A distorted, slanted book which fails to take into account the customs of Stuart England, or the political situation, in order to slander a deeply religious man who is no longer alive to defend himself. A historian with his own agenda is capitalizing on insults by James' contemporaries to twist the facts. Even today, calling someone gay is considered an insult, so why would anyone accept such a claim without question? Throughout history, political figures have been insulted by their detractors; just consider the myriad insults directed at Barack Obama!
Those who made such assertions were not unbiased. One of the earliest was a Scottish clergyman concerned about the Duke of Lennox's influence, but the Scots leaned toward Calvinistic Protestantism while Lennox was originally a Catholic Frenchman; Lennox was a threat to the Scottish peers who struggled for influence. Sir Walter Raleigh plotted to overthrow James. Anthony Whelan lost his position at court, then waited 25 years—until James was safely dead—before publishing claims of James' homosexuality. If one examines these claims, every one is rooted in questionable motivation. James had many enemies: he was hated by the English because he was Scottish, hated by the Catholics because he was Protestant, hated by the Protestants because he had a Catholic wife and showed leniency toward Catholics, hated by the peers of the realm because he spoke against tobacco use and placed many Scottish nobles in positions of power, hated because he published the King James Version of the Bible, and even hated because he had a disability in an era when illness was viewed as a sign of Divine disfavor!
This book takes quotes from James' letters out of context, and since most people in our contemporary era fail to understand the overly emotional language of the Tudor and Stuart reigns, Young can put his own spin on James' meaning—and ignorant readers gobble it up without question. However, his claims don't hold up if one understands the era. Unfortunately, most people today base their knowledge of this period on lurid entertainment such as "The Tudors" or "The Other Boleyn Girl" so they don't realize they're being led astray.
During the Stuart period, overly emotional behavior was the norm. Adult men threw themselves on the floor, wailing and sobbing, to demonstrate distress. Their ornate language was extremely passionate. People commonly stated that they loved each other, but it wasn't meant in a sexual way. The whole concept of romance was entirely different. Among the nobility, marriages were arranged to gain property and power; romance was a chivalrous ideal with strict rules of etiquette. A noble without a mistress was considered unmanly, one reason James was viewed with suspicion; as a devoutly religious man, he rarely strayed, even advising his son to honor the sanctity of marriage. (James' only documented lapse was with a female.) Professor Young cherry-picks passages from James' letters and quotes them out of context, but his interpretations are ridiculous. When James' addressed Parliament, comparing his relationship with Buckingham to Jesus' relationship with John, he referred to friendship, not homosexuality. If the King had dared to declare himself a homosexual before Parliament, they would have deposed him, if not executed him. After all, they later beheaded his son for much less!
After losing both parents at a very young age, then a series of regents, James became emotionally needy. It's not surprising he quickly formed an attachment to his cousin Esme; Lennox was a threat to their influence. James' later attachments were also understandable, and had nothing to do with homosexuality. In those days, men didn't form friendships with women, and often had very close relationships, even sharing beds. In fact, actual beds were scarce (and expensive), so courtiers commonly shared beds. The King was served by peers of the realm, and appointed his friends grooms of the bedchamber as a mark of high favor; it had no sexual connotation whatsoever.
James had neurological issues, probably cerebral palsy, which left him with a gait disorder and other problems, including lack of control over his tongue and a tendency to drool. Because he had difficulty walking, he leaned on those close to him; his attackers called this "fondling." The involuntary movements of his tongue, combined with his habit of drooling, also provided fodder for his many detractors, who claimed he was "French kissing" his favorites. During this era, it was common for a king to kiss someone as a sign of favor, but James' disability allowed his enemies to twist this custom into something salacious.
When Anne of Denmark traveled to Scotland, storms forced her to land in Norway instead. James personally sailed to collect her, evidence of his eagerness to wed. The pair had seven children, strong evidence of heterosexuality, and when James left Scotland to claim the English throne, he shocked his rather prudish Calvinist subjects by publicly kissing her farewell, in an era when such displays between husband and wife were considered unseemly. Anne was chosen as his wife specifically because she was a Protestant princess, and it was her later conversion to Catholicism (and his affair with Anne Murray) which caused the breach between them, not his alleged homosexuality.
James was responsible for the publication of the King James Version of the Bible. He sponsored its publication so his subjects would have access to the same, official translation to bring religious unity to his kingdom. His religious beliefs had a strong influence on both his personal and political actions, and his writings expressed the belief that homosexuality was sinful. He also passed a law against sodomy, hardly the act of a homosexual.
James himself wrote, "They quarrel me (not for any evil or vice in me) but because I was a king, which they thought the highest evil, and because they were ashamed to profess this quarrel they were busy to look narrowly in all my actions, and I warrant you a moat in my eye, yes a false report was matter enough for them to work upon."
Since I know I'll be attacked for writing this, let me state for the record: No, I'm not homophobic. There are many undisputed homosexuals throughout history, and I'm untroubled by that. If the facts actually supported James' homosexuality, I'd be the first to admit it. My brother is gay, many of my friends are gay, and I grew up in a city with the third largest gay population per capita in the US. (We even fly the rainbow flag at the state capitol building.) I realize that, by daring to present an opposing view, those who have their own reasons for clinging to this delusion will denounce me, but it's not right to distort history to suit one's personal agenda. One of my friends has his Ph.D in history and has taught at several prestigious universities; he once told me there are historians who entered the field with the intention of 'uncovering' gay history. Their aim is to bolster the self-esteem of the LGBT community by demonstrating that some well-known historical figures were homosexual. It's a worthy goal, as long as they're not twisting the truth to achieve it. I think Michael B. Young is probably one of those historians. One of my own degrees is in on psychology, and I believe Professor Young is blinded by his own bias. An academic career is based "publish or perish." It doesn't matter WHAT one publishes, all that matters is publishing SOMETHING. However, a degree doesn't make a scholar infallible. The fact that this book appears to be self-published tells me that other authorities don't believe Professor Young's view carries any weight, at least in this case. That hasn't stopped others from jumping on the bandwagon and spreading this gossip, unfortunately.
If you're looking for a more balance portrait of James VI and I, I recommend "After Elizabeth:The Rise of James of Scotland and the Struggle for the Throne of England" by Leanda De Lisle.
No comments:
Post a Comment