Talk:James VI and I/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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 have rights to the throne. He became nominally "King of France" on 1603 when he took the throne of England.All Kings of England held this title between Henry VI 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

Excellent. That is what makes Wiki so good. 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)

There is no way in hell to make every article represent a revisionist NPOV of historical issues. That is up to the authors and scholars. We're supposed to report what we read as the custom in the times which things went on. I agree that James was King of Scots first, but it would have been suicidal for the Stuarts to proclaim Edinburgh as the capital and their court. That there have been slim pickings for the Scots, does not downplay the Scottish succession to an English kingdom. IP Address 07:24, 22 April 2006 (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)

You know, the ethnic origins of monarchs is a tough bite to chew. When it comes down to it, the case is a matter of "the network" monarchs stake their interests in. Bloodlines for them are like a marketplace and are based in much more than the average subject's perceptions. IP Address 07:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

Yet, we will have another arguement over the name being James I and VI over James VI and I. Logically, VI is a larger number than I so it should be James VI and I, just as it should be Edward VII and I (of Scotland).

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.

Amazed at Title

Why has this page been titled 'James I of England'? His official title is James VI of Scotland and James I of England', though he is usually referred to as James VI and I. Why is he only referred to using his later English title and why - moreover - was such a glaringly insultingly (read; insulting to the Scottish people) titled page submitted and approved as a featured article candidate? To be honest, I'm somewhat stunned as this isn't the standard I've been used to seeing on Wikipedia. His title is James VI and I and that is what he should be called. Note; NOT James I of England and James VI of England, the Scottish title is always given pre-eminence in recognition that he was first and foremost a Scottish monarch, even if he seemed to forget that when he moved to London. The title as it stands is insulting; please consider changing it - either call him by his proper title, call him simply 'James VI and I of Britain' or somesuch or else call him James VI of Scotland. By no possible stretch of the imagination can calling him 'James I of England' as the page title be taken as anything other than a (admittedly unintentional) swipe at Scotland. -Duncan.

Uh, this seems a bit redundant to me, especially when his full King name is stressed throughout. The page name is for reference only, as user who searches for "James VI of Scotland" would get the disambiguiation page just like a user who searches for "James I of England". Also, it is well noted that the prime aspects of James I's rule revolved around his actions in England, as they were much more controversial than his rule in Scotland, as I'm sure you understand. Either way, it should not be interpreted as an insult to anyone. Schizmatic 19:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The Gay agenda

Anybody know when the homosexuality promoters will stop using famous people as the bedrock of their image, justifying who they think they are? The "homosexual" nature of King James has been done to death! Let's keep things neutral. All this stuff is, just an attempt to make the King James Bible look bad by those who feel victimised by "Bible-thumpers" and the Bible Belt. If only we could go back in time and let you make such fallacious claims to his face. You'd have your arse whooped and head on the block! 68.110.9.62 00:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

You clearly don't read history. And please, for your mental health, don't start. Given your homophobia, it will only depress you fearfully. And whatever you, DON'T read this latest collection of the letters of King James, newly transcribed to remove some earlier omissions by historians.... http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0877456690/ Engleham.

You have been inserting your propagandic POV. 68.110.9.62 03:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh don't blame me. Blame all those horrible misguided historians with their horrible 'gay agenda':

"It seems almost certain that the the adult relationship was physical as well as emotional, though Buckingham himself was actively heterosexual." p98 Croft, "King James"

"Further concerns were expressed over the king's increasingly obvious homosexual tendencies...Although James fondled and kissed his favourites in what was widely regarded as a lecherous manner in public, the court was prepared to believe that his private behavior was somewhat more restrained." p170 McGrath, "In the Beginning : The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture"

See also: Young, "King James and the History of Homosexuality" http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0814796931/

However, as suggested earlier, I'd start your education (or your screaming) with Bergeron: "King James and Letters of Homoerotic Desire" http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0877456690/

Enjoy! Engleham

James' Homosexuality

I'm referring to the link under the 'Notes' section, http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/jamesi.htm .

That link is seriously biased, and as a historian who has studied James, I'll be the first to tell you that, other than needless anti-James propaganda of the time (see Anthony Weldon), there is barely any evidence of James actually participating in homosexual acts. Admittedly, he probably did, but that link is more of a parody on James I's tendancies rather than an actual intellectually informative article.

Schizmatic 19:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If James proscribed anal intercourse so strongly in his book, I guess he did not like to be a bottom. Perhaps he appreciated other sorts of sexplay... However, I wouldn't suggest the article to get a scholarly discourse over whether he liked to suck or to get blowjobs. Waimea 21:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

lol. Interesting thought. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 23:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)}

• Charming... anyway, James' letters from "letters of King James I and then again in IV (G.P.V Akrigg - 1984) - well, allow me to quote - "I leave out of this reckoning your long creeping back and withdrawing yourself from lying in my chamber, notwithstanding my many hundred times earnest soliciting you to the contrary, accounting that but as a point of unkindness." - Here James is begging "hundred"s of times for a bloke (carr) to go back into his Bed ("chamber") so they could continue "lying" together. Unless you are going to perform the Michael Jackson defense, I would say its fairly strong evidence of Homosexuality on James' part. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

More about James' sexuality

Sorry to keep this debate running, but I thought these points were relevant. I think there are two types of heterosexism to be avoided in this article. The first type is that which over-sensationalises James' sexuality, making his sexuality out to be more of a scandal and an issue than it really is. Perhaps also threatening to put too much credance on attempts to discredit the Scottish king. The other type of heterosexism completely glosses over what is a significant point, as if to write LGB sexualities out of history and pretend they are a modern invention. At the moment I feel the article falls into this second form of heterosexism. There is a good chance that James was more than just friends with other men, and I think that this deserves at least some mention in the article.

In response to Emsworth's point "There are respectable encyclopedias, such as the Encyclopedia Britannica, which state quite clearly that the assertion was baseless. (See 3)" I don't think this is really relevent. Britannica may be respectable, but wikipedia is, or should be, a respectable encyclopedia in its own right. It should not just accept the judgements of other encyclopedias. We do not know exactly how neutral the authors of Brtannica are. Perhaps they had a dim view of the theory that James was bisexual because of heterosexist and pro-monarchy sympathies? Unfortunately I cannot read the Britannica article linked to 3 as I am not a subscriber.

Also, can we clarify on the words we use to discuss the issue? "Queen James" is funny, but not really right for a serious encyclopedia. "Homosexual" however, is just as bad. It sounds very clinical, and remeniscant of the times when "homosexuality" was considered a disease. Most within the LGBT community dislike the word. In any case, it seems that James was involved in both heterosexual and same sex relationships. That would make him bisexual. Perhaps refering to him as 'speculated to have had both same-sex and opposite-sex relationships' is the way to go. See Gay#Selecting_the_appropriate_term for some general discussion of the issue.

Finally, I thought I'd point out that there is another reference to James' sexuality in another wikipedia article - Disciple whom Jesus loved:

"Meaning of the phrase (disciple whom Jesus loved)

While many readers of John interpret the phrase disciple whom Jesus loved to mean that he was particularly close to one of his disciples, others find evidence in the phrase of a romantic relationship. For example, King James I of England justified his relationship with the Duke of Buckingham by saying Jesus had his John and I have my George. However, the Greek word for love used in the Gospel is not erotic, and no early Christian commentators made this claim."

If the quote is verifiable, it is certainly very relevant to this article. If not, it should be removed from Disciple whom Jesus loved, or a citation needed tag should be added (I don't actually know how to do that).

Saluton 00:58, 15th April 2006 (UTC)

Just one comment.

It seems that James was involved in both heterosexual and same sex relationships. That would make him bisexual.

That conclusion is not necessarily available. The number of gay men who have married and fathered children and lived ostensibly heterosexual lives is legion. A gay king could not realistically evade his duty to produce an heir. Being capable of becoming sexually aroused enough to have intercourse with a woman and produce offspring does not, in itself, make one a heterosexual. That's what a person does; a person's concept of their own sexuality is much more about internal feeling states. It's safer not to be too categorical about James' sexuality, in my view. JackofOz 01:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not pontificate about homosexuality and related sexual issues on a non-sexual article. Take your fantasies elsewhere; this is proper subject matter! IP Address 05:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Jack, I would doubt that James would have conceived of his own sexuality in such categories as "homosexual," "heterosexual," or "bisexual," because such ideas hadn't been invented in his time. From what I've read, it would seem that James wasn't completely uninterested in women - he got on fine with his wife, and seemed to have no real trouble conceiving numerous children with her, even after he had produced a potential heir - his wife bore 7 children. That said, as far as I know, there isn't much dispute for the idea that James had at least homoerotic attractions to his male favorites. Whether or not they actually engaged in homosexual activity seems to be in dispute. The ODNB article doesn't seem to really make a judgment, but suggests that the issue has been overblown (largely for homophobic reasons), and that, whatever James's sexual proclivities, they did not determine his policy decisions. john k 05:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality, as we now know them, existed before the 19th and 20th centuries. The begetting of children was done through heterosexual arrangements that were in most cases not relationships — those arrangements weren't a produce of romantic love in the way we understand it, as much as dynastic links, whether between royal families or even within local communities among people of certain classes: whether you were the Prince of Wales or the local cobbler, local social norms decided who you could and who you could not marry, with whether you loved, or even liked, that person not mattering. Marriages were a mixture of baby farming and financial deals, involving transfer of technical ownership of a bride from her family to her husband (still reflected today in the marital tradition of the father of the bride "giving away" his daughter at the altar, literally handing her to her new husband indicating to her him "I transfer ownership to you. She is now yours"). As late as the 1970s in many countries women would not get bank loans, open bank accounts or travel without the written permission of their husband.

In James's time, a distinction existed between dynastic marriages, which were there largely to produce heirs to one's dynastic inheritance (a future king, a son to run the farm or the cobbler business, or the forge, etc. Indeed that fact many British and Irish family names indicate that inheritance. The Irish name McEllespie means Mac an t-Easpaig, son of the bishop, for example, while the English name Smith indicates a family link to one of the smiths that existed as jobs, for example, blacksmith!) and the ability to engage in sexual relationships for personal fulfilment and even companionship, which usually took place outside marriage. To ensure the marital inheritance, children of non-marital relationships (which were widespread) were deemed illegitimate and had no rights. Cultural traditions developed to avoid pregnancy — use of herbs that supposedly prevented pregnancy, other herbs to cause natural abortions, use of sheepsgut condoms, etc.) While just occasionally such marriages did produce love, where it happened it usually followed the marriage. It was not the cause of it. It just so happened that, to the shock of all, the two people who had married found that they actually quite liked each other! (All too often they detested each other, a fact reflected in the fact that couples in the higher classes has 'his' and 'hers' suites of rooms, and staffs, with kings going to the queen's bedchamber on a date formalised at court, not because he felt horny!)

Homosexuality was widely accepted in reality (albeit with a public denial of the nature of the sex act, hence laws against sodomy, not homosexuality itself, until the 19th century) as a means of developing romantic attachments that were not fulfilled within the culturally and class-based arranged marriages or required marriages. There is no doubt that then as now there were men who felt no sexual attraction to women, but that it itself is no barrier to having sex. Then as now, to arouse themselves all they had to do when having sex was think of someone they fancies to get an erection, penetrate their wife, ejaculate, and that was it. (One gay friend I know has five children. He jokes that all five children were conceived because during sex he thought of the man he really fancied and wished he was having sex with, Tom Cruise in Top Gun!)

The fact that James I, of Oscar Wilde, or millions of other people had children by wives offers no evidence of their sexual orientation, just their ability to get an erection by some means when having sex with their wives. (Mediaeval herbalists even had their own herbal forms of viagra for "a man who faileth to deliver when atop his wifie" (which was often taken as code for a man who was only attracted to other men. One mediaeval writer in France recommended for such men that they practice with a man and "when thou doest cometh of thy juices, immediately mount that wifie and deposit it thereof".) The evidence does suggest, however, in James's case, romantic attachments and feelings were found with other men rather than, as was the norm by not always the case, with women. The cultural shock in the case of Henry VIII with Anne Boleyn was not that they were a couple, but that Henry actually wanted to have his marriage to Catherine of Aragon annulled and to marry a woman he felt a romantic attachment to. The idea that marriage and a romantic attachment were linked was a mindblowing concept to his contemporaries. But then, all his male heirs by Catherine had died and he thought he could achieve the unusual marital feat of actually marrying someone he loved rather than someone the cultural rules said he could marry. Similarily stories like King Arthur rested on the revolutionary idea that Arthur could marry for love, and that his wife could wish to leave him for someone else. Similarly stories like Robin Hood and Maid Marian rested the fact that both were outlaws and so could do something unheard of in society, choose someone for love, to be their spouse. Indeed many of the mediaeval "romance stories" (whether Diarmuid and Grainne or Robin and Marian, etc) in even suggesting "love", were revolutionary, hence their widespread banning and condemnation by religion.

In conclusion, the definitions we now use 'heterosexual', 'bisexual', 'homosexual' are less than adequate to describe anyone before the mid 19th century, indeed in many cases inadequate to describe anyone before the early to mid 20th century. James I, like most people of all classes, married for dynastic and family succession reasons. Unlike most, but something by no means unheard of, he seems to have chosen to restrict his romantic attachments not to mistresses but to men. If he was alive today, and didn't have dynastic requirements to produce an heir, he may very well fit into the category of "homosexual". Our modern day categorisations of heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual are of little use in categorising anyone before the 19th century, when the idea of marriage as relationship, not an alliance, became fashionable. (BTW the rising number of divorces today is directly a result of that change. Most marriages as late as World War II weren't romantic love affairs in the sense we presume of modern relationships. So one couldn't very well fall out of love with one's husband or wife. And breakups were advisable given that wives were still seen as chattel of their husbands with no independent means of financial support. Today's divorce rate rests significantly on the basis that modern marriage is based on love, love that can decline or die, leading either partner to leave a marriage and seek a new marriage without someone else they love. And one of the cultural phenomena to promote the idea of "romantic love leading to marriage" was Hollywood, both in its story lines and in the lives of its leading actors and actresses, where the idea of marrying the person you love — and if like Clarke Gable, Humphrey Bogart you found you loved someone more than your wife, divorcing her to marry the period you loved, whether Carole Lombard or Lauren Bacall, was a worldwide airing. Many of our grandparents and great-grandparents, who were not in love matches but matches set up for them, were astonished at the very idea.) FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 07:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)}

Like I said; leave it alone. This is not a Freudian article; but a matter of state. IP Address 15:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Complete nonsense. This is a bigraphical article. Biographical issues have to cover the lives of their subjects. That includes their sex lives. If someone had same sex relationships that has to included. If their sexuality was an issue that was commented on at the time, or has been commented on since, that has to be included. James's sexuality was speculated about at the time and written about since, so it is must in the article. If you have an "issue" with that, then don't write and edit biographical articles. Your issues are irrelevent here. James's issues are all that matters.FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 18:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)}

How come most biographical articles don't mention sexuality, unless there is some controversial aspect of the person? Are you an activist in this topic of sex and James, all because of Fundamentalists quoting Leviticus from the KJV and a history of Henry's Buggery Act? I'm hardly projecting my personality into the article, just hoping you can restrict yourself. IP Address 18:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm a professional historian by trade. You obviously aren't. You are just pushing an agenda. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 19:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)}

It is obvious that you are projecting your personality onto the article and onto my person. Please refrain from doing so. I have no need for this crap. IP Address 19:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that the James-related articles are continually vandalised by homosexual attacks in relation to the KJV and Leviticus, in their attempts to ridicule the king who had this Bible published. James is more rarely defaced by some "throwback" extreme Calvinists who also find common cause in hurling potshots at this monarch. It is ironic that mutual enemies (Homosexuals and Evangelicals) should gang up on King James, in order to defame his lasting legacies. Please, leave your problems at home. Do not bring agendas onto the Wikipedia and evangelise the world through this medium, your obvious NPOV failures. I tell you what: Good luck in your campaigns, but do not hide behind the King or this encyclopedia to do it. IP Address 23:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The idea that James might have had homosexual relationships with other men has nothing to do with the homosexual agenda or defaming the KJV (the statement in Leviticus obviously is there in the Hebrew, and has nothing to do with James, in any event). It is based on contemporary evidence, which points fairly strongly to it, even if it isn't conclusive. john k 02:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It is entirely political--the whole Stuart dynasty since Mary, Queen of Scots was plagued with controversial intrigues and contrived scandals; the religious aspect merely a tool of advancement by His Majesty's enemies. IP Address 02:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Citing Sources

The user going by the name 'IP Address' is remarkably more arrogant in his stupidity than most. Horrified by the sentiments expressed by James in his letters he reverts the passage, demanding a primary source. I provide this and cite Bergeron. Clearly he has no idea who this is, and reverts once more, again demanding a primary source!

For the blissfully ignorant: David M. Bergeron's 'King James, The Letters of Homoerotic Desire' is the most accurate transcription of James's letters from the holdings of the British Library, the National Library of Scotland, and the Bodleian. It corrects former mistakes or intentional glosses from previous historians, which is why you'll find its transcriptions consistently cited in recent academic studies.

A side note: I and the others aren't pushing any 'agenda'. Personally I couldn't give a toss if James was a screaming queen or the butchest king that ever held a sword. What's important is the truth. And to deny the reality of James's love for Buckingham, Carr, etc, and their importance in his live and reign, when the primary sources are so explicit, is not merely historical distortion, but uneducated bigotry at its worst. Not everyone can afford a university education, but you might at least flatter us all with some historical reading before you next do some reverting. The edit that really made me laugh out loud was IP Address changing the word 'beauty to 'vigor' in the qualities Buckingham was known for! Fucking hilarious. This is clearly someone with a very nervous grip on their own masculinity.

Engleham

Permit me, oh wise one, to have some ignorance about homosexual affairs. Show us a primary source of James's writings, or leave well enough alone. Yes you do in fact care, because you wish to push the idea that James was a flamer like yourself. Your penchance for propping up your own elitist ego, has not gone unnoticed. This is obviously a personal obsession of yours. Just because authors or scholastics push their own negative agenda which matches yours, doesn't mean that it is factual. I charge that you desire to see James forever in the dirt for the doubtful and contrived hypocrisy per his Basilikon Doron. (RE: Homosexuality_and_Christianity#Early_Modernity) Where is your refutation of that philosophical love, as discussed by others in the aforementioned and above categories on this talk page? You've continued adding this "over-homosexualism" in every article you edit on the Wikipedia. I wonder how that could not be an agenda. You are obsessed with pushing your favoured perceptions, above recent common objections to NPOV violations per Anthony Weldon[4]. It is clear that you want your favoured discolouration of this great monarch to be just another of a long line in your character assassinations. That is all he means to you, hurt by Evangelicals like Fred Phelps quoting the KJVB about your homosexual orientation. That is a very common attitude throughout the gay community, but I have no sympathy in regards to your several revisionisms on this site. IP Address 07:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Some bigots are just stupid and dull. Happily, you're stupid and entertaining. As for your change: "The King invested his time and efforts into Villiers": that's one way of putting it! Thanks for the laughs!!! And linking to Platonic Love in a passage where the king makes explicit they shared a bed is even funnier.

"Show us a primary source of James's writings" you ask. For the second bloody time: Bergeron IS providing the primary source. Here's a direct link for you so you can vomit at the sheer horror of truth: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0877456690/

"I charge that you desire to see James forever in the dirt" Well, if that's what you consider homosexuality is, that's your pathetic hell. The greater mystery is why fundamentalist Scots and fundamentalist Christians feel the need to whitewash -- in every character aspect -- someone who was an extremely weak character and second-rate monarch. It does them no credit, and their energies would be better employed boosting the profile of other historical figures.

Engleham

You are really gunning for a sexual fantasy here, making a slew of self-opinionated assumptions that reflect your own life's choices. Before our present era, male comrades used to asexually share the same bed in many diverse circumstances--but it does not even follow that this "bed" was in a literal/figurative sense. Have you forgotten how philosophical and grandiosely eloquent the King was? His exaggerated sense of self-importance is easy to caricature, which is exactly what you are trying to exploit. Have you read the sessions of Parliament when he would dictate, exactly and how his ministers would follow his orders to the tee? In the case that it may be literal, perhaps another bed was propped up beside the King's, while the size of His Majesty's bed was unspecified in the first place. You don't know that James and George weren't up all night playing cards and debauching servant wenches, getting drunk and discussing life at court. James asserted his divine right to be as arbitrary as he wished, although not contrary to the welfare of his kingdoms. Also, it was not uncommon in said times for siblings of both sexes to sleep in the same bed as well--until puberty anyways. I'm not a fundamentalist and your perception of my stance is entirely confirming my accusations. Your agenda is to use the Wikipedia as a vehicle to fight Christian Fundamentalists, who were/are just as belligerent towards King James in life and death--despite quoting from his version of the Bible specifically (it was the first universally available English translation). My agenda is to keep this article as neutral and least rabble-rousing as possible, because matters of state are supposed to be gentlemanly and composed. Your blatent distaste for James is overblown and misdirected POV, repeated by his other enemies as well--those dissatisfied with the Union of the Crowns and following Parliamentary Union, for instance. James is the object of ridicule and hatred for so many separate reasons, but they have less to do with his person than the circumstances in which his life played a great deal in shaping the world for so many people. This is why I am invested in keeping this article, the least flamebait-ridden as possible. IP Address 08:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW, are you User:CheeseDreams or User:Lir?! IP Address 08:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

"matters of state are supposed to be gentlemanly and composed." You really should do comedy.

"You don't know that James and George weren't up all night playing cards and debauching servant wenches" So inane a statement given the primary sources, I won't even flatter it with a comment.

How fortunate for your deep homophobia you know for a fact "neither man was homosexual". Who next are you turning straight? Edward II? Perhaps I can point you in the direction of the 2nd Duke of Buckingham -- so cruelly written about by his contemporaries as not only a bisexual opportunist, but one with a large bent penis. A mountain of whitewashing for you there! Go to it.

Engleham

I see your favourite article. IP Address 18:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Engleham is the troll. Because trolls are big on citing collections of 17th century letters and quoting them accurately. IP - I think you need to take a deep breath and try to think about what you are saying. Numerous scholars have argued that James's relationships with Carr and Villiers and so forth were, at the very least, homoerotic, and quite possibly (especially with Villiers/Buckingham) involved homosexual activity. Is your claim against this, essentially that nobody in the 17th century was gay? Do you really believe this? Beyond that, this "this is an attack on fundamentalist Christianity" business is completely absurd. This has absolutely nothing to do with fundamentalist Christianity. James didn't even translate the KJV - he just commissioned scholars to do it. Why on earth would James being gay have any effect on the value of the KJV? All it should demonstrate to a Fundamentalist Christian is that James, like many another monarch given a role to play by God, was himself a sinner. One could point to King David, whose sin (adultery) was of approximately the same magnitude and type as James's (except that Fundamentalists tend to get much more upset about homosexuality than they do about adultery...would you be similarly offended by an attempt to demonstrate that James cheated on his wife with other women? If not, how do you justify this?). Engleham, I would dispute your characterization of James as someone who was an extremely weak character and second-rate monarch - I don't think that's fair to the modern view of James, which has tended to reject the old Whig models and find James a much more successful king than he was previously given credit for. His early reign in Scotland made him probably the most successful Scottish monarch, well, ever, in terms of centralizing and modernizing the place. And his reign in England wasn't nearly the disaster that it's often said to be. James was never terribly popular (perhaps inevitable given his status as a foreigner), but he was a shrewd skillful ruler and was fairly successful at managing the various political impulses of the reign, and at achieving his principal goal of keeping England out of continental wars and maintaining his dynasty's hold on the throne. Beyond that, he was also, by all accounts, a very intelligent and learned man who was probably the most intellectual king England ever had (I'm not sure who really competes on that front...Elizabeth wrote some poetry, and Henry VIII got Thomas More to ghost write some shit for him, but James wrote genuine intellectual treatises). Let's not let Whig propaganda forever taint him. (On the other hand, we oughtn't forget Henri IV's "Wisest fool in Christendom" comment). john k 08:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with referencing letters and perceptions people give of them. There are however, many things that don't add up. The whole favourites thing for example, does not mention the King's role in influencing the weddings of the Stuart, Villiers, Gordon and Lennox families--etc. It appears that some are wholly divested in the scandalous approach of rubbish tabloids, than the serious life of Stuart court. The fact is that the most strident and persistent declaration of homosexuality in the King's matters or any other celebrity featured at the Wikipedia, comes from homosexual (& misc) activists whom visit each and every article that they can try and push the scandalous side and contribute little else. See WP:POINT in especial regards to the editing history of User:Engleham. BTW, it was customary for kings to use and abuse women. The difference in the case of James, is that he thought he had divine right to use and abuse men as well. James thought of his subjects as toys to prod and poke, as if his hands were molding his kingdom how God molded the Earth in Genesis. Coming to the point of religion; James's religious enemies were/are the only ones wholeheartedly devoted to the homosexual slant. The KJV is merely an object thrown back and forth in between fundamentalists and evangelicals, who sometimes mutually resort to taking out their bitterness onto the patron of the Bible's publishing. Extreme Presbyterians definitely had some things to say about James; justified or not. It is nevertheless a fact, that GLBTQ extremists have tried to take their plights out on James as well. IP Address 08:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Now I've come to the point of having absolutely no idea what you're talking about. If you can find (recent) scholars who don't think James had homosexual tendencies, you should feel free to cite them. john k 02:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not interested in revisionism. Can you provide pro-Stuart (especially pro-Jacobean) resources which do in fact agree entirely? The lines were drawn so harshly back then. IP Address 04:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not what people believed at the time. It is about what historians say today. Please read WP:NOR. john k 04:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It just so happens that you totally ignored my last treatise on the serious lack of NPOV being promoted here, because it appears that you wish to take a side and even if it is stolidly anti-Stuart Whiggery. Well then, I suppose you are pining to accept only the anti-Stuart perceptions? Why have you not given consideration for innocence, rather than accept POV attacks on the King stand in for impartiality? How come you ignore the errance behind the allegations, especially in regards to Esme Stuart--the King's own cousin? What about the dynastic marriage between Villiers and Stuart of Lennox also, or the bastardy between Villiers of Cleveland and Stuart? There are purely dynastic issues of courtly marriage which have been totally obscured by paper pushing the POV attacks, in regards to families of the King's relatives and favourites. I already did mention at least one objection to the overwhelming anti-Stuart biases[5] Of course, that will be dismissed by the anti-Stuarts still around today--especially Yankee Americans whom glorify their Puritan ancestors. By the way, why would the King compose anti-homosexual writings if he did not intend his words to be obeyed (the dictator that he was)? Should you not pay attention to this objection? It is too bad that the majority of authors on the Stuart era were liberals, whom have embellished the Stuart failure for their own benefit and the Hanoverian Union (RE: Triumphalism). If you think that by relying on merely revisionist perceptions of the past will do this article justice, then you are happy with the NPOV violations just as much as David Irving. Your penchance for leaving the matter to POV-problematic authors and scholars, is no different than letting the "Anybody But Bush" crowd have majority say on the George W. Bush article--or the PLO in regards to the Ariel Sharon article. Tut-tut; I will not be played a fool in this matter. IP Address 05:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems you totally ignored my earlier post, where I gave a defense of James' policies against the standard Whig narrative. What I am basically saying is that your opinion is irrelevant. So is anybody else's opinion. What matters is the opinion of major scholars of James. Let's start citing what they say about James's sexuality, rather than continuing these inane personal attacks. john k 05:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It appears that you still aren't listening, but pressuring for wholehearted acceptance of perceptions written by the King's enemies about his personality (e.g. personal attacks) and further promotion of those memes which continue to defame the Stuart dynasty. It is fully understandable that we should have the article written in such ways as to retransmit what has been said about him, from all parties and not in a way to avoid letting the king's actions and words stand for themselves as the strongest point of the article. However, where are the Tory opinions expressed in the article? Good words on behalf of the king seem so detached, that I thought it appropriate to loosen those animated against his character and/or reign. The essence of this article, says good and bad things about his reign--but only negative things about his character. All it takes is for you to be a little more objective than these liberal polemics--I do not believe it is a personal attack to consider Catholic apathy on your part. IP Address 09:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Financial Confusion?

This bit needs tidying up, as it's a bit contradictory: "the refusal on the part of the House of Commons to impose sufficiently high taxes crippled the royal finances. ... his mismanagement of the kingdom's funds ..." Is it accepted by economic historians that the taxes raised were insufficient for the needs of government? Or was it that James' personal expenditure was too high - did Parliament give him more than Elizabeth, and if so how much more? Sasha 22:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

James and the Cape

Does anyone know anything about English interest in the Cape of Good Hope prior to the Dutch landing there in 1652? Gregorydavid 15:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Robert Carr-a 'peasant' Scotsman?

I'm totally baffled by the description of Robert Carr as 'a peasant Scotsman'. He was the son of Sir Thomas Kerr by his second wife, Janet, the sister of Sir Walter Scott of Buccleuch, a very elevated class of 'peasantry'. I've made the necessary changes. Rcpaterson 01:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

bias?

This is far too negative! James spoke of absolutism but didn't actually rule in a tyrannical style as his son did. I think he is a little misrepresented, I'm not really an expert (my dissertation was on the English Civil War so I know a little but not much) but this article strikes me as very unfair, I'd like to see it made a little more positive ;)

This is the most attacked UK royal article on Wikipedia. No matter what efforts are made at bringing it to normality, some kooks like to screw it up again and again. I have given up on it. IP Address 13:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I am so sorry to hear this, but I can understand how frustrating it must be to have your work tampered with by a shower of puerile half-wits and silly crackpots. Do you have any idea why James VI and I, of all people, should attract this kind of attention, which, I would imagine, normally gravitates towards the usual suspects like Hitler and Mussolini? Rcpaterson 07:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The Union of the Crowns and all national politics since then, must be the ultimate source of contention which plagues James in death. I futhermore believe that these attacks come from English and English-American folks, except for a few Scottish and Scottish-American Presbyterians. Another source comes from homosexual-affiliates and those opposed to homosexuality-affiliated things. I hardly think that those of other persuasions waste their time. IP Address 14:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the above information. I am relatively new to this whole project but I have now observed elsewhere that articles subject to malicious attention can be protected. Would this not solve your problem? I can not imagine an encyclopedia that does not have a decent and reliable account of one of the pivotal reigns in British history. Rcpaterson 16:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

There should be better safeguards, which all tie back to elementary education. Unfortunately, a free encyclopedia encourages scandalous badgerings. There are several contentious issues that come up often, the most notable being that John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. As far as I am concerned, the tone of this article is highly inappropriate and only pleases the late Majesty's enemies. I myself think that Wikipedia's King Jimmy article sould not be included here: Wikipedia:Featured articles. IP Address 22:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this article is very biased although I tried to remove some of it. Adolf Hitler doesn't get half the bad remarks as King James I in comparison. Facto 03:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:James I (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)