#james's weird stan rambles again

[james-vi-stan-blog]

Hi I was wondering if you could share what you and historians make of Anne’s take on James’ homosexuality and his relationship (romantic, platonic or otherwise) with his queen, at the start of their marriage (i.e the sailing to Denmark and obsession etc) and the end (i.e letting her corpse rot) Thank you!! - thelastplantagenet 💚

Please excuse incoherent and loopiness I'm so sleepy while writing this alkdgf;ldgdk

The impression that I get of James is that he was very proud of his self-image as "a good king", "a good Christian", and "a good husband", based on his ever-so-clever reading of Scripture and philosophy. Picture the most horrible Arrogant Smart Kid Syndrome, formed by being the smartest person in the (very small) room for many years, which was never properly challenged by reality, because he's the king. The True Law of Free Monarchies and Basilokon Doron just drip with this attitude. Therefore, his self-image as magnanimous, benevolent, and faithful to his queen was important to him, even if in reality he was not these things.

cn for miscarriages, cruelty to pets, creepy kinda incestuous vibes, child marriage, etc.

There are two rather different images of the courtship of James and Anna (who was very young, just 14-15 to James's 22-23). On the one hand, James is said to have instantly fallen in love with her portrait almost as soon as marriage negotiations opened, to have written to her ardently, written poetry for her, and then of course have boldly sailed to "rescue" her in 1589. There is a story that when they first met in the flesh, James rushed over and kissed her "in the Scottish style", which repelled her (she thought it was very forward), but they later came to an understanding about this when the cultural difference was explained.

Yet also, James himself wrote of his reasons for sailing to his bride in October 1589:

As to the causes, I doubt not it is manifestly known to all how far I was generally found fault with by all men for the delaying so long of my marriage. The reasons were that I was alone, without father or mother, brother or sister, king of [Scotland] and heir apparent of England. This my nakedness made me to be weak and my enemies stark. One man was as no man, and the want of hope of succession bred disdain. Yea, my long delay bred in the breasts of many a great [suspicion] of my inability, as if I were a barren stock. These reasons and innumerable others, hourly objected, moved me to hasten the treaty of my marriage; for, as to my own nature, God is my witness I could have abstained longer nor the weal of my patrie could have permitted.

Basically, "I could have remained unmarried forever, but I have to get heirs for political stability". He was also noted for being coldly hard-assed in the dowry negotations.

Apparently their very early marriage was warm, but Anna was criticized for not immediately producing a child. When she was pregnant with Henry Frederick, IIRC rumors flew that he was not James's but that of Ludovic Stewart, 2nd Duke of Lennox (Esmé Stewart's son, therefore James's second cousin, who was also rumored to be a favorite of James's. Yes. This family is tangled and fucked up.) James was said to be jealous over this -- but was he jealous, or was he sensitive about the renewed rumors that Anna did not conceive by him because he was busy with his male favorites? (In reality, Anna had conceived immediately after their marriage, but then suffered a miscarriage.)

The marital relationship was then absolutely torpedoed by James's insistence on Henry Frederick being fostered at Stirling Castle by the Earl of Mar (the same Earl of Mar with whom he had huge childhood drama). This was traditional for Scottish heirs, and it was also sensible, as James and Anna were put in regular physical danger by rebellious lords, who you must remember repeatedly kidnapped young James and absolutely would pull all sorts of power shenanigans if they could lay hands on the heir. However, Anna was understandably furious and devastated by her separation from Henry. This became a huge battleground of their marriage, and James did not give way until the 1603 accession to the English throne, and it really ruined any affection Anna had for James. After that, Anna was often embroiled in schemes with factions that have grievances with James, like Bothwell and the Ruthvens. When the Ruthvens supposedly tried to assassinate James, Anna accused James of fabricating the whole thing. And as their children (Henry Frederick, Elizabeth, and Charles) grew up, Anna was often subtly working on them and turning them against their father (which wasn't hard because James was an awful, totally uninvolved father).

It is said that Anna once """"accidentally"""" killed one of James's favorite hunting dogs named Jewel.

Despite this, I would say that James always respected Anna… as much as he was capable of respecting any woman. Because James was really a misogynist, even more than the typical man of his time. His thoughts about marriage, and about the respect one should give one's wife, are clearly articulated in Basilokon Doron, and it's not pretty. (Full text is online here) Essentially, he gave Anna what he thought a wife should have from her husband: condescension, indulgence, honor before other ladies, sexual attention and fidelity (men don't count, ofc). James, one must remember, had a strong sense of himself as a divine right king, God's representative on Earth. The position of queen therefore also had an aura of the divine, and deserved respect for that - but not for her personhood, personality, or ideas. This is the man who is wearing a bejeweled "A" on his hat to celebrate his love for his wife at the same time he denies her access to her child and basically opposing her in court schemes.

Treat her as your own flesh, command her as her Lord, cherish her as your helper, rule her as your pupill, and please her in all things reasonable; but teach her not to be curious in things that belong to her not.

Something interesting is that when James learned of Anna's secret conversion to Catholicism, he told her he had no issue with her following her conscience as long as she kept it under wraps for the sake of political stability. For this time that's remarkably tolerant, both of Anna and of Catholicism.

Both Goodman and Weldon (remember them? writing from totally opposite English Civil War factions, one pro-Stuart and one anti-Stuart) described James as "not very uxorious". Maybe because he was too gay to really love his wife; maybe, as Goodman accused, Anna did not give him much cause to love her (can you blame her!?). But certainly there was not the sort of effusive affection for Anne he would show to his male favorites.

Over time the king and queen lived more and more separately. Until a miscarriage in 1606, after which Anna decided she was done with pregnancies, they continued to sleep together, but emotionally their lives were rather divorced. Especially after 1606 but IIRC even before, a separate "king's court" (dominated by James's male favorites) and "queen's court" developed. Real political power was located in the king's court, of course, but Anna used her influence to create a much more culturally sophisticated and artistically influential court. The Jacobean flourishing of the arts is more attributable to Anna's patronage than to James's (he fell asleep during plays and much more enjoyed watching a good debate).

But, I feel that their relationship somewhat recovered with time. In the more peaceful environment of England, they negotiated a sort of understanding, and had a cool but amicable relationship, sometimes working as partners and sometimes at cross purposes.

Anna's attitude to James's favorites seems to have been ambivalent. On the one hand, she was said to have understood "the king could not exist without his favorites" (I tried to find the source for this quote and failed but I'll look again later), and for his part he allowed her some degree of veto over his favorites, if only so that if she complained later, he could tell her "But you recommended him to me!" But it doesn't seem like she was happily indulgent - rather, pragmatic.

Also, as regards the Gowrie Conspiracy, Michael B. Young, author of King James and the History of Homosexuality, relates a conspiracy theory (not Young's own invention) that the Ruthvens might have lured James in not with a pot of gold (what a ridiculous story) but with sex appeal, and that Anna's reaction to the plot subtly accused him of this. And I believe it because I blindly believe everything that Michael B. Young says.

Even though James barely interacted with her by the point of her death in 1619, he was reportedly pretty upset about it, writing her a commemorative poem and going into a depression. You could say that his failure to appear at her funeral (it was Charles who was chief mourner) was evidence of his not caring very much, but some historians, like IIRC Rictor Norton, say that Anna's death actually triggered a minor breakdown for James, who was now facing his own mortality as well, due to his worsening illnesses. James may have also avoided the funeral because he had a longstanding fear of death, disease, and funerals (he also did not attend Henry Frederick's, and likewise that can be read as absence of love, depression, and/or neuroticism.)

IMO, the M&G monologue that I reblogged is not a bad take on the overall tone. I actually don't think James would have been so self-aware or ever considered that God was against any of his ideas, but it captures the ambivalence.

I hope that's a fair picture and of interest, @thelastplantagenet!

[toph3r-marshmell00w]

‼️ READ BEFORE FOLLOWING ‼️

Hewo!! ☆

I'm topher! I also go by toph, tophie or marshmellow :33 I'm a British, scemo, furry artist! Also a self proclaimed, nerd and geek! I will post my art, reblog, moodboards, random opinions, maybe even use this blog as a little journal! Another thing, I am the biggest tophfucius shipper, I will defend them with my life 🙏

My pronouns are he/thon/they/ze/xe + any neos ^^ do NOT use she/her or it/it's on me. It makes me incredibly uncomfortable.

I am genderfluid + xenos! I am pansexual as well as aegosexual!! :3 I am ambiamorous ^w^

I am in many fandoms, for example we haveeee my fav rn, clone high!! Then we have others like fbacc, fnaf, yfm, eddsworld, sandersides, furry, vocaloid, total drama(minor), MLP, South Park, SML, Invader Zim, FRED figglehorn, welcome home(minor), super Mario, smiling friends, hunter x hunter, rick and Morty(minor), tally hall, horrible histories, football (+ 442oons, I'm also a Bayern Munich supporter!!:33), and probably more I can't remember!! XD But I'll mostly be posting about clone high!! ^^

If you'd like to play games with me, I'm up 4 it but i don't play roblox (srry roblox players) , I used to but I'm more interested in minecraft ^w^ I play both java and bedrock! :DD

My music taste mostly consists of scene music of course as well as emo! Sometimes I like to listen to hyperpop, rock, metal, fangame/fandom music, music boxes(mostly the fnaf music boxes), game soundtrack, vocaloid, music from the old internet and sometimes weird al!! :DD I also have a soft spot for shakira (aka my wife/hj <33)

WHOOP WHOOP!! I'm also a juggalo! :33 my fav song from ICP is confederate flag! ^_^

I have quite a few favorite youtubers! These include, FRED (ofc) , memeulous, Danny Gonzalez, drew gooden, Kurtis Conner, tomska, markiplier, jacksepticeye, saberspark, Flamingo, one topic, TUV, messyourself, imallexx, willNE, James marriott and MUCH more!

I am very very VERY interested in history, I love it so much! Everything from the stone age to the 2010s! I love it!! I do hours of research, make powerpoints, factfiles, read about it etc!

I am also quite interested in things like world cups (precisely the 2014 world Cup), Maned wolves and lop bunnies, graphic novels and space! I love doing research about them and picking up random facts + key info about them! If anyone would like to hear me ramble about em please dm I AM BEGGINGGGG <33 I'll also listen to you ramble aswell :33

In total, I have 6 collections: badges/pins, posters, plushies, figures, stickers and cans! ^^

Other random stuffffzz!!

I'm a multi shipper and I ship like anything except proships :3 Though for clone high, I don't really like joanabe, Joanfk, candidworth, jfgogh (I don't get this ship I'm sorry) and harrucius (I mean it's cute but it's just not 4 me ^_^) My fav ships are tophfucius, tophabe(pls don't bully me 😭), joanrriet, Vanceaser, jfabe, butlertron x scudworth (I dunno the ship name 😔), kahlopatra, tommatt, paultryck, poly Martians, scutters (Scott malkinson x butters, one of my fav rarepairs <33), tophdi, jfucius, harold x leshawna, harold x Ezekiel, Ezekiel x Justin, Noah x Cody and like so much more ships that I can't even remember TwT

I'm a copinglink! My copinglinks are topher bus(CH), benatar (YFM) and tom(EW)!! Copinglinks are a coping mechanism to deal with stress, trauma, or other issues by identifying as someone / something knowingly, willingly, and actively! :3

Kinlist!! :

Top kins: Topher bus, Gandhi(CLONEHIGH!!) , pip pirrup, benatar, puff puff, tom (EW), Confucius(CLONEHIGH!!), pinkie pie and Heidi Turner!!

kins: Matt, Rainbow Dash, Twilight, axel chains, joan of arc(CLONE HIGH SEASON 1), van Gogh(CLONEHIGH!!), JFK(again CLONE HIGH!!), stan marsh, Cody and harold(TD) and Kyle(fbacc)!!

Forgot to mention but Im a shifter :3 (current DR is clone high :D)

OHHH ANDDDDD my birthday is 27th Feb! ^^ so erm that's cool :DD

Here's some of my art!

BOUNDARIES AND DNI LIST‼️

DNI LIST!

・basic DNI criteria (homophobes, transphobes racists, ped0s etc)

・PROSHIPPERS AND COMSHIPPERS.

・People who ship irl people.. That's just weird.

・people who bully/send death threats over ships..

・Anti-xenogenders.

・n@z1s

・ableists

・People I know irl.

・AI artists

・anti-furrys

BOUNDARIES!

・ Idm how old you are, you can interact but if you are above the age of 21 please don't dm me or become close. I have bad experience with people 20+ but idm if they interact or reblog or whatever just as long as they don't try to get close.

・I AM A MINOR‼️ please be aware of that when talking to me.

・If you need someone to talk to/vent to I'm here! ^^ but please ask before venting. Also remember that I am not a therapist and I won't be able to respond to all your vents. Another thing, don't just use me to vent. I'm not your own personal therapist that will help you with your problems :/ if venting is all you want to do with me then you are blocked.

・ do NOT use fem terms on me. Only masc or gender neutral :3

・I have a fear of ladybugs/ladybirds. Please do not bring them up or send photos of them or anything like that, it makes me incredibly uncomfortable, unsafe, anxious and very scared.

・As an artist, I do not like people reposting my art on other apps. I don't care if credit is given i am still incredibly uncomfortable. If you'd like to use my art for a profile picture or anything as such (like that'll ever happen) please ask :)

・DO NOT STEAL OR TRACE MY ART.

Thank you so much 4 reading!! I hope i can make some friends or mutuals! :DD

I hope everyone has a wonderful day/night!! Remember to stay hydrated and take care of yourself <33 love y'all!!/p :33

[smthabsolutelyunhinged]

~ INTRODUCTION ~

HI MY LOVES, IM EMI <3

she/her. pansexual. cisfem. 18. pisces sun. cancer moon. white. american. INFP. 4w5. hufflepuff. marauders stan. james potter + remus lupin + pandora rosier kinnie. aspiring writer/author. artist. bookworm. music lover. halloween enthusiast. broadway lover. massive fan of anything whimsy/gothic/romantic/etc. at some point i might link my spotify/pintrest, but idk yet.

IMPORTANT INFO UNDER THE CUT <3

*I CANNOT DONATE TO ANYONE. i will reblog if people ask, BUT if i reblog donation requests and it ends up being a scam i will delete the posts. (and if anyone has proof anything is a scam please let me know and i'll take the posts down)*

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

please do ~ dm me (please i’ll literally marry you idc, also talk to me i’m cool), asks, anonymous asks, reblog (obviously), comment, like, send me random thoughts/ideas/headcanons/music recs, interact with me in any way that isn’t like hateful/gross/weird (i’ll cry. dont do it. i’ll cry and it’ll be your fault.) {flirting is allowed tho - i’ll flirt back and then marry you, again idc‼️} also moots and anons are allowed (please do) to come up with other nicknames/use petnames/etc {i like them, i’m a chronically depressed, anxious, words of affirmation girlie with family issues, and i like the validation :)}.

please don’t ~ be weird, hateful, creepy, or gross in any way because i will block you immediately, (and release my scary, aggressive, friend *cough cough ace cough cough* on you, and they will bite you (not in a hot and sexy way either)).

<3 shows ~

interview with the vampire. the vampire diaries. criminal minds. one tree hill. the originals. outer banks. the 100. twin peaks. gilmore girls. supernatural. heartstopper. boy meets world. downton abbey. chesapeake shores. daisy jones and the six.

<3 movies ~

pretty woman. mystic pizza. twister (1996). little women (1994/2019). hocus pocus. princess and the frog. the harry potter movies. the hunger games. divergent. twilight. coraline. the nightmare before christmas. notting hill. two weeks notice. a cinderella story (2001). the princess diaries. scream (the og trilogy). st elmos fire. the dark knight. pride and predjudice (2005). the many adventures of winnie the pooh. titanic. five feet apart. pirates of the carribean. captain america: civil war. avengers: infinity war. sense and sensibility. the addams family. the family man.

<3 books ~

daisy jones and the six. if we were villains. the harry potter series. the inheritance games trilogy. shatter me. frankenstein. the picture of dorian grey. warrior cats. tales from redwall series. the hunger games trilogy. divergent trilogy. the twilight saga. the chronicles of narnia. the land of stories. the cheerleaders.

<3 other fandoms & music ~

marauders, one direction, harry styles, taylor swift, sabrina carpenter, lana del rey, ethel cain, michael jackson, hozier, noah kahan, abba, fleetwood mac, chappel roan, olivia rodrigo, daisy jones and the six, the labrinth, the weeknd, childish gambino, shawn mendes, jonas brothers, guns and roses, birdy, etc.. (i can almost always find something to like about music- so i listen to a lot of it aside from whats listed)…

<3 tags ~ i might not have actually added these yet :)

#emi thinks - headcanons, fandom thoughts, and fandom ideas

#emi rants - rants and rambles about any and everything

#emi writes - anything i write even tho i havent posted any yet

#emiasks - questions for you guys, questions to the void, anything of that vibe

#emithirsts - me simping over people that don’t exist, being thirsty on the main, that’s it-

#my loves - asks, anons, etc

#gayfroggie<3 - noni’s tag

*there will be individual tags for moots if you want them, so just pick/ask for one, and i’ll assign them <333*

*i currently don’t have any specified anons ~ all emojis are available so if you want to be one just ask :)*

<3 moots ~ i’ll add more as i get them >:)

@xaviisconfused @dilutedmayowater @therewasnofloorbtw @aesthetic-writer18 @crybabygh0sty @noh07

[james-vi-stan-blog]

to your knowledge, did King James ever abuse George in some way? I’ve seen people throw that word around

tw abuse, child abuse, coercion, violence against animals and stuff

It depends on what you mean by abuse. If you consider a severely power-differentiated relationship abuse, then the whole thing is abusive, but also every interpersonal relationship in the 17th century is abusive.

I don’t know of any reported instance of James hitting George, nor of overt sexual coercion (though we know very little about their bedroom life, such as it is possible for historians to argue that they never had sex, although this is a minority view now). James was VERY into marrying off his courtiers, including his favorites, and when George married Katherine, while James still expected George to be constantly at his side, he encouraged them to go at it and make babies. Most of James’s favorites seem to have transitioned out of sleeping with him, and he remained very affectionate with them. Also, remember how James called Carr not wanting to sleep with him “a mere unkindness”? He was hurt, and I read those words as being whiny and guilt trip-y, but it’s not like he was demanding constant service. (Also, many historians think George was probably not having sex with James towards the end of James’s reign simply because James was very sick. Yet this is the period of James’s most intensely romantic letters.)

James, we should remember, hated violence (at least between humans) and had trauma over being shouted at. This doesn’t mean he would never perpetuate it. He did have a temper (nothing like Henry VIII levels though). He led armies, personally oversaw torture, sentenced people to brutal death, etc. — although in this period these would be seen as just actions that a moral king should do, protecting his people against criminals and outlaws. James was popularly criticized for being too soft.

There is an oft-repeated story about him trying to strike a teenage Henry Frederick with his cane during a hunt. This would have been considered acceptable discipline for a father to mete on his son, if “justified” by bad behavior. However, Henry Frederick simply rode off and most of the hunting party went with him, signaling that the prince was more popular than the king and James was not considered justified in this case. (Though, I heard this story told once where HENRY FREDERICK is the one who tried to hit JAMES.)

James and George did argue with raised voices, James publically snubbed George during problem periods of their relationship, but I don’t know that these would really be “abuse” rather than conflict. There is the aspect of the power differential, where George has to grovel and apologize to get James to forgive him, because James was the king. However, James very readily gave his forgiveness (and not just to George, he was generally very eager to forgive any of his friends or favorites for anything if they promised him their love).

Robert Carr DID yell at James, and the main thrust of James’s extremely long feelingsdump letter to him was that he felt hurt and betrayed that Carr wanted to “hold him by awe” (fear) “rather than by love”. So James felt Carr was controlling him by threats and angry outbursts, which James resented, saying that he would do anything for Carr for love, but if he felt he was being taken for granted and Carr was bullying him, that that love would swiftly turn to hate.

(Of course, we must remember that James was a divine right king, so we should be suspicious of his characterization of Carr’s behavior. When James is this massively entitled, such that he genuinely thinks it is a religious sin to resist his will, is he correctly perceiving this situation? Is he overreacting to a relatively modest drawing of boundaries by Carr? I’m inclined to think James genuinely felt betrayed and Carr really was yelling at him and scaring him, but we can’t fully trust James’s perspective.)

So, the short answer is, I don’t know of any instance between James and George that is unambiguously abuse, although of course their whole relationship is colored by power and manipulation. But I’m not a historian or biographer or anything. I’m just a James enjoyer, constantly learning new things, so there could have been an instance somewhere, I simply haven’t learned of it yet.

In the Mary & George trailer, there’s an instance of James wiping George’s face with blood, but this is not from violence against humans; this is a ritual of the deer hunt, where the leader of the hunt (James) marks his companions with the fresh blood of the kill. So this is an act of favor and weird homoerotic intimacy rather than violence towards George.

[james-vi-stan-blog]

a interviewer (for a magazine or something like that) asked Nicholas “does George genuinely have feelings for King James?” and his response was “first, their relationship is very transactional. I don't think he develops feelings until a few months, perhaps years, into it, but there ends up being this very sincere love between the two of them. While there was definitely something for George to gain, the love was very much real.”

I wanted to ask what’s your opinion on this? do you love/like the idea, do you hate/dislike it, or do not mind it! I personally like the idea because it makes it all the more interesting and maybe even heartbreaking. though I’ve seen a lot of mixed opinions about it a few being it’s not accurate because George never loved him (from what I remember though his feelings were a mystery so we don’t know if whether or not he loved him or if it was all just about power) or people thinking we’re “shipping” them even though their relationships is “grooming” and unhealthy. which I agree about the relationship between them being unhealthy but they still loved each other through the madness of things and James didn’t groom George. I have so much to say but I’ll explain them when I can! I just wanted to hear your thoughts:)

-✨

While I think that part of the allure and mystery of George Villiers is the deep unknowability of his true feelings (I've rambled on the mystery of George's sexual orientation before which may be of interest), if this relationship is gonna be dramatized, I would prefer a depiction where affection and even love exist alongside politics, greed, and manipulation, yeah. That's just more interesting, you know? When simple, earnest human needs and vulnerabilities are at play, that's way more engaging to me than pure realpolitik chess games. There's more stakes, more tragedy.

We don't know that George loved James, but the thing is we also don't know that George didn't love James. He understood James really well. He exerted himself very hard every single day for James. (He never got complacent like Robert Carr.) Was every single time that Buckingham had a breakdown and cried in public fake? Were his beautiful words, which showed the close degree of attention he paid to James's moods and preferences, all just evidence of his masterful manipulation? (If he was so good at faking it for the English king, why was he so bad at diplomacy elsewhere, and why did he cause offense everywhere he went?)

If it were up to me, I think the dream would be to craft a story where sexual enjoyment, sexual resentment, familial affection, romantic love, disgust, greed, coldness (even sociopathy), parasitism, mutualism, and gratitude all swirl ambiguously around this relationship.

And from James's side, not to depict him as purely sex-driven, but also not to depict him as totally naive in his pursuit of true love, but to entwine his quest for homosexual love with his intellectual ideals of kingship and generosity (idiosyncratic to say the least, yet in his arrogant mind, philosophically rigorous).

Most likely, in Mary & George, we'll get a "good guy" to "villain protagonist" take on George, and his feelings and actions will be explained to the viewer because he's a viewpoint character. Given that, I prefer the relationship to be depicted as including love. I would rather see the possibility of love in this situation embraced, than to have the more traditional take that such love would be impossible… grotesque… unnatural… hmm… why do all these words just smell like homophobia… But also, I don't want George Villiers defanged.

[james-vi-stan-blog]

do you think King James knew George was using him for power and money? or do you think King James knew about George’s financial situation and took it to his advantage? Do you think James actually loved George and George loved him or was it more than just “love”?

Sorry for the long questions

-✨

I speculated about this before, so that ramble might be of interest to you!

I don't know how I feel about the idea of "James taking advantage of George's financial situation" because... he's... he's the king. There's a ginormous power differential between James and everyone else in GB. There's a thousand people swarming all around him trying to get into favor and get lavish gifts and lucrative appointments. (James is known for being extravagantly generous, to the point of being financially illiterate.) In every single relationship James has ever had in his life, he gives favors in exchange for affection. Also - George is a man. A 21-year-old fully adult man. Unlike a woman, his routes of advancement aren't basically (a) get married or (b) be a mistress. George is not facing starvation if he can't seduce the king. (It's Mary who has very few other options in her life.) I think that if James was aware of George's finances, he probably relished being able to extravagantly reward and pamper him, which is part of just how James saw the role of king.

I do think that James truly loved George (he said so outright in his own words - this is not admitting to a sexual love, but love he certainly proclaimed; all the contemporary accounts speak of his affection; his letters are extremely effusive, here are examples). George's own feelings are very mysterious. He clearly knew exactly how to handle James, exactly how to behave and what to say to keep the king's affection. However, did he do this out of sincere love and familiarity, or was he calculating a persona for maximum effect? On the one hand, he easily slid into the position of Charles's favorite afterwards. On the other hand, he was an awful diplomat and constantly offending people.

The unknowability of George's feelings I think adds to his mystique. He's an unstable signifier and I think that's why he's had resonance down the ages. Usually he ends up with the villain treatment (and not without reason) but I'm interested to see what Mary & George does in the history of remembering Buckingham.

[james-vi-stan-blog]

why do I feel like the previous anon was a dig at me for asking questions about the kind of people James and George were😃I could be wrong though.

my only thing about why I’m hoping all of them in the show will show their flaws or how much of a bad person they can be is because I know it’ll be so much easier for people to understand or even sympathize with George simply because Nicholas is playing him. I’ve probably mentioned this before but I fully believe it has something to do with looks.

Nicholas is incredibly attractive so a lot of people feel more inclined or gravitate towards his character to feel sympathy, maybe defend, or ‘babygirl’ George even through problematic issues he’s had (that might be in the show but idk what they’ll include) but compared to Tony portraying James? I don’t think he’s going to get that same energy or thought process because his character might be criticized more simply because some people don’t find Tony/James attractive. I’ve seen this happen many times and it’s just odd people haven’t picked up on that.

I’m not saying people aren’t allowed to make up their own opinions about how they perceive the the characters or force my opinions onto others. I honestly can say that I feel sympathy for George and James (even Mary) but I think a lot of people aren’t going to realize how much looks would come into play when their formulating their opinions about the characters.

I’m sorry if I’m not making any sense, I have a hard time writing my thoughts! also I’m not trying to start anything so I hope this doesn’t come across as rude or anything😭

-✨

I don't think asking "good or bad" type questions is necessarily pointless… after all, people do have vices and virtues, and they can make good, bad, or downright evil decisions. I think we can even evaluate relative badness to some extent (like the 5th Earl of Bothwell, there's a phenomenally shitty person). Rather, it's a binary vision of good and bad guys that's toxic for the study of history. I think it's also limiting for media. If you (general you, not you, ✨) are going into Mary & George just looking to be entertained, there's no need to have several essays cited that George Villiers Is A Good Person™ Actually before you've even sat down. Not every story is meant to be didactical. What is about to unfold in front of you could be a villain's tale, some complex shade of tragedy, etc.

But to the main thrust of your ask, honestly… I too worry about this. The halo effect and lookism are well-documented phenomena (known and understood even in the period itself… I mean… why was short, stuttering, shy Baby Charles so invested in his iconography, but to depict himself as strong, masculine, handsome, and therefore virtuous and deserving to rule!!!) and also applies to media depictions of historical figures. It's totally a real thing that when a historical figure gets played by a popular actor, people will tend to be softer on that character, not even purely due to "beauty = goodness", but also because the pleasure of the visual spectacle inclines us to excuse what we're seeing. (Actually, even outside the appearance of the actors, people tend enormously to excuse the actions of a protagonist. It's just sort of an effect of the medium.)

That said, I believe the vast majority of people who say "I support George's rights and George's wrongs!" are just being silly and having fun and are perfectly capable of rationally judging what they're watching. You guys are great, please have a great time, tell your friends about the show so that more people learn about James VI and the Villiers family!!

But yeah, rarely there's… I don't go on Shitter but saw a screenshot of someone saying they hoped Somerset/Buckingham would be the main ship because Laurie Davidson is hotter and they don't want to watch an "ugly" (??) "old man fuck" and that just disheartened and disgusted me. You know, gayness doesn't exist to be hot and entertaining. Queer stories serve more purposes than fetish fuel for oglers. And this story is about real people who actually existed…

Also, I've got thoughts about people who think it's wrong and disgusting for James to have fallen in love with handsome George Villiers but also vociferously and openly thirst over Nicholas Galitzine and want to see him naked in queer roles. 😑

Anyway I'm happy to see these figures in almost any interpretation but I really hope George Villiers will be allowed to be magnificently terrible because… c'mon… it's George Villiers. The icon. The legend. The Duke of Buckingham himself. I feel like watering down his character would be cheating him of the glory he's due.

[james-vi-stan-blog]

I have a question! did James knew that Mary was the one pushing George to be in a relationship with him or did James know? I’m not sure if that makes sense but I hope you get what I’m trying to say lol

I rambled about "did James know Mary was pushing George forward" before, that may be of interest!

James knew that every candidate for his affection was being pushed forward by some faction or another - I mean, you could not even enter the presence of the king without connections and sponsorships. However, I can't say that James would have considered Mary a more important pusher than William and Philip Herbert, or known how long she had been planning her son's rise, etc.

And you know, I'm not even sure that we know that Mary was aiming for George to get in the king's bed, as opposed to generally hoping that her most talented son would be able to rise in the court and make connections to help the rest of the family. It's plausible - certainly, James's love of handsome young men was known, and people tried tempting him with attractive young replacement favorites later - but I don't think we know how detailed her plans were from the beginning.

IIRC James didn't meet Mary until after George was beginning to settle in as the new favorite. James liked her right away and brought her into the new surrogate family he was forming and would be the most invested in during his later years (George, Mary, Baby Charles, George's wife Katherine, George's daughter Mall, etc.)

[james-vi-stan-blog]

Who is Charles l?

Charles I is the next Stuart king after James. He was the second son of James and most of his childhood was the unfavorite "spare" to his charismatic, popular older brother, Henry Frederick. Charles had delayed speaking and walking (same as James, funnily enough; much is made of James's favoring harsh surgeries to "correct" Charles's issues, but I've never seen this analyzed in light of James having disabilities as well), grew no taller than 5'4" in adulthood, was shy and had a stammer, and was generally never expected to amount to much. Then Henry Frederick went swimming in the Thames and caught typhoid and died. Henry was 18 at the time and Charles was 12.

In 1615 when George Villiers was beginning his rise, Charles was 15 and trying to grow into his role but struggling. Initially, Charles disliked George, but George carefully cultivated a friendship with Charles and they ended up fast friends. After the death of Queen Anna in 1619, James, Charles, and George (and his family) formed a weird queer family unit, with George as both a sort of stepfather and an adoptive brother to Charles (George was born just 2 years off from Henry Frederick). They became extremely close after going together in disguise to Spain to woo the Infanta (a phenomenally stupid plan). After James died, George remained the royal favorite of Charles I until George's assassination.

Charles was closer to his mother than his father and resented a lot of things about James. He was embarrassed by the casual, louche atmosphere around James's court, and especially after that trip to Spain, desired to cultivate a very different, majestic, virtuous, heteronormatively masculine image. His marriage started off rocky but he ended up a devoted family man and loving father. He was a huge art patron and commissioned a lot of amazing portraits by van Dyck. However, he was, like James, a divine right believer, and unlike James, pretty terrible at scheming.

Due to a variety of factors (financial problems, religious issues) Charles blundered into the British Civil Wars, which as you imagine historians have a lot of evaluations of; but the general consensus is that Charles's stubbornness led to him being put on trial by Parliament and then beheaded. Afterwards came the Commonwealth period, the Protectorate under Oliver Cromwell, and then the Stuart Restoration in 1660 when Charles I's son Charles II was invited back to the throne.

George Villiers was a formative influence on Charles, and generally is evaluated to be a bad one. So Mary & George will doubtless heavily feature Charles, George's attempts to get in his favor so that his influence will continue past James's lifetime, and (we hope) foreshadow the issues with Charles that would fester into the crisis of the 1640s.

Obligatory Horrible Histories links, oh and also this short documentary if you prefer your history seriously slightly more serious

[james-vi-stan-blog]

So am I the only who‘s excited to see a more humanized version of George Villiers? I know he’s not the best dude, but he’s always been portrayed as a sort of villainous character in fiction and I‘m kinda bored of that. Give me sweet and naive George who‘s circumstances made him into what he’s known for today. Same with James tbh. Give me humans, please, not cartoon characters. I have hope in M&G and I really don’t think we‘ll be too disappointed. Fingers crossed🤞🏻

Actually, I'm with you for being interested in seeing George Villiers humanized. I just don't want him to be babyified and made into this pure hapless victim, because I think that would be neglecting how driven, determined, and hard-working he was! As I envision George, he didn't just bumble into this position, helplessly manipulated by his mother and courtiers, but took the opportunity and tenaciously held onto it with everything he had. And as a favorite, he wasn't just lounging around eating grapes, he was every single day knee-deep in intense politics and administrative work. Despite many bad decisions over his career, he also had his cunning, and I don't wanna see that denied to him. I want him to be an active participant, for better and worse, and for him to have his hand on the steering wheel as everything careens off in a disastrous direction.

I also just have trouble picturing him coming back from his finishing in France as a naive little boy… Just personally, I feel like he would have understood what being a courtier meant by then.

However! I'm honestly in favor of any creative interpretation that gets his name out into the public consciousness. And a "sweet and naive innocent confronts the decadent court and is slowly corrupted" is a classic arc for a reason. Just in a way, I feel like it's a disservice to the one and only Duke of Buckingham if he doesn't get an opportunity to stand on display, full pearl-studded peacock, and at least by the end be absolutely terrible.

[james-vi-stan-blog]

Is there anything known about the sexuality of George Villiers? Asking because I'm curious if he only had sex with men for power of if he genuinely enjoyed it (I hope the latter).

I wish I could give you a confident answer but unfortunately my amateur dabblings have been much more focused on James, so what I know of George is mostly in relation to James. I don't know enough about George's affairs to say for sure.

Also complicated by the fact that it's very hard to prove sexual relationships between men in a homophobic time period (indeed when sodomy carried the death penalty). James is so interesting in in part for the fact that his intense feelings for men, and their romantic and probably sexual nature, are so obvious.

For sure, George was very interested in women and had numerous affairs. I've heard about (but do not know enough to judge the trustworthiness of the accounts) affairs with Lucy Hay (wife of James's previous favorite James Hay!!), attempts in Spain to seduce the Count of Olivares's wife, an open infatuation with Anne of Austria, etc. Even if I'm not confident about saying which affairs he really had, in one of Katherine Villiers's letters to her husband, she writes, "for truly you are so good a man that, but for one sin, you are not so great an offender, only your loving women so well."

George was definitely the object of many men's admiration and sexual interest, such as that of William Laud. I am not sure about evidence for George's own interest in men. I read that @diana9241livejournalcom read in Leandra de Lisle's Henrietta Maria that George himself had a male favorite, Walter Montagu, but I haven't read the book myself and don't know anything about this guy.

George's letters to James are definitely very affectionate, full of specific recollections and flirtations, and his interactions with James were observed to be bawdy, "saucie", and close, but it's impossible to say if he really meant it or if he was perfectly performing for the king -- acting as the ultimate seducer.

Somebody who knows more about George might be able to answer you better.

[james-vi-stan-blog]

I’m sorry if you answered a similar question like this but was there any terrible or traumatic experiences/events King James went through?

Yeah, so, James's life was basically nonstop trauma from the age of negative 3 months to the age of 20.

Unfortunately I don't have a lot of time today but I can come back later and make a post with double-checked dates and links. But just going off of memory here are some highlights (ages may be wrong):

His mother Mary QOS claims a gun was pointed at her belly during the assassination of David Rizzio when she was pregnant with James

His father was murdered, his mother exiled, and he never saw her again after the age of 15 months

As a 1-year-old baby king Scotland fell into a civil war between "his" forces and his mother's

He was raised isolated and lonely in Stirling Castle mostly by grim Presbyterians (not completely locked up alone, but he later spoke of this time as lonely, I rambled about this before, cn: Esmé Stewart) who attempted to brainwash him against Mary QOS (I rambled about this AT LENGTH before)

He was so harshly disciplined/beaten by George Buchanan that he had PTSD symptoms as an adult

He seems to have had developmental problems such as delayed speech and walking, which were probably... not treated sympathetically. He was probably physically disabled though there are dozens of different modern diagnoses that have been offered.

3/4 of his childhood regents were murdered as part of the civil war and/or political feuding. First, his uncle. Then, his grandfather, who was carried bleeding into Stirling castle and died in front of 5 year old James's eyes. Then, the Earl of Mar, who was James's custodian/foster-father, was probably poisoned (James=6).

When James was 11, one of his childhood friends (who was then 20 - he was a bit older than James), pushed by the then-regent Morton, led an armed attack on Stirling Castle to try to take custody of James by force. The Master of Mar, father of his other childhood friend (Thomas Erskine, same age as James) had to take up a halberd and physically protect James from the attackers. James at one point thought the Master of Mar had been killed in front of his eyes. He wasn't, but Thomas Erskine's older brother really was killed.

When James is 13 he looks around at this shitty situation and says "nope", proclaims himself an adult ruler, meets and then immediately falls in love with his 37-year-old cousin Esmé Stewart. (The main subject of this earlier ramble) Probably not good for James's emotional development.

When James is 15 he executes the last of his childhood regents, Morton, probably convinced by Esmé Stewart that the guy had a hand in the murder of his father Lord Darnley. So 4/4 of James VI's regents met sticky ends.

When James is 16 his anti-Catholic nobles, who hate Esmé Stewart, kidnap James and hold him hostage, treating him badly. Esmé Stewart has to flee Scotland and dies in France and James never really recovers from this.

When James is 17 he escapes and rules surrounded by various allies including Catholic nobles. When James is 19 though the kidnappers from before come back to Scotland funded by Elizabeth and take over again.

I think I've forgotten some incidents, like I think he might have almost died once already by this point, but I don't remember the details.

After this point, though, James actually is an adult ruler who can hold his own in politics. So, like, wild backstabbings, betrayals by loved ones, war, etc., but James was more effectively able to ride the political waves and gave as good as he got, so it's not the same level of "helpless kid bashed around by politics".

So......... yeah. A bit of trauma. It's really no wonder he turned out like he did in a lot of ways.

[james-vi-stan-blog]

This is how Sky tv describes James and George‘s characters:

George:

George begins the series as a naïve romantic, largely protected from the true horrors of the world by his formidable mother. Mary holds a tense but uneasy hold over George as she masterminds his pursuit of the King. But as George grows in power, his relationship with Mary will be pushed to the very limits. George must prove to himself that he can be defined by more than just his beauty. He must make his mark on history, no matter the consequences.

James:

Capricious and unpredictable, James is never happier than when he's either drinking, hunting, feasting, or fucking. Being King is a burden for James. Though, when he cares to show it, he can be a shrewd political operator. But James’ desire to be loved makes him happy to put himself in the power of ambitious and beautiful young men, where he risks the danger of being exploited by tyrannical lovers.

———

So here’s my take on this. From what I gather from these vague descriptions is that George is more the victim of his mother than anyone else’s. He‘s described to be this naive romantic boy in the beginning who does basically everything his mother tells him to do. I think it’s going to be very interesting to see his reaction when his mother tells him of her plans to make him seduce the king. Will he agree to the plan immediately? Will he have doubts and concerns? I think that’s where we determine how much of a victim he really is.

As for James it seems like they’re going for the wanting to be loved scenario instead of just having uncontrollable lust, which I‘m really happy about. This explains why he let his favorites and especially George get away with so much. It also humanises his character and makes him much more sympathetic knowing his hard childhood. I hope we get a scene of him telling George about his past. But yeah I have a hard time believing he‘ll be abusive towards George. At least not physically.

I‘m sorry this turned out to be so long, but I love discussing these people so much.

———

This is Mary Villier‘s character description if you’re interested:

Julianne will be stepping into the shoes of the ambitious Mary Villers, Countess of Buckingham - the woman who would rise to great prominence through her son’s relationship with King James I. Having spent years of her life shackled to her cruel and abusive husband, Mary sees her long-awaited opportunity by pinning the family’s hopes on her second son, George, as she begins to mastermind their ascendency to becoming the most powerful family in England.

Always the smartest person in the room, Mary has never been able to realise her full potential. She is prepared to crush all opposition. She is not easily frightened or threatened by the English establishment who think they can get the better of her.

Thank you for this! (but also wow, so many questions and concerns I had could be addressed by just getting off my ass and readin' the darned website😂)

I think these depictions all sound reasonable. I think starting George as naive works for the story (I wouldn't necessarily assume he was, after finishing in France, but his engagement to Ann Aston could be read that way). It will be entertaining to watch "wide-eyed innocent corrupted by the decadent court" in a reverse of the typical gender assignments. However, I would find it more interesting if George's own ambitions come into play early, and he has more autonomy than simply being his mother's pawn. He is, after all, a man!

Also George "wanting to leave his mark on history" -- pre-emptive oof because when he was tested, he was proven horribly incompetent. (Some failures were not his fault, and he did have some successes. However, I would hate for the show to try to shift fault off George entirely. He was wildly arrogant, a megalomanical fool, and that doesn't need sugarcoating.)

Love-driven James is IMO more historically correct and more entertaining, more potential for tragedy and also showing the genius of George's approach to him. So I'm glad they'll go with that.

overly cautious tw for age difference/csa, etc.

One can guess from this text that Robert Carr is gonna get painted as a "tyrannical lover", which is certainly what James felt him to be at the end. But, I hope that Robert doesn't get too harsh a villain treatment in order to make George more sympathetic. Robert was somewhere 17-21 when he first gained James's attention, younger than George. He also was not nobly born (though he came from more influence than George). It is likely Robert and his friend Thomas Overbury had been trying to rise in position and favor when Robert had his lucky break (ha) in 1607, but still, this is another young man pushed and pulled by factional currents. Robert's downfall is partially his own fault (my impression of him is, uh, that he was not very bright) but also due to the manipulation of the Howard family.

So I mean, who's the victim, who's the abuser? It's all fucked up! There are degrees of gray, and some people are less awful than others. Like, Katherine, George's wife, is believed largely innocent of the scheming of Mary, etc. But anyone who held and exerted power in this period used it to push down and exploit others to get what they wanted. That's how these people got the significance that put them in the history books.

And Mary is doing all this shameless backdoor scheming because... she's a woman! She can't get a job! She can't hold a political position in her own right! What she has at her disposal is a handsome and charming son, and she uses that to benefit not just herself, but her other sons (who were terrible) and her daughter (reasonably not-terrible). She's doing fucked-up stuff, but that stuff is produced by the conditions of patriarchy and social stratification in the period.

Grading each individual character's victimness versus abuserness is just not that interesting to me, compared to exploring how their circumstances affect their psychology, their desires and suffering, and how they try to cope. As well as exploring our real-life queer history which, like all our history, is ugly and soaked in blood, and yet also is the story of real people trying to find fulfillment given their circumstances.

[james-vi-stan-blog]

I seen you were answering to the other anon so I just wanted to ask some questions:) did King James knew about Mary having George to seduce him?

I’ve seen someone say they’ve explained to people that George was a victim of James. And they’ve also said James had power over him ( taking advantage of his financial situation) and to make George “essentially one of his pets and become extremely obsessive over him” and I’m wondering how? From what I’ve read it never came across like that or I never understood it as that

-☁️

I don't know enough about the details of the Villiers' rise to know exactly, but I think that everyone involved always knew that everyone was associated with some faction or another, and that every handsome young courtier who appeared on the scene as a potential favorite was being backed by someone.

James was king from the age of 15 months. When he came to the English throne at the age of 36, he was an extremely savvy veteran of the intense infighting and backstabbing of the Scottish court. Besides Lennox, he had already had intense relationships with men like Huntly and Bothwell which were steeped in factional drama. In his later years James was savvy to attempts to throw pretty boys in front of him in an attempt to distract him from George and sharply reprimanded the promoters of William Monson, etc.

But at the same time that James was extremely aware of the political maneuverings going on, I think he had a bit of a naive belief in the power of love. In Scotland, he aggressively countered clan blood feuds by marrying nobles to each other, and he constantly forgave Huntly and Bothwell when they professed friendship and love for him -- astonished onlookers watching as he'd embrace and kiss Huntly and go to bed with him right after threatening to raise an army against him. It seemed like he really believed true love could overcome all.

These two contradictory orientations seem to exist within James at the same time.

When George Villiers was rising, Robert Carr, the current favorite and the first since Esmé Stewart to achieve massive political power, was in trouble, gradually withdrawing intimacy from James (maybe because of his marriage to Frances Howard). At this time, James was still trying to repair the relationship with Carr, and did not immediately promote Villiers to the bedchamber, instead doing a favor to Carr and promoting one of Carr's nephews instead. However, Carr failed to regain the king's affections and was disgraced by the Overbury scandal, and Villiers was strongly pushed forward by a large anti-Carr faction including former favorites William and Philip Herbert (the latter of which is "Sir Philip" from Gunpowder 2017), the Archbishop of Canterbury, and also James's wife Queen Anna herself.

Almost all of these people regretted promoting George when George became 10x the grasping politician and megalomaniac that Robert was, lol.

So like, again... if the question here is "Was this an unproblematic relationship? Was James the bad guy? Did George freely choose to enter this relationship? Who used whom?" ... I feel like these are extremely strange attitudes to take about the 17th century.

All relationships were problematic. (I mean, please think for a second about the state of heterosexual marriage at this time.) Everyone was horrible. Nobody was ever able to freely choose anything. Everyone's every action was part of an intricate web of power, politics, desire, manipulation, greed... Sometimes people might try to act unselfishly, or think that they're justified, but there simply is no way for a clean, consensual, egalitarian relationship to exist in this environment. Human rights, such as we recognize them, do not exist. This is 70+ years before John Locke's "life, liberty, and pursuit of property".

This was just what love and politics was like for people in this world. I mean, also consider what kind of life James lived as a cradle king. Every second of every day he was waited on by a huge retinue, every move scrutinized. People could not even enter his presence and converse with him unless they were backed by a political faction and provided with the resources, political connections, rank to enter the very most elite sphere of society. James wasn't just down at the grocery store casually meeting guys, going on cafe dates. (He would never, anyway, because he was terrified of assassination. As you would be when like half of your family was assassinated and there were constant actual attempts at assassinating YOU.)

In this environment, uncoerced, fair love as we see it today cannot exist.

And further, I really don't think that characterizing George as a helpless victim in this situation make sense. As a 21-year-old man, he had the age of majority; he had vastly more freedom to make his own way in life than, say, a daughter would. We cannot know how he felt, so fiction will be an interesting opportunity to explore what he might have subjectively felt like at this time. But we can see from behavior just how skillfully and determinedly he played the game. (I mean, check out this analysis of his finances in 1624.)

Was it demeaning, disgusting, hurtful? Was it glorious, his opportunity to shine, to make himself the most powerful man in England by sheer charm alone? We just can't know, but we can wonder.

[james-vi-stan-blog]

I know you talk about King James but how did people describe George to be? I feel like the show is going to make George out to be a helpless victim (we’ll be is a victim of his mother not James) or a fragile person who didn’t do anything wrong (already have seen be on Twitter do that) while King James might just be made out as a villain and not as complex.

Sorry for taking forever to answer, I was so busy I didn't even get to properly sit down with the trailer until now asdfkld;jsd, and also I'm not a George expert so the more devoted Buckingham enthusiasts might be able to give you a better answer

Some difficulty with trying to ascertain what George Villiers's true character was is gonna come from the fact that all contemporary descriptions of him are going to be heavily slanted depending on the agenda and factional relationships of the writer. I've been trying to find some good quotes for you but I'm limited by availability of books to me and so I'm quoting like third or fourth hand here.

There are a lot of accounts of Buckingham being monstrously ambitious, cunning, grasping. A lot of that is mixed up with anti-Catholic sentiment and depictions of Buckingham as a decadent, seductive "Ganymede" (an image that the anti-Catholics also associated with Catholicism). Many courtiers were resentful and jealous that James could only be accessed through the Great One—a position they'd rather have for themselves or one of their relatives. You'd have to be veiled with such accusations or you could be brought before the House of Lords.

In the 1620s the Spanish court was shocked at Buckingham's lack of decorum: sitting while Prince Charles stood, calling Charles nicknames, putting his feet up on chairs, performing "divers obscene things" and using "immodest gesticulations" and being "wont to move into the Princes Chamber with his Cloathes half on" (which probably does not mean literally half-naked, but rather that he did not properly dress in courtly raiment for an audience with a prince; but maybe I am wrong and it literally does mean half-naked). I think these quotes are from a 1624 letter to the English court.

At the same time that this report was being made of his character, Buckingham had a very brief moment of glory re: his public image in England because of the failure of the Spanish match, and he was being referred to as this martial, wise, brave defender of the Protestant faith. That fell apart quickly after his military failures.

However, you've also got people like Godfrey Goodman, who was specifically writing against Anthony Weldon. Weldon's The Court and Character of King James I was published as part of Parliamentarian anti-Stuart propaganda in the 1640s and was very negative on Buckingham. Goodman, writing The Court of King James the First in I believe in the 1650s, said, that "there never lived a better natured man than Buckingham", and attested to Buckingham's devotion to James and heartbreak at being accused of James's death. This is also the source of the Wikipedia quote about George, "the handsomest-bodied man in all of England; his limbs so well compacted, and his conversation so pleasing, and of so sweet a disposition", but I can't verify because I don't have Goodman's book in front of me. Of course, Goodman is just as much writing from Royalist perspective as Weldon was writing from a Parliamentarian/proto-Parliamentarian perspective.

I think something to consider is that basically no faction would find it useful to depict George as an innocent. He's either going to be a hero and competent who is James's indispensable secretary working for the good of England, or he's going to be The Evil Favorite, cartoonishly corrupt, possibly Catholic, etc.

I personally don't think that a "hapless innocent" characterization makes sense for George Villiers; he was really involved in politics, very aggressive, constantly riding back and forth between London and the hunting lodge to do business, overworking himself, etc. He had strong factional alignments but was way less of a puppet than Robert Carr (a Howard family puppet and very reliant on Overbury). It's not an invalid character interpretation for Villiers's early life, I think, but definitely by his late career he was making his own decisions.

You know, maybe these people who are trying to see innocent and passive George should stan Robert Carr instead...?

[james-vi-stan-blog]

I’ve missed seeing this blog in my notifs! I’d like to ask - what do you think really killed James? I was listening to a podcast about the more sinister royal deaths and yes, I can agree it was a combination of health issues, but what really got him in the end? ‘Dysentery’ is too obvious. Thanks! - thelastplantagenet 💚

HELLO. Yes, I have been dead. I got mono in the spring 🙃

Answering this from memory without books to reference in front of me.

I tend to be skeptical of diagnoses fitted onto figures of the past, since there are so many layers of interpretation involved, decisions on which sources to trust, etc. And medicine of this time period in England was… not good. The difference between the "legitimate" physicians of the time and the utter quacks is, IMO, very slight. Humoral doctors were often powerless against fatal illness, and a lot of the treatments, like bleeding and purging, would actively make cases worse. I'm totally convinced that his grandson Charles II's death (60 years later) was Death by Early Modern Medicine.

In James's case, I think it's hard to say because he had been in bad health for a long time and was really falling apart in 1624-5. His doctors diagnosed tertian ague (malaria) and I think that's reasonably plausible. While he was sick he also had a stroke that may or may not have been connected with the malaria, and he could not speak or rise after that point. What finished him off was an attack of dysentery, but he had already spent most of March dying by that point.

IMO, it is in fact possible that the posset/"potion" that Buckingham and his mother gave James could have killed him. I do NOT think it was poisoned (it was tasted by everyone in the room!!!), but given that GI issues finished him off, it could have upset his digestion or added more pathogens to his weakened body (just imagine all the stuff in their milk). It is true that James's condition took a downturn after he drank it. But, maybe he was going to have a downturn anyway, maybe it was a fatty drink upsetting his stomach, etc. I'd believe almost any explanation before poison.

But it's equally likely that the official treatment from his doctors would have done the same - humor-purging treatments weakening this frail old man and adding all sorts of new germs to his system. I think it's ridiculous to point fingers at George/Mary in particular for "interfering with James's treatment", because James's official treatment was dangerous pseudoscience, too!! Maybe if more people interfered with official treatment back in the day, more patients would've survived!