I’ve missed seeing this blog in my notifs! I’d like to ask - what do you think really killed James? I was listening to a podcast about the more sinister royal deaths and yes, I can agree it was a combination of health issues, but what really got him in the end? ‘Dysentery’ is too obvious. Thanks! - thelastplantagenet 💚
HELLO. Yes, I have been dead. I got mono in the spring 🙃
Answering this from memory without books to reference in front of me.
I tend to be skeptical of diagnoses fitted onto figures of the past, since there are so many layers of interpretation involved, decisions on which sources to trust, etc. And medicine of this time period in England was… not good. The difference between the "legitimate" physicians of the time and the utter quacks is, IMO, very slight. Humoral doctors were often powerless against fatal illness, and a lot of the treatments, like bleeding and purging, would actively make cases worse. I'm totally convinced that his grandson Charles II's death (60 years later) was Death by Early Modern Medicine.
In James's case, I think it's hard to say because he had been in bad health for a long time and was really falling apart in 1624-5. His doctors diagnosed tertian ague (malaria) and I think that's reasonably plausible. While he was sick he also had a stroke that may or may not have been connected with the malaria, and he could not speak or rise after that point. What finished him off was an attack of dysentery, but he had already spent most of March dying by that point.
IMO, it is in fact possible that the posset/"potion" that Buckingham and his mother gave James could have killed him. I do NOT think it was poisoned (it was tasted by everyone in the room!!!), but given that GI issues finished him off, it could have upset his digestion or added more pathogens to his weakened body (just imagine all the stuff in their milk). It is true that James's condition took a downturn after he drank it. But, maybe he was going to have a downturn anyway, maybe it was a fatty drink upsetting his stomach, etc. I'd believe almost any explanation before poison.
But it's equally likely that the official treatment from his doctors would have done the same - humor-purging treatments weakening this frail old man and adding all sorts of new germs to his system. I think it's ridiculous to point fingers at George/Mary in particular for "interfering with James's treatment", because James's official treatment was dangerous pseudoscience, too!! Maybe if more people interfered with official treatment back in the day, more patients would've survived!
On the 24th of March 1603, King James VI of Scotland of the Stuart Dynasty succeeded his cousin, Queen Elizabeth I of England. He was crowned King of England and Ireland on the 25th of July of that year. He reigned England and Ireland for 22 years. He was succeeded by his second son, the ill-fated Charles I.
The picture you see here is the Stuart Family Tree portrait (c.1603), depicting his Tudor and Stuart ancestry, and thus from the former, his claim to the English throne that stemmed from Margaret Tudor, eldest daughter of Henry VII.
To honor his Tudor predecessor, he transferred the bodies of Elizabeth and Mary into one tomb and had one big effigy commemorating the former. The only mention that pointed to Mary being buried there was a plaque that hoped that the two would be reunited in the afterlife and in the resurrection.
Sadly, James VI of Scotland and I of England and Ireland didn’t turn out to be a popular King (in the long run). He sponsored the arts, like William Shakespeare (as Elizabeth I had done), but his flamboyance annoyed many people and before you know it, people began looking to the past, feeling nostalgic about the ‘good old days’ when Queen Elizabeth I was their monarch.
Image: James I’s Family Tree portrait (c.1603), emphasizing his Tudor and Stuart lineage.
Hi I was wondering if you could share what you and historians make of Anne’s take on James’ homosexuality and his relationship (romantic, platonic or otherwise) with his queen, at the start of their marriage (i.e the sailing to Denmark and obsession etc) and the end (i.e letting her corpse rot) Thank you!! - thelastplantagenet 💚
Please excuse incoherent and loopiness I'm so sleepy while writing this alkdgf;ldgdk
The impression that I get of James is that he was very proud of his self-image as "a good king", "a good Christian", and "a good husband", based on his ever-so-clever reading of Scripture and philosophy. Picture the most horrible Arrogant Smart Kid Syndrome, formed by being the smartest person in the (very small) room for many years, which was never properly challenged by reality, because he's the king. The True Law of Free Monarchies and Basilokon Doron just drip with this attitude. Therefore, his self-image as magnanimous, benevolent, and faithful to his queen was important to him, even if in reality he was not these things.
cn for miscarriages, cruelty to pets, creepy kinda incestuous vibes, child marriage, etc.
There are two rather different images of the courtship of James and Anna (who was very young, just 14-15 to James's 22-23). On the one hand, James is said to have instantly fallen in love with her portrait almost as soon as marriage negotiations opened, to have written to her ardently, written poetry for her, and then of course have boldly sailed to "rescue" her in 1589. There is a story that when they first met in the flesh, James rushed over and kissed her "in the Scottish style", which repelled her (she thought it was very forward), but they later came to an understanding about this when the cultural difference was explained.
Yet also, James himself wrote of his reasons for sailing to his bride in October 1589:
As to the causes, I doubt not it is manifestly known to all how far I was generally found fault with by all men for the delaying so long of my marriage. The reasons were that I was alone, without father or mother, brother or sister, king of [Scotland] and heir apparent of England. This my nakedness made me to be weak and my enemies stark. One man was as no man, and the want of hope of succession bred disdain. Yea, my long delay bred in the breasts of many a great [suspicion] of my inability, as if I were a barren stock. These reasons and innumerable others, hourly objected, moved me to hasten the treaty of my marriage; for, as to my own nature, God is my witness I could have abstained longer nor the weal of my patrie could have permitted.
Basically, "I could have remained unmarried forever, but I have to get heirs for political stability". He was also noted for being coldly hard-assed in the dowry negotations.
Apparently their very early marriage was warm, but Anna was criticized for not immediately producing a child. When she was pregnant with Henry Frederick, IIRC rumors flew that he was not James's but that of Ludovic Stewart, 2nd Duke of Lennox (Esmé Stewart's son, therefore James's second cousin, who was also rumored to be a favorite of James's. Yes. This family is tangled and fucked up.) James was said to be jealous over this -- but was he jealous, or was he sensitive about the renewed rumors that Anna did not conceive by him because he was busy with his male favorites? (In reality, Anna had conceived immediately after their marriage, but then suffered a miscarriage.)
The marital relationship was then absolutely torpedoed by James's insistence on Henry Frederick being fostered at Stirling Castle by the Earl of Mar (the same Earl of Mar with whom he had huge childhood drama). This was traditional for Scottish heirs, and it was also sensible, as James and Anna were put in regular physical danger by rebellious lords, who you must remember repeatedly kidnapped young James and absolutely would pull all sorts of power shenanigans if they could lay hands on the heir. However, Anna was understandably furious and devastated by her separation from Henry. This became a huge battleground of their marriage, and James did not give way until the 1603 accession to the English throne, and it really ruined any affection Anna had for James. After that, Anna was often embroiled in schemes with factions that have grievances with James, like Bothwell and the Ruthvens. When the Ruthvens supposedly tried to assassinate James, Anna accused James of fabricating the whole thing. And as their children (Henry Frederick, Elizabeth, and Charles) grew up, Anna was often subtly working on them and turning them against their father (which wasn't hard because James was an awful, totally uninvolved father).
It is said that Anna once """"accidentally"""" killed one of James's favorite hunting dogs named Jewel.
Despite this, I would say that James always respected Anna… as much as he was capable of respecting any woman. Because James was really a misogynist, even more than the typical man of his time. His thoughts about marriage, and about the respect one should give one's wife, are clearly articulated in Basilokon Doron, and it's not pretty. (Full text is online here) Essentially, he gave Anna what he thought a wife should have from her husband: condescension, indulgence, honor before other ladies, sexual attention and fidelity (men don't count, ofc). James, one must remember, had a strong sense of himself as a divine right king, God's representative on Earth. The position of queen therefore also had an aura of the divine, and deserved respect for that - but not for her personhood, personality, or ideas. This is the man who is wearing a bejeweled "A" on his hat to celebrate his love for his wife at the same time he denies her access to her child and basically opposing her in court schemes.
Treat her as your own flesh, command her as her Lord, cherish her as your helper, rule her as your pupill, and please her in all things reasonable; but teach her not to be curious in things that belong to her not.
Something interesting is that when James learned of Anna's secret conversion to Catholicism, he told her he had no issue with her following her conscience as long as she kept it under wraps for the sake of political stability. For this time that's remarkably tolerant, both of Anna and of Catholicism.
Both Goodman and Weldon (remember them? writing from totally opposite English Civil War factions, one pro-Stuart and one anti-Stuart) described James as "not very uxorious". Maybe because he was too gay to really love his wife; maybe, as Goodman accused, Anna did not give him much cause to love her (can you blame her!?). But certainly there was not the sort of effusive affection for Anne he would show to his male favorites.
Over time the king and queen lived more and more separately. Until a miscarriage in 1606, after which Anna decided she was done with pregnancies, they continued to sleep together, but emotionally their lives were rather divorced. Especially after 1606 but IIRC even before, a separate "king's court" (dominated by James's male favorites) and "queen's court" developed. Real political power was located in the king's court, of course, but Anna used her influence to create a much more culturally sophisticated and artistically influential court. The Jacobean flourishing of the arts is more attributable to Anna's patronage than to James's (he fell asleep during plays and much more enjoyed watching a good debate).
But, I feel that their relationship somewhat recovered with time. In the more peaceful environment of England, they negotiated a sort of understanding, and had a cool but amicable relationship, sometimes working as partners and sometimes at cross purposes.
Anna's attitude to James's favorites seems to have been ambivalent. On the one hand, she was said to have understood "the king could not exist without his favorites" (I tried to find the source for this quote and failed but I'll look again later), and for his part he allowed her some degree of veto over his favorites, if only so that if she complained later, he could tell her "But you recommended him to me!" But it doesn't seem like she was happily indulgent - rather, pragmatic.
Also, as regards the Gowrie Conspiracy, Michael B. Young, author of King James and the History of Homosexuality, relates a conspiracy theory (not Young's own invention) that the Ruthvens might have lured James in not with a pot of gold (what a ridiculous story) but with sex appeal, and that Anna's reaction to the plot subtly accused him of this. And I believe it because I blindly believe everything that Michael B. Young says.
Even though James barely interacted with her by the point of her death in 1619, he was reportedly pretty upset about it, writing her a commemorative poem and going into a depression. You could say that his failure to appear at her funeral (it was Charles who was chief mourner) was evidence of his not caring very much, but some historians, like IIRC Rictor Norton, say that Anna's death actually triggered a minor breakdown for James, who was now facing his own mortality as well, due to his worsening illnesses. James may have also avoided the funeral because he had a longstanding fear of death, disease, and funerals (he also did not attend Henry Frederick's, and likewise that can be read as absence of love, depression, and/or neuroticism.)
IMO, the M&G monologue that I reblogged is not a bad take on the overall tone. I actually don't think James would have been so self-aware or ever considered that God was against any of his ideas, but it captures the ambivalence.
I hope that's a fair picture and of interest, @thelastplantagenet!
if I were to pick my favourite scene from the entire show this takes the crown easily. It is just so James, I have no words to describe it. I was rendered speechless the first time I have heard this monologue. It was also the only time I became emotional, sad even because of this entire show. It made me feel the heartbreak and grief and the inability to process those feelings. The questioning of what love is. the metaphor of love as a tempest that is so apt; it does not only reflect the relationship between Anne and James, the genesis of their first meeting, but also it represents this entire show.
my only real complaint about mary and george is that, like becoming elizabeth, there's too much swearing. i'm not against swearing, but it just comes off as an attempt to be edgy rather than running with what is already perfectly talented and impactful dialogue. if most of the fucks were withheld, then they would have much more effect when they are used; as it is, when i expect the dialogue to end with something urbane or witty, it ends with something fucking urbane or witty. which isn't the worst thing in the world, but it can be a bit jarring.
Do you have any good biography recs on James vi&i?
With an ask like this I feel the pressure… I'm not a historian, not a history major, purely a dude who just really likes James, so I feel nervous about steering you wrong! But…
AFAIK King James by Pauline Croft is still probably "the best one", as in the most thorough, carefully weighed, and even-handed. However, it's more academically than pop oriented, could be more expensive to get, and maybe you don't wanna get that deep into the weeds?
I actually haven't gotten my hands on The Wisest Fool: The Lavish Life of James VI and I by Steven Veerapen yet, but it's from 2023 and it's been praised by people I trust. So even though I haven't read it I think this might be the one to go for.
If you have little time, none money, and your library sucks, I thought this overview on the Tudor Times website was pretty good.
They're not exactly biographies (they focus in on more specific concerns), but I also really liked King James and the History of Homosexuality by Michael B. Young and After Elizabeth by Leanda de Lisle.
stormborns
vaporwave
turnnoffyourmind
s-u-f-j-a-n-s-t-e-v-e-n-s
izzy806
germansingergirl
