You are here: Home » History » King James The Homosexual: Fact or Fairy Tale

King James The Homosexual: Fact or Fairy Tale

Many are claiming that it is a well known fact that King James was a flaming homosexual. Fact or Fairy Tale?

King James the First of England, who was also King James the Sixth of the Scots, is currently the subject of historic revisionism.  The push has gone out to paint King James as a flaming homosexual, apparently along with whatever aspersions this is supposed to cast on the King James Version of Scripture.  The claim is that it is a well known fact.  As for the well known portion of it, I can attest that this is not true as I had never heard such a thing until that point.  I also couldn’t find a single Google reference to it the first time I searched for it.  When I search now, several months later after first hearing of this, even now references are slim.  So no, this is not well known, was not well known, and is in fact merely a campaign to…well I’m not sure what.  Besmirch King James name?  Invalidate the King James Version of Scripture?  Both?

Must I remind people that infidels.org, dawkins.net, and Wikipedia are not the be-all end-all of knowledge?  They’re not even a good place to start.

Let’s take a look at the facts, shall we?

Image via Wikipedia

King James the VI of Scotland

James was born in 1566 in Scotland to Mary, Queen of Scots, cousin of Queen Elizabeth.  At the age of one years old, Mary officially abdicated the throne in favor of James.

Growing up it became clear early that James was a scholar.  He learned three languages besides English; being Greek, French, and Latin.  However, being slight of build, people from early on mocked his appearance.

In 1589 he married Anne of Denmark, the daughter of Frederick the Second.  Together they had eight children.

King James the I of England

When Queen Elizabeth died, his mother’s cousin, James ascended to the throne of England becoming James the First.  He officially became King in 1603.  His most notable act while King was ending the war with Spain allowing peace to flourish during his reign, and uniting the Kingdoms.

James survived not one, not two, not three, but four assassination attempts during his reign.  The most notable attempt, named the Gunpowder plot, by Guy Fawkes an agent of the Roman Catholic Church.  Guy Fawkes Day is celebrated to this day, not of course celebrating the assassin, but rather the survival of James and Parliament.

12
Liked it
User Comments
  1. Earl Schmegley

    On October 13, 2009 at 10:55 am


    I’d heard that King James was a homosexual many, many years ago, before the advent of Wikipedia, etc. – and the significance of this rumor is that the King James version of the Bible contains much more inflammatory rhetoric regarding homosexuality than do other translations. This leads people to ponder the idea that perhaps King James had a greater problem with homosexuality because he was battling his own demons in that regard. As a result of an uneven, heavy-handed, and biased translation of the Bible, those who adhere to the King James version of the book feel a greater justification in hatred of homosexuality. That is the significance of the rumor.

  2. Rask Balavoine

    On October 13, 2009 at 10:58 am


    It obviously serves someone’s purpose to portray James and other characters as homosexual, and especially as homosexual masquarading as heterosexual – I wonder who, I wonder why? You are certainly correct – there is an agenda here, and not a very honest one.

  3. ashan1614

    On October 13, 2009 at 11:03 am


    I had not, before reading your article, heard any of these “accusations”. So you are right – well known it is not. The are people who are not happy unless they are stirring up the pot. Most of them are not worth the effort to argue with.

  4. Karen Gross

    On October 13, 2009 at 12:29 pm


    When I first heard this historical \”fact\” that King James was \”flaming gay\” I thought it a ridiculous fabrication. So I googled, and found that according to the gospel of Wikkepedia, it was true. Thank you, Stephen for doing more homework than I did.

    That being said, the question remains: what difference does this make. The fact that a King authorized a team of Biblical scholars to make a translation from the Latin Vulgate (which had been translated from the Septuagint which had been translated from the original Hebrew Old Testament and included the New Testament which was written in Greek), into the English of the common people; does not mean that King James had anything to do with the actual translation. The fact that a ship is built with public funds with the authority of Queen Elizabeth and bears her name does not imply that she had anything to do with the actual building of the ship, other that breaking a bottle of champaigne over it.

    The King James version has exactly the same references to homosexuality as all of the other English versions, as well as the original Hebrew and Greek texts, and all of the authorized translations into other languages. Go to a website like Biblegateway.com or Christianity.com – type in any reference and read it in every version. The message is the same. The only difference is the language of the message.

  5. Stephen J. Ardent

    On October 13, 2009 at 1:20 pm


    Earl, the King James version is hardly uneven or hard-handed. Not to mention that James didn’t do the translating. There were 54 scholars involved, and each with their own cadre of scribes and helpers. And even then it was not just up to them, it then on to review by 12 more scholars, 2 from each of the universities. And even that was not all considering that what they did was basically the culmination of 90 years work that had already been done on the English Bible. If there was anything upsetting about the KJV was the fact that James wanted it to be in English rather than Latin.

  6. Kaz M

    On October 13, 2009 at 7:05 pm


    This world will be a lot better off when calling someone gay is not considered an insult and referring to homosexuals as “flaming” is no longer accepted practice.

    I’m all for accuracy. If King James was not homosexual the history books should not reflect that but, referring to these falsehoods as “hate speech” and a “vile fairytale” speaks volumes about the hate inside the writer.

  7. Stephen J. Ardent

    On October 13, 2009 at 7:27 pm


    That’s pretty twisted Kevin. Why not look to those who use it as a weapon in an attack? But I forget, they, like Eminem and so many others, get a pass for their hate speech, regardless of who it’s directed at.

    Sell it somewhere else

  8. Kaz M

    On October 13, 2009 at 8:14 pm


    Twisted? How so?

  9. Stephen J. Ardent

    On October 13, 2009 at 9:03 pm


    Twisted because one would think that when it comes to the order of importance of egregiousness we would find it as follows -

    1. That someone would interfere in true scholarship and the advancement of knowledge to pursue a personal agenda regardless of the costs to our collective body of knowledge.

    2. That someone would use the prospect of being gay as an attack when they presumbly see nothing wrong with or have connection to the lifestyle.

    3. That someone writing an article based on these lies and attacks would use a term common to the attack.

    4. That being gay would be an insult.

    Sidenote – (Just as gays do not wish others to dictate morals to them, others should not try to dictate morals to those who find the practice immoral.)

    Whereas you’re thrust would appear to have this list in reverse. Thus twisted.

  10. Kaz M

    On October 13, 2009 at 11:19 pm


    It is you not I that is trying to list these points in some kind of “order of importance” to these points, they’re all bad. But #4 ties into them all.

    “1. That someone would interfere in true scholarship and the advancement of knowledge to pursue a personal agenda regardless of the costs to our collective body of knowledge.”

    This is of course deplorable, people who do this are awful, hateful people. However if being called gay was not such an insult, this re-writing of prominent figures as gay would stop. Why? Because it wouldn’t work, no one would care.

    “2. That someone would use the prospect of being gay as an attack when they presumbly see nothing wrong with or have connection to the lifestyle.”

    Yep, at its best this is totally hypocritical and dishonest. why do they do it? Not to disparage King James or the church. No. they do it to attack those who hate them. Again, If Being called gay was not an insult this attack would be useless.

    “3. That someone writing an article based on these lies and attacks would use a term common to the attack.”

    I don’t condone either side using juvenile insults. Of course if being gay was not an insult in the first place, there would be no need for them.

    “4. That being gay would be an insult.”
    No It shouldn’t be.

    As for morals, I have no idea were your going with that. Is someone forcing you to be gay?

  11. Stephen J. Ardent

    On October 14, 2009 at 6:26 pm


    It’s a matter of priorities Kevin. Practical priorities. As you have shown in your comments, the largest concern is that being gay shouldn’t be insulting to anyone. Not facts, not truth, not even the hidden bigotry of the accusers. You would rather dictate the morals of those you disagree with, and assign hate to them, than stand for the truth or question those with an agenda, good or bad.

    And that is really twisted when someone will assign hate to the hearer, before they’re even said a word, based solely on the content of the lies of the speaker.

  12. Kaz M

    On October 14, 2009 at 8:45 pm


    I see.

  13. dawngordon

    On October 17, 2009 at 9:12 pm


    “and they will say all sorts of evil against you” sounds like satan dicrediting bible to me

  14. lillyrose

    On October 22, 2009 at 3:39 pm


    Very interesting article! I was never taught that at school and had never heard it before. Thank you for your meticulous research, not that it would have bothered me either way but you have cleared the matter up.

  15. Linvio

    On November 28, 2009 at 3:22 am


    A relief that you said he is not a homo…

  16. Valerie Curtiss

    On November 30, 2009 at 8:30 pm


    Great article, very well researched

  17. Taharka

    On April 8, 2010 at 8:02 pm


    I have no idea why some people are giving this guy credit saying there is nothing out there saying gay james was not gay….there are numerous books out there documenting he was, there are also letters from his lover and letter from gay james telling on himself that he loved men…this is the link..http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/history/king_james_gay.html

  18. Stephen J. Ardent

    On April 9, 2010 at 5:13 pm


    Sorry Taharka, the link you present destroys any credibility you might have on the subject.

  19. John

    On June 11, 2010 at 3:28 pm


    Wow. Edward Babinski used as a credible source.
    I need to write that down when I\’m trying to convince people there\’s a UFO coverup.

    LOLLOLLOLLOLLOL!

  20. Bosie

    On August 21, 2010 at 3:12 pm


    Ok then, having read history at Oxford and having looked at Jacobean sources (original & secondary evidence) I must say that it is highly unlikely that James Stuart (VI of Scotland) was not, at the least, bisexual. Even when looking at more random and less personal social sources- for example the dramatic pieces of theatre of the time (’The Revenger’s Tragedy’ being the most obvious, but also such overtly homosexual pieces as the homosexual Christopher Marlowe’s ‘Edward II’) we see strong references to the court and the highly obvious connection between the bisexual Lussurioso and James. There are even contemporary sources making referance to the bisexuality of his father (Lord Darnley) and the irony of his sons sexual leanings. You see so many contemporary comments and insinuations on the subject that to a modern scholar it is hard to pass aside, and I must say that as for the matter of it being a recent fad it was accepted as a matter of more than strong possibility 10 years ago!

  21. James

    On August 21, 2010 at 3:56 pm


    I have to say that I agree with Bosie on this count. The article seems to hound the fact that James I was ‘unfairly’ named a homosexual when in fact he was more than likely BISEXUAL and this is a point washed over. I have read sources telling of the obvious manner in which James would fawn and handle his male favorites in public leading to conclusions being drawn on what was happening in private. Lady Antonia Fraser writes of James, in regards to his homosexuality/bisexuality, “In sexual matters, it is generally better to assume the obvious, unless there is some very good reason to think otherwise.” She quite simply accepts James’s sexuality as alternative and anyone having read Lady Fraser’s works on James and his mother Mary Queen of Scots knows how detailed and understanding her research is. I have to also say that, again agreeing with Bosie, that we were taught about James’s bisexuality at sixth form college (although he/she must have obviously delved deeper at university) so it is no recent thing. I remember how we were taught how his then lover, Esmé Stuart Duke of Lennox, was considered to be such a shocking influence on the young King that it was said of him that- “the Duke of Lennox went about to draw the King to carnal lust”- by a Scottish Church man of the time and the disapproval of the King’s very close ‘relationship’ with Lennox lead to his removal from the Scottish court. These are only a very early sources regarding the subject… Once King of England more followed!
    To end I think it telling that when James became King of England the famous line- “Rex fuit Elizabeth: nunc est regina Jacobus”—”Elizabeth was King: now James is Queen.” was giggled throughout London and is most telling about the public’s opinion on the subject even then!!!

  22. Stephen J. Ardent

    On August 21, 2010 at 10:30 pm


    Lady Antonia Fraser?
    Really?

    And Christopher Marlowe, an english dramatist?
    Many of whose writing can at best be labeled bizarre.

    You’ve got to do better than that.

    How about some experts who at least have the pretense of historical accuracy.

  23. Bosie

    On August 22, 2010 at 6:19 am


    I am afraid that I would indeed call myself somewhat of an expert having gained a 1st in history and having had the advantage of seeing, first hand, various sources. As a person who intends to find the truth you never search through articles or web entries as an initial source- each person taints the source to their own perception- you look to those things produced at the time! As a historian I think you seem to forget that outside social sources of the period are examined closely if you are indeed to find some general truth e.g- Drama, songs, sonnets of the time ect. Maybe you have little knowlede of British theatrical history but playwrights were under the patronage of the court and so their works were a direct expression of the ruling classes tastes as well as the plays being a strong political tool for an individual to express a rather dangerous idea and pass it on to the masses. Theatre was the only real form of mass entertainment and open to all and discounting what is written whether by Shakespeare or Marlowe would be highly narrow minded. It is as if to say that looking at Shakespeare’s Richard III would be pointless when in fact it is vital to see the Tudor’s political blasting of the house of Plantagenet. Or the Merchant of Venice is not a relevant document when in fact it is a very useful source when looking at 16th/17th century attitudes to the Jewish community! I am sorry but dramatist’s works are in fact considered just a vital a source as that of authors or poets. They make very strong social political comment… and to say not shows very little understanding of modern historical study.

    This leads to your comment on Antonia Fraser. It seems you are unware but she was made CBE for services to historical research, was awarded the Norton Medlicott Medal by the Historical Association in 2000 and produced the most lorded text of women’s lives in the seventeenth Century ‘The Weaker Vessel’ for which she won the Wolfson Award for History in 1984 as well as lectureing in various UK universities. For myself I have heard her speaking on Mary Stuart and she is 100% balanced and backs each statement up with full research points… of the original sources!!!!

    It seems that you have done what every trained historian is taught to avoid… you formed a pet idea and then worked backwards looking through any sources you could find at random and then ’selecting’ those which support your idea and push aside the rest. Not healthy! A historian should be 100% objective and leave all personal ’soap box issues’ aside whether they be political, on matters of religion ect. Historical research is a long journey where you often find things which change your mind on certain issues and you MUST be open to it. Your article starts at one point and just simply has elements attached, seeming that you worked backwards in this case and have had no element of exploration in the process. You must never allow your own personal opinions to colour your material, if you intend to look further into historical study I would advise you think of yourself as a blank canvas and let the history paint on you rather than the other way round.

  24. Sue

    On August 22, 2010 at 7:20 am


    I’m sorry Stephen, but I have to agree with Bosie and James on this one. There is too much evidence to the fact he had very, very close relationships with men . I have seen two of the many letters he sent to his male favorites (although sometimes the writing was hard to work out at first, lol), one to the Duke of Buckingham is most interesting and in fact quite touching, and they make open referance to his loving, passionate relationships with men. His statement to parliment when they were complaining over his over attention to other men is also very intersting as he does not deny and in fact rejoices in his loving relationships with men. You don’t ever really cover the many pieces of evidence which supports the fact of his sexuality and I agree with Bosie that it does seem like you are a little coloured against ‘gayness’ in what you wrote. It all seems a little one sided if you know what I mean.
    Oh, and the fact he had children has nothing to do with it. Look at Oscar Wilde. There is no doubt that that fantastic man was gay yet he had two sons. His marriage was for apperances as it always seems to me that James I’s was political, being arranged by the over Lords of Scotland as all state marriages were done at the time… Sue :)

  25. Bosie

    On August 22, 2010 at 8:03 am


    Quite right Sue-
    I thnk it interesting that this source is not even covered in the above article- *please excuse the covered language but it is an exact translation of the original and the author didn’t mince his words. In no way is it meant to offend but is used as historical referance*
    “Au marquis du Boukinquan by Théophile de Viau (1590- 1626)

    Apollo with his songs
    Debauched young Hyacinthus
    Just as Corydon rode Amyntas,
    So Caesar did not spurn boys.

    One man ruts Monsieur le Grand de Bellegarde,
    Another ruts merry with the Comte de Tonnerre.
    And it is well known that the King of England
    Rides the Duke of Buckingham.”

    So even at the French Court (before the writings of Anthony Weldon) it was a matter of open gossip!
    Also you mention the letters, I have one copied as a copied source. This is an extract of one he wrote to the Duke of Buckingham-

    “I desire only to live in the world for your sake, and I had rather live banished in any part of the world with you, than live a sorrowful widow-life without you. And so God bless you, my sweet child and wife (he commonly called the Duke his wife), and grant that ye may ever be a comfort to your dear dad and husband.”

    Also as evidence we have the writing of Francis Osborne at the time regarding the relationship between Buckingham & the King…

    “In wanton looks and wanton gestures they exceeded any part of womankind. The kissing them after so lascivious a mode in public and upon the theatre, as it were, of the world prompted many to imagine some things done in the tyring house that exceed my expression no less than they do my experience.”
    *A note- a tyring house is a private drssing room next to the royal bed chamber.”

    And as Sue pointed out James was openly questioned over his conduct with his favorites in 1617 and stated-

    “I, James, am neither a god nor an angel, but a man like any other. Therefore I act like a man and confess to loving those dear to me more than other men. You may be sure that I love the Earl of Buckingham more than anyone else and more than you who are here assembled. I wish to speak in my own behalf and not to have it thought to be a defect, for Jesus Christ did the same, and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had John, and I have George.”

    The later part is of interest as he attempts to condone his relationship using biblical referance. Yet you also see written by James himself…

    ” There is no life so merry and full than to enjoy all earth bound hours with you. As husband and wife our lives are joined as one…”

    Which seems that when defending himself and his relationship it is in a very different context to the opinin he expresses in private.

    These are some first hand sources, which seem to be missed from your article.

  26. James

    On August 22, 2010 at 11:21 am


    Great things to look at there Bosie. Glad you know you know your current historians too. Lady Fraser is very hot on evidence and as you said she is really objective. That’s what history lovers need! I’ve had a bit of a search through some of the things you raised and your so right- the letters are very well known and have been studied for decades. His relationship with his ‘men friends’ was of hot discussion and looking at even some bits I’ve found in the last hour show very clearly that King James’s and Buckingham’s relationship was far from mates! lol. Glad you brought in some evidence from the ‘horses mouth’- so to speak. What is this homosexual or straight question anyway, it seems a large percentage of the evidence points at bisexuality. By the way King James was even buried next to Buckingham in West Minster Abbey!

  27. Bosie D

    On August 22, 2010 at 12:01 pm


    Thanks for that James, I appreciate your kind comments. late Elizabethan/Jacobean society has been a focus of mine for over four years and it really is a most fasinating period to get lost in!

  28. Bryn

    On August 23, 2010 at 10:31 am


    I’ve been interested in james I (VI) and have read loads on him over quite a bit of time. I’m sorry but your article has loads of stuff left out. I found your piece on google and think it’s well written but one sided if you don’t mind me saying. Reading down at the comments ‘Bosie’ (or is it Bosie D?) has really added a load of stuff which i think was needed to make it more balanced. I myself came to the conclustion that he was bi ages ago and as yet have found nothing (your piece included, sorry Stephen) that has even slightly changed my mind. It’s not that I want him to be bi, gay, or straight it’s just that everything I looked at leads that way. There was tons of stuff written about his affairs with men at the time and I think the above comments give a good example of that. Sorry but it’s just the way it seem.

  29. Stephen J. Ardent

    On August 24, 2010 at 4:01 pm


    The problem is that people are applying modern proclivities, and modern understandings and using them to define such things as bisexuality, pacifism, effeminacy, and the like, for a completely different time and culture.
    Similar scholarship, dare I call it that, has been used to conscript the likes of Shakespeare, Abraham Lincoln, Horatio Alger, Hitler, James Buchanan, even Jesus Christ to LGBT revisionism.
    There are absolutely no contemporary accounts alleging homosexuality on King James’ part though there are contemporary accounts praising him for his moral virtue.

  30. Sue

    On August 25, 2010 at 8:03 am


    Stephen can I please ask what your historical training is? Have you even looked at even the example samples of proof presented above. Love letters which go beyond friendship, him calling his male favorite his ‘wife’ in his own letters? The accounts and songs written at the time expressing the general view at the of James? All this is out there and can easily be researched. Why do you seem so blind sighted and closed to evidence? Stephen are you then saying that there are no gay, bisexual, homosexual or lesbian people throughout history? Are you then saying that there are no pointers to James sexuality? I’m afraid that in the historical sphere you are a little on your own- questions are put to you but you don’t even reply with reason. If you were a true historian you would be ready to change opinions when evidence, which you have either never seen or have chosen to ignore, is presented to you. Your article is not a balanced article. Have you ever even looked at original sources or was it all based on what you found and cut and pasted from the web?

  31. Bosie D

    On August 25, 2010 at 10:17 am


    I am finding your ideas on homosexuality being a modern perspective quite bizzare! What of the Greeks writing of Zeus taking the male Ganymede as his lover, of Plato and his writings on male to male relationships and of Greek love. Of Caligula, Nero and Elagabalus\’s well recorded bisexuality (in fact that within Roman itself it was excepted that bisexuality was a fairly accepted state- this shown through art, atifacts and writings). Edward II and his infamously bad relationships with Piers Gaveston & Huge Despenser (interestingly there are documents of Jacobean date drawing comparison between Edward II and Gaveston and James Stuart and Buckingham). Of Oscar Wilde and Edwardian Londons homosexual subculture. The famous Molly Houses (homosexual brothels) of 18th Century London. Of homosexuality becoming known as “The English Vice” in Europe during the 16th Century. Homosexuality did not just suddenly pop up to say hello at the end of the 19th Century.
    I cannot comment for Abraham Lincoln\’s, Horatio Alger\’s or Hitler\’s sexuality (although I very much doubt homosexuality in the case of Hitler), I am not an expert. I have read books and pieces regarding a couple of them- but due to this I do not feel qualified to comment.
    On James Stuart however I am. Being trained and spending a large percentage of my working life in that period I feel I have a right to work with the characters involved. I have studied how the Elizabethans & Stuarts ate, dressed, conversed, traded, went to the toilet and their bedroom habits for years- even to the degree of living in a reconstructed 17th Century village in the New Forest for five weeks- it was built as a funded living museum research project of which all participants needed to be of a BA to Masters level of education in historical study and pass several interviews before becoming involved.
    For this reason I feel a humble authority on the subject.
    I agree that placing a persons sexuality without evidence is wrong, yet ignoring facts and source material to prove a counter point is equally wrong.
    So to the facts, sources and evidence I placed in the above posts. It all leads to the conclusion of James Stuarts bisexuality. His own personal letters (quoted above) calling his male favorite his “wife”, his being called to parliament to answer questions over his bahaviour towards his male favorites and his answer (quoted above), the attitude and gossip his behaviour caused in England & Europe (samples of evidence posted above). And I also have to state that James died not a very popular ruler, the public opinion shifting in his later years due to his behaviour and excess (looking at court expenses and what James spent on Buckingham, yes you can see the documents on record, you can understand perhaps why).
    And what effeminacy has to do with it I cannot tell, James Stuart was not couted as one of the famous “Sparks” of the court who were known for their effeminate manners and dress but what has that to do with a persons sexuaity? A person can be homosexual without being effeminate and so the other way round.
    James Stuart died with the Duke of Buckingham (he gave him the title as a gift for causing him “great joy and entetainment”) by his side and after Buckingham died he was buried next to James Stuarts side in Westminster Abbey.

  32. Alice.W

    On August 26, 2010 at 6:26 am


    Its not just that Stephen is unbalanced, alot of what he wrote is wrong. He said that King James’s sexuality was not even mentioned till quite a time after King James’s death. That is incorrect. To come to that idea you have to pass aside, or never see a ton of stuff from the time. There are the comments above which give great first hand evidence. I also know that the Spanish and French abassadors made comments about James and his love for men, one in particular, when he was in England and was writing home to Spain when James was King. They joke about James visiting capri, which was where Tiberius is famous for keeping his men lovers. Also there are things written from as early has when King James was a young man in Scotland. They talk and complain over his love for Esme Stuart and how he never leaves his side, the two men even sleeping in the same bed and it was complained that the relationship went beyond what could be accepted when it was so open. Thats when James was forced with great force to send Esme to France.
    When I was doing A levels at 6th Form college I remember our history teacher talking about King James and his boyfriends and how it upset quite a few people at the time when the King was older and looking at what was written about him by other people at the time. I mean this is a group of 17 year olds looking at evidence Stephen has missed. Our teacher was a married woman with two kids, one in my year, Im pretty sure she had no agenda to make King James gay! She just gave us the copies of first hand letters and writings and it was easy to see that he fell in love with men. This was only a small part of what we were looking at. He was a really complex man, quite spoilt and with bad mood swings but very talented.

  33. David Grant

    On September 22, 2010 at 1:24 am


    And so what if King James was gay? So what? Oh, that’s right.
    God doesn’t love him. Christ didn’t die for him. And all the homosexuals, who clearly chose their same sex attraction, will go to hell right along with King James.

    There are many books on this particular subject. I merely read, but was not educated about it. Those with the ‘agenda’ (need to get a new word people) are not the ones trying to ‘make King James gay’.

    So what?

  34. Dyan Bruneau

    On December 16, 2010 at 10:50 am


    First, your chromazones determine if you are male, female or a combination of both. This is based on Proven Facts. Second, from all I read about king James, he expected people to ” do what I say, not what I do”. Was he Gay, I would think more of bisexual or even sex addict. There are verses from King James proving his preferances. Third, I believe in the facts, Genes produce who we are, from the begining. In the begining a sperm is not a sperm it is a germ. Does this give you a clue as to how humans were created? I used to believe in the bible and still do as a moral instruction book but not as the magical “human” Jesus who is really the GOD who created everything. Take 30 religions and ask which one is the true religion and all of the true ones take a step forward, how many do you think will be behind? We have proof of creation, geneticsa, mutation, chromazones, what more do you need people. King James was “HUMAN” and had all the faults that anyone of us could have been born with. We are who we are when the sperm enters the egg. Fact!

  35. David

    On December 24, 2010 at 1:40 pm


    King James was buried between two homosexual lovers in his mausoleum, George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham (1592-1628) on his left hand and Ludovic Stuart, Duke of Richmond and Lennox (1574-1624). His tomb is a tourist attraction in London today.

  36. Stephen J. Ardent

    On December 25, 2010 at 8:54 pm


    Revisionist historians have surely done a number on King James.
    They say a lot but fortunately the one thing they all lack is proof.
    None of the critical sources offered thus far prove that
    alleged homosexuality of King James was an actual past, or
    historical event. Rather, it is assumed or believed the act(s)
    took place based on nothing more than guesswork,
    assumption, conjecture, hypothesis, rumor, gossip, etc.
    Consequently, this position is not historical at all, and in
    fact specifically is “History-Less.”

  37. Leslie

    On December 31, 2010 at 5:31 am


    I believe strongly that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. Know why? It was written in the original Bible. That is false saying that they have a right. Yeah they have rights as humans and I dont treat them any different. And I like how you historians talk on here you sound really educated. But instead of finding faults in the people behind the translations of the bibles why not read it and shutup? That’s what I have to say.

  38. Larry Silverstein

    On January 29, 2011 at 9:45 am


    Its very hard to think outside the box!

    HOW THE JEWS SCREWED THE EGYPTIANS
    Genesis 47:13-26

    Joseph and the Famine
    13 There was no food, however, in the whole region because the famine was severe; both Egypt and Canaan wasted away because of the famine. 14 Joseph collected all the money that was to be found in Egypt and Canaan in payment for the grain they were buying, and he brought it to Pharaoh’s palace. 15 When the money of the people of Egypt and Canaan was gone, all Egypt came to Joseph and said, “Give us food. Why should we die before your eyes? Our money is all gone.”
    16 “Then bring your livestock,” said Joseph. “I will sell you food in exchange for your livestock, since your money is gone.” 17 So they brought their livestock to Joseph, and he gave them food in exchange for their horses, their sheep and goats, their cattle and donkeys. And he brought them through that year with food in exchange for all their livestock.
    18 When that year was over, they came to him the following year and said, “We cannot hide from our lord the fact that since our money is gone and our livestock belongs to you, there is nothing left for our lord except our bodies and our land. 19 Why should we perish before your eyes—we and our land as well? Buy us and our land in exchange for food, and we with our land will be in bondage to Pharaoh. Give us seed so that we may live and not die, and that the land may not become desolate.”
    20 So Joseph bought all the land in Egypt for Pharaoh. The Egyptians, one and all, sold their fields, because the famine was too severe for them. The land became Pharaoh’s, 21 and Joseph reduced the people to servitude,[a] from one end of Egypt to the other. 22 However, he did not buy the land of the priests, because they received a regular allotment from Pharaoh and had food enough from the allotment Pharaoh gave them. That is why they did not sell their land.
    23 Joseph said to the people, “Now that I have bought you and your land today for Pharaoh, here is seed for you so you can plant the ground. 24 But when the crop comes in, give a fifth of it to Pharaoh. The other four-fifths you may keep as seed for the fields and as food for yourselves and your households and your children.”
    25 “You have saved our lives,” they said. “May we find favor in the eyes of our lord; we will be in bondage to Pharaoh.”
    26 So Joseph established it as a law concerning land in Egypt—still in force today—that a fifth of the produce belongs to Pharaoh. It was only the land of the priests that did not become Pharaoh’s.
    Footnotes:
    a. Genesis 47:21 Samaritan Pentateuch and Septuagint (see also Vulgate); Masoretic Text and he moved the people into the cities
    Jews are Parasites
    In case it seems too incredible and vile to the reader that there could be HUMAN parasites, let me present, from the works of the Jews themselves, their OWN official description of the process.
    The earliest and most complete record of Jewish methods can be found in almost any home in America, right under the noses of non-Jews, who have actually been taught to worship the very parasites who are eating them alive. In the Old Testament, we can read the story of a typical Jewish operation in any nation they invade. Jews almost always come to a new nation as hapless “refugees”, or prisoners and slaves (having had difficulties with their previous hosts).
    So it was in ancient Egypt.
    A Jew named Joseph was out tending sheep. His brothers were at first going to kill him for his “coat-of-many-colors”, and threw him into a pit. (Genesis, 37). But then some Midianite slave traders happened along, and we learn in verses 26 and 27 that these Jews decided it was wasteful just to kill their brother, when they could SELL him for a profit. So his own Jewish brothers sold Joseph as a slave for twenty pieces of silver, and Joseph wound up an Egyptian slave.
    In Genesis 39:6, we find Joseph doing such a good job of running an Egyptian household as a slave that the master makes him the “overseer.” In verse 6, the Jewish slave has become so indispensable to the Egyptian master that Joseph is made the boss of the entire Egyptian household. But Joseph gets in difficulty with the Egyptian’s wife. She claims he tried to rape her. Joseph claims, innocently, that she tried to rape him. (Genesis 39:12)
    Joseph is tossed into prison, where he repeats the pattern: he becomes so invaluable to the prison administration with his clever business suggestions that he becomes boss of the prison!! (Genesis 39:22) In this choice spot, he becomes a confidant of Pharaoh’s butler, who is in jail. Joseph cleverly interprets dreams for him.
    Pharaoh later reinstates his butler, and has a dream he can’t interpret. The butler suggests Joseph. Pharaoh has Joseph brought before him, and tells Joseph about seven fat beeves, and seven thin ones. The wily Jew tells Pharaoh this means Egypt will have seven years of plenty and seven years of famine. (For centuries in the Nile valley, there were huge floods and then periods of drought, so that “lean years” were absolutely certain to follow “fat” years, and vice versa.)
    But young Pharaoh is so impressed with Joseph that he asks Joseph what to do about it. The clever Hebrew replies that Pharaoh must find a man smart enough to gather up huge stores of Egyptian grain during the next seven years. “Surprisingly” enough, Pharaoh picks Joseph as that man, and in Chapter 41, verse 30 of Genesis, Pharaoh turns all Egypt over to his new Jewish “friend.” Joseph becomes the “Bernard Baruch” of Egypt, with Pharaoh ordering “without thee no man shall lift up his hand or foot in all the land of Egypt.” Joseph duly gathers up and stores the grain produced by Egyptian labor, in vast amounts.
    When Egypt is drought-stricken, and the Egyptians are starving for food, Joseph begins to sell their own grain back to the Egyptians. (Genesis 41:56) The same rotten Jews who sold Joseph into slavery now come over from Canaan to buy some Egyptian grain. Joseph, who is selling the grain to the Egyptians, gives grain to his fellow Jews. In fact, he gives the Jews a double order of grain on their second trip, and Egyptian gold in the bags to boot! (Genesis 44:1) Then he kicks all the Egyptians out of his office, and tells his Jewish brothers to bring all the Jews over to live free off the Egyptian grain. (Genesis 45:1, 10, 11)
    Meanwhile, Joseph is selling back their own grain to the Egyptian farmers who produced it. The king is tickled to death, as the treasury bulges. So Joseph tells the king his brothers and families are on the way, and the king promises Joseph that the Jews will live on “the fat of the land.” (Genesis 45:18)
    From the money being paid by the Egyptian farmers to buy their own grain back, Joseph gives all the Jews wagons, equipment, furniture and doles out 300 pieces of Egyptian silver to all these Jews! (Genesis 45:16, 22)
    Next, Genesis 46 describes how a whole ARMY of Jews moves into Egypt, with who “begat” who and all the children and “children’s’ children,” etc. Joseph tells his fellow Jews to lie to the king that they are not shepherds (which he knows might aggravate the king). Instead, the Jews all get free Egyptian cattle and land, the best in Egypt. (Genesis 46:34). Not one of these Jews has done a lick of work to produce the wealth they are grabbing (a familiar parasitic pattern).
    Genesis 47, verse 14 reveals that Joseph, Egypt’s Jewish boss, has “gathered up all the money” of the Egyptians, selling them grain.
    As a result, in verse 15, we discover that the “money of Egypt fails!”
    A depression!
    The starving Egyptians plead with Joseph to let them have a little grain because their money is all gone. Joseph tells them, in typical hock-shop Jewish style, that they still have their cattle! So the Jew takes the Egyptian farmers’ cattle. (Genesis 47:16)
    The next year, the starving Egyptians again beg for grain. But the Jewish keeper of the granaries (filled by Egyptian work) tells them that they will have to give up their land too! To survive, the people have to give this Jew their land in the name of the Pharaoh (verse 20). Joseph then puts them all into “concentration areas” — cities, taking them off their own land! (verse 21). When the Egyptians are finally reduced to utter despair, starving, without their money, without their land and without their cattle, Joseph puts them back on their own land as SHARE-CROPPERS, at 20% profit! (verse 24).
    Understandably, since Joseph is running the affairs of the Egyptian, the Egyptians are poor, working like slaves and hungry. But, meanwhile, the hordes of Jews he has brought are getting “rich and fat” (verse 27) living off the “fat of the land” — WITHOUT WORK!
    Sound familiar?
    After 80 years of this process, the Jews have almost everything and the Egyptians are all slaving for the Jews! (The story doesn’t mention what the Egyptians think of the arrangement, but it isn’t hard to imagine.)
    In the Jews’ own book of Exodus, we next find Joseph dying and the Egyptians trying to find some way of getting the Jews off their backs. In Exodus 1, there are some verses worth repeating whole:
    7. And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied and waxed exceedingly mighty, and the land was filled with them.
    8. Now there rose up a king who knew not Joseph. (An anti-Semite no doubt.)
    9. And he said unto his people “Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we! (Take a look at New York City, Los Angeles, etc!)
    10. Come on, let us deal wisely with them, lest they multiply, lest it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies (as traitors, spies).
    Remember the Rosenbergs, Sobels, Greenglasses, Golds, Moskowitz’s, Silvermasters, etc., etc., etc., who “joined also unto the (Communist) enemies?”)
    Observe here the classic pattern:
    The Jew arrives in rags and tatters and terrible misery because of the actions of his own people. (Not Gentiles, but his own Jewish brothers sold Joseph into slavery.) The host people are relatively easy-going, and soon recognize the undeniable clever business manipulations of the Jew. (Joseph becomes boss of the household where he was a slave.) The Jew begins to push. (Joseph is accused of getting “fresh” with the wife of his master, who sends him to jail.) In spite of adversity however (jail), the Jew prospers because of the same old Jewish ability to manage and manipulate. (Joseph becomes boss of the jail.)
    Using his wits, the Jew reaches the highest positions of power. (Joseph becomes the “executive officer” under Pharaoh, and actually runs Egypt.) Abusing every leverage of the high office of power, the Jew begins to gather up not just the money and the power, but all the money and all the power which he turns over to more and more Jews. He becomes so greedy and rapacious that he smashes the whole economy. (Joseph grabs up so much money from the Egyptians that the “money fails.”)
    In the following “depression” the Jew gathers up all the material wealth of the land. (Joseph did exactly this, giving his fellow Jews “the fat of the land.”) Once the Jew owns and controls everything, he proceeds to make financial slaves out of the native population. (Joseph sent the farmers back to their own land as sharecroppers, producing 20% profit!)
    Inevitably, this process produces such a horror of Jewish power and wealth and such misery for the native population, that the host people become “anti-Semites” and the Jews begin to look around for another country to which they can flee. THEY BECOME SPIES, etc. (The king of Egypt warns his own people that the Jews are more powerful than the Egyptians in their own land, and that the Jews are likely to be traitors. He first tries to make the Jews work as slaves.)
    The next and last step is for the native population to try to hold the Jews back somehow. (The king orders infanticide for all newborn male Jews.) When these less radical methods won’t work, the native populations rise up and either kill the Jews or drive them out. (Moses led the Jews out of Egypt only yards ahead of the king’s armies)
    That Jewish pattern was established in writing more than four thousand years ago — by the Jews themselves. You can check every word of it in any Bible.
    Origins of Satan
    Satan is a complex figure who is popularly taken as the personification of evil which opposes Gods’ work both on a cosmic level and upon earth by inspiring human beings to work in opposition to Gods’ divine plan. Satan as a distinct figure has emerged from early Christian writings which are, in turn, based on ancient Hebraic texts. Whilst Satan is originally an agent of God, rather than an opposing power, he becomes more important and malevolent as the mythology is appropriated, firstly by dissident Jewish sects, and later, by early Christian authors.

    Satan as God’s Messenger
    As he first appears in the Hebrew Bible, Satan is not necessarily evil, much less opposed to God. He appears in both the book of Numbers and in Job as one of God’s obedient servants – a messenger or angel – a word that translates the Hebrew term for messenger (mal’ak) into Greek (angelos). In biblical sources the Hebrew term the satan describes an adversarial role – it is not the name of a particular character. Although Hebrew storytellers occasionally introduced a supernatural character which they called the satan, what they meant was any one of the angels sent by God for the specific purpose of blocking or obstructing human activity. The root stn means “one who opposes, obstructs or acts as adversary.” The Greek diablos (later translated as devil) literally means “one who throws something across one’s path.” Hebrew storytellers often attribute misfortune to human sin. Some however, also invoke this supernatural character, the satan, who by God’s own order or permission, blocks or opposes human plans and desires. But this messenger is not necessarily malevolent. In the story of Balaam (Numbers) God sends a supernatural messenger, taking on the role of the satan to prevent Balaam from disobeying God. In the Book of Job, it is the satan (who is described as one of the Beni Elohim – sons of God) who challenges God to put Job to the test. The Lord agrees, authorizing the satan to afflict Job. Here, the satan terrifies and harms a person, but remains an angel, a member of the heavenly court.

    Around the time that Job was written (c. 550 B.C.E) however, other biblical writers invoked the satan to account for division within Israel. The author of 1 Chronicles suggests that it was the satan who incited King David to introduce census taking – and taxation into Israel, which aroused vehement and immediate opposition. The prophet Zachariah also depicted the satan inciting factions within Israel. Some 4 centuries later in 168 B.C.E., when Jews regained their independence from their Seleucid rulers, internal conflict became more acute. For centuries, Jews had been pressured to assimilate to the ways of the foreign nations that had ruled them. These pressures reached breaking point in 168 B.C.E., when the Seleucid ruler, Antiochus Epiphanes decided to eradicate every trace of the Jews’ “barbaric” culture. As told in 1 Maccabees, some Israelites determined to resist the foreign king battled on two fronts – not only against the occupiers, but also against those Jews who were inclined towards assimilation. The latter, the “Hellenizing Jews” were seen as traitors to God and Israel alike. In the decades that followed the Maccabean revolt, extreme dissident groups, bent on separating Israel from all foreign influences gained strength. These dissidents began increasingly to invoke the satan to characterize their Jewish opponents – accusing them of having been seduced by the power of evil (Satan, Beelzebub, Azazel, Belial, etc.) These dissidents also borrowed stories, and wrote their own, telling how angelic powers, swollen with lust or arrogance, fell from heaven into sin. As Satan became an increasingly important and personified figure, so stories about his origin proliferated.

    The early stories of the origin of Satan characterize him as an intimate enemy – a trusted colleague or brother upon whose loyalty the well-being of family & society depend – but whom becomes unexpectedly hostile and jealous. Those who asked “How could God’s own angel become his enemy?” were asking, in effect, “How could one of us become one of them?”

    The Enemy Within
    This idea of Satan as the intimate enemy – the source of challenge and conflict from within a community of believers was to become a central theme in early Christian belief.
    It was the sect known as the Essenes who placed the cosmic battle between angels and demons, God and Satan, at the centre of both their cosmology and politics. They saw the foreign occupation of Palestine – and the accommodation of the majority of Jews to that occupation – as evidence that the forces of evil ruled the world – and, in the form of Satan or Mastema, had infiltrated God’s chosen people, turning most of them into allies of the Evil One. Thus the war in heaven was also taking place on earth, with the Essenes casting themselves as the ‘Sons of Light’ against the ‘Sons of Darkness’. The Essenes were influenced by apocryphal texts such as The Book of the Watchers, which introduced the idea of a division in Heaven. The author combines 2 stories, describing how Semihazah, leader of the Watchers, coerced 200 other angels in violating divine order by mating with human women – producing the nephilim (fallen ones) and demonic spirits who brought violence to the earth. It is also described how Azazel sinned by giving humans the secrets of metallurgy, that inspired men to make weapons and women to adorn themselves with gold, silver and cosmetics. These stories offer a paradigm which is not restricted to one historical situation, but which can be applied whenever an analogous situation arises. The author of Watchers places moral identity at the forefront of the question of who is God’s chosen people. Thus it is not enough just to be a Jew – one must also be a Jew who acts morally. If angels could fall from grace, how much easier it will be for humans to be seduced by immorality?

    Satan v Jesus
    The first Christian gospel, attributed to Mark, was written during the last year of the rebellion against Rome, as chronicled by Josephus. Mark describes how the spirit of God descends on Jesus at his baptism, driving him into the wilderness, where he is tempted by Satan. Even after his return from the wilderness, the powers of evil continue to attack him. Jesus’ execution is the culmination of the struggle between God and Satan that began at his baptism. But his death is not a final defeat, but actually heralds God’s ultimate victory. The cosmic war serves primarily to interpret human relationships in supernatural form. The figure of Satan becomes a way of characterizing the enemy as the embodiment of transcendent forces.

    Luke, the only Gentile author among the gospel writers, makes explicit the connection between Jesus’ Jewish enemies and the “evil one.” Luke also states that Satan “entered into Judas Iscariot” who went and conferred with the chief priest to arrange the betrayal of Jesus. Luke’s Gospel provides many details that contribute to the later Christian perception that Pontius Pilate was a well-meaning weakling and that it was the Jews who were ultimately responsible for Jesus’ death.
    In the Gospel according to John, the accusation against Jesus’ intimate enemies – his fellow Jews is reiterated. When Jesus predicts his crucifixion, he declares that instead of showing a judgement against him, it shows God’s judgement against “this world”; instead of destroying Jesus, it will destroy the diabolic “ruler of the world” (John 12:31-32). John likewise terms the Jews as “Satan’s Allies.”

    Christians v Pagans
    Between 70 and 100 C.E., the Christian movement became largely Gentile. As earlier Christians had claimed to see Satan among their fellow Jews, the new Gentile converts now saw Satan and his demonic allies at work in other Gentiles. Many converts found that they were threatened not by Jews but by pagans – Roman officers and city mobs who feared that Christian “atheism” could bring the wrath of the gods down on whole communities. One follower of Paul, in a letter attributed to him called the Letter to the Ephesians, writes:
    Our contest is not against flesh and blood but against powers, against principalities, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in heavenly places (6:12).
    This sense of spiritual warfare was felt by many Christians facing persecution for their beliefs. The Gentile converts believed that worshipers of the pagan gods were driven by Satan to attack God’s people. The movement which was rejected by the majority of Jews, whom it repudiated in turn, now appealed to people of every tribe and nation to break all former bonds of kinship and affiliation. For Christians, there were only two kinds of people – those who belong to God’s kingdom (Heb. 12:22-24;13-14) and those who were ruled by Satan. Not only did Christians teach converts that these bonds were not sacred, but that they were of a diabolic character.

    Heretics
    The apostle Paul, when confronted by rival teachers, dismissed them as Satan’s servants:
    Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is not strange if his servants disguise themselves as servants of righteousness (2 Cor. 11:13-15).
    Christians dreaded Satan’s attacks from outside – from hostile pagans – but many of them believed that even more dangerous were Satan’s forays among the most intimate enemies of all – other Christians, or, as most said of those with whom they disagreed, among heretics.

    Around 180 C.E., Irenaeus wrote a massive attack on deviant Christians – calling them heretics and “servants of Satan.” This enormously influential work, titled Against Heresies, states that false believers use the name of Christ only as a “lure” in order to teach doctrines inspired by Satan and are themselves driven by lusts of the flesh. The Greek word ‘heresy’ (from hairesis) literally means ‘choice’. Irenaeus, and his followers such as Tertullian insist that making such a choice is evil, since choice destroys unity. For Tertullian, asking questions and discussion is in itself suspect as the true Christian should have faith alone.

    Conclusions
    So powerful is the vision of cosmic struggle that Christians have used it time and time again over the last two thousand years to interpret opposition and persecution – against “pagans”, “heretics”, unbelievers and atheists. Even among non-Christians, there is a tendency to portray social and political movements as being forces of good arrayed against the forces of evil. Anything which is seen as in opposition to the beliefs of an individual can be castigated with the label ‘Satanic’ – as has been the case in the twentieth century with Rock Music, Communism, and The United States of America. Satan not only represents the enemy without – but also the enemy within – and in the latter is seen as more dangerous and diabolic.

  39. Larry Silverstein

    On February 1, 2011 at 6:28 am


    Thy Dear Dad and Husband
    The Gay Love Letters of King James I & VI
    Excerpts from My Dear Boy: Gay Love Letters through the Centuries (1998), Edited by Rictor Norton
    King James (VI of Scotland, I of England) (1566–1625) was introduced to twenty-one-year-old George Villiers, son of an untitled and impoverished squire, in the summer of 1614. “Steenie”, James’s nickname for Villiers, is apparently derived from the biblical description of St Stephen having “the face of an angel,” for Villiers according to all contemporary accounts (and surviving paintings) was “the handsomest-bodied man in England.” In November that year he was appointed the royal cupbearer, in April the following year he was knighted and by August 1615 he was James’s bed-partner; the men spent a few days together at Farnham Castle that month, which Buckingham recalled in a letter to James years later, wondering “whether you loved me now . . . better than at the time which I shall never forget at Farnham, where the bed’s head could not be found between the master and his dog.”
    His spectacular rise continued: he was created Master of the Horse and Knight of the Garter and given a Viscountcy in 1616, and made the Earl of Buckingham in 1617. In response to the Privy Council’s remonstrations against such blatant favoritism, James defended himself:
    “I, James, am neither a god nor an angel, but a man like any other. Therefore I act like a man and confess to loving those dear to me more than other men. You may be sure that I love the Earl of Buckingham more than anyone else, and more than you who are here assembled. I wish to speak in my own behalf and not to have it thought to be a defect, for Jesus Christ did the same, and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had his John, and I have my George.”
    The next year Villiers became a Marquess in 1618, Lord High Admiral in 1619, and finally the Duke of Buckingham in 1623. In that year Buckingham wrote to James from Madrid, beginning “Dere Dad and Gossope” (gossip, from godparent, meaning chum) and closing “Your most humble slave and servant and doge [dog] Steenie.”
    The two men were notorious for their kissing and caressing of one another in public, and their heedless contempt for public opinion contributed to the civil crisis enveloping the nation. James suspended Parliament in 1621 and more or less lost control of the government. Their personal friend the Lord High Chancellor Sir Francis Bacon, well known for sleeping with his Welsh serving boys, in a politically motivated trial was convicted of accepting bribes, and Villiers was assassinated in 1628. James had arranged Villiers’ marriage to Lady Katherine Manner, daughter to the Earl of Rutland, on May 16, 1620, which of course was necessary for dynastic purposes. But the very day after his wedding night he found a letter from James waiting for him, in which the king clearly staked his continuing claim upon his beloved:
    JAMES I TO GEORGE VILLIERS, MARQUESS OF BUCKINGHAM
    [17 May 1620]
    My only sweet and dear child,

    Thy dear dad sends thee his blessing this morning and also to his daughter. The Lord of Heaven send you a sweet and blithe wakening, all kind of comfort in your sanctified bed, and bless the fruits thereof that I may have sweet bedchamber boys to play me with, and this is my daily prayer, sweet heart. When thou risest, keep thee from importunity of people that may trouble thy mind, that at meeting I may see thy white teeth shine upon me, and so bear me comfortable company in my journey. And so God bless thee, hoping thou will not forget to read over again my former letter.

    James R.
    [December 1622?]
    My only sweet and dear child,

    I am now so miserable a coward, as I do nothing but weep and mourn; for I protest to God I rode this afternoon a great way in the park without speaking to anybody and the tears trickling down my cheeks, as now they do that I can scarcely see to write. But alas, what shall I do at our parting? The only small comfort I can have will be to pry in thy defects with the eye of an enemy, and of every mote to make a mountain, and so harden my heart against thy absence. But this little malice is like jealousy, proceeding from a sweet root; but in one point it overcometh it, for as it proceeds from love so it cannot but end in love. Sweet heart, be earnest with Kate to come and meet thee at Newhall [Buckingham's mansion in Essex] within eight or ten days after this. Cast thee to be here tomorrow, as near about two in the afternoon as thou can, and come galloping hither. Remember thy picture and suffer none of the Council to come here [probably Theobalds, where he ordered on December 16 that none of the Lords were to trouble themselves to come]. For God’s sake write not a word again and let no creature see this letter. The Lord of heaven and earth to bless thee, and my sweet daughter, and my sweet little grandchild, and all thy blessed family, and send thee a happy return, both now and thou knows when, to thy dear dad and Christian gossip.

    James R.
    Windsor
    18 April [1623]
    My sweet Steenie gossip,

    The bearer hereof had so great a longing to see you as I was forced to give him leave. . . .

    For news, your bay Spanish mare with the black mane and tail hath an exceeding fair and fine horse-foal of ten days old, just of her own colour but that he hath the far foot white; and there is another of them ready to foal. God send my sweet baby the like luck with his Spanish breed before this time twelve-month. Thus hoping that ye will give a good advice to the bearer hereof to lead a good life in times coming, I pray the Lord send my sweet Steenie gossip a happy and comfortable return in the arms of his dear dad.

    James R.
    [December 1623?]
    My only sweet and dear child,

    Notwithstanding of your desiring me not to write yesterday, yet had I written in the evening if, at my coming out of the park, such a drowsiness had not come upon me as I was forced to set and sleep in my chair half an hour. And yet I cannot content myself without sending you this present, praying God that I may have a joyful and comfortable meeting with you and that we may make at this Christmas a new marriage ever to be kept hereafter; for, God so love me, as I desire only to live in this world for your sake, and that I had rather live banished in any part of the earth with you than live a sorrowful widow’s life without you. And so God bless you, my sweet child and wife, and grant that ye may ever be a comfort to your dead dad and husband.

    James R.
    ________________________________________
    SOURCE: Letters of King James VI & I, ed. G. P. V. Akrigg (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 1984).

  40. Larry Silverstein

    On February 1, 2011 at 6:29 am


    Thy Dear Dad and Husband
    The Gay Love Letters of King James I & VI
    Excerpts from My Dear Boy: Gay Love Letters through the Centuries (1998), Edited by Rictor Norton
    King James (VI of Scotland, I of England) (1566–1625) was introduced to twenty-one-year-old George Villiers, son of an untitled and impoverished squire, in the summer of 1614. \\\”Steenie\\\”, James\\\’s nickname for Villiers, is apparently derived from the biblical description of St Stephen having \\\”the face of an angel,\\\” for Villiers according to all contemporary accounts (and surviving paintings) was \\\”the handsomest-bodied man in England.\\\” In November that year he was appointed the royal cupbearer, in April the following year he was knighted and by August 1615 he was James\\\’s bed-partner; the men spent a few days together at Farnham Castle that month, which Buckingham recalled in a letter to James years later, wondering \\\”whether you loved me now . . . better than at the time which I shall never forget at Farnham, where the bed\\\’s head could not be found between the master and his dog.\\\”
    His spectacular rise continued: he was created Master of the Horse and Knight of the Garter and given a Viscountcy in 1616, and made the Earl of Buckingham in 1617. In response to the Privy Council\\\’s remonstrations against such blatant favoritism, James defended himself:
    \\\”I, James, am neither a god nor an angel, but a man like any other. Therefore I act like a man and confess to loving those dear to me more than other men. You may be sure that I love the Earl of Buckingham more than anyone else, and more than you who are here assembled. I wish to speak in my own behalf and not to have it thought to be a defect, for Jesus Christ did the same, and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had his John, and I have my George.\\\”
    The next year Villiers became a Marquess in 1618, Lord High Admiral in 1619, and finally the Duke of Buckingham in 1623. In that year Buckingham wrote to James from Madrid, beginning \\\”Dere Dad and Gossope\\\” (gossip, from godparent, meaning chum) and closing \\\”Your most humble slave and servant and doge [dog] Steenie.\\\”
    The two men were notorious for their kissing and caressing of one another in public, and their heedless contempt for public opinion contributed to the civil crisis enveloping the nation. James suspended Parliament in 1621 and more or less lost control of the government. Their personal friend the Lord High Chancellor Sir Francis Bacon, well known for sleeping with his Welsh serving boys, in a politically motivated trial was convicted of accepting bribes, and Villiers was assassinated in 1628. James had arranged Villiers\\\’ marriage to Lady Katherine Manner, daughter to the Earl of Rutland, on May 16, 1620, which of course was necessary for dynastic purposes. But the very day after his wedding night he found a letter from James waiting for him, in which the king clearly staked his continuing claim upon his beloved:
    JAMES I TO GEORGE VILLIERS, MARQUESS OF BUCKINGHAM
    [17 May 1620]
    My only sweet and dear child,

    Thy dear dad sends thee his blessing this morning and also to his daughter. The Lord of Heaven send you a sweet and blithe wakening, all kind of comfort in your sanctified bed, and bless the fruits thereof that I may have sweet bedchamber boys to play me with, and this is my daily prayer, sweet heart. When thou risest, keep thee from importunity of people that may trouble thy mind, that at meeting I may see thy white teeth shine upon me, and so bear me comfortable company in my journey. And so God bless thee, hoping thou will not forget to read over again my former letter.

    James R.
    [December 1622?]
    My only sweet and dear child,

    I am now so miserable a coward, as I do nothing but weep and mourn; for I protest to God I rode this afternoon a great way in the park without speaking to anybody and the tears trickling down my cheeks, as now they do that I can scarcely see to write. But alas, what shall I do at our parting? The only small comfort I can have will be to pry in thy defects with the eye of an enemy, and of every mote to make a mountain, and so harden my heart against thy absence. But this little malice is like jealousy, proceeding from a sweet root; but in one point it overcometh it, for as it proceeds from love so it cannot but end in love. Sweet heart, be earnest with Kate to come and meet thee at Newhall [Buckingham\\\'s mansion in Essex] within eight or ten days after this. Cast thee to be here tomorrow, as near about two in the afternoon as thou can, and come galloping hither. Remember thy picture and suffer none of the Council to come here [probably Theobalds, where he ordered on December 16 that none of the Lords were to trouble themselves to come]. For God\\\’s sake write not a word again and let no creature see this letter. The Lord of heaven and earth to bless thee, and my sweet daughter, and my sweet little grandchild, and all thy blessed family, and send thee a happy return, both now and thou knows when, to thy dear dad and Christian gossip.

    James R.
    Windsor
    18 April [1623]
    My sweet Steenie gossip,

    The bearer hereof had so great a longing to see you as I was forced to give him leave. . . .

    For news, your bay Spanish mare with the black mane and tail hath an exceeding fair and fine horse-foal of ten days old, just of her own colour but that he hath the far foot white; and there is another of them ready to foal. God send my sweet baby the like luck with his Spanish breed before this time twelve-month. Thus hoping that ye will give a good advice to the bearer hereof to lead a good life in times coming, I pray the Lord send my sweet Steenie gossip a happy and comfortable return in the arms of his dear dad.

    James R.
    [December 1623?]
    My only sweet and dear child,

    Notwithstanding of your desiring me not to write yesterday, yet had I written in the evening if, at my coming out of the park, such a drowsiness had not come upon me as I was forced to set and sleep in my chair half an hour. And yet I cannot content myself without sending you this present, praying God that I may have a joyful and comfortable meeting with you and that we may make at this Christmas a new marriage ever to be kept hereafter; for, God so love me, as I desire only to live in this world for your sake, and that I had rather live banished in any part of the earth with you than live a sorrowful widow\\\’s life without you. And so God bless you, my sweet child and wife, and grant that ye may ever be a comfort to your dead dad and husband.

    James R.
    ________________________________________
    SOURCE: Letters of King James VI & I, ed. G. P. V. Akrigg (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 1984).

  41. Tired of schemes

    On February 15, 2011 at 5:20 am


    It is merely an indication of how bereft our society is of love that the mention of it tickles only perverse imaginings.

  42. Joe Kool

    On March 22, 2011 at 12:16 pm


    Hey Larry Silverstein,

    The ancient Israelites were NOT Jews. They were sons of Jacob. Only one of Jacob’s sons was the father of the Jews and his name was Judah. The other eleven boys were the father of the Gaddites (Netherlands), Reubenites (French), Joseph – Ephraim (England), Joseph – Mannaseh (America), etc. ….

    You’re just trying to make connections that don’t exist.

    The ancient Egyptians were practicing the Babylonian mystery religion which is the forerunner of the 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto. It’s not Joseph’s fault that he wants to practice the 10 Commandment model, gathering up in times of plenty and distributing in lean times. If he gains land, wealth, and riches, that’s just the result of practicing the one true Law of the universe.

  43. White Rabbit

    On July 29, 2011 at 1:38 pm


    My Lord! What a very badly researched article! I am really sorry Stephen, but talk about fighting against a tidal wave. Having read through the comments and looking much deeper into the subject matter it is obvious you have only looked at the argument from one view point to prove an already held opinion. You had decided what you wanted to say before you even began and that is the worst mark of a bad, amature, historian.
    I am a christian and fully hetrosexual (a mother of two in fact); yet find you arguments mind boggling closed to the sources available. I found ‘Bosie D’s comments very interesting and your replies, as they stood, pretty limp.
    I found this of interest due to having recently seen Anne Boleyn at the Globe Theatre in London. It presents a frame work of James I romping with his lover Villiers. I was open minded to the facts behind this theatrical presentation and hence decided to look further into the facts.
    It must be remembered that James Stuart did not commission his version of the bible due to any strong religious feelings. It was a political ploy to settle the dangerous religious dangers still echoing from the Reformation. During the conference at Hampton Court James made it clear, in a fairly straight forward and bawdy manner, that these problems must be solved. It was then decided to create the King James bible in order that both ‘high Church’ and ‘Low Church’ would be drawn together by one text under law. The fawning scholars were then set to work.
    As a result it is almost more of an interesting historical/political text than a religious one.
    James, throughout his rule, showed very little real interest in religion, save for using it for political purpose.
    The first hand proofs of his bi-sexuality are boundless (many stated very well in the above posts)… but so what? Sexuality was seen in a very different manner in the 16th century. I wonder if there would be a rather biased article such as the above written to prove the same if James Stuarts lovers were female: which, lets face it, was generally accepted amoung the rulers and nobility of the time. Marriage and childbirth was never for love but for political reasons… simply part of the job. Gaining a son and such. Lovers were considered a thing of a general acceptance.
    What’s next? An article saying that Henry VIII, basic founder of an independant Church of England did not have multiple mistresses?
    How it can be stated so bluntly, by a non pro historian, that many learned practitioners and original sources are wrong or don’t exist is highly arrogant.

  44. Katie

    On July 29, 2011 at 5:29 pm


    Stephen, with your statement…
    “Rather, it is assumed or believed the act(s)
    took place based on nothing more than guesswork,
    assumption, conjecture, hypothesis, rumor, gossip, etc.
    Consequently, this position is not historical at all, and in
    fact specifically is “History-Less.”
    I am afraid that you have rather cooked your own goose in regards to historical research and how you stand with historical source work. With your understanding we are left with a black hole in a great deal of positions in history.
    Given this statement we are then led to believe that unless we have an authenticated written account or ‘line drawing’, so to say, of a consumation of a relationship it was indeed never consummated? In this case we are left with a great deal of ‘virgins’ and a lot fewer king’s mistresses circulating in history. If a king is seen in documents to be spending all of his time with another woman rather than his wife; to be physically attached to that woman, gives that woman land and titles, is noted to spend many a night with that woman, appears infatuated in sources, there are public songs and ballards and foreign reports of their relationship and he sends loving, romantic letters then we most often determine that that woman is his mistress without having to have had written pieces describing their bedroom habits from first hand view. If that was the case then Charles II would have a lot fewer mistresses. In fact how can you prove that any mistresses children are indeed a King’s, or indeed any Queens. If you follow your path of understanding then you are left with a very tangled mess.
    So it stands with James I with most especially Buckingham. All of the above proofs are recorded in source regarding their relationship. Many of these sources are noted, mentioned and placed in others comments regarding your writing… yet you simply push aside any evidence which does not fit your pet theory. Oh, dear me!
    If your understanding of historical study is simply looking for documents which say ‘I saw them at it’, then you are left with a very sparce history indeed. This statement has revealed your untrained mind which is proved in your document.
    You can tell most easily that you decided to jump on a soap box and then sieved some authors (and it is most surely some and no means all) books (it does not seem likely that you have studied any original source materials first hand) written on the subject and found points which support your rather unlikely theory and discarded the rest. Please do point out where in your writing you address the ‘dear husband’ letters, the foreign ambassador reports, the first hand reports of their physical interaction in public, him being called to answer to parliment for the scandal of their relationship… where have you addressed these issues at all, let alone in an objective, or unbiased manner?
    Historical study is to gather all documents and sources and then fill in the blanks which time has lost. This is how we have histories. This is why people have studied for years and are trained. Without this we would have very little regarding most of ancient history and much lesser of more recent.

  45. Stephen J. Ardent

    On August 5, 2011 at 12:36 am


    Unfortunately Katie you fall prey to the same problems so many do. The first of which is making conclusions based on conjecture using contemporary standards, modes of address and social conduct to interpret the past.
    Secondly, interpreting history based on biased thinking is the opposite of critical thinking.

    Taken to account before Parliament indeed (notice the correct spelling), James was adamant that Parliament didn’t have the right to discuss and deal with foreign policy issues, whereas Parliament thought it did.
    The fact that Buckingham supported a marriage of Prince Charles and the daughter of Philip the Third of Spain is what prompted the “Protestation” by Parliament.

    Not your imagined gayness.

  46. Lisa G

    On December 12, 2011 at 1:24 pm


    I hope you don’t mind me asking but do you colour all your work with obviously personal religious views? It didn’t take me long to discount most of what you said simply by the tone of your writing. I then read various posts and comments on the article and realised that a great of the people who you seem to get very defensive and passive aggresive at seem to have a much broader sense of historical study than you do.
    I write and I have religious views, which I keep very private, but I never let any of my personal ideas intrude on my research.
    It worries me slightly that because you ‘vanity published’ your work that people might, excuse the pun, take it as gospel and that you seem to obviously think no other ideas on the subject hold any weight. It must have taken you a fair while in sifting through the research materials to find ones which actually support your soap box ideas when so much of the evidence points other-wise.

  47. Dewayne Bailey

    On September 19, 2012 at 3:17 pm


    I enjoyed reading your article, but I can’t find a reference to the letter you quoted: What did James think about marriage. I personally would like to think that KJ was not a homosexual, but I have convinced myself long ago that it would not matter one way or the other as far as the accuracy of the KJB. God has often used people that are not Christians to serve him. He is in charge of the good and the bad. Im not saying Homosexuality is any worse than any other sin, but it is sin. I don’t judge anyone, and no one else should either. I read a lot of the comments to your article. I like to read both sides of the situation. I have to agree with you on this. People think if they can discredit KJ, that that will discredit the Bible. The problem for them is that Christians (I mean real Christians know for sure what the truth is). We don’t have to have scholoraly men for that. God leads real Christians to the truth. None Christians will never understand this because they are in the dark. My advice for all the smart people on here is to seek Jesus and he will lead you to the real truth. Stephen could you get back to me on that reference. Thank you.

  48. Rev. Don

    On December 15, 2012 at 2:07 pm


    I so agree with Dewayne. Brother Ardent, my instinct would be to ally myself with you, but alas your arguments are much lacking in scholarship and your sense of outrage overshadows even your few salient arguments. As a pastor, I know that this issue of homosexuality is one of the greatest and divisive of our time. Like shacking up, gossiping, lying, fornication (hetero or homo) murder, theft, etc., homosexuality, I believe the Bible teaches is a sin. With regard to whether King James was or was not, the historical, literary, and even circumstantial evidence seem to weigh on the side that he was indeed. This is significant only in the sense that the man who commissioned the greatest translation of the Holy Bible, was in fact, a sinner himself. So, he was a sinner! What a surprise!! So he was just like all of us! On our best days the most righteous of us are only fit for hell. However, praise God for his unmerited mercy and grace that transforms us previously “filthy rags” into those with the hope of spending eternity with Christ Jesus. I wallowed in sin before the Savior rescued me…and you know what….? As hard as I try, I still mess up and break God’s heart. Thank you Jesus for redemption and the salvation that only your selfless, ultimate sacrificial could have provided for me. My point is that Ardent’s protestations are weak, unscholarly and unneeded. Moses was a murderer. All the Disciples save one shook in fear as deserting cowards in the upper room. Saul, before becoming Paul, persecuted the followers of Jesus. King David was a murderer, liar and an adulterer, but those Psalms that he surely did compose will still continue to salve, soothe, guide and give me pause. Who he was or what he did in the flesh does not invalidate his accomplishments in the Holy Spirit. Neither do King James’ .

  49. Ed Hunt

    On December 20, 2012 at 3:17 am


    Well, a fascinating discussion, with many different angles. Those who are Christians should not be shocked if he was a sodomite: for the faithful translation he was involved in sponsoring tells us that “all have sinned”. We European/American Christians also are having a difficult time with the 1700-year-old “christian” veneer peeling off of Western Culture. So many people spend lots of energy trying to defend things like King James, George Washington, the “good old days of America” etc–and are shocked to find out the raw unvarnished truth of the sinfulness of people throughout history. But if they were to read the King James Bible (or any other faithful version) they would see that Jesus promised his followers would be hated of all nations. And that no earthly nation is a “Christian nation”. The history of Europe is as bloody and sinful as the rest of the world–but with the pseudo-Christian veneer that was applied as a result of the Roman Empire legislating Christianity as once had legislated the Roman gods and goddesses. Plus the twisting of Christianity by the accumulation of non-biblical teachings, which became what we know today as “Roman Catholicism”. The true believers were horribly persecuted by this false Christianity–such groups as the Waldensians and the Albigensians. The Reformation hardly returned the state of things to the Scriptures. They still had the secular state punishing religious deviances, and the “church” looked to the state as a partner in a way totally foreign to the Scriptures. Luther may have thrown off some of the superstitious accumulations of papism, but he still persecuted Anabaptists. And so it was in England with the “Church of England” vs the Dissenters, the Puritans, the Congregationalists, etc. The real problem was this totally false idea of a “Christian nation”. And so King James and his entire populace were saturated with biblical terms, biblical phrases, and biblical references: but as for being truly born-again disciples of the Master–well, Jesus said, “by their fruits ye shall know them”. Now, homosexuality is a sin. Any homosexual can repent and be forgiven, become a child of God through faith in Jesus Christ, be washed clean and become “a new creature in Christ”. As I have. Homosexual sinners and heterosexual sinners are both sinners. Gossips and murderers and thieved; the proud and the cowardly; the amorous milkmaid and the licentous king–”all have sinned and come short of the glory of God”. Including King James. No one who is a Christian need spend a minute defending this man, for his familiarity and reference to the things of God, coupled with a life of lust, is par for the course in situations where a “cultural Christianity” prevails. But in the present situation, people are trying like made to avoid the very plain fact that the Scriptures condemn homosexuality. In fact, the book of Romans tells us that is is #2 of the main steps to the debased condition of the human race we see all around us and watch nightly on the news. #1 being idolatry–the worship of anything but the true God. So: quite likely we will not see the former king of England in New Jerusalem, judging by his own hypocritical words and unbridled perversion. The Scriptures, and the Kingdom of God, stand with or without him.

Post Comment
Powered by Powered by Triond
-->