Talk:Personal relationships of James I of England

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on September 26, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Removed

The King's Lennox dynasty, Stewart of Darnley, was the leadership (see Duke of Aubigny, Duke of Lennox) of the Scottish guard/Garde Écossaise in France, during the Auld Alliance. This is why Catholic Esmé Stewart, 1st Duke of Lennox was King James's Protector, although Knoxian opponents of the Royal Succession to the English Crown were strident in their claims that this was a child grooming pederasty that caused James to have homosexual relationships throughout his life. The allegations do not address how Darnley's sexual aggression with regards to Mary and her subsequent response, affected the attitude of James towards marriage (James was involved with Anne Murray, Lady Glamis) with a Lutheran-turned-Catholic and the public pressure on him immense in Scotland but less so in England. James therefore, preferred England and this was considered at the expense of Scottish interests, much like how the Knoxians hated Lennox for his French sympathies.

Nor do the charges of homosexuality address the adultery inherent in his supposed lover Robert Carr, 1st Earl of Somerset, who murdered Overbury, an obstacle to the woman (Frances Howard, crypto-Catholic) he sought unchallenged heterosexual relations with and having the King in conspiracy for the forced divorce with Devereaux--son of an old opponent of Queen Elizabeth. The King's anger with Carr was due to the exposure of this in the media and how it would damage his reputation, not particularly for any homosexual longing over the issue. Furthermore, the King had Walter Raleigh executed for Habsburg Spain, a complete outrage to Calvinists remembering the Spanish Armada and who were looking to a Dutch alliance. Both Devereaux's father (Protestant) and Raleigh (Protestant) were charged with enforcing Elizabethan rule over the Catholic Irish, considered heroic actions by the King's English critics--whom were the ones to support the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland.

The insinuations of homosexuality do not account for the fact that supposed lover George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham was also close to the Queen Anne (crypto-Catholic) and James's son Charles I of England (supposedly crypto-Catholic) in the pursuit of the Spanish Match--something the King's detractors (Calvinists) and propagandists of homosexuality were vehemently opposed to in his own time. Aside from that, Buckingham failed to relieve the Calvinists under siege by the Catholics at La Rochelle, totally unforgivable to the Calvinists in the kingdom. Furthermore, Villiers's daughter married another Lennox Royalist. The Elizabethan era establishment was upset with the Lennoxes also, for the taint that went with their support of the Capetian, rather than Plantagenet claim to France. It did not matter to the critics that the Scottish dynasty was going to inherit it all, because his mother Mary had married Francis II of France and the original proposal between her and Edward VI of England had come to nothing. It didn't help James with the Auld Alliance reputation, when his heir Charles married Henrietta Maria of France. With fears of Catholic absolutism, Stuart opponents grew in number as they realized the immense extent to which the Crown now held dominance--in the whole of the British Isles and claiming France to boot.

These were all people of the Jacobean era establishment, thus considered deserving of all manner of attack by the Calvinist Covenanter/Puritan opposition to the "un-Reformed" King and his unwelcome fusion of a "Reformed" Scotland with the "un-Reformed" (Episcopalian, rather than Presbyterian--or Congregationalist) England. James infuriated a lot of people with his father's attitude about kingship, by continuing his mother's policies and removing his person from the land of his birth to rule from afar. When the king was inept at English affairs, his critics in both lands eventually merged to destroy his son and heir during the English Civil War. One would wonder why King James was the most successful Stuart ruler of Scotland, or that he was allowed to succeed to Queen Elizabeth had this homosexuality been truth, since there were competitors to the English throne such as Lady Anne Stanley, whose putative senior heir is ironically another Villiers.

Usually the people who support the theory also believe that his marriage was/is only a cover-up for homosexuality, merely supplying heirs, although many of these supporters themselves believe in the practice of bisexual relationships as normal, just not for the King's time period. A minority of those who believe in the homosexual theory, also believe that homosexuality is what made the King inept at his duties, much like the claims placed on Edward II of England. Both kings were considered failures for things which amounted to national shame and both have been considered homosexuals, rather than bisexuals. It is furthermore of no consequence to the homosexual propaganda that most of the King's powers and rights had stemmed from one marriage or another, since the authors of the theory believe that what was considered holy matrimony by people such as James, was just diplomacy and no feelings attached.

There is actually opposition to scepticism of the homosexuality theory, by those who believe it is a cover-up, that history has been whitewashed with the King and all authority figures in general, as some kind of conspiracy to do harm to homosexuals. There is also confusion amongst them that anybody could believe in an "alternative" view, that they must also be "ignorant homophobes" in denial of the "correct" interpretation of the events and communications between the King and other people. None of the homosexual interpretations consider the possibility of underlying factors behind the claims, about the administration James had and the national crises under way at the time.

I removed this section since it is clearly not neutral, it hasn't got a single source and seems a collection of personal opinions more than documented research. Besides, the writing is kinda confusing, could use a rewrite. Opinions, objections? Raystorm (¿Sí?) 21:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Good move. Let the writer fix the problems, they are too many to enumerate. Haiduc 22:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Yikes. Well I'm no majorly published author but I know something I don't want to read when I start stepping through it. I got pretty lost fast and my understanding is that the writing should be aimed for more of an average reader which this certainly doesn't do. As a suggestion breaking this up into sections might help as would a visit to Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles. Benjiboi 01:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other personal relationships

It would be nice to document what is known about his personal relationships with his family, so I've added sections on his wife (Anne of Denmark), a documented affair with Anne Murray, and his children. Carcharoth 12:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from James I of England

The following is from James I of England and needs to be merged here:

Throughout his life <ref>Maurice Ashley ; ‘The English Civil War’ ; p. 21 Thames & Hudson 1974</ref> James I had relationships with his male [[courtier]]s,<ref>{{cite book |last=Aldrich |first=Robert |coauthors=and Garry Wotherspoon |title=Who's Who in Gay and Lesbian History: From Antiquity to World War II |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=giM73n_lca4C&pg=PA226&lpg=PA225&sig=n8E2HSpVKhp2zTJDbFxrvVdqT6o |accessdate=2007-10-23 |year=2001 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=0415159822 |pages=pp.226–227 }}</ref> beginning with his older relative [[Esmé Stewart, 1st Duke of Lennox]]. The two became extremely close and it was said by an English observer that "from the time he was 14 years old and no more, that is, when the Lord Stuart came into Scotland… even then he began… to clasp some one in the embraces of his great love, above all others" and that James became "in such love with him as in the open sight of the people oftentimes he will clasp him about the neck with his arms and kiss him". Faced with an ultimatum from the Scottish nobility that he choose his Catholicism or James, Stuart chose James and converted to Calvinism. This was still not enough, however, and Stuart was eventually driven out of Scotland to France, where he died.{{Fact|date=September 2007}} A few years after the controversy over his relationship with Lennox faded away, James embarked on a close friendship with [[Robert Carr, 1st Earl of Somerset]]. During the next two years, however, their relationship became troubled. In 1615 James fell out with Carr, and forced him to face trial after it was revealed that Carr's new wife had poisoned Sir [[Thomas Overbury]], his best friend who had opposed the marriage. Although his wife was found guilty and Carr had threatened to expose their liaison in court, James reprieved both of them and gave them a country estate, though after holding them in the tower for seven years.<ref>H. Montgomery Hyde, The Love That Dared not Speak its Name; pp. 44 and 143</ref> The last of James's three close male friends - or, indeed, "his lover" <ref>{{cite book | last = Purkis | first = Diane | title = The English Civil War: A People's History | year = 2006 | pages = 15 | isbn = 000715061X }}</ref> - was [[George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham]], the son of a [[Leicestershire]] knight. They had met in 1614, around the same time that the situation with Carr was deteriorating. The King was blunt and unashamed in his avowal of love for Buckingham, saying "[[Homosexual readings of Jesus and John|Christ had his John]], and I my George". This, referring to the young disciple John, and his Lord and mentor, Jesus Christ. Buckingham became good friends with James’s wife Anne, she addressed him in affectionate letters begging him to be "always true" to her husband. James in some letters wrote to Buckingham, "I desire only to live in this world for your sake... I had rather live banished in any part of the Earth with you than live a sorrowful... life without you".<ref name = "Bergeron">Bergeron, King James, p. 175.</ref> A few years later James died with Buckingham at his side.

Only a summary should be in the James I of England article. Carcharoth 15:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What needs doing here

OK. If anyone has an overall plan here, please go ahead and post it. Then we can start discussing details and sources. Hopefully something good can be written here. Carcharoth (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I started adding the references that have been used in the discussions. I will place them here also, then we can discuss using the Harvard system without listing full name and title each time. If that suits everyone.
For example: David Willson, in one of the better known general biographies of James from 1956, says "Yadda, Yadda, and more Yadda" [Willson, p. 154]. On the other hand, Michael Young, according to User:Someone, quotes Bergeron as having said that the third Yadda was never proved and "...is just pure speculation." [Young, p. 43].
Once the references are in place, then we can discuss. Unless people just want to jump in. I also searched for previous discussions on his sexuality and will include links to the archived sections here (from both articles). I considered writing an minimalist outline of all the major points raised so far, regardless of position and editor, but I think that is a fair amount of work, and some may feel that a particular item doesn't fairly reflect their position. Any thoughts on that?
Excluding the sockpuppets that absolutely refused to consider any possibility that James had any male-male sex, this is my impression of the issues, in a more general sense. The question now is how to balance the reliable sources that says he did, or probably did, with those that say there's no proof, or none that stands up to historical scrutiny. I think it's safe to say that James had male favorites, and that he was exceptionally physically affectionate with them in public. Does anyone dispute that? The dispute is, I think, in what may, or may not have happened more or less privately with those male friends. Since he had children, that obviously means he had sex with his wife, so that can't be an issue, or at least it's never been brought up that I know of.
Then there is the issue of cultural constructs and differences. Views of sexuality, religious morality, legality, the role of the crown, and their interrelationships—by the nobility, clergy, the various legal bodies/authorities, the independent kingdoms, and everyone else involved—are enormously different between then and now. And that needs to be addressed also, I think, for a modern general audience not aware of these differences.
Ultimately, I think we can and will come to a peaceful consensus, as we are well on the way now. Thoughts?
— Becksguy (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Sounds a good approach. As I've said before, emotional intimacy and dependence is a lot more easily demonstrated than genital contact, & in my view more interesting, & I'd like to see more on this. Johnbod (talk) 15:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
What would be the best way to format the article? I'm thinking a general introduction that would name the names involved, then discuss historical constructs and the like (as stated so well by Becksguy). After that, a list of the individuals with a brief bio and comments on each indicating "level" of personal relationship. Or should the historical constructs section be at the end? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
At the end I'd say. One problem is we don't have an anything like adequate article on favourite - anyone? Johnbod (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
My thought is to include a brief intro to the historical context within the general introduction. Per SatyrTN. And then list the favorites/family, including notes on the level of intimacy with each. Then a detailed historical construct/context explanation at the end. If we cover too much at the beginning, some readers might get bored. Those that want more can find it at the end and/or in footnotes if appropriate. In other words, move downwards from the general to the specific as an over all structure of the article. Johnbod's mention of favorite is a great example of the how easy it is for a reader (and some of us editors also) to misunderstand the historical constructs. One might assume that favorites meant something like the modern posse, entourage, or the guys one hangs out with. Of course, that is apparently one of it's meanings. We can also include a parenthetical sentence for words that are particularly easy to misunderstand as they crop up, with a link to a footnote and/or reference for more extensive notes. Favorite has to be explained very early in the article. — Becksguy (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
What does need explaining is the structure of the royal court. Terms like courtier (I think in this political sense a favourite is a powerful courtier - the personal relationships sense, I don't know what the term would be then, but there was a financial aspect as well). Also, the role played by James's queen (she detested Carr, apparently, but liked Buckingham). Also, gentleman of the bedchamber is interesting. Some claim that some of these male favourites were 'just' bodyguards. Others say this was a convenient cover. Also, the way there were various 'courts' around the place - buildings and palaces that members of the royal family would visit with their entourage. Country residences and the like. For more on the financial aspects, see here. Carcharoth (talk) 10:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[restore indent] Very good suggestion, Carcharoth. I think all this discussion is going to result in a much better article. I've been reading what I can get my hands on about James and his era. It's fascinating. — Becksguy (talk) 12:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I have done a summary article on favourite, which I think will be my major contribution here. I'm not sure I entirely agree with Carcharoth above about favourites & courtiers, although we certainly need a decent article on courts or courtiers - Noble court and the other one are hopeless. Anne of Denmark is an FA. We should cover Philip Herbert, 4th Earl of Pembroke and at least one other guy with an article whose name escapes me at the moment - ok Henry Rich, 1st Earl of Holland, though there is very little in the article on his career under James. George Home, 1st Earl of Dunbar is more of a Cecil figure, by way of contrast. John Erskine, 18th Earl of Mar is another interesting relationship. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Favourite is a great article! I've just finished reading it and it is most impressive. I think you should do the same sort of expansion for noble court and courtier. You are quite right that there is a difference. I just wanted to be clear that favourites didn't always involve sexual relationships, and you've made that clear. Carcharoth (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More information

See Talk:James I of England/Archive 2#For information's sake.... That same archive page has the mediation attempt by Addhoc. In my opinion, all this needs to be read and taken on board before deciding how to handle this article. Carcharoth (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] References Urgently Needed

The quotes in this article desperately need to be quoted, or we may need to look at removing them as the language of some of them is suspect (in terms of legitimacy for the time period) Rotovia (talk) 08:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Factual accuracy tag added as article relies on these quotes to make its case Rotovia (talk) 08:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and added a bunch of references. I then removed the disputed / unreferenced that applied to the *whole* article, since currently there's only one section (on Carr) that needs inline refs. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)