Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"On the downside, King James was a raving homosexual. Sir Walter Raleigh joked about it, saying “King Elizabeth” had been succeeded by “Queen James.”
"His favorite lover was the Duke of Buckingham. Anyone who doubts this needs to read “King James and Letters of Homoerotic Desire” by David Bergeron. James’ tomb lies beside that of Buckingham in Westminster Abbey.
"Does the fact that he and Buckingham referred to each other as "husband" and "wife" weigh against this possibility, or was it possible at the time to use these terms to express strictly platonic affection?"
"While most scholars are reluctant to comment on the debate, I would argue with Michael Young that James I did have sexual relationships with men. The idea of homosexuality/bisexuality did not exist in the seventeenth century, so the term does not really fit what he was doing. The sources on this would be:
"Young, King James and the History of Homosexuality, (which just came out with a new edition)
"Bergeron, King James and Letters of Homoerotic Desire (this is more of a literary study and is weaker than Young's, but it has the relevant primary texts as an appendix)
"Akrigg, The Letters of James VI and I (The standard printed edition of James' letters)
"Lockyer, Buckingham: The Life and Political Career of George Villiers is still the standard biography of Buckingham, but does not comment on his sexual relationship with James.
"Overall it's impossible to prove whether James really had sex with Esme Stuart or George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham. However, his relationships with them was close enough to resemble intimate relationships between men and women. The most recent work that covers in depth the relationship between James and Buckingham refers to a "supposed" homosexual relationship (Cogswell & Bellany, Murder of King James I, p. 525)."
The idea of homosexuality/bisexuality did not exist in the seventeenth century, so the term does not really fit what he was doing. The sources on this would be:
0[/url]
---
The idea existed, it just wasn't called homosexuality yet. Homosexuals were generally referenced as "Sodomites."
Do you have some point to make one way or the other? If we suppose James was homosexual, then what?
"On the downside, King James was a raving homosexual. Sir Walter Raleigh joked about it, saying “King Elizabeth” had been succeeded by “Queen James.”
"His favorite lover was the Duke of Buckingham. Anyone who doubts this needs to read “King James and Letters of Homoerotic Desire” by David Bergeron. James’ tomb lies beside that of Buckingham in Westminster Abbey.
"Does the fact that he and Buckingham referred to each other as "husband" and "wife" weigh against this possibility, or was it possible at the time to use these terms to express strictly platonic affection?"
"While most scholars are reluctant to comment on the debate, I would argue with Michael Young that James I did have sexual relationships with men. The idea of homosexuality/bisexuality did not exist in the seventeenth century, so the term does not really fit what he was doing. The sources on this would be:
"Young, King James and the History of Homosexuality, (which just came out with a new edition)
"Bergeron, King James and Letters of Homoerotic Desire (this is more of a literary study and is weaker than Young's, but it has the relevant primary texts as an appendix)
"Akrigg, The Letters of James VI and I (The standard printed edition of James' letters)
"Lockyer, Buckingham: The Life and Political Career of George Villiers is still the standard biography of Buckingham, but does not comment on his sexual relationship with James.
"Overall it's impossible to prove whether James really had sex with Esme Stuart or George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham. However, his relationships with them was close enough to resemble intimate relationships between men and women. The most recent work that covers in depth the relationship between James and Buckingham refers to a "supposed" homosexual relationship (Cogswell & Bellany, Murder of King James I, p. 525)."
Damn man, whats's with all the links? You convinced us after the second link! As Jerry Sienfield woud say "not that there is anything wrong with that...
As he did father several children it might be more accurate to label him, if that's what is being done, as bi-sexual rather than homosexual.
Scores of gay men who were royal or noble married and sired children back then, and quite honestly right up to modern times.
First and foremost marriage then was a matter of family avarice mixed with diplomacy and a dash of merger and acquisition. Brides usually (and hopefully) brought with them money and property. Given monarchs and or noble men were often hard up for cash this was welcomed. If princess or whoever lady in question was an heiress brought with her lands as part of her dowry. This could be an entire country or something less.
Of course the main thing was dynastic; that is the business of getting heirs. Eldest sons of royals and nobles were expected to marry and breed children. In fact given high infant, child and even young adult mortality it was best if all living sons married and had children.
Just as with Henry VIII who only became king because his older brother Arthur died, thrones and estates are more secure with a heir and spare (or two) littered about.
Homosexuality wasn't unknown, it was mentioned in the Bible for goodness sakes. What would have been "odd" is a man refusing to marry a woman and setting up housekeeping with another man.
Phillippe I, Duke of Orleans, brother of King Louis XIV was a raging homosexual. Openly effeminate and the whole nine yards. But yet he married (twice) and begat heirs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip...f_Orl%C3%A9ans
Long story short homosexuality defines a man's primary (on a sliding scale if you will) love and or sexual interest. That he can become aroused enough to complete intercourse with a woman is neither here nor there. Until surrogacy took off and became the accepted norm for gay men to have children of their own, marriage and or at least laying with a female was their only other option.
The idea existed, it just wasn't called homosexuality yet. Homosexuals were generally referenced as "Sodomites."
Do you have some point to make one way or the other? If we suppose James was homosexual, then what?
The point is to discuss the title question of the OP. If you know anything about the subject.
Many, such as some of those who think the KJV Bible is the infallible "Word of God", take offense at KJ being allegedly slandered as being "gay" (or bi, if you prefer). There are many websites that argue he was no such thing, e.g.:
Many, such as some of those who think the KJV Bible is the infallible "Word of God", take offense at KJ being allegedly slandered as being "gay" (or bi, if you prefer). There are many websites that argue he was no such thing, e.g.:
This is what I suspected. As such it really belongs on the religion board. Whether the Bible is invalidated because King James was gay or not, is something for those who believe in the Bible to debate. In my own case, A) I don't care whether James was gay or straight, and B. I'm not religious so I view the Bible as an irrelevancy regardless of the sexual orientation of those who produced it.
And that last is a religious issue, which is why the topic belongs on the religion board rather than here.
Barring some sort of obvious evidence to the affirmative...
"Dear George,
Holiday in Buckingham was a delight. Loved the wine. By the way, I'm gay as a daffodil!
Yours,
Jimmy"
...there's really no way to know. I'll leave the speculation to the biographers who have pored over the primary sources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClementofA
Many, such as some of those who think the KJV Bible is the infallible "Word
of God", take offense at KJ being allegedly slandered as being "gay" (or bi, if you prefer). There are many websites that argue he was no such thing, e.g.:
This is what I suspected. As such it really belongs on the religion board. Whether the Bible is invalidated because King James was gay or not, is something for those who believe in the Bible to debate. In my own case, A) I don't care whether James was gay or straight, and B. I'm not religious so I view the Bible as an irrelevancy regardless of the sexual orientation of those who produced it.
And that last is a religious issue, which is why the topic belongs on the religion board rather than here.
Exactly.
That some possible thing torques a particular category of religious people out of shape is irrelevant. It has no more bearing on history than the inconvenience of carbon-dating for Young Earthers has on the field of chemistry.
This is what I suspected. As such it really belongs on the religion board. Whether the Bible is invalidated because King James was gay or not, is something for those who believe in the Bible to debate. In my own case, A) I don't care whether James was gay or straight, and B. I'm not religious so I view the Bible as an irrelevancy regardless of the sexual orientation of those who produced it.
And that last is a religious issue, which is why the topic belongs on the religion board rather than here.
However, the OP mentions absolutely nothing about religion or the Bible but only muses about the sexual orientation of an English King, which is why it was deleted when it was originally posted on R&S.
If you want to discuss it as a religion-related issue, it has to be presented as a religion-related issue.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
