I seen you were answering to the other anon so I just wanted to ask some questions:) did King James knew about Mary having George to seduce him?
I’ve seen someone say they’ve explained to people that George was a victim of James. And they’ve also said James had power over him ( taking advantage of his financial situation) and to make George “essentially one of his pets and become extremely obsessive over him” and I’m wondering how? From what I’ve read it never came across like that or I never understood it as that
-☁️
I don't know enough about the details of the Villiers' rise to know exactly, but I think that everyone involved always knew that everyone was associated with some faction or another, and that every handsome young courtier who appeared on the scene as a potential favorite was being backed by someone.
James was king from the age of 15 months. When he came to the English throne at the age of 36, he was an extremely savvy veteran of the intense infighting and backstabbing of the Scottish court. Besides Lennox, he had already had intense relationships with men like Huntly and Bothwell which were steeped in factional drama. In his later years James was savvy to attempts to throw pretty boys in front of him in an attempt to distract him from George and sharply reprimanded the promoters of William Monson, etc.
But at the same time that James was extremely aware of the political maneuverings going on, I think he had a bit of a naive belief in the power of love. In Scotland, he aggressively countered clan blood feuds by marrying nobles to each other, and he constantly forgave Huntly and Bothwell when they professed friendship and love for him -- astonished onlookers watching as he'd embrace and kiss Huntly and go to bed with him right after threatening to raise an army against him. It seemed like he really believed true love could overcome all.
These two contradictory orientations seem to exist within James at the same time.
When George Villiers was rising, Robert Carr, the current favorite and the first since Esmé Stewart to achieve massive political power, was in trouble, gradually withdrawing intimacy from James (maybe because of his marriage to Frances Howard). At this time, James was still trying to repair the relationship with Carr, and did not immediately promote Villiers to the bedchamber, instead doing a favor to Carr and promoting one of Carr's nephews instead. However, Carr failed to regain the king's affections and was disgraced by the Overbury scandal, and Villiers was strongly pushed forward by a large anti-Carr faction including former favorites William and Philip Herbert (the latter of which is "Sir Philip" from Gunpowder 2017), the Archbishop of Canterbury, and also James's wife Queen Anna herself.
Almost all of these people regretted promoting George when George became 10x the grasping politician and megalomaniac that Robert was, lol.
So like, again... if the question here is "Was this an unproblematic relationship? Was James the bad guy? Did George freely choose to enter this relationship? Who used whom?" ... I feel like these are extremely strange attitudes to take about the 17th century.
All relationships were problematic. (I mean, please think for a second about the state of heterosexual marriage at this time.) Everyone was horrible. Nobody was ever able to freely choose anything. Everyone's every action was part of an intricate web of power, politics, desire, manipulation, greed... Sometimes people might try to act unselfishly, or think that they're justified, but there simply is no way for a clean, consensual, egalitarian relationship to exist in this environment. Human rights, such as we recognize them, do not exist. This is 70+ years before John Locke's "life, liberty, and pursuit of property".
This was just what love and politics was like for people in this world. I mean, also consider what kind of life James lived as a cradle king. Every second of every day he was waited on by a huge retinue, every move scrutinized. People could not even enter his presence and converse with him unless they were backed by a political faction and provided with the resources, political connections, rank to enter the very most elite sphere of society. James wasn't just down at the grocery store casually meeting guys, going on cafe dates. (He would never, anyway, because he was terrified of assassination. As you would be when like half of your family was assassinated and there were constant actual attempts at assassinating YOU.)
In this environment, uncoerced, fair love as we see it today cannot exist.
And further, I really don't think that characterizing George as a helpless victim in this situation make sense. As a 21-year-old man, he had the age of majority; he had vastly more freedom to make his own way in life than, say, a daughter would. We cannot know how he felt, so fiction will be an interesting opportunity to explore what he might have subjectively felt like at this time. But we can see from behavior just how skillfully and determinedly he played the game. (I mean, check out this analysis of his finances in 1624.)
Was it demeaning, disgusting, hurtful? Was it glorious, his opportunity to shine, to make himself the most powerful man in England by sheer charm alone? We just can't know, but we can wonder.
