Talk:James VI and I/Archive 1

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

---

King of France

"He also claimed to be King of France, because his mother had been, for a short time, queen consort of France."

His mothers life had little to do with this title.Queen consorts didn't haveu all smell he laughs.{Haveu all smell he laughs? Wha?} He became nominaly "King of France" on 1603 when he took the throne of England.All Kings of England held this title between Edward III and George III.Henry VI had been declared both King of England and France after the deaths of his father (King of England) and his grandfather (King of France).Although he was the King who lost the Hundred Year War his heirs continued to take both titles upon coronation until 1801.So until 1801 any King of England also claimed the title of King of France.Including James.

User:Dimadick haha i am editing ur info. There is always someone out there who knows some useful but little known fact that improves all our knowledge. Thanks, Dimadick. JTD 00:00 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

Although he claimed the title of "King of France" is it proper to define him as the "King of France"? Susan Mason

Protection

I protected the Page. Susan and 172 were continuously reverting each other changes. I reverted to pre-edit-war state as is policy. -- JeLuF 07:02 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)

---

Good call. Don't unprotect the article until Lir/Vera/Susan is banned. 172

Well, are you going to discuss the page or just talk trash? Susan Mason

In your case . . . no. Don't feed the trolls.

You are the one vandalizing articles. Susan Mason

---

The article is a pretty good one, especially before the strange goings-on between Susan Mason and 172. However, content wars aside, it does need a good hand by a Chicago Manual of Style editor. I was going to do that today after spending time with that tonight, but will have to wait until it is unprotected. I wish people would look at their articles as a whole before submission, or before revising sections; from section to section there are inconsistencies in naming conventions (case, under Later Years section, referring to Charles as The Prince of Wales, Charles, Prince of Wales, the Prince of Wales and then they in an ambiguous sentence.

And whose idea was it to say that war convulsed Europe? It's a great image, but not one we generally use; engulfed is the more common phrase. egthegreat

Bloodlines

In any case, Im willing to speak to you if you ever wish to engage in dialogue. Susan Mason

Both his parents seem to be Scottish. What makes you think he is English? Tuf-Kat

<argument removed>

To answer the question above, there was some English blood in both his parents. They had been the grandchildren of Margaret Tudor, who was about 60 % English. James IV (Margaret's first husband) was marginally English - his great-great-grandmother had been Jane Beaufort - but the amount of English that he passed onto his children was negligible. This means that since neither James V or Lord Darney's mother (sorry, her name has gone blank in my mind) married English spouses, they were about 30% English, and that James'es parents, Mary Queen of Scots and Lord Darnley were 15% English, and that James VI was therefore about 7.5% English. Not a high portion. I hope that this, and the diagram below, clarifies matters a bit.

60% ..............30%..............15%........................ 7.5%

Margaret Tudor - James V - Mary Queen of Scots

                                 |           -         -  James VI
              - ?       - Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley

Arno

172

---

--Actual Discussion about page-- It is a widespread convention to list titles of relatively equivalent rank in the order in which they were conferred, therefore it makes sense to list him as James VI of Scotland first, as that predated his inheriting the English crown.

And in terms of describing him, British would be the best adjective, Scottish next, but English is patently absurd. Dramatic 20:42 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)

James VI was part English - both his parent were grandchildren of Margaret Tudor, who was about 60% English - and part French (from his grandmother Marie of Guise). There was also Scandinavian blood from Margaret of Denmark, wife of James III.

James VI was also part Scottish, but mainly from his father's side of the family. Five successive generations of Scottish royal marriages (James I to James V inclusive) to non-Scottish brides had resulted in James VI's mother, Mary Queen of Scots, having very little Scottish blood in her. If you combine the Scottish and English ancestries, you would argue that he was indeed significantly "British" in terms of his combined Scottish/English ancestry. Arno 07:49 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

British as the name of the state only occured in 1707 through it 1604 James VI/I did take about reigning over great brittaine. But because he and some other monarchs until 1707 used two ordinals, using that terminology is a recipe for confusion; how can a king of one kingdom have two ordinals? So standard usage with most historians is to reserve the word 'Britain' and 'British' until after the 1707 Act of Union, and keep the individual references to the two states until then. James was born Scottish, reigned in Scotland and inherited the throne of England while Scottish king, so Scottish is the right terminology to use, British is less right but explainable, English is garbage and patently absurd. STÓD/ÉÍRE 20:52 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)

I thought "British" was also used for much earlier periods and was a general term meaning "pertaining to the Island of Britain". Dramatic 21:33 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)

It was used much earlier and later, but as by that stage you were seeing the emegence of modern states, we have to be very careful and accurate in the use of terminology. So the saftest and most accurate thing to do is to stick strictly to formal terms. James was King of Scotland, then King of England. Each state existed with its own parliament and government. Britain creates the impression that there was only one state, but that didn't happen until 1707. That is why, even though great britainne was mentioned in 1604, it was such a poorly defined term that it is better left to 1707, when that became the legal name of the state (albeit spelt differently!)

---

Tirades

Maybe if we all deliberated with Susan/Dietary long enough the past will have changed to fit his incorrect facts? 172

Would you mind creating a list of the facts you feel are incorrect that Susan or Dietary Fiber are posting? That way, we'll know exactly what you're talking about, and third-parties can check the information.

--cprompt

Going by Adam/bridget/vera cruz/Susan mason/Dietary Fiber's standards, you would fill this page three times over with her garbage. Adam is banned twice for his behaviour and his fictions, now with two ficticious names he is trying the same garbage he drove people mad with for months before. No way, DF your days of screwing up wiki are over. STÓD/ÉÍRE 04:33 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)

Personally, I don't object to people making errors, but I do object to their telling lies. See my note to Susan Mason on wikipedia talk:naming conventions (names and titles) Deb 10:03 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)

This page is for the discussion of the article on King James VI/I. Please could we all refrain from posting tirades against individual contributors and concentrate on the article? Thanks. Now, could someone involved in this dispute also please follow cprompt's advice and tell us what the problem is here? Let's be sensible about this. -- Oliver P. 15:22 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)

Hegemony

I have put the quotes back in. I suppose someone should check to see it they are authentic or the best ones that could be found. When someone edits next they might redo the wikification within the quotes. I 'm not sure links to life and death are all that sensible.Fred Bauder 10:51 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

I think the point and the problem with the controversy is that with the crowning of James I as King of England it was the effective end of Scotland as an independent state and the establishment of English hegemony over all of Great Britain. That may be the point DF is getting at by putting the English title first. Perhaps some language about the end of Scottish independence needs to be worked into the article. Fred Bauder 10:51 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

The standard usage of monarchical names is to put them in order of date. As James was first king of Scotland, that is normally put first. He wasn't the King of England who became King of Scotland, he was King of Scotland who became King of England, and the article should show that. 'Susan Mason'/'Dietary Fiber' changed a lot of royal pages, in many cases adding in unverifiable 'facts', monumental clangers, unilaterally changing article stuctures after a debate had reached a consensus to lay them out differently, getting fundamental facts wrong, in one case unilaterally changing a two sentence paragraph to make it say the exact opposite of what it was meant to say, producing historical gobbledigook. The reversions were simply the moment when a number of people said 'this hacking up of articles has gone on long enough', particularly when 'she' was following around other people's edits and changing them. Hopefully without 'her' destructive influence, now that she has been banned, we can get back to doing serious factual fact, not mopping up her mess all the time. (Until of course, Adam produces his latest trolling creation to replace Bridget/Lir/Vera Cruz/Susan Mason/Dietary Fiber. Though unfortunately one anonymous user has already cropped up to pick up where SM/DF left off on some articles.) Hopefully the issue is closed, until the next member of the Adam family of trolls is launched like a vandalising cluster bomb on a defenceless wiki. STÓD/ÉÍRE 22:23 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

---

"However, he lacked Elizabeth's business skills and consequently the economy suffered." The "consequently" seems too strong - much of Europe was experiencing flow on problems from an increase in monetary metals from the new world, and as the effects were cumulative it was worse around then than at the time of the great discoveries. In the end, it worked to British advantage - but not just then. PML.

Protected

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump

Now that Lir and his 'personalities' Lir/Bridget/Vera Cruz/Susan Mason/Dietary Fiber is gone (until the next Adam attack is launched with his next phoney name, we can now remove the protection from the James I of England page, so that some of their damage can be done; eg, the repositioning of the image, etc. ÉÍREman 00:20 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

It is now unprotected. -- Notheruser 00:26 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

---

Naming Policy

Err...why are there several sentences talking about his silly "King of France" title, but no mention of him actually being King of Ireland? john 10:02 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia naming policy requires that where a monarch wears multiple crown, the major one only is used in the article title. Otherwise we get impossible to use titles. If one was to James's full titles, the article would be James VI of Scotland/James I of England, Ireland and France which is unwieldly, would be unlinkable for most if not all search engines, and is not used anywhere as a reference point. (And imagine using Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Nothern Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Barbados, . . .) Hence, though he was King of Prussia and Emperor of Germany, Wilhelm II is on as Emperor of Germany. Franz Josef was Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary but his article title doesn't say that. Of James's three effective realms (four if you include the nominal France) Ireland and Scotland were both small. England was his dominant crown, as shown by the fact he he didn't return to Scotland after inheriting the English throne. So James belongs under wiki policy at James I of England, just as James II of England belongs there and not James VII of Scotland/James II of England, Charles I at Charles I of England, not Charles I of Scotland, England, or George II at George II of Great Britain, Ireland. It all boils down to logic, practicality and usability and is standard wikipedia naming policy. In addition, whoever made the use broke the link between this talk page and the article page in their move, and other links too. The Scotland link is covered in a redirect. FearÉIREANN

I noticed Sir Francis Bacon wasn't really spoken about in the article, and he was also a lover of King James' it can be noted that his rise and fall mirrors that of King James

"as shown by the fact he he didn't return to Scotland after inheriting the English throne"

this is suspected to be something of an urban myth. And also has nothing to do with Wikipedia naming conventions.

James I of England? As if this rationalisation works - "the major one only is used in the article title"... well, he was also King of "America", or a big chunk of it, probably bigger than the rest of his realm combined. The anglocentricism continues through the article, not really explaining the reactions in Scotland after his "move" or the consequences to the country. The man was also obsessed with targetting "witches" and is part-responsible for the troubles in Northern Ireland today (not to mention persecuting Gaels in Scotland), so his reign was not all the civilisation and cultural revival that the article implies. --MacRusgail 14:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's hopelessly POV (irony unintentional :-P) declaring England to be his 'major' kingdom, but I can appreciate that the NPOV option (i.e. everything) is unwieldy. How about a disclaimer, perhaps modelled on Template:Wrongtitle, where we can state the full title up front, and note that the article title is for convenience only. -Scott Wilson 18:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Any details or aspects not included in the text of the article that you think should be can of course be added. James was not "King of America" so that argument is nonsense. As to whether or not England was his "major" kingdom, I will note that there was a fairly clear (with some disagreements) sense that some kingdoms were of greater weight than others, and England was always seen as a superior kingdom to Scotland. Moreover, as I have previously noted, James lived entirely in England from the time he succeeded to the English throne. In any work which is not specifically dealing with Scottish history, he is referred to as "James I" after 1603 (occasionally "James VI and I," for works dealing with British history generally. But always James I in articles on European international history.) There are numerous other monarchs with whom we do the same thing. We list Henry IV of France only at France, and not at Navarre. All the English and British monarchs who were also separately King of Ireland do not get Ireland mentioned in the article title. The Danish and Swedish kings who also ruled Norway do not get Norway in their title. Philip II of Spain was also King of Naples, Sicily, Portugal, and so forth, but we do not list those in the title. Unless we want to revisit our entire naming policy, James I of England is a perfectly correct title. There seems to be an extraordinary degree of special pleading by Scots on this issue, as though Scotland is the only crown which has ever been in personal union with another crown that took a dominant place. Not only James himself, but just about all of Latin Christendom would have recognized England as James's principal kingdom after 1603. We shouldn't pretend it wasn't for the sake of Scottish chauvinism. john k 18:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

"Superior kingdom to Scotland"? Maybe if you're going to pursue the anglocentric line ("chauvinism" as you put it, but of your own personal variety), but the fact is that he was king of elsewhere, both before and after he moved to London. As for his control in America [1]

If I have the dates right, he spent 22 years as King of England, as opposed to 37 years not. 36 of which were as King of Scots pre-union.

As for the "pleading" (your chauvinistic term), England was in personal union with Hanover for a number of years. No secret about that. Salic Law dissolved that union when Victoria ascended. The Union of Crowns - or any crown - properly ended with Cromwell. --MacRusgail 19:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, I am not sure how I am to be considered an English chauvinist. I am American, and my father's family is of Irish Catholic origins. At any rate, nobody is denying that he was King of Scotland, anymore than having an article at Philip II of Spain denies that he was King of Portugal, and King of Naples, and so forth. Spain was considered a more significant throne than the others, and had higher precedence, so he is Philip II of Spain. Similarly, England was considered a more significant throne than Scotland, and had higher precedence, so James is James I of England. The King of America line is still stupid. James did not use the title "King of America," and he only had any effective authority over a tiny bit of America - a small settlement on the James-York Peninsula in Virginia, and the area around Plymouth, Massachusetts. "America" was not a Kingdom, and James was not King of it. (His contemporary Kings of Spain did use the title of "King of the Indies," though, and we don't give that in their article titles, either). In terms of time spent, this is irrelevant. Edward VII of the United Kingdom spent 60 years as Prince of Wales, and only 9 years as King Edward VII. Are you proposing that we move his article to Albert Edward, Prince of Wales? We use "highest title" on Wikipedia, and, like it or not, "King of England" was considered a higher title than "King of Scots," just as "King of Spain" (or, actually "King of Castile") was a higher title than "King of Portugal," and "King of Denmark" was a higher title than "King of Norway," and so on and so forth. I do not know what your point is about Hanover. In the first place "England" was never in personal union with Hanover. Great Britain, and then the United Kingdom was. Are you proposing George IV of the United Kingdom and Hanover? Or what? Again, in this case, the UK was a more important throne than Hanover, and so we use the UK title. I am also not sure what you are saying with the Union of Crowns and Cromwell. Cromwell united the three kingdoms into a single Commonwealth, but the crowns were separated out again at the Restoration, and Cromwell's innovations had no legal force that I am aware of. Charles II, James II and VII, William and Mary, and Anne all held multiple crowns of England and Scotland. john k 20:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

King of Scots is a more significant role than "Prince of Wales" (which is barely that, but the heir apparent to the English throne, rather than a proper Welsh monarch). Who decides what is a "higher title" anyway? This is subjective nonsense.

It is, of course, somewhat subjective. But it is not nonsense. The King of England had higher diplomatic precedence than the King of Scots. The men who were kings of both resided uniformly in England - there was only one visit to Scotland by a sitting monarch during the whole 1603-1707 period, other than the Civil War related shenanigans of Charles I and Charles II. Diplomats referred to these Kings uniformly as the King of England, and not as the King of Scots. Sure, it's vaguely subjective to say that England was more important. But not especially so. England was more important - it was larger and much more populous and richer and closer to the center. As to Prince of Wales vs. King of Scots, you are missing my point. You were making an argument that we use the Scottish title because James held it for longer. I was pointing out, using Edward VII as an example, that this does not work - we use highest title, not title held for the longest. john k 15:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

As for Cromwell & his Commonwealth, when he was in charge, there was no crown or crown anywhere, therefore no Union of Crowns. Of course this simple fact is ignored retroactively. --MacRusgail 13:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, I'm not sure in what way this relates to anything. john k 15:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

We can argue back and forth all day about whether England or Scotland is more significant, but the fact remains that whatever answer we come to is POV. For every person who thinks his English reign is superior, there will be another person who thinks the same about his Scottish one. We need to move the article back from the controversy and make it clear that the title given it is not necessarily a reflection on the relative importance of Scotland or England, and is merely because the completely accurate title would be unwieldy. --Scott Wilson 17:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

No. I am not arguing that England was a more important kingdom. I am arguing that contemporaries, including James himself, viewed England as the more important kingdom. I agree that the reason we must choose one country in his title is because the full title would be unwieldy. But the reason why that one kingdom must be England (and not Scotland or, God forbid, Ireland) is because James himself and all of his contemporaries would have seen England as his principal kingdom (after 1603). It essentially goes back to the "highest title" rule. Although in some sense the King of England and the King of Scots were equals, in most senses it was clear to everyone that the King of England was a more important monarch. If we cannot make these kind of judgment calls, there are a huge number of other articles than just this one that would need to be changed. john k 18:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't care if it's the point of view of the subject of the article; it's still a point of view. Hitler no doubt believed what he was doing was good. Should we therefore edit his article to 'show' how the holocaust was 'improving' Germany? --Scott Wilson 21:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

It is a fact that England was a more important kingdom than Scotland in the 16th and 17th centuries. It is a fact that the King of England had higher diplomatic precedence than the King of Scots. It is a fact that internationally, James was known after 1603 as the King of England, and not as the King of Scots. None of this is POV. I will add, again, that we have a naming convention which says we should only use the "highest title" in article titles. I suppose this may be a POV naming convention. But there it is. And James's "highest title" is clearly "King of England," and not "King of Scots" (or "King of Scotland"). And please, quit with the Godwin's Law. The issue of "what title is more important" is not a moral one, as the question of "whether the Holocaust was good" is. Is that really the best you can come up with? john k 05:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

My argument was that the point of view of the article's subject is still a point of view, and is not more relevant than any other ones - which appeared to be your argument. Even now, you're still trying to argue that England is more significant than Scotland, which is entirely POV. For every person who thinks that, there is someone who thinks the opposite. How about including this at the beginning of the article:

The title of this article is incomplete for convenience and should not be taken as evidence of any POV. The full title should be James VI of Scots and James I of England and Ireland.

--Scott Wilson 11:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I would strongly object to this. This is not what the full title should be, according to our naming conventions. The title of the article is James I of England. Just as we have Philip II of Spain, Christian IV of Denmark, Oscar I of Sweden, Henry IV of France, or, for that matter, Charles I of England, George I of Great Britain, George IV of the United Kingdom, and so forth. And, once again, it is not POV to say that England was more important than Scotland. It was more important by every objective standard. The only subjective thing is trying to pretend that Scotland was of equal importance to England, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. The basic fact is that we have to make judgment calls about article titles, and using James I of England for this title is applying exactly the same standards that we use for every other article about a monarch who ruled over more than one kingdom. England was more important than Scotland, Spain was more important than Portugal or Naples, Denmark was more important than Norway, Sweden was more important than Norway, France was more important than Navarre, Great Britain was more important than Ireland, and the United Kingdom was more important than Hanover. This may be unpleasant to the Scots, Portuguese, Neapolitans, Norwegians, Navarrese, Irish, and Hanoverians. But that doesn't change anything. The basic fact remains that there are objective markers that allow us to determine what the most important of a king's realms was. Where did the king primarily reside? (not always dispositive) Which one had diplomatic precedence? (only works before 1814, and even then can be confusing) Which kingdom was more populous and wealthier? (this might not correspond to which was seen as more important) Now, each of these, on its own, would be vaguely unreliable, and one can come up with counterexamples for each single one, I think. But when all these questions are answered the same way, as they usually are, there is no POV issue in saying that the one kingdom has precedence over the other. After 1603, James did reside primarily in England, England had diplomatic precedence over Scotland, and England was much more populous and much wealthier than Scotland. john k 15:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

There are plenty of points of view contrary to yours (for instance, even by the time of the Act of Union, Scotland was still given equal weighting to England - compare to the Act of Union between England and Wales). As I have said before, you can give your reasons until the cows come home, but it won't stop them being POV. --Scott Wilson 21:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I'm perfectly willing to accept that in some ways Scotland was considered equal to England. But there are no ways in which Scotland was considered superior to England. Given that our general tendency on article titles for monarchs to give just one country, and no more, it is clear that for James this country should be England. This is not to deny that England and Scotland were considered equal in some ways. But to admit that England and Scotland were considered equal in some ways is not to deny that England was considered superior to Scotland in some other ways. (Another thing - an English Earl with a title created in 1706 was, in 1707, superior in precedence to the most ancient Scottish earls, and the Earls of Mar and Sutherland were very ancient indeed.) My only point is this - if we have to pick one country, and we do, it is perfectly logical, and in line with naming conventions, that that country should be England, and not Scotland. john k 06:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Just an idea, a few days ago (not knowing this discussion was going on) I used precisely this James as an example in the new guideline proposal re "Easy navigation" in the section regarding "bottom of the page" navigational boxes: for royals that have more titles/separate names than what can be named in the article title, the proposition is to include that info in the succession box. I'd be glad to know what others would think about that? --Francis Schonken 12:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me. john k 16:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I like the box, but it doesn't really give much more information than is there already (not a complaint about it; it just doesn't resolve the discussion underway). John K, I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times. It doesn't matter how many or how good the reasons you can give for putting this article at James I or England, it doesn't mean that it's NPOV. --Scott Wilson 22:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

---

hi, sources for the lines about his witchcraft interests are: Witchcraft Act, [2]. regards, High on a tree 03:24, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Please tell whether the dates are Julian or Gregorian. -Juuitchan

"Queen James"

One area of James VI/I's life that for many years remained clouded in controversy were allegations that James was in fact homosexual. While his close relationships with a number of men were noted, earlier historians questioned their sexual nature.

Few modern historians cast any doubt on the King's homosexuality and the fact that his sexuality and choice of male partners both as King of Scotland then later in London as King of England were the subject of gossip from the taverns to the Privy Council. His relationship as a teenager with Esmé Stuart, Seigneur d'Aubigny, Earl of Lennox was criticised by Scottish church leaders, who were part of a conspiracy to keep the young King and the French courtier apart. Lennox, facing threats of death, was forced to leave Scotland. In the 1580s, King James openly kissed Francis Stewart Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell. Contemporary sources clearly hinted their relationship as sexual. When James inherited the English throne from Queen Elizabeth I in 1603, it was openly joked of the new English monarch in London that Rex fuit Elizabeth: nunc est regina Jacobus (Elizabeth was King: now James is Queen.)

Historians have debated whether James was unwise in his choice of male partners, from page-boy-turned-Gentleman-of-the-Bedchamber Robert Carr (made Earl of Somerset) to royal-cupbearer-turned-Earl-of-Buckingham, George Villiers, whose relationship with the King was discussed at the Privy Council (James called Villiers his 'wife' and he Villiers' 'husband'.) Buckingham in particular came to play a major part in the governance of the English kingdom, though historians differ on whether Buckingham's impact was positive or negative.

I removed this patently unfair and offensive historical POV invention of smear politics written by authors against Scotsmen on the throne. Indeed, he was the first Scot to hold the position. The English always joked at the Scots' preference of Kilts, calling them womanly for wearing skirts. Everything here seems exaggerated, twisted and exploited to shame him for his style of Royal Prerogative without consent of the English Parliament and the application of the Divine Right of Kings, the Spanish Match and other contraversial issues about his reign. His reign was so despicable that the Puritans fled to America. That and possibly kissing his relative doesn't make him gay, especially when the Scots were beginning to show interest in French customs of affection. Excessive camaderie by the Monarch doesn't make him gay. His distance from his subjects may have inclined him to confide in very few people to restrict influences upon his control. He may have trusted very few people due to the fact that he found no friends in the English people. We are not to entertain the agendas of ad hominem historians looking to shadow his name. Plain and simple, if he chose unpopular friends it was because he didn't want factions taking over his reign. If he were womanlike, he would have been courting the gossip of many men as women do of eachother. His way of confiding in unfavourable people could very well be seen as paranoid and justly so with his allies mostly in Scotland, not England. If he was homosexual, he would have been penalised the way Henry VIII intended with his anti-sodomy laws instituted merely two reigns prior to James's, yet he was chosen the heir. At the time of his reign, the Act of Union was not yet in effect and many high nobles wished to unseat him from power to restore an Englishman, later witnessed with the rise of Oliver Cromwell, before such a permanence could be installed over England. Lord Kenneð Alansson 11:23, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think all this discussion about whether or not he was gay is a bit anachronistic. I think that people read too much into these things - it has to be remembered that people in the 17th century had a completely different set of ideas about sexuality which would probably be completely alien to us today. Also, they may well have had different concepts about the amount of affection (kissing etc) that was acceptable between males. I agree with the above comment that James I's bad repuation in England may have been a deliberate campaign by his opponents. I think there was a resentment amongst some English people that he was Scottish. One historian has commented that James had been king of Scotland for many years before he became English king and was quite a successful ruler, and quite highly regarded. Only when he comes to ENgland does this change, suggesting that it may be ENglish prejudice that gave him a bad name.--Cap 13:01, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I know! It's like just recently, when there were so many things which guys did that was considered gay, like long hair for starters. Piercings and certain colours of clothing all turned a man gay in some paranoid mass cultural eyes. The advent of this metrosexual idea just these days is a real tribute to perhaps a reflection of his day and era when anything not considered akin to Conan the Barbarian attitudes was immediately suspect. I hope we can allow this perspective into the article, because I frankly don't believe he was a queer based on the descriptions. It really does sound like factional warfare above all else, despite the fact that Villiers was an outright idiot when it came to his position and James' insistence that he will not give in to common sense according English lines. The Scots have always been called backwards by the English, but this was an instance where the king of both lands was himself Scottish. Elisabeth was herself of the Welsh party and so of course, the English Parliament had tight reins over her style. It was unfortunate that James had to somewhat copy her style of not giving in to English pressure; in her case it was marriage, so they could easily say she was a butch lesbian(or feminazi?), but obviously, she persecuted Catholics and could most likely do so of any dissenter, whereas James was from the non-persecutive Scottish royalty. He may have been seen as weak because although he favoured more traditional people under his wing, he did little to enforce opponent conformity except by the banishment that resulted in the American colonies. Something like, "Get out of my house", as opposed to "Do what I tell you to servant". The Scotsmen have always been more casual in their style in everything they did as opposed to the English institutions, a modification of Roman governing in early Britain, which Scotland never had. Arteries and veins run deep indeed. Kenneth Alanson 02:21, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

These allegations appear false; firstly, James could not possibly have been homosexual, but only bisexual. Furthermore, these allegations are declared mere inventions of Englishmen in the modern Encyclopedia Britannica. -- Emsworth 23:50, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have restored the Homosexuality text. This is because, not only is it likely true (and just because someone is Homosexual it doesnt mean that they are unable to have sex with women, particularly when their security on the throne, and their legacy, depend on it), but it played a significant part in his reign. The amount of favours lavished on George Villiers (later Duke of Buckingham) almost bankrupted the state, and lead to the reigning in of royal finances.

To percieve the text as a slur on the Scots is patently POV. To percieve the presence of 1 homosexual scottish king as a slur on scotland is simply homophobic. Please discuss reasons why you would remove the section on the talk page before doing so. To do otherwise is simply vandalism and not NPOV. 81.156.181.197 18:43, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) (this is not a static IP)

The issue was indeed discussed. I did not support removal on the grounds of its allegedly slanderous nature. Rather, I removed it because it was, I believe, false. There are respectable encyclopedias, such as the Encyclopedia Britannica, which state quite clearly that the assertion was baseless. (See [3]: "It was also rumoured that he was homosexual and preyed upon the young boys brought to service at court. This caricature, which has long dominated the popular view of James I, was largely the work of disappointed English office seekers whose pique clouded their observations and the judgments of generations of historians.") If there are offered, on this talk page, credible references to the contrary, then I will not oppose the re-insertion of the information. -- Emsworth 19:00, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Rather, I removed it because it was, I believe, false" this is a point of view, it is not a NPOV. Whatever the facts of the matter are, it must be pointed out that James' favouritism of George Villiers went to the extent of damaging the country. James I's otherwise strong hold on power is difficult to reconcile with his tolerence of George Villiers' actions (or indeed his elevation to him to the peerage, or granting of large tracts of land (including some very valuble patches in very central london)), unless they were particularly close and he was lavashing favourites on him for a reason. If you consider the section to be biased in some POV manner then change it to be more NPOV. do not delete it. Whether James was homosexual or not, there were certainly rumours about it. This alone merits mention in the article. CheeseDreams 09:59, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC) CheeseDreams 09:59, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have removed the section but kept some important information on rumours elsewhere in the article. (James was only a child when he supposedly kissed Esme Stuart, so it appears unlikely that this relationship was sexual.) Irrelevant and completely unsubstantiated rumours (such as the one that James called Buckingham his "wife") have been completely removed. -- Emsworth 14:37, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have once again restored the article. It is large section of the article, please do not remove it without discussing here with those people who wish to keep it for a while. This discussion should involve more than 1 person from each side. Do not act unilaterally. CheeseDreams 15:29, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion the very fact that there were rumours of this sort is worthy of mention. In addition he did lavish ridiculously generous favours on George Villiers, including giving him large chunks of central london (including charing cross, and some of the surrounding area, which still bears his name, e.g. Villiers Street, Buckingham Street), ennobling him, and giving him substantial political power. This is a very odd thing to do to a cupbearer, unless of course he is your boyfriend. CheeseDreams 15:29, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The rumors should be mentioned. I think we should try to discuss it in as NPOV a way as possible, but I don't think we should remove all reference to this, since I think this remains a matter of some dispute. john k 17:04, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have retitled the "Queen James" section to "Homosexuality" and have changed the discussion to a more NPOV style. If CheeseDreams is satisfied, I will venture to remove the NPOV dispute tag atop the article. -- Emsworth 17:36, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have re-edited the article. The "Rex fuit" quote I have moved nearer the top, as it seems out of place where it was located, and provides context better where I have moved it (and also balances out paragraph sizes). I have restored the links to the George Villiers and Robert Carr pages (I have no-idea why these were removed, I can only assume you were manually copying the pages, and didn't note the links). In addition I have re-introduced the Privy Council and Esme Stuart details. This is because these provide detail of how the relationships were the affairs of state, and the controversy simply making the wrong choice of boyfriend could cause. I have left Boswell out, as it seems rather irrelevant, politically. But failing to mention Esme Stuart would be similar to failing to mention Nell Gwyn in an article about Charles II. CheeseDreams 19:38, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I had removed the links on Somerset & Buckingham because they were already linked in the article. Wiki policy seems to be that each item be linked only once, with the exception of dates, which are always linked. Incidentally, the article does already mention Lennox (see section 2). But, these issues are not important; the main controversy seems to have been resolved. -- Emsworth 20:04, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

His homosexuality gets a whole section whereas in a biography it would get about a paragraph... it gets almost as much mention as his early reign or his conflict with parliament... It's not that important. btw I know he definitely referred to himself as 'wife' and Buckingham as his 'sweet child' in letters. Plus in about 1618 other factions at court tried to introduce handsome young men in order to usurp Buckingham. There is an awful lot of circumstantial evidence that he was very familiar with his favourites, and not in a socially acceptable way, in a away that was frowned on by many. Did he actually commit homosexual acts? Who cares!?

Everyone at court, every country with relations with England would care. As was mentioned earlier, sexuality was interpreted differently in that age, in that it had dire political ramifications. In Anne Somerset's thorough biography of Elizabeth I, James' homosexuality had enough of a political impact on the realm for it to be examined during Elizabeth's time. It was a significant element of the court, as emotions, chivalry, charm determined your place, your ability to jockey for position next to the monarch, so your power. Thus his consorts would have had a significant amount of power just by being close to him, able to persuade him to their point of view, persuade him to favor their people. This could also be a threat to the realm when their loyalties may not be known, if they could be persuaded to work for France or Spain; they can put the monarch in a compromised position, as eventually happened to d'Aubigny (and as happened to court favorites in Elizabeth's time, most notoriously Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex). The psychological motivations are also not to be underestimated for a boy who grew up in a loveless childhood, admiring his male mentors in the absence of his mother, thus having no significant relationships with women. --scazza 20:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know there is no evidence that foreign rulers knew about James alledged homosexuality. It was doubtless rumour worthy at court but the only contemporary reference in the world at large I know of is in Symonds D'Ewes' diary, and even he refers to it as a rumour, rather than a proven fact. The 'James was gay' entry is now bigger than the part about his conflict with parliament! Which was more historically significant? I am not saying that his possible homosexuality was not important, just that the people who wrote this article seem to be disproportionately interested in it.

Which reference tell us something about an intimate relationship between the young king and the Duke of Lennox? Where are these lines from: "from the time he was fourteen years old and no more, that is, when the Lord Stewart 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."

legacy?

All in all I think that this is a great article, but it seems to have quite an anti-James Whiggish bias and seems to be in need of a revision.

There seems to be lots of stuff about how he always wanted money... yes he spent too much but unlike Elizabeth he had a larger court to pay for because he had a family. Many of his gifts were politically advantageous for a king trying to command loyalty in a new kingdom. The values of crown revenue had been eroded due to inflation and Elizabeth's sale of crown lands.

By and large he did pretty well under the circumstances, keeping the country largely out of expensive and destructive wars on the continent and avoided violent religious conflict at home. There is too much emphasis on the things that he did that caused conflict, without explaining why he did so and what the alternatives were...

I don't really get the 'legacy' section... it basically seems to imply that war was more or less inevitable after James died. In general the tone of the article is written from a 'we know the war happened in the 1640s, lets go back in time and show how the kingdom was flying headlong in that direction the' perspective.

ancestry

Above seems to have sprung a lively discussion about James' ethnic heritage. Objectively, he was one of those british monarchs who had a rather large dose of English and Scottish ancestry, compared to the vast majority whose bloodlines mostly came from abroad.

The chief contributors to this were his paternal grandfather Matthew Earl of Lennox, of almost total Scottish ancestry, and his paternal grandmother, of plenty of mixed English-Welsh and Scottish ancestry. Whereas her maternal grandmother was from Western German and french ancestry, with drops of blood from british isles. His maternal grandfather was a product of a series of mixed marriages, having a rather small Scottish dose, a bit bigger Welsh-English dose, and some Danish, German, French, Netherlands etc doses. I would say that his portions of Scottish and English were approximately equal - Scottish approx at 30-40% and English, summed up from various sources, also something around 20-40%
I must wonder why there are those who claim his English ancestry being particularly minimal? What are the grounds for such allegations. 217.140.193.123 20:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

1. James

1. Mary
2. Henry

1. Marie of Guise
2. James V
3. Margaret
4. Matthew Lennox

1. Antoinette de Bourbon
2. Klaus von Lothringen
3. Margaret Tudor
4. James IV
5. Margaret Tudor
6. Earl of Angus
7. Elizabeth Stewart
8. John Lennox

great-great-grandparents:

1. Marie de St.Pol (French)
2. Francois de Bourbon (French)
3. Philippa Egmond (Dutch)
4. Duke of Lothringen (German-French)
5. Elizabeth Plantagenet (almost totally English)
6. Henry VII Tudor (Welsh-French-English/French-English)
7. Margaret of Denmark (Scandinavian-German)
8. James III (Scot-Dutch-English-German)
9. Elizabeth Plantagenet (almost totally English)
10. Henry VII Tudor (Welsh-French-English/French-English)
11. Elizabeth Drummond (Scot)
12. George Douglas (Scot)
13. Eleanor Sinclair (Scot) desc from Norse earls of Orkney
14. John Stewart (Scot)
15. Elizabeth Hamilton (Scot)
16. Matthew Lennox (Scot)

Basilikon Doron

You might be interested to know that the article on Basilikon Doron linked from this page is almost entirely erroneous and needs to be rewritten completely.

If so, ammend it! thats what wikipedia is all about - --ClemMcGann 20:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, this page had been vandalized when I accessed it and I reverted the changes, you guys blow at making sure your feature articles are not vandalized...giant dicks, badly mispelled tirades where will it all end?

James I and IV?

Why can't it just be James I and IV, as I don't think any other king has been King of England and Scotland at the same time. Personally I have always been told he was James IV of Scotland and I of England, which is obviously too long to use as a name. When he became king of England as well, he effectivly became King of the British Empire.

I think it is unfair to state any allegiance to one area of his rule, if you see what I mean.

The reason is there was no United Kingdom - Scotland and England were not united as Nations. A modern analogy can be the titles of Queen Elizabeth II who is in fact only called Queen of the United Kindgom in the United Kingdom, and is NOT an Anglican when in Scotland. It simply reflects historical fact. Yes it may be cumbersome but no where near as cumbersome as listing of the current Queen's title. Plus, it would annoy Scots no ends to call him King of Britain as Scotland was independent until 1707. Davidkinnen 17:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

You have apparently been told incorrectly, as he was James VI of Scotland.</pedantry>. Beyond this, four other men have been King of England and Scotland at the same time (Charles I, Charles II, James II and VII, William III and II), and two women have been Queen of England and Scotland at the same time (Mary II, Anne). Beyond this, James is clearly not unique, because medieval and early modern Europe are quite notable for the fact that monarchs would often hold several distinct titles over several distinct geographical entities at the same time. Henry IV and Louis XIII were kings of Navarre separately from being Kings of France. The Kings of Spain (which was not itself, actually, a single kingdom in fact until the 18th century, and in name until the 19th) were also Kings at various times of Portugal, Naples, Sicily, and Sardinia, Dukes of Milan, and, under various different titles, rulers of the Burgundian Circle of the Holy Roman Empire. Louis the Great of Hungary became also King of Poland. The Habsburg Holy Roman Emperors were also Kings of Hungary and Bohemia, Archdukes of Austria, and so forth. The Kings of Denmark up to 1814 were also Kings of Norway, and the Kings of Sweden between 1814 and 1905 had Norway as well. King Charles VII of Naples (and IV of Sicily) abdicated those thrones to become Charles III of Spain. Emperor Pedro I of Brazil was also King Pedro IV of Portugal. The rulers of Great Britain also ruled Hanover between 1714 and 1837. Ireland was a separate kingdom under the English, and later British, kings from 1539 to 1801. Multiple titles and personal unions, far from being unique to James VI and I, are a fact of life in European monarchies until at least the First World War (when the Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary came to an end). We have to come up with a naming policy that works for all of them, not one that accommodates Scottish nationalism in one particular case. john k 18:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Link

There's a link to a page called "factionalism" on this page, and the factionalism page was blank. I edited it as best I could, and wouldv'e removed the link on the KJI page, but it's locked. Anyway... I think it's kinda stupid to have a link to a blank page, and also it's stupid to have ppl do bad edits and screw up a page I'm using for a research. :(

-Furby

Regnal Numbering is Not Necessarily Sequential

One point that seems to have been missed in the debate is that the regnal number is virtually arbitrary. A monarch chooses the name he/she wishes to be known by, including the number. Victoria's first name was Alexandrina, but she preferred her second name Victoria. If she had wanted, and the parliament approved, she could have called herself Victoria IV despite the fact that there had been no previous Victorias. It would have been absurd, but it could have been done. Supporting this is the fact that, following the James I/VI fight, an agreement was made a long time ago that the regnal number of any future British king who had a name that had previously been used in either Scotland or England would take into account the previously used regnal numbering. Therefore, the next James to come to the British throne would not be James III but James VIII. History would record Jameses I through VII of Scotland, but Jameses I, II and VIII of Britain. Cheers JackofOz 03:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Jeremy Bentham

The comment regarding Bentham is surely misleading- as stated, it seems to suggest that he and James were contemporaries or near-contemporaries ('...Bentham in an unpublished manuscript denounced James as a hypocrite after his crackdown....'). If I recall correctly Bentham (assuming the reference is to the political philosopher) was not born until the mid-1700's! After his crackdown indeed- and surely of little relevence to the article? One might equally say that Oliver Cromwell was denounced by Simon Schama after his crackdown on Catholics (!). Apologies if I'm factually incorrect, excellent article.