January Meme: James VI and I (Stuarts II)
Jan. 27th, 2026 09:44 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenakAs opposed to his son, where I would describe my opinion only getting slightly modified, not really changed, over the years, I really did do a turnaround on James. For a long time, basically neither of the two main associations I had when thinking of him were to his credit: a) when his mother was about to be executed, James lodged a token protest with Elizabeth but simuiltanously sent a letter to Leicester to ensure it wouldn't be taken too seriously, and b) he wrote one of those ghastly books encouraging witchhunts in the 17th century, with devastating results. Yes, I also knew that during his reign, the English equivalent of the Luther bible was created (i.e. just as Luther's translation of the bible into early modern German is a major major step in the develpment of the language and was to prove influential for writers up to and including the decidedly not religious Bertolt Brecht, the "King James bible" did the same for early modern English), but since as opposed to Martin L., James didn't do the translating himself, I did not consider this to be a plus in his favour.
I think the first to make me question this low or at least limited opinion wasjesuswasbatman, who had just watched Howard Benton's play about James and Anne Boleyn (in two different timelines, obviously), and then deborah_judge who was also an advocate. A decade, some biographies and a few podcasts later... Okay, I admit it: He was, to tongue-in-cheekily quote a current day translation of a very different epic, a complicated man.
As to not making more than a token protest: given he never knew his mother (he'd last seen her when he was four months old and she had left the country when he was a little more than a year), and was raised by a gallery of her bitterest enemies who kept teaching him she was the worst, this is really not surprising. What is actually interesting is that both James and Mary inherited their Scottish throne as babies, had regents until they were adults and became responsible for a nation with a lot of internal strife, an uncomfortably powerful neighbour next door and nobles with a power that the British nobility had lost post Wars of the Roses, but the results when they took over became very very different. Yes, in a sexist age James had the advantage of being a man and also of not being a Catholic in a country with a majority Protestant population. But he still deserves credit for being the first Scottish ruler in a long time who managesd to stablize the country, lead it well and avoid costly wars with the English. (The fact that he was King of Scotland for a staggering 58 years - to the 22 years of his English and Irish Kingship - tends, I'm told, to be overlooked on the English side of the border in the public consciousness. Even if you discount his childhood and youth., i.e. the years before his personal rule, that's still an impressively long reign.) And he did after a childhood which was if anything even tougher than that which had served as a tough apprenticeship to Elizabeth Tudor (and was so crucially different to his mother Mary's childhood as the darling of the French court): his uncle and first regent, Moray, was shot in 1570, followed by his second regent and grandfather, whom a five years old James saw bleeding to death because Lennox was equally assassinated. This bloody regent turnover continued and got accompagnied with uprisings. When James was eleven, Stirling Castle was raided by Catholic rebels. At sixsteen, he was kidnapped by William Ruthven, earl of Gowrie, and imprisoned for ten months. And then there was his teacher, George Buchanan, who managed to get him fluent in Scots, English, French, Greek and Latin, but did so via constant beatings and humiliations. Buchanan had the declared aim of teaching him about not just his mother being the worst but all the Stuarts being rotten and that as a King he was to exist for his subjects, not for himself. Unsurprisingly, what James actually learned when those lessons where conveyed via beatings was to dissemble, and conclude that it wasn't his ancestors but but rebels who were "monstrous". He also had Buchanan's writings on limited Kingship forbidden as soon as the man was dead.
By now, I've come across a considerable number of royals whom in modern terms we'd classify as gay or at least as bi with a strong preference for men, of which James definitely was one, and who were married because that was par the course for royalty. This often, but not always, means misery for their wives. Compared some of the truly castastrophic to at least very cold marriages (Henriette Anne "Minette" of England/Philippe d'Orleans "Monsieur", Edward II/Isabella of France, Frederick II of Prussia/Elisabeth Christine of Brunswick etc.), James and Anne of Denmark didn't do badly. They even had a sort of romantic origin story, in that Anne, after being married by proxy as was usual, was supposed to be delivered to Scotland via ship, terrible weather made it impossible and her ship ended up in Norway instead, so young James, for the first and last time making a grand romantic gesture for a woman instead of a man, instead of waiting tilll weather and sea were calm enough for Anne to make the trip from Norway instad took the boat to Norway himself, united with his bride and brought her home to England. (His son Charles would decades later try to accomplish something similar by travelling to Spain to woo the Spanish Infanta. It did not have the same results.) This resulted in a good start to the marriage, but also in a dark time for some other women in Scotland because James believed all the bad weather was undoubtedly the result of witchcraft and someone had to be punished for that. Later on, the biggest disagreements James and Anne had weren't about his male favourites but about who got to raise their children, specifically the oldest son, Henry. Anne wanted to do this herself. James, whose own childhood had been a series of bloody turnovers in authority figures (see above), wanted Henry to be raised in the most secure castle in Scotland and by an armed to the teeth nobleman. This made for a lot of rows and repeated attempts by Anne to get her oldest son by showing up at his residence and demanding he be handed over, with the last such occasion coming when James was already en route to England to get crowned.
James' iron clad conviction of the dangers of witchcraft still is chilling to me, but even that is more complicated than, say, the utter ghastliness that was going on in German speaking countries in the 17th century, because James in his later English years actually paired his anti-witchcraft attitude with the admoniishment of judges not to be fooled by conmen and -wen, superstituions and local feuds, and the few times he got personally involved in England (as opposed to earlier in Scotland) it was in the favour of the accused. This doesn't mean women and men didn't die on other occasions in the realm(s) ruled by a monarch known to fear witches, but I still can't think of a parallel among the "theologians" who wrote their anti-wtiches books simultanously in my part of the world, and who never would have admitted the possibility of false accusations, let alone admonished their judges to be sceptical and discerning.
Some of what got James a bad press back in the day now looks good to us, most of all the fact he genuinely and consistently disliked war. BTW, this was less different from Elizabeth I's own attitude than historians and propagandists for a long time presented it. Elizabeth had avoided actual war with Spain for as long as she could, and hadn't been very keen on supporting the Protestant rebels in the Netherlands directly, either, much preferring it if she got someone else to do it. Once the war was there, of course, it had to be fought, but those eighteen years of war had left both England and Spain exhausted and with enormous debts, and one of James' signature policies, the peace of Spain, was undoubtedly to the benefit of both countries. That in the later years of his reign a majority of people yearned for war with Spain again, for a replay of the late Elizabethan era's greatest hits (without considering the expense of all that national glory), and that James still held out against it is to his credit, especially given the results when his son Charles actually pursued such a policy after ascending to the throne. Something that's also to James' credit as a monarch though not as a father is that he kept England out of the 30 Years War while he lived despite the fact that his daughter Elizabeth and his son-in-law were prime protagonists in its earliest phase and might never have become King and Queen of Bohemia if the Bohemians hadn't believed that surely, the King of England (and Scotland, and Ireland), leader of Protestants, would support his daughter against the Austrian Catholic Habsburgs if they elected his son-in-law as a counter condidate to said Habsburg. He also was ruthless enough to deny his daughter and son-in-law sanctuary in England once they were deposed and on the run, which wasn't very paternal but understandable if you consider that this was before his son Charles was married (let alone had produced an heir of his own), meaning that if he, James died and Charles ruled, Elizabeth was the next in the line of succession, and the thought of her husband, the unfortunate "Winter King" of Bohemia whose well-meaning but inept leadership had kickstarted the war, becoming the King of England if anything should happen to Charles gave James nightmares. In conclusion: not participating in one of the most brutal wars fought in Europe ever and in fact trying his utmost diplomatically to prevent it was a good thing. But in centuries where "manly" and "warrior" were going together in the public imagination, it's no wonder that it didn't make James popular.
Mind you: a misunderstood humanist, James wasn't, either. And something that can definitely be laid as his doorstep (though not exclusively so) is that his relationship with the English (as opposed to Scottish) Parliament went from bad to worse every time there was one during his reign, which definitely played a role in what was to come once his son Charles became King. (ironically, Prince Charles had his first and as it turns out last time as a firm favourite of Parliament when he led the opposition to continued peace with Spain and the pro War party in the last year of his father's life.) Why do I qualify this with "not exclusively"? Because Parliamentarians didn't always cover themselves with glory, either. I mean, as I understand it, James' first English parliament went like this:
James: Here I am, fresh from Edinburgh, your new King. Thanks for all the enthusiasm I encountered on the road, guys. Well, seeing as I am now King of England, Scotland and Ireland, I propose and will coin a phrase: A United Kingdom of Great Britain! How about that? Starting with an English/Scottish Union, not just by monarch but by state?
English Parliament: NO WAY. Scots are thieving beggars who are by nature evil and will deprive us of our FREEDOM and RIGHTS and PRIVILEGES if they are treated as citizens of the same country. WE HATE SCOTS. You excepted, because that would be treason.
(Meanwhile in Scotland: Are ye daft, Jamie? We hate those English murderous bastards!!!!!)
James: So basically no one except for me wants a United Kingdom of Great Britain, got it. I still think I'm right and you're wrong, but fine, for now. How about some money for me, my queen, my kids and my lovers?
EP: About that....
Which brings me to the topic of the Favourites. Most monarchs have them. They're usually hated. (It's easier to count the exceptions.) Ironically, one of the very few exceptions, the only one of Elizabeth I's favourites who wasn't hated while being the Favourite, the Earl of Essex, had all the qualities royal favourites are usually hated for - he held monopolies that provided him with lots of money (and one of the fallouts between Essex and Elizabeth was when she refused to prolong said monopoly), his attempts at playing politics were disastrous (and also outclassed by his rival Robert Cecil), and the only thing he had going for himself really were good looks and cutting a dashing figure when raiding Spanish coastal cities. In over forty years of Elizabeth's reign, a court culture wherein the male courtiers played at being in love with the Queen had been established, and certainly all her long term favourites were framing their relationship with her in romantic language. Now presumably when James became King, people who hadn't been paying attention to gossip from Scotland had expected things to go back to the Henry VIII model where certainly the King still had his faves but the romantic language was out . But lo and behold, while it's impossible to prove James actually had sex with any of the young handsome men he favoured, the language used in his letters to at least two of them (Robert Carr, Earl of Somerset, and George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham) is certainly suggestive, and he did kiss them and others in public. While men kissing men in that day and age wasn't necessarily coded erotic, especially coming from a monarch, James did it often enough for ambassadors to notice and report. And certainly when courtiers wanted to remove the current Favourite, they tried it via presenting young good looking men to James. (This worked in one case - the toppling of Somerset in favour of Buckingham, though there were other factors involved as well - but failed when Buckingham's earlier sponsors, realizing they had just traded Skylla for Charybdis, tried to do the same thing again. No matter how many sexy young things were presented, Buckingham remained James' Favourite till James' death.) Favourites were on the one hand certainly a symptome of the corruption inherent int he absolutist system, but otoh also hhighly useful in that they offered an out for both King and subjects in whom to blame for unpopular policies. Instead of critiquing the King, the opposition could frame its complaints in being the venting of loyal subjects about the Evil Advisors (tm), while the King could sacrifice a scapegoat if things went too badly to quench public anger. As opposed to his son, James was ready to do that if needs must. But his Favourites still contributed to the overall perception of the court as a den of sin and corruption. (Which, yeah, but as opposed to which previous court?)
(BTW, and speaking of the usefulness of scapegoats for monarchs, my favourite example for the story about Henry starting out as this charming well meaning prince going bloodthirsty monarch only after he didn't get his first divorce and had a tournament accident being wrong remains the fact that when Henry ascended to the throne at age 18, one of the first things he did was to accuse two of his father's more ruthless tax men of treason and have them beheaded in a cheap but efficient bid for popularity. Now, no one could deny said two officials, one of whom, Edmund Dudley, was the grandfather of Elilzabeth's childhood friend and life long favourite Leicester, had been absolutely ruthless in their mission to squeeze money out of the population by every legal or barely legal trick imaginable. But they had done so under strict instructions from Henry VII, and the accusation of treason for this was ridiculous. Note that Henry VIIII could simply have dismissed them when he became King. But no. He went for legal murder from the get go. However, since everyone hates tax men, absolutely no one minded and many celebrated instead of thinking of the precedent. This is why the Tudors, by and large, when governing had a genius for (self) propaganda the Stuarts just didn't.)
I wouldn't agree with one of the latest biographers, Clare Jackson, that James was the most interesting monarch GB had, but he certainly is interesting, and far more dimensional than younger me gave him credit for.
The other days
I think the first to make me question this low or at least limited opinion was
jesuswasbatman, who had just watched Howard Benton's play about James and Anne Boleyn (in two different timelines, obviously), and then deborah_judge who was also an advocate. A decade, some biographies and a few podcasts later... Okay, I admit it: He was, to tongue-in-cheekily quote a current day translation of a very different epic, a complicated man. As to not making more than a token protest: given he never knew his mother (he'd last seen her when he was four months old and she had left the country when he was a little more than a year), and was raised by a gallery of her bitterest enemies who kept teaching him she was the worst, this is really not surprising. What is actually interesting is that both James and Mary inherited their Scottish throne as babies, had regents until they were adults and became responsible for a nation with a lot of internal strife, an uncomfortably powerful neighbour next door and nobles with a power that the British nobility had lost post Wars of the Roses, but the results when they took over became very very different. Yes, in a sexist age James had the advantage of being a man and also of not being a Catholic in a country with a majority Protestant population. But he still deserves credit for being the first Scottish ruler in a long time who managesd to stablize the country, lead it well and avoid costly wars with the English. (The fact that he was King of Scotland for a staggering 58 years - to the 22 years of his English and Irish Kingship - tends, I'm told, to be overlooked on the English side of the border in the public consciousness. Even if you discount his childhood and youth., i.e. the years before his personal rule, that's still an impressively long reign.) And he did after a childhood which was if anything even tougher than that which had served as a tough apprenticeship to Elizabeth Tudor (and was so crucially different to his mother Mary's childhood as the darling of the French court): his uncle and first regent, Moray, was shot in 1570, followed by his second regent and grandfather, whom a five years old James saw bleeding to death because Lennox was equally assassinated. This bloody regent turnover continued and got accompagnied with uprisings. When James was eleven, Stirling Castle was raided by Catholic rebels. At sixsteen, he was kidnapped by William Ruthven, earl of Gowrie, and imprisoned for ten months. And then there was his teacher, George Buchanan, who managed to get him fluent in Scots, English, French, Greek and Latin, but did so via constant beatings and humiliations. Buchanan had the declared aim of teaching him about not just his mother being the worst but all the Stuarts being rotten and that as a King he was to exist for his subjects, not for himself. Unsurprisingly, what James actually learned when those lessons where conveyed via beatings was to dissemble, and conclude that it wasn't his ancestors but but rebels who were "monstrous". He also had Buchanan's writings on limited Kingship forbidden as soon as the man was dead.
By now, I've come across a considerable number of royals whom in modern terms we'd classify as gay or at least as bi with a strong preference for men, of which James definitely was one, and who were married because that was par the course for royalty. This often, but not always, means misery for their wives. Compared some of the truly castastrophic to at least very cold marriages (Henriette Anne "Minette" of England/Philippe d'Orleans "Monsieur", Edward II/Isabella of France, Frederick II of Prussia/Elisabeth Christine of Brunswick etc.), James and Anne of Denmark didn't do badly. They even had a sort of romantic origin story, in that Anne, after being married by proxy as was usual, was supposed to be delivered to Scotland via ship, terrible weather made it impossible and her ship ended up in Norway instead, so young James, for the first and last time making a grand romantic gesture for a woman instead of a man, instead of waiting tilll weather and sea were calm enough for Anne to make the trip from Norway instad took the boat to Norway himself, united with his bride and brought her home to England. (His son Charles would decades later try to accomplish something similar by travelling to Spain to woo the Spanish Infanta. It did not have the same results.) This resulted in a good start to the marriage, but also in a dark time for some other women in Scotland because James believed all the bad weather was undoubtedly the result of witchcraft and someone had to be punished for that. Later on, the biggest disagreements James and Anne had weren't about his male favourites but about who got to raise their children, specifically the oldest son, Henry. Anne wanted to do this herself. James, whose own childhood had been a series of bloody turnovers in authority figures (see above), wanted Henry to be raised in the most secure castle in Scotland and by an armed to the teeth nobleman. This made for a lot of rows and repeated attempts by Anne to get her oldest son by showing up at his residence and demanding he be handed over, with the last such occasion coming when James was already en route to England to get crowned.
James' iron clad conviction of the dangers of witchcraft still is chilling to me, but even that is more complicated than, say, the utter ghastliness that was going on in German speaking countries in the 17th century, because James in his later English years actually paired his anti-witchcraft attitude with the admoniishment of judges not to be fooled by conmen and -wen, superstituions and local feuds, and the few times he got personally involved in England (as opposed to earlier in Scotland) it was in the favour of the accused. This doesn't mean women and men didn't die on other occasions in the realm(s) ruled by a monarch known to fear witches, but I still can't think of a parallel among the "theologians" who wrote their anti-wtiches books simultanously in my part of the world, and who never would have admitted the possibility of false accusations, let alone admonished their judges to be sceptical and discerning.
Some of what got James a bad press back in the day now looks good to us, most of all the fact he genuinely and consistently disliked war. BTW, this was less different from Elizabeth I's own attitude than historians and propagandists for a long time presented it. Elizabeth had avoided actual war with Spain for as long as she could, and hadn't been very keen on supporting the Protestant rebels in the Netherlands directly, either, much preferring it if she got someone else to do it. Once the war was there, of course, it had to be fought, but those eighteen years of war had left both England and Spain exhausted and with enormous debts, and one of James' signature policies, the peace of Spain, was undoubtedly to the benefit of both countries. That in the later years of his reign a majority of people yearned for war with Spain again, for a replay of the late Elizabethan era's greatest hits (without considering the expense of all that national glory), and that James still held out against it is to his credit, especially given the results when his son Charles actually pursued such a policy after ascending to the throne. Something that's also to James' credit as a monarch though not as a father is that he kept England out of the 30 Years War while he lived despite the fact that his daughter Elizabeth and his son-in-law were prime protagonists in its earliest phase and might never have become King and Queen of Bohemia if the Bohemians hadn't believed that surely, the King of England (and Scotland, and Ireland), leader of Protestants, would support his daughter against the Austrian Catholic Habsburgs if they elected his son-in-law as a counter condidate to said Habsburg. He also was ruthless enough to deny his daughter and son-in-law sanctuary in England once they were deposed and on the run, which wasn't very paternal but understandable if you consider that this was before his son Charles was married (let alone had produced an heir of his own), meaning that if he, James died and Charles ruled, Elizabeth was the next in the line of succession, and the thought of her husband, the unfortunate "Winter King" of Bohemia whose well-meaning but inept leadership had kickstarted the war, becoming the King of England if anything should happen to Charles gave James nightmares. In conclusion: not participating in one of the most brutal wars fought in Europe ever and in fact trying his utmost diplomatically to prevent it was a good thing. But in centuries where "manly" and "warrior" were going together in the public imagination, it's no wonder that it didn't make James popular.
Mind you: a misunderstood humanist, James wasn't, either. And something that can definitely be laid as his doorstep (though not exclusively so) is that his relationship with the English (as opposed to Scottish) Parliament went from bad to worse every time there was one during his reign, which definitely played a role in what was to come once his son Charles became King. (ironically, Prince Charles had his first and as it turns out last time as a firm favourite of Parliament when he led the opposition to continued peace with Spain and the pro War party in the last year of his father's life.) Why do I qualify this with "not exclusively"? Because Parliamentarians didn't always cover themselves with glory, either. I mean, as I understand it, James' first English parliament went like this:
James: Here I am, fresh from Edinburgh, your new King. Thanks for all the enthusiasm I encountered on the road, guys. Well, seeing as I am now King of England, Scotland and Ireland, I propose and will coin a phrase: A United Kingdom of Great Britain! How about that? Starting with an English/Scottish Union, not just by monarch but by state?
English Parliament: NO WAY. Scots are thieving beggars who are by nature evil and will deprive us of our FREEDOM and RIGHTS and PRIVILEGES if they are treated as citizens of the same country. WE HATE SCOTS. You excepted, because that would be treason.
(Meanwhile in Scotland: Are ye daft, Jamie? We hate those English murderous bastards!!!!!)
James: So basically no one except for me wants a United Kingdom of Great Britain, got it. I still think I'm right and you're wrong, but fine, for now. How about some money for me, my queen, my kids and my lovers?
EP: About that....
Which brings me to the topic of the Favourites. Most monarchs have them. They're usually hated. (It's easier to count the exceptions.) Ironically, one of the very few exceptions, the only one of Elizabeth I's favourites who wasn't hated while being the Favourite, the Earl of Essex, had all the qualities royal favourites are usually hated for - he held monopolies that provided him with lots of money (and one of the fallouts between Essex and Elizabeth was when she refused to prolong said monopoly), his attempts at playing politics were disastrous (and also outclassed by his rival Robert Cecil), and the only thing he had going for himself really were good looks and cutting a dashing figure when raiding Spanish coastal cities. In over forty years of Elizabeth's reign, a court culture wherein the male courtiers played at being in love with the Queen had been established, and certainly all her long term favourites were framing their relationship with her in romantic language. Now presumably when James became King, people who hadn't been paying attention to gossip from Scotland had expected things to go back to the Henry VIII model where certainly the King still had his faves but the romantic language was out . But lo and behold, while it's impossible to prove James actually had sex with any of the young handsome men he favoured, the language used in his letters to at least two of them (Robert Carr, Earl of Somerset, and George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham) is certainly suggestive, and he did kiss them and others in public. While men kissing men in that day and age wasn't necessarily coded erotic, especially coming from a monarch, James did it often enough for ambassadors to notice and report. And certainly when courtiers wanted to remove the current Favourite, they tried it via presenting young good looking men to James. (This worked in one case - the toppling of Somerset in favour of Buckingham, though there were other factors involved as well - but failed when Buckingham's earlier sponsors, realizing they had just traded Skylla for Charybdis, tried to do the same thing again. No matter how many sexy young things were presented, Buckingham remained James' Favourite till James' death.) Favourites were on the one hand certainly a symptome of the corruption inherent int he absolutist system, but otoh also hhighly useful in that they offered an out for both King and subjects in whom to blame for unpopular policies. Instead of critiquing the King, the opposition could frame its complaints in being the venting of loyal subjects about the Evil Advisors (tm), while the King could sacrifice a scapegoat if things went too badly to quench public anger. As opposed to his son, James was ready to do that if needs must. But his Favourites still contributed to the overall perception of the court as a den of sin and corruption. (Which, yeah, but as opposed to which previous court?)
(BTW, and speaking of the usefulness of scapegoats for monarchs, my favourite example for the story about Henry starting out as this charming well meaning prince going bloodthirsty monarch only after he didn't get his first divorce and had a tournament accident being wrong remains the fact that when Henry ascended to the throne at age 18, one of the first things he did was to accuse two of his father's more ruthless tax men of treason and have them beheaded in a cheap but efficient bid for popularity. Now, no one could deny said two officials, one of whom, Edmund Dudley, was the grandfather of Elilzabeth's childhood friend and life long favourite Leicester, had been absolutely ruthless in their mission to squeeze money out of the population by every legal or barely legal trick imaginable. But they had done so under strict instructions from Henry VII, and the accusation of treason for this was ridiculous. Note that Henry VIIII could simply have dismissed them when he became King. But no. He went for legal murder from the get go. However, since everyone hates tax men, absolutely no one minded and many celebrated instead of thinking of the precedent. This is why the Tudors, by and large, when governing had a genius for (self) propaganda the Stuarts just didn't.)
I wouldn't agree with one of the latest biographers, Clare Jackson, that James was the most interesting monarch GB had, but he certainly is interesting, and far more dimensional than younger me gave him credit for.
The other days
no subject
Date: 2026-01-27 10:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2026-01-27 02:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2026-01-27 11:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2026-01-28 08:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2026-01-28 01:47 am (UTC)The King James Bible is a pretty good translation, though done in screaming haste at the end, as academic group projects tend to be.
no subject
Date: 2026-01-28 03:41 am (UTC)Unsurprisingly, what James actually learned when those lessons where conveyed via beatings was to dissemble, and conclude that it wasn't his ancestors but but rebels who were "monstrous".
...wow. Yeah. (Better, or at least more effective as a monarch, than the lessons that Charles I and James II learned?)
James in his later English years actually paired his anti-witchcraft attitude with the admoniishment of judges not to be fooled by conmen and -wen, superstituions and local feuds, and the few times he got personally involved in England (as opposed to earlier in Scotland) it was in the favour of the accused.
Huh. I didn't know that; that's pretty cool even if the underlying anti-witchcraft isn't.
He also was ruthless enough to deny his daughter and son-in-law sanctuary in England once they were deposed and on the run, which wasn't very paternal but understandable if you consider that this was before his son Charles was married (let alone had produced an heir of his own), meaning that if he, James died and Charles ruled, Elizabeth was the next in the line of succession, and the thought of her husband, the unfortunate "Winter King" of Bohemia whose well-meaning but inept leadership had kickstarted the war, becoming the King of England if anything should happen to Charles gave James nightmares.
Ohhhh. Right! I think you had told me that before but I forgot. (yay for repetition!) I also find that very interesting, sort of one of those public duty over private loyalty things, so to speak.
English Parliament: NO WAY. Scots are thieving beggars who are by nature evil and will deprive us of our FREEDOM and RIGHTS and PRIVILEGES if they are treated as citizens of the same country. WE HATE SCOTS. You excepted, because that would be treason.
(Meanwhile in Scotland: Are ye daft, Jamie? We hate those English murderous bastards!!!!!)
I laughed! :D
However, since everyone hates tax men, absolutely no one minded and many celebrated instead of thinking of the precedent. This is why the Tudors, by and large, when governing had a genius for (self) propaganda the Stuarts just didn't.
Wow. Yeah, that was an evil genius move :P
no subject
Date: 2026-01-28 10:27 am (UTC)Re: James' education, I was also reminded of Mildred's tale on the Prince of Parma (brother of Isabella the wife of Joseph) who was supposed to end up as a super enlightened monarch but because his teachers taught their lessons with abuse and zero kid skills ended up ultra conservative, and of course our very own Fritz and his response to FW's methods of childraising, i.e. the part where FW wanted a god fearing Christian German speaking son and ended up with an agnostic French culture only offspring. There is an obvious common element in all of these, of course. Incidentally, James, who was quite profilic as a writer, also wrote a "How to be a good monarch" book for his oldest son Henry (published in 1599, i.e. before he became King of England but after years of experience as King of Scotland), which in some regards is pretty progressive but also absolutely firm on the Monarch being boss and rebellions being inexcusable.
Re: the different lessons learned by Charles I, one could say in his defense that since James' Parliaments went, as I said, from bad to worse, i.e. every single time except for the last when there was a Parliament called during James' reign, it was an absolutely terrible experience for everyone involved, and no one (neither King nor Parliament) got what they wanted, and the one single Parliament which went well and got things done was the one where James was already very ill and Charles and Buckingham had refashioned themselves as the heads of the pro War With Spain faction, so young Charles concluding that Parliament was a bunch of obstructionist fanatics who would only cooperate if one provided them with what they had said they wanted for eons, only to then afterwards complain about the result (i.e. the decidedly unglorious way the war when it finally happened went) and blame not themselves but him isn't that surprising.
BTW, because it's not really about James, I didn't include this in the actual post, and I did mention it briefly to you before, but the way young Prince Charles and Buckingham went from "Yay Spanish Match" to "DIE SPAIN DIE" is just blackly hilarious and happened thusly:
James, various officials of his and Spanish Government (first Philip 3, then Philip 4): Negotiate for eons about a possible Prince of Wales/ Spanish Princess match. When this was first floated, the prince was Henry and the princess was Anne (of Austria), who ended up marrying Louis XIII and starring in Dumas' Musketeer novels instead, that's how lengthy these negotiations were. When Henry (who was hardcore Protestant and very against marrying a Habsburg) died, and teenage Charles became Prince of Wales instead, with the Spanish Infanta in question now being Anne's younger sister Maria Anna, the negotations went on and on and on, while:
English Population: We hate the very idea of a Spanish Catholic Queen!
Spanish Population: We hate the very idea of sacrificing another Princess to those heretic Barbarians! #KatherineofAragon
James: I married my daughter to the leading German Protestant. Marrying my son into the leading Catholic Dynasty of Europe would enable me to mediate and prevent these very concerning war like noises from the continent, which are bad for trade. Also: she'd get a fabulous dowry with all the American silver flowing into Spain, and I'm eternally short of money. *glares as Parliament* Charles/Maria Anna OTP!
Charles: I am a shy stammering and bookish teen overshadowed by my siblings who turns into a still shy guy in his early 20s who feels for his sister getting dethroned on the Continent and wants to help her.
Buckingham: I am a Favourite who is so much younger than my King that I am aware I'll spend most of my lifetime in his son's reign. His son, who so far has no reason to like me. How to bond with the Kid? Hm, shared travelling and adventures sounds like a good idea...
Olivares: I am the Spanish Richelieu and I have a problem. We had a monarch turnover from Philip 3 to Philip 4, and Philip 4, brother to Anne of Austria and Maria Anna, had to promise his Dad on said Dad's deathbed NOT to marry Maria Anna to an English heretic because the dying P4 realised this would endanger his immortal soul. Otoh, I really don't want to revive the Spanish/English war and want to keep James sweet, and I really don't want England to team up with the Dutch against us again. My current idea is this: slowly but surely indicate Charles/Maria Anna is not happening but offer ANOTHER Habsburg bride instead, P4's cousin, the Emperor's daughter. This way, James still gets a Habsburg daughter-in-law which enables him to mediate, and the Austrians get the headache of asking the Pope for a dispensation for the marriage instead. Might even stop the fighting in Bohemia! Win/Win!
Buckingham: Charles, I have a genius idea. Why don't you do what your Dad did when he braved danger to retrieve your Mom? Instead of more endless negotiations, let's travel to Spain in disguise! This is such a grand romantic gesture that they'll just have to give you the Infanta right there! Otherwise it would be a major insult to England and they'd never do that!
Charles: Wow, that's brilliant! Let's do that! I think I'm in love with the Infanta already! If I marry her, I will also singlehandedly stop the war in Bohemia and save my sister Elizabeth, surely!
Charles and Buckingham: are as good at travelling undercover as Fritz will be, hit their first difficulties at Dover already when they don't have enough small cash, but manage to leave the island.
English public: We think this is a terrible idea once rumour spreads. Undoubtedly, the evil Spanish Catholics will either assassinate our Prince or brainwash him into becoming a Catholic.
Olivares (informed Charles and Buckingham are there): This is a diplomatic nightmare. Now he's made that long journey, I can't suggest Charles should marry an Austrian Habsburg instead without being insulting, but neither can we give him the Infanta. Hm, maybe the Pope can help? *out loud to Charles and Buckingham* We really need a papal dispensation, guys, you understand. Let's wait for that, shall we?
Charles: Can I meet my beloved in the meantime?
Olivares: No. But you can see her from afar, check out our art collection and get imprinted for life on our ritualistic court life.
Maria Anna: Not that anyone is asking me, but I really don't want to marry an English prince and become the new Katherine of Aragon. This is my nightmare future! Do not want! Charles' various attempts to meet me anyway during the next months don't impress me at all.
Pope Gregory: I really like the idea of Charles/Maria Anna! Undoubtedly, a Catholic Queen will mean more toleration for Catholics in England! Sounds super fine to me! Here's your dispensation!
Olivares: Another nightmare. I'm sending THAT IS ACTUALLY NOT WHAT WE WANT letters to Rome, asking for A VERY DIFFERENT DISPENSATION.
Pope Gregory: ...??? Whatever. Spain is still the most important Catholic kingdom, though about to lose that position to France. Okay, fine. Forget the first dispensation. I now demand not only complete toleration for Catholics given by act of English Parliament BEFORE the marriage but also for Charles to convert.
Buckingham: You know, Charles, I think we're being had here. Everyone knows Parliament would never grant equal rights to Catholics and would loose their shit at the thought of you converting. Unfortunately, this means the entire trip will not look romantic and gallant and brave but stupid for the folks bad home. New plan: we'll claim it was all a cunning ploy on our part to force the Spanish to admit they never meant it when negotiating and have been plotting English doom for the get go! For which noble goal we bravely risked our immortal souls while travelling into the lions' den!
Charles: I'm disappointed by the Infanta's utter lack of responses to my various attempts to woo her and hate the idea of being considered an idiot. I like your cunning plan! You know, I can totally see why Dad holds you in such esteem! You shall be my bestie, too!
Charles and Buckingham: *depart*
Oliveres: ...He'll never marry an Austrian Habsburg now, will he? Damm.
Charles and Buckingham: Loyal English folk, we bring you terrible news from perfidious Spain! You were right all along in suspecting them - and we now have proof!
England: Yay!
Charles and Buckingham: War with Spain rah rah rah! Save Elizabeth the Winter Queen! Save Protestants in Europe everywhere from the evil Catholics!
James: Boys, I'm glad you're home and safe, but might I point out that war with Spain is still going to be expensive and will not help your sister because she and her hubby are at odds with the Austrian Habsburgs, not the Spanish ones?
Charles: It's a new age, Dad. Also, everyone loves the idea! I'm as popular as Henry was for the first time in my life! WAR WITH SPAIN!
Parliament: *cheers*
James: With our forces who haven't been at war during my entire reign? Maybe get an ally on the continent first?
Parliament: Sure, our Protestant brethren of the Netherlands!
James: I was thinking more of the sole power on the Continent ready, willing and able to take on Spain in terms of military might, whom we don't have to financially support to do so. Namely, France.
Buckingham: I like this idea! When Charles and I were travelling through France en route to Spain, I hit on Queen Anne and provided Dumas with a plot element. Also I saw Louis still has an unmarried sister left, Henrietta Maria. I totally volunteer to visit Paris again and marry her, standing in as proxy for Charles!
And hit on Queen Anne again.Richelieu: I'm definitely pro Henrietta Maria/Charles. Provided some conditions are met. Like Henrietta Maria being free to practice her Catholic Faith, more toleration for English Catholics and a papal dispensation.
English Parliament: Hang on. This sounds oddly familiar! Also, wasn't that war we want to join supposed to be a noble Protestant Crusade against all Catholics?
James: *cough* *headdesks* *dies*
Buckingham: The whole Elizabethan Era Greatest Hits replay attempt with attempting to raid Cadiz turnsn out to be a disaster. I mean, who could have known! Means we really need that French alliances, though! Off to France to get Henrietta Maria for Charles
and hit on Queen Anne!English Parliament: Charles, we thought you were supposed to be an anti Catholic fire breather and totally different from your Dad! What happened! SOMEONE WAS DECEIVING US!
Charles: Welcome to England, Henrietta Maria. I'm sure we'll have a lovely life together.
no subject
Date: 2026-01-29 06:09 am (UTC)so young Charles concluding that Parliament was a bunch of obstructionist fanatics who would only cooperate if one provided them with what they had said they wanted for eons, only to then afterwards complain about the result (i.e. the decidedly unglorious way the war when it finally happened went) and blame not themselves but him isn't that surprising.
Yeah, okay, I can see that. Too bad for Charles, I guess!
OH GOOD I was going to ask about what happened with Charles' not-so-successful romantic Spain adventure, but I forgot, but you told me anyway, it's like you know me :D <3 This was fabulous!
Olivares (informed Charles and Buckingham are there): This is a diplomatic nightmare.
Oh poor Olivares! I'm just imagining him and James (I suppose in the modern AU, not in RL) being like, here we are trying to be reasonable and everyone else is... not.
Maria Anna: Not that anyone is asking me, but I really don't want to marry an English prince and become the new Katherine of Aragon.
Wow, there was some lingering collective trauma from Katherine of Aragon, huh? With reason, for sure! What happened to her? (Maria Anna, I mean. I do know what happened to KoA.)
Oliveres: ...He'll never marry an Austrian Habsburg now, will he? Damm.
(Poor Olivares!)
Parliament: Sure, our Protestant brethren of the Netherlands!
Me: *blinks* They... uh... how shall I say this... how much good do you really think they'll be in a fight against Spain?
Buckingham: I like this idea! When Charles and I were travelling through France en route to Spain, I hit on Queen Anne and provided Dumas with a plot element.
omg I totally forgot once again that he was THAT Buckingham (what? There are a lot of them!)
James: *cough* *headdesks* *dies*
I... yeah, I get that, James. At least you didn't get to see the results of all of this.
no subject
Date: 2026-01-30 08:32 am (UTC)The Netherlands would like to protest your assessment of their military prowess. Sure, it did take them 80 years to win their rebellion against Spain, and then it was just the Holland part which became independent, the what was later named Belgium part remained in Habsburg hands for the next centuries, but the point is, they did win! Also, having established themselves as a successful Protestant nation of traders, they inevitably went from being seen as allies to being seen as competition by the Brits and proceeded to beat them (Anglo-Dutch war in the reign of Charles II), hold out and win against Louis XIV who wanted to take them over, and then just proceeded to take over Britain, full stop, when friend of the Salon William of Orange, husband of Mary, invaded, kicked out his father in law James II and won.
...all this not withstanding, in 1624 when the "War with Spain Fuck Yeah!" Parliament was held, the 80 years war struggle for independence was still going on and none of the other stuff hadn't happened yet. So yes, James and later Charles I was in dire need of a continental ally other than the Netherlands if war with Spain was seriously considered. Preferably one with a border to Spain, a big army and reasons of their own to fight Spain. I.e. France.
(The Dutch: we still like to have it started we beat the Brits twice, invaded and took over Britain, and stopped Louis XIV successfully from invading us. And sure, we did lose New Amsterdam in the Anglo-Dutch wars, but by the time it was called New York, we didn't want it back anymore anyway.
no subject
Date: 2026-01-29 07:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2026-01-29 07:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2026-02-10 11:42 am (UTC)