to your knowledge, did King James ever abuse George in some way? I’ve seen people throw that word around
tw abuse, child abuse, coercion, violence against animals and stuff
It depends on what you mean by abuse. If you consider a severely power-differentiated relationship abuse, then the whole thing is abusive, but also every interpersonal relationship in the 17th century is abusive.
I don’t know of any reported instance of James hitting George, nor of overt sexual coercion (though we know very little about their bedroom life, such as it is possible for historians to argue that they never had sex, although this is a minority view now). James was VERY into marrying off his courtiers, including his favorites, and when George married Katherine, while James still expected George to be constantly at his side, he encouraged them to go at it and make babies. Most of James’s favorites seem to have transitioned out of sleeping with him, and he remained very affectionate with them. Also, remember how James called Carr not wanting to sleep with him “a mere unkindness”? He was hurt, and I read those words as being whiny and guilt trip-y, but it’s not like he was demanding constant service. (Also, many historians think George was probably not having sex with James towards the end of James’s reign simply because James was very sick. Yet this is the period of James’s most intensely romantic letters.)
James, we should remember, hated violence (at least between humans) and had trauma over being shouted at. This doesn’t mean he would never perpetuate it. He did have a temper (nothing like Henry VIII levels though). He led armies, personally oversaw torture, sentenced people to brutal death, etc. — although in this period these would be seen as just actions that a moral king should do, protecting his people against criminals and outlaws. James was popularly criticized for being too soft.
There is an oft-repeated story about him trying to strike a teenage Henry Frederick with his cane during a hunt. This would have been considered acceptable discipline for a father to mete on his son, if “justified” by bad behavior. However, Henry Frederick simply rode off and most of the hunting party went with him, signaling that the prince was more popular than the king and James was not considered justified in this case. (Though, I heard this story told once where HENRY FREDERICK is the one who tried to hit JAMES.)
James and George did argue with raised voices, James publically snubbed George during problem periods of their relationship, but I don’t know that these would really be “abuse” rather than conflict. There is the aspect of the power differential, where George has to grovel and apologize to get James to forgive him, because James was the king. However, James very readily gave his forgiveness (and not just to George, he was generally very eager to forgive any of his friends or favorites for anything if they promised him their love).
Robert Carr DID yell at James, and the main thrust of James’s extremely long feelingsdump letter to him was that he felt hurt and betrayed that Carr wanted to “hold him by awe” (fear) “rather than by love”. So James felt Carr was controlling him by threats and angry outbursts, which James resented, saying that he would do anything for Carr for love, but if he felt he was being taken for granted and Carr was bullying him, that that love would swiftly turn to hate.
(Of course, we must remember that James was a divine right king, so we should be suspicious of his characterization of Carr’s behavior. When James is this massively entitled, such that he genuinely thinks it is a religious sin to resist his will, is he correctly perceiving this situation? Is he overreacting to a relatively modest drawing of boundaries by Carr? I’m inclined to think James genuinely felt betrayed and Carr really was yelling at him and scaring him, but we can’t fully trust James’s perspective.)
So, the short answer is, I don’t know of any instance between James and George that is unambiguously abuse, although of course their whole relationship is colored by power and manipulation. But I’m not a historian or biographer or anything. I’m just a James enjoyer, constantly learning new things, so there could have been an instance somewhere, I simply haven’t learned of it yet.
In the Mary & George trailer, there’s an instance of James wiping George’s face with blood, but this is not from violence against humans; this is a ritual of the deer hunt, where the leader of the hunt (James) marks his companions with the fresh blood of the kill. So this is an act of favor and weird homoerotic intimacy rather than violence towards George.
1. As of Thursday, I will consider anything aired in 3.01-3.04 to be fair game, but will use “Bridgerton spoilers” for everything I post/reblog.
2. I will probably queue some stuff but there is just gonna be a lot of Bridgerton for the next several weeks, so if you’re inclined to blacklist that, now may be a good time.
3. I’m going to reblog this daily through Thursday, so if you’re seeing this after Monday and feel like you’re having deja vu, that’s because I’ve reblogged :)
Also, as a more general note, especially for those of you who’ve followed or interacted with me for a while,
Please don’t feel like you have to read absolutely everything I write. Especially since I’ve been doing some more adult/higher rated things lately. Like, it’s perfectly okay if you only like some of my writing, but decide you don’t want to interact with others because they’re darker (or whatever else reason may be).
I try to give you guys enough information ahead of time if I think something needs to be warned for so you can decide for yourself if it’s something you want to/are comfortable with/are going to enjoy reading. I literally won’t mind if you don’t want to read something I’ve written.
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!
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!
This is how Sky tv describes James and George‘s characters:
George:
George begins the series as a naïve romantic, largely protected from the true horrors of the world by his formidable mother. Mary holds a tense but uneasy hold over George as she masterminds his pursuit of the King. But as George grows in power, his relationship with Mary will be pushed to the very limits. George must prove to himself that he can be defined by more than just his beauty. He must make his mark on history, no matter the consequences.
James:
Capricious and unpredictable, James is never happier than when he's either drinking, hunting, feasting, or fucking. Being King is a burden for James. Though, when he cares to show it, he can be a shrewd political operator. But James’ desire to be loved makes him happy to put himself in the power of ambitious and beautiful young men, where he risks the danger of being exploited by tyrannical lovers.
———
So here’s my take on this. From what I gather from these vague descriptions is that George is more the victim of his mother than anyone else’s. He‘s described to be this naive romantic boy in the beginning who does basically everything his mother tells him to do. I think it’s going to be very interesting to see his reaction when his mother tells him of her plans to make him seduce the king. Will he agree to the plan immediately? Will he have doubts and concerns? I think that’s where we determine how much of a victim he really is.
As for James it seems like they’re going for the wanting to be loved scenario instead of just having uncontrollable lust, which I‘m really happy about. This explains why he let his favorites and especially George get away with so much. It also humanises his character and makes him much more sympathetic knowing his hard childhood. I hope we get a scene of him telling George about his past. But yeah I have a hard time believing he‘ll be abusive towards George. At least not physically.
I‘m sorry this turned out to be so long, but I love discussing these people so much.
———
This is Mary Villier‘s character description if you’re interested:
Julianne will be stepping into the shoes of the ambitious Mary Villers, Countess of Buckingham - the woman who would rise to great prominence through her son’s relationship with King James I. Having spent years of her life shackled to her cruel and abusive husband, Mary sees her long-awaited opportunity by pinning the family’s hopes on her second son, George, as she begins to mastermind their ascendency to becoming the most powerful family in England.
Always the smartest person in the room, Mary has never been able to realise her full potential. She is prepared to crush all opposition. She is not easily frightened or threatened by the English establishment who think they can get the better of her.
Thank you for this! (but also wow, so many questions and concerns I had could be addressed by just getting off my ass and readin' the darned website😂)
I think these depictions all sound reasonable. I think starting George as naive works for the story (I wouldn't necessarily assume he was, after finishing in France, but his engagement to Ann Aston could be read that way). It will be entertaining to watch "wide-eyed innocent corrupted by the decadent court" in a reverse of the typical gender assignments. However, I would find it more interesting if George's own ambitions come into play early, and he has more autonomy than simply being his mother's pawn. He is, after all, a man!
Also George "wanting to leave his mark on history" -- pre-emptive oof because when he was tested, he was proven horribly incompetent. (Some failures were not his fault, and he did have some successes. However, I would hate for the show to try to shift fault off George entirely. He was wildly arrogant, a megalomanical fool, and that doesn't need sugarcoating.)
Love-driven James is IMO more historically correct and more entertaining, more potential for tragedy and also showing the genius of George's approach to him. So I'm glad they'll go with that.
overly cautious tw for age difference/csa, etc.
One can guess from this text that Robert Carr is gonna get painted as a "tyrannical lover", which is certainly what James felt him to be at the end. But, I hope that Robert doesn't get too harsh a villain treatment in order to make George more sympathetic. Robert was somewhere 17-21 when he first gained James's attention, younger than George. He also was not nobly born (though he came from more influence than George). It is likely Robert and his friend Thomas Overbury had been trying to rise in position and favor when Robert had his lucky break (ha) in 1607, but still, this is another young man pushed and pulled by factional currents. Robert's downfall is partially his own fault (my impression of him is, uh, that he was not very bright) but also due to the manipulation of the Howard family.
So I mean, who's the victim, who's the abuser? It's all fucked up! There are degrees of gray, and some people are less awful than others. Like, Katherine, George's wife, is believed largely innocent of the scheming of Mary, etc. But anyone who held and exerted power in this period used it to push down and exploit others to get what they wanted. That's how these people got the significance that put them in the history books.
And Mary is doing all this shameless backdoor scheming because... she's a woman! She can't get a job! She can't hold a political position in her own right! What she has at her disposal is a handsome and charming son, and she uses that to benefit not just herself, but her other sons (who were terrible) and her daughter (reasonably not-terrible). She's doing fucked-up stuff, but that stuff is produced by the conditions of patriarchy and social stratification in the period.
Grading each individual character's victimness versus abuserness is just not that interesting to me, compared to exploring how their circumstances affect their psychology, their desires and suffering, and how they try to cope. As well as exploring our real-life queer history which, like all our history, is ugly and soaked in blood, and yet also is the story of real people trying to find fulfillment given their circumstances.
So in The Murder of King James, Bellamy/Cogwell write:
But while the distemper [that eventually killed James] did not seem dangerous, from the start the doctors were confronted with a different problem: their old and sickly patient refused to follow instructions.
This came as no surprise: his doctors were well aware of James's attitude towards them and their "art". He had always been an exceptionally difficult patient. "He laughs at medicine", Mayerne had noted in 1623, and "regards physicians as not only unnecessary but positively useless. He says that their art rests on mere conjectures, which are uncertain and therefore invalid." … The king would never follow the regimen necessary for good health … James particularly disliked the physicians' standard therapeutic repertoire. Powerful purgatives, he believed, "destroyed nature", and he would only tolerate milder forms of the drugs. James disliked medicine that caused excessive stomach cramps, and until 1613 he refused any time of "clyster" (enema), the standard purgative treatment for evacuating noxious humours from the bowels. He was equally opposed to phlebotomy (therapeutic bleeding) and was not bled medicinally until his dangerous health crisis in 1619. Even then, physicians used leeches (applied to the haemorrhoids) and blistering cups, rather than the knife." (37-38)
And this attitude towards the medicine of his time is continuously cited as an example of James's unreasonableness and his contribution to his own demise, however
