expresses love to a man, then it is sexual and not just a phileo love or brotherly love but is always interpreted as eros or erotic love or lust. There is very little proof of this in most situations and it is mostly fiction and speculation. It seems also that if one tries to offer objective arguments against this it is considered homophobia. I am not against facts and if someone was gay or considered gay then it is fine to put that information in because it is true! But both sides must be allowed to provide the reader with a non biased judgment. I am against the reading something into those facts that is simply not there or if people like Engleham simply claim that my "agenda" is to push that James wasn't gay. Although I believe this, I never vandalized the article but simply included a portion which I think gives us a well rounded, non biased article.

Imagine if I scoured the net claiming that everyone was in fact having sex with animal’s simply because he had animals and expressed his “love” for them! I am an animal lover. But please don't quote me out of context. Potters house 02:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't make it clearer: the issue is with the sources and basis for your assertions. You cannot use sectarian, dogmatic sources like "jesus-is-lord" as evidence; you don't argue from the bible here, you don't thrust your petty infighting about what Reverend Coston said to whom at the last synod into this article and attempt to skew the focues of what should be a dispassionate encyclopedia article. This is not a theological playground for your sectarian disputes and bible study. Ben-w 03:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Addhoc: the version of the article you reference is also poor, but as I've stated before it's always going to be that way because this historical figure has too many conflicting political, religious and wingnut parties always at war over it. So I find it pointless to contribute, apart from deleting the more outrageous references. The following phrase is typical of the lack of scholarship: "Some historians(especially in Whig history) have said that James was homosexual, based upon an assortment of contemporary Puritan and/or Presbyterian accounts." Utterly incorrect. Discussion of the King's unkingly behaviour was universal, the primary texts are not all "Puritan and/or Presbyterian accounts" by a long mile. And of course, there are James's own letters: e.g. 75 to Buckingham survive. Aside from this however, is the fact that his elevation of these young men served to empty the Treasury considerably and shift power into their hands. The distorted article doesn't address these machinations which were a major contentious issue of the reign: Carr and Esmé Stuart weren't simply "courtiers". The weasel words used are ridiculous: "RUMORS were later spread that James was little moved by the death because he had romantic affections for George Villiers. The two met in 1614 and James IS SAID to have nicknamed the young man "Steenie"". Clearly the person making these additions hasn't read James's own letters. Of course, James was his own best dissembler, addressing the howl of contemporary criticism directly: "I, James, am neither God nor angel, but a man like any other. Therefore I act like a man and confess to loving those dear to me more than other men. You may be sure that I love the Earl of Buckingham....Jesus Christ did the same and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had his John and I have my George." Highly comical, especially given that (as recent scholarship has highlighted), homosexual advocates since the early Middle Ages had been flag waving that relationship, like those of Jupiter/Ganymede, Apollo/Hyacinthus, etc., as justification for their desires. But this is by the by. The fact is: while the historiographical tradition is one of dissembling, almost every modern properly accredited academic historian accepts that the mentality of James was implicity homosexual or bisexual. A majority also believe it was acted upon (e.g. David M. Bergeron, Roger Lockyer). Even the minority that have their doubts (e.g. Maurice Lee), certainly accept the physicality of the relationships, if not actual buggery. Like Edward II or Henri III, but not, say, William III, it's moved beyond dispute, except in wingnut circles. How the article squares all this is not something I wish to involve myself in. As previously stated, I've finished with pandering to the Potters House Troll. But as previous posters have also stated, one thing is surely paramount: the insertion of this rubbish self-published religous author should be resisted if the credibilty of the article is not to reduced to a total farce. I encourage anyone to delete any referencing of it on sight. Engleham 03:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

How about if I creat a new web page with the same information on it. Without the Jesus tag? Potters house 06:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Bloody hell, it's almost like you're getting it! Yes, create as many web pages as you like, and put as much Jesus on them, or not, as you choose! Off you go and walk with Jesus and play with Jesus and worship Jesus and bicker about what you think Jesus said and do whatever Jesus things you Jesus people do. Just do it elsewhere. Ben-w 08:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ben-w, possibly next time, just say "yes that would be fine" or something. Addhoc 11:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent advice Ben, especially as the Jesus people are extremely busy elsewhere on a host of Christian wikis. A partial list is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OrthodoxWiki Wikipedia is virtually a heathen backwater...Engleham 11:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, could we agree in this discussion, we should avoid disparaging any Wikipedian on grounds of faith or sexuality. Addhoc 11:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

So the whole debate is that you hate Christians and hate me and therefore I can't have any say whatsoever! If you people would like to get back to the main argument and stop slandering me it would work out alot quicker. Mediation is not for fighting about beliefs, but for working things out in a mature and factual manner. Post in Uncylopedia if you cannot debate logically Potters house 12:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, also could we agree that in this mediation, we should avoid contravening the advice of WP:CALM... Addhoc 12:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relevant Policy

Regarding the disputed section of this article, the following policies have particular relevance:

WP:NPOV - extract below relating to viewpoints

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

WP:V - extract below is the policy in a nutshell

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.

2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.

3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

In this context, the information that Potters house would like to include has to be demonstrably from a significant minority and published by a reputable source. Regarding the information currently in the article, this is being represented as the majority view and should be substantiated with reference to commonly accepted texts, which obviously would have been published by reputable sources.

Regarding the sources that Potters house has produced so far, I would suggest they clearly demonstrate a minority opinion. However, I am not presently convinced they demonstrate a significant minority that has prominent adherents. Regarding the current version of the article, I would consider the books (not websites) listed under 'sources' to represent the majority view and the website of Rictor Norton to represent a significant minority. In this context, I would suggest the opening sentence of this section should provide an introduction, instead of a quote from a significant minority source. Also, I would suggest that all of the material in this section should be fully supported by references including the somewhat vague image caption.Addhoc 15:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For information's sake...

Here's what the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article on James, by Jenny Wormald, has to say on the subject of his sexuality:

Re: Lennox

It was in September [1579] that [James's] cousin Esmé Stuart came over from France, to become the king's first ‘favourite’. Elevated to the earldom of Lennox (the existing holder of the title, Robert Stewart, bishop of Caithness, having yielded to royal pressure to resign it) in 1580 and then raised to a dukedom in 1581, Lennox was loathed as a pro-French Catholic who enjoyed all too much of the king's favour.

Much has been made of James as the lonely teenager desperate for affection, and no doubt this played a part. But what we are seeing here is the start of a pattern which was repeated in the case of James's other three great favourites: George Gordon, earl of Huntly; and, in England, Robert Carr, earl of Somerset, and George Villiers, duke of Buckingham. James had asserted his kingship, not his loneliness; his authority, not his dependence. Lennox, like his successors, appeared on the scene and demonstrated his usefulness, in this case in the factional struggles surrounding the king, notably in his part in Morton's final downfall.

Re: later favorites, court culture, question of James's sexuality in general:

It is in this scrambling, hothouse environment that the notorious royal favourites must be set. Sir Walter Scott introduced the note of immorality; and some modern scholars—notably literary critics—still find the question of James's homosexuality a source of great fascination. There is almost the danger of forgetting that, even if homosexual activity as opposed to homoerotic feeling is ascribed to the king, at the very least, James was bisexual, and succeeded, where his three predecessors had failed, in providing heirs to the throne, which after the previous half-century came as a welcome relief. Moreover, even if seen under the guise of courtly love, the male favourite had had as much of a political role in Elizabeth's court as James's. Whatever the sexual attractions, the main point is that James never allowed his personal feelings to dictate his political ones.

It has already been suggested that Esmé Stuart has loomed too large in the early 1580s, being allowed to crowd out the other things—his poets, the beginnings of his political role—which brought the king out of his harsh childhood. In the late 1580s and 1590s Huntly was favoured when useful, attacked and (in 1596) exiled when not; equally, he had ignored factional pressure after the death of Lord Chancellor Maitland in 1595 and determined to fulfil the role himself. No amount of blandishments from the first great favourite of the English reign, the Scot Robert Carr, who rose to prominence in 1607, persuaded James to appoint one of his clients as secretary in succession to Salisbury in 1612. Carr did accumulate honours and acquire office: he was created Viscount Rochester in 1611 and earl of Somerset in 1613, and between 1612 and 1614 he exercised the functions of secretary of state. In 1613 he and his chosen bride, Lady Frances Howard, also had the all-important backing of the king in Lady Frances's efforts to get her first marriage to the earl of Essex annulled; having successfully forwarded the necessary legal proceedings and squashed the reservations of a discomforted archbishop of Canterbury, James even paid for their wedding that December. However, when in 1615 Somerset reacted to the arrival on the scene of George Villiers by behaving insolently, James put him firmly in his place. Later that year when the king heard rumours of the involvement of the earl and countess in the murder of Somerset's erstwhile adviser Sir Thomas Overbury, favour did not save them from investigation by a royal commission or from subsequent prosecution, conviction, and imprisonment in 1616, although it did save them from death.

Villiers, James's greatest favourite, was appointed cupbearer to the king in 1614 and gentleman of the bedchamber in the following year; thereafter, following the downfall of Somerset, his rise was rapid: knighted and created Viscount Villiers (1616) and successively earl (1617), marquess (1618), and duke (1623) of Buckingham. Perhaps more attention should be paid to the fact that Villiers was brought to James's attention by his wife and by George Abbot, archbishop of Canterbury. Why? No doubt to undermine Somerset and his Howard allies, but this only addresses their objections to a particular favourite. What were the positive advantages they saw to providing the king with a new favourite? To amuse the king? To provide him with someone who, if necessary, would take the rap for unpopular actions or simply take some of the pressure of endless demands for patronage from his shoulders? James might give his favour initially to men of little prominence, but not to political nonentities: to retain favour they had to demonstrate that they were politically useful. Buckingham undoubtedly did, as the patronage networks became increasingly focused on him. That did not mean that the king gave up overall control. The royal chaplain and religious controversialist George Carleton at last stopped being fobbed off with minor bishoprics and got a plum, Chichester, not because his name was on Buckingham's lips, but because James had been impressed with his performance as a delegate at the Synod of Dort. Buckingham's strength was that he knew how to please his royal master. He was, of course, hated by those who failed to benefit from his patronage. There was a good deal less complaining from those who benefited from it. But under the flexible James the patronage networks remained ideologically open. No Jacobean parliament wanted to impeach Buckingham, as Charles I's first two did. It was after 1625, when Buckingham adapted to the new king, Charles I, who had nothing of the flexibility of his father, and when, to compound his increased unpopularity, disastrously went to war with both France and Spain in the same year—1627—that he was seen as a real political menace. Having survived the threat of parliamentary attacks thanks to Charles's protection, Buckingham finally died by the assassin's knife in 1628. James would never have allowed Buckingham the level of power and influence which brought him down.

But the homosexual issue means that Buckingham has remained associated with James; and homosexuality has been a major factor in creating the idea of James's court as sleazy and corrupt. So it must be emphasized that neither in Scotland nor in England were the king's sexual proclivities of as much interest in his day as they later became. And the ‘corruption’ turns mainly on three episodes: the Overbury murder, which was not a homosexual scandal, and the accounts of two occasions when court entertainment went badly wrong, being swamped by drink; the first was in 1606, when James's brother-in-law Christian IV, king of Denmark—a notorious soak—came to visit, the second in 1618, when the king, grumpy and unwell, spoiled the performance of that year's court masque, and stumped off to bed, whereupon his courtiers, no doubt heartily glad to see the back of him, turned over-enthusiastically to the feasting and the drinking. It hardly amounts to ‘the’ corrupt court. There was, of course, corruption; how could there not have been? The councillors in prison in 1618–19 for financial corruption, chief among them the countess of Somerset's father, the disgraced lord treasurer Thomas Howard, earl of Suffolk, the downfall of the monopolists and no less a person than Sir Francis Bacon in 1621, and even Lionel Cranfield in 1624, all testify to the problems inherent in the factional politics and the intense rivalry for advancement and advantage in the early modern court. But the very fact that men did come to grief in that court indicates that it was not wholly out of control. Nor was it a problem confined only to the English court. It was the additional dimension of the king's favourites, in England far more than in Scotland, which skewed the picture of that court, to a quite unwarranted extent.

Like James himself, all his favourites were married; all had children. The king showed a lot of affection for the wives and children, as he did for his own wife and children. Even if the love between James and Anne had worn thin, by the standards of early modern arranged royal marriages, relations between them remained remarkably good, at least well into the first decade of the seventeenth century and even to some extent in the years before her death in 1619. As for his ‘sweet boys’, Steenie and Baby Charles, at the end of his life James's letters to them took on a sugary sentimentality which reads unpleasantly by modern standards and, much more to the point, reads very differently from his earlier correspondence (Letters of James VI and I, 388–422). This did not mean that he had lost his political grip. But it does suggest, as do his late literary works, an ageing king becoming over-emotional as the confidence with which he had ruled his kingdoms began to fail him.

Wormald's emphasis appears to be strongly on the idea that James's sexuality simply is not all that important, and that whatever the nature of James's feelings for his favorites, they also served his political ends.

Here's what the article on Somerset, by Alastair Bellany, says on the question:

The exact nature of [Carr's] personal relationship with James remains difficult to assess. Carr enjoyed constant and unique access to the king's person, day and night, at Whitehall and at the hunt. The king, it was reported, would pinch Carr's cheek in public, smooth his clothes, and gaze at him adoringly, even while talking to others. Although historians disagree about whether the relationship was sexual the intensity of the king's love is evident in at least one of his few surviving letters to Carr.

That on Buckingham, article by Roger Lockyer:

[Pembroke and Abbot's] efforts were crowned with success in April 1615, when Villiers was not only appointed gentleman of the bedchamber but was also knighted by James and given an annual pension of £1000. Later that year, in August, he and the king occupied the same bed at Farnham Castle, where the king was on progress. Sharing a bed was not uncommon in the early seventeenth century, and did not necessarily imply physical intimacy. Yet there was every indication that the relationship between the king and Villiers had entered a new phase, and that the days of Somerset's favour were numbered...

James continued to delight in the company of his new favourite, whom he called affectionately Steenie, a diminutive of Stephen, since St Stephen, according to the Bible, had a face like an angel. On 6 January 1617—the customary time for new year's gifts—James elevated Viscount Villiers to the earldom of Buckingham, and in the following month he was sworn of the privy council. Just under a year later, on 1 January 1618, James created Buckingham a marquess. The king made no secret of his feelings for his favourite. On the contrary, in September 1617 he declared before his privy councillors that ‘he loved the Earl of Buckingham more than any other man’ and that they should not regard this as a defect in his nature. After all, ‘Jesus Christ had done the same as he was doing … for Christ had his John and he had his George’ (Documentos ineditos para la historia de España, 1936–45, 1.101–2).

That on Lennox, by Rosalind K. Marshall:

The young king was entranced with his charming, sophisticated 37-year-old cousin. Starved as he had been of affection throughout his childhood, James revelled in Aubigny's kindly attention. Here at last was a relative of his own, sensitive, cultured, and perceptive, who treated him as an adult, discussing theology and politics and poetry with him, respecting his views, and nurturing his self-confidence. James was overjoyed...

The nature of their relationship has been the subject of much speculation, and from the start there have been allegations that Lennox introduced James not only to French poetry but also to homosexuality. According to one Scottish chronicler, ‘His majesty having conceived an inward affection to the Lord d'Aubigny, entered in great familiarity and quiet purposes with him’, while the church ministers accused the duke of setting out ‘to draw the king to carnal lust’ (ibid., 36).

‘I have such extreme regret that I desire to die rather than to live, fearing that that has been the occasion of your no longer loving me’, Lennox had told James in his last letter (CSP Scot., 1581–3, 223). However, it would be a mistake to read too much into the often extravagant language of the sixteenth-century courtier. Lennox's evident affection for his lonely young cousin brought him a glittering career, but there is no cause to think that he deliberately exploited the king's adolescent sexuality for his own benefit. Whatever James's later sexual preferences, it is not unusual for a young adolescent to hero-worship a handsome and accomplished older man, and it may be that, closely related by blood as they were, they shared a genuine sense of affinity. It was undeniably a personal tragedy for them both when their mutually rewarding friendship evoked the bitter enmity of the Scottish courtiers and led to their final separation.

At any rate, the general consensus of these various articles would seem to be that, well, we aren't terribly sure of anything. Wormald seems to say that his feelings for his favorites were at least "homoerotic," but not necessarily homosexual. None of the other articles goes further than this. This seems to be about as far as we can (and should) go. john k 23:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It is a silly argument. The "major minority" says that James is a homosexual. Most people would just go "ok" and go back to their lives. Coston wrote a book refuting this "major minority." If I said that Elvis was still alive and got a following and became a "major minority" one would naturally conclude that most of the general population would not agree and also would not be vocal about this because it doesn't effect them. When a minority says that King James is a homosexual one would naturally conclude that most of the general population would not agree and also would not be vocal about this because it doesn't effect them. A critic of a minority will usually be a smaller minority, because who is going to bother with such rubbish anyhow. We know Elvis is dead. We know the King of England was married with many children wrote books condemning homosexuality and effeminates, and was hated and slandered by many different groups. Most see these facts and simply conclude that James wasn't gay. Thus my point is that most agree that he was not gay but few vocalize it because it is mostly self explanatory. A homosexual is a person who has relations with men only. The correct terminology is bisexual. The whole logic is silly. Coston may well be the voice of the silent majority. Also scandal sells, so to say that well thought out material like Coston’s is unimportant is wrong. The sensationalized press and books authors and sellers love this type of hype. Coston's link is a seeming minority who supports the views of the majority.

I suppose Steve Erwin had sex with animals because he "loved" animals? Same logic used here. But who would believe a silly argument like that? And if an ungrounded argument like that had a serious rebuttal - it should be considered. Even if it was just a link. Potters house 07:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

What "majority" rejects the idea that James was homosexual? How can you possibly substantiate that? The vast "majority" has no idea. Of those who have looked at the subject, a clear majority have suggested that, at the least, James had a homoerotic attachment to some of his favorites (particularly Buckingham). Whether or not there were actually physical sexual relationships is unclear. The fact that James was married and had children is entirely irrelevant. So did Oscar Wilde. Most of the supposed arguments against James's homosexuality currently in the article are nonsense. On the other hand, I think the case for James's homosexuality is not as strong as other parts of the article would suggest. Basically, we have fairly limited sources, and, such as they are, they aren't really sufficient to say for sure one way or the other. James's statements about his favorites seem highly suggestive of homoerotic attraction, but to assert actual homosexual relationships on this basis seems problematic. That James was homosexual (or, rather, that he was sexually attracted to other men, or, more strongly, was involved in sexual relationships with other men) seems a reasonable inference, but there isn't anything more than circumstantial evidence (if that) to back it up. The problem comes in when people view this question not as a simple question of facts and evidence, but as part of an ideological tug of war, where the evidence that James was homosexual is a priori found to be false because it conflicts with people's religious views with respect to the version of the Bible that James authorized (for some reason or other - I'm not sure why James can't have both commissioned a good version of the Bible and have engaged in homosexual acts - David is the ideal Biblical king, but his behavior with respect to Bathsheba and Uriah was highly dishonorable to a much greater extent than any indiscretions one can attribute to James and Buckingham.) john k 12:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, while I don't necessarily agree completely with Potters House, the use of the term majority was based on WP:NPOV - extract below relating to viewpoints:

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

Addhoc 13:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that in this case the basic definitions here are problematic. I would say that the majority position on James's sexuality is something along the lines of "The evidence is ambiguous at best, but there is considerable evidence that James, at least, had homoerotic attractions to certain of his male favorites, particularly Buckingham." This is the viewpoint taken for granted, I think, by the ODNB extracts I quoted above. Note Wormald's comment that I bolded, in particular, which puts the debate as between those who attribute active homosexual activities to James and those who contend that his attractions for his favorites were homoerotic without being sexual. If somebody had access to some good recent biographies of James (or Buckingham, or Somerset, or Lennox), that would go a long way towards substantiating this. john k 14:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, if anything, the mainstream sources are slightly less decisive than your summary, so I would change "at least" to "almost certainly". Otherwise, I agree with your comments. Addhoc 15:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not just James 1 of England

From where I'm living (near Edinburgh) James 1st is really James VI of Scotland. Not to give him this title in the top line is very unpoliticaly correct. How does one muster the support to have this added/changed? Technically he is referred to the land of his birth as James VI and 1st.

I whole-heartedly concur! Brendandh 02:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was quite incensed when clicking on "James VI of Scotland" brought me to a page titled "James I of England"... Should I be bold and just move this, and if so what should the title be? I'm thinking "James VI of Scotland, I of England", but there's probably a protocol for these things I'm missing. Ruaraidh-dobson 18:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Did it or did it not bring you to a page about the person you were looking for? Was that person or was he not James I of England? The article makes it quite clear that James Stuart held both titles - there must be more constructive work to be done on it than making petty political points about its headline. -- Ian Dalziel 19:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] congratulations

I really think this is an excellent article. Johncmullen1960 15:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] main language of Scotland

What was his native language? Had English become the main language of Scottish politics at the time? Were Inglis and the various Gaelic languages still in common usage? I was just wondering if language would have been a barrier to ruling both countries? If the Scottish parliament wasn't speaking English at the time, could that have helped to delay the Act of Union for another century after James? Thanks! Boris B 08:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Inglis/English with a unique accent, I'd say. His mother probably spoke French as her native language. Gàidhlig would not have been the language of the royalty at all, I don't think. Ben-w 09:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erm...

"On the other hand, James’ paranoia over witchcraft eventually contributed, during the Parliamentary period, to the appointment of Matthew Hopkins, known as the Witch-finder General, and the execution of many people, mostly women, often for no greater crime than being widowed and owning a cat."

This sounds like Blackadder. Hopkins was active in 1646 by which time James was very dead.--86.20.247.36 13:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/a/m/Talk%7EJames_I_of_England_d89c.html"